Sarah Palin email hacker loses appeal (aww .. sniff)

Reuters/Yahoo ^ | 1-30-12 | Terry Baynes

[HiTech RedNeck]

Suspect? Where’ve you been?

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.

[ReneeLynn]

“...when he deleted information from his computer related to the hacking of Palin’s account.”

Okay?

[HiTech RedNeck]

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.

[PhilDragoo]

In one message-board post, Kernell expressed fears of an FBI investigation. Other evidence showed he deleted his Internet browsing history and cleaned his hard drive to erase any trails of the hacking. That was sufficient evidence of obstructive intent, the court ruled.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time

[STARWISE]

........... OVER A PUNK, PARTISAN THUG??? Dearlord, gettagrip or new meds ...

[1rudeboy]

There should be a rule on FR (I can dream, can't I?) that people not comment on the constitutional implications of a court opinion before reading it.

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?

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/12a0027p-06.pdf.

[HiTech RedNeck]

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.

[HiTech RedNeck]

No, it's not "over a thug." It's over long cherished constitutional traditions that used to apply to everybody. Fantasies about the government do not count as hearing from the government. YOU have YOUR panties in a bunch that you don't have a universal amen corner here.

viz: STARWISE

[HiTech RedNeck]

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.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks STARWISE.

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.