Skip to comments.Sarah Palin email hacker loses appeal (aww .. sniff)
Posted on 01/30/2012 7:38:54 PM PST by STARWISE
A former college student convicted for hacking into Sarah Palin's e-mail account during the 2008 presidential election lost a bid to overturn his felony conviction on Monday.
The former University of Tennessee student, David Kernell, argued he was not aware of any pending investigation when he deleted information from his computer related to the hacking of Palin's account. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit found Kernell's awareness of a possible future FBI investigation was enough to uphold a conviction on obstruction of justice.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Davy go bye-bye to big house :^)
Not one freakin' mention of whose son little Master Kernell happens to be.
Mock away at this loser, who truly doesn’t deserve the time of day — but if this says what it seems to say, then this means all Americans who have any reason to think someone might suspect them of a crime, even before police ever come sniffing around, better keep anything that might incriminate them around. Does this sound like a trapdoor in the 5th amendment to you? It does to me.
Just imagine if “we” said things like that about a liberal woman...heck we’re already racists for disagreeing with Obama policies, guess we may as well be sexists too.
Now, if they would only go after the fruitcake who hung Sarah in effigy during the campaign, in California, we would be batting a thousand. If it had been an obama effigy instead of her, the guy would still be in prison, as the ‘love doll’ for a guy named Leroy or Earl.
> Mock away at this loser, who truly doesnt deserve the time of day but if this says what it seems to say, then this means all Americans who have any reason to think someone might suspect them of a crime, even before police ever come sniffing around, better keep anything that might incriminate them around. Does this sound like a trapdoor in the 5th amendment to you? It does to me.
No, but it does sound like an admonition to do a better job of getting rid of the evidence, and having a plausibly deniable substitute ready to rock and roll at all times.
It pains me to think that all who are giggling like adolescents on this thread aren’t thinking of the possible charge-trumping-up constitutional ramifications of this for all of us, whether nefarious hackers or not, if this carries up to the USSC and is still upheld.
Surely the impact of that is going to far outlive Sarah Palin, who unfortunately had no chance because she had to live in John McCain’s shadow — the guy who handed the game over to Obama with his “there’s no reason to fear an Obama presidency.”
I love it! LOL.
Suspect? Where’ve you been?
Palin hacking case: David Kernell found guilty
From the Associated Press:
The 22-year-old son of a Democratic Tennessee lawmaker has been convicted on two charges in the hacking of Sarah Palin’s e-mail account while she campaigned on the Republican presidential ticket in 2008.
The federal court jury reached its verdict Friday against David Kernell after four days of deliberation. He was found guilty of obstruction of justice and unauthorized access to a computer, but was acquitted on a charge of wire fraud.
The jury was deadlocked on a charge of identify theft. Prosecutors reserve the right to have a new trial on that charge. The charge of obstructing an investigation has a maximum 20-year prison sentence.
“argued he was not aware of any pending investigation when he deleted information from his computer related to the hacking of Palin’s account.”
He admitted right there that he ‘had’ the information from hacking. Did you miss that part?
Davey, don't drop the soap.
You mean there are people out there who don’t purge their computers compulsively?
“sorry, not clearing everything for a specific reason, just a habit - there are hackers out there, you know...”
I have always hated the old “if you have nothing to hide” line, it for some reason makes me all the more inclined to keep little around and stonewall or firewall everything - which to some makes them more determined to know what it is ... (it also makes it hard for me to find my chicken pot pie recipes, sometimes, but oh well...)
I agree, demanding that a crook keep records of his actions is tantamount to taking the fifth amendment away, I was sure that there had been rulings to this effect at some point, but don’t have time to research it. The fact that trying to ruin someone’s life is a misdemeanor, but “obstructing justice” by sweeping your tracks is a felony belies my assumption.
Meanwhile, having nothing to hide that I know of (ex post facto laws against posting or thinking on conservative fora not withstanding) I will continue to delete my history upon exiting - perhaps the judge doesn’t realize this is a setting on most browsers - and cleaning my hard drive on a regular basis.
Did he say he learned of an investigation that way? Or just that he had hacked?
Even so, putting computer housekeeping (before actually getting contacted by police telling him to keep the stuff) at the level of lying under oath and/or to an official seems a bit inimical to the spirit if not the literal letter of the 5th amendment. In this case it was a fellow we would all love to loathe. But in another case it might not be. It might be you or I.
Of course I knew he'd been busted for hacking. What people seem to be missing is that the trouble that could stem from the principle being affirmed in the rejection of his failed appeal (especially if it pushes up to the USSC) can add to the already mighty weight a capricious government has to force plea bargains when nothing was done wrong, but one fears the risk of a jury. So yes, this can lean on "suspects" too.
“...when he deleted information from his computer related to the hacking of Palin’s account.”
So fine — this still seems to be the only occasion in modern times where a crook was busted for wiping his tracks, prior to the presence of countermanding police on the scene or equivalent notification. There were constitutional reasons for this, or at least there used to be. Even if Newt sweeps this fall, sane government that exercises discretion sanely won’t necessarily last forever.
After skimming it, it appears that Kernell intentionally commited a crime, bragged about it, was warned that the FBI would come looking, understood the FBI might come looking, and attempted to cover his tracks. Where's the 5th Amendment violation?
IMHO, even this fantasy of his, absent an actual notification from the Feds, should not have been held as tantamount to hearing from the government.
Why would this behavior, if hypothetically based on a more substantial idea than mere fantasy, not be treated, at worst, as “conspiracy” crime? The possibility of finding guilt of a “conspiracy” crime was not put before the jury, was it? It is a very short slip on the slope from here to full-on requirement that all Americans keep incriminatory records of anything they might plausibly have thought could be deemed crimes.
David Kernell, argued he was not aware of any pending investigation when he deleted information from his computer related to the hacking of Palin's account. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit found Kernell's awareness of a possible future FBI investigation was enough to uphold a conviction on obstruction of justice.The bright side is, he'll never lack for free sigmoidoscopies.