Rahm Emanuel Used His Gmail Account to Message Administration Officials

[mod mom]

Former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel used his private Gmail account to communicate with Attorney General Eric Holder during his time in the White House, according to the results of Freedom of Information Act request we filed.

Though the Department of Justice has acknowledged just one email exchange with Holder using Emanuel’s unofficial address, the disclosure raises questions about whether Emanuel may have sought to skirt the Presidential Records Act by conducting government business using Gmail rather than his White House address.

Emanuel, you may recall, was one of the many victims of the massive iPad data leak that disclosed the private email addresses of tens of thousands of movers and shakers in June 2010. Having been privy to his Gmail address, last year we filed requests under the Freedom of Information Act with a variety of federal agencies looking to see if he ever used it to talk to Administration officials—a tactic that the Bush White House perfected as a way to keep email communications off the historical record and out of the hands of prying congressional investigators.


And according to the Justice Department, Emanuel did just that—but only once, and allegedly for personal reasons. “We located one document, totaling one page, consisting of a personal record of Attorney General Holder,” the DOJ wrote in response to our request for emails from Emanuel’s Gmail address. “Specifically, the document consists of an e-mail exchange concerning a purely personal matter.” The DOJ contends that, since the exchange is a “personal record” of Holder’s, it isn’t subject to the FOIA and refused to release it.

-snip
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/rahm_emanuel_used_his_gmail_account_to_message_administration_officials.php

rahm..not available for comment...out working to squash unions.

[Fumesucker]

1. Heh.. I recall the unanimous DU outrage when Bush officials were doing this..

:popcorn:

[mod mom]

3. When Karl Rove did it-outrage but when there is a D (albeit that D stands for dino)

after the name not so much.

When I checked to see if there was a duplicate I found a thread about Rahm & possible insiders trading but most of the comments were not outrage over possible abuse of authority and position but an attack on the messenger.

Having a D after one's name shouldn't be a pass-imho.

[Ship of Fools]

4. FWIW, I'm outraged! No Rahm fan, here.

:)

[Fumesucker]

5. By no means did I mean all DUers, I know there are principled people here..

[Ship of Fools]

8. Oh, I know what you meant -- see your posts a lot ... didn't mean it to sound defensive!

The more I read about Rahm E., the more I ask: WTF, Mr. President? :hi:

[MADem]

7. Bush officials used YAHOO in LIEU of .gov mail for official government business.

This exchange with Rahm-Holder is alledged to be one email of a "purely personal" nature.

I would like to know what's in the email now, since it's a news item, but you can't compare the two situations at all. It was thousands of emails by BushCo, discussing official business--this is one email, said per the article to be "purely personal."

Even if you dislike Rahm Emmanuel, it's not fair either to excoriate him for following government regulations, which include not using official government email for personal purposes.

[Fumesucker]

9. Rahm Emanuel Dumped Tons Of Freddie Mac Stock Days Before It Collapsed

http://www.businessinsider.com/book-rahm-emanuel-dumped-tons-of-freddie-mac-stock-days-before-it-collapsed-2011-11#ixzz1dnuLgGuT

Yeah, I know this doesn't have anything to do with the OP, I just want to see you defend it.

[mod mom]

10. Isn't it sad how we all agreed when someone w the * administration was unethical there was outrage..

but if there's a D after the name, some give a pass. This is the reason our corrupt system thrives. What ever happened to equal protection? Holding people equally accountable?

[MADem]

12. That's not true in this specific case--at least not according to the article.

If someone uses their GMAIL account to compose and send a "purely personal" email to another person in government, that's not illegal or unethical.

If someone uses their GMAIL or YAHOO account to conduct dot gov or dot mil business, that IS illegal and unethical.

The article says the GMAIL is "purely personal." The article also says it was ONE EMAIL.

Did you know that government employees are not supposed to use their dot gov/dot mil email accounts for PERSONAL purposes? People get disciplined/fired for so doing.

There's no equivalence -- at least according to the report. You might try reading it again.

What I find disgraceful is, if someone doesn't like a politician for reasons A, B, or C, that they might latch on to Reason D, and accuse the politician of it--even when it IS NOT TRUE.

Rahm wasn't conducting government business via GMAIL, at least not per this report. "Purely personal" is "purely personal"--like "What are you bringing to the cook out?" or "What time is Edna's party on Saturday?"

Unless you have personal knowledge that the single GMAIL email had government business in it, you are out of line suggesting Emmanuel broke any law in this situation.

[MADem]

11. What in hell is WRONG with you? Why don't you do a search on the Stock Act in this forum,

here on DU and see who is strongly in support of it (hint--you are snarking in your typical childish and confrontational fashion at one of them).

If your silly taunt doesn't have anything to do with the OP, why are you trying and failing to bait me with bullshit and untrue suggestions?

You should really know what's going to follow when you engage in braggadocio and confrontation.

I support passage of the Stock Act. Have for years. Awww, did I ruin your "fun?" (Sick fun, if you ask me). Ever ask yourself why most Senators are millionaires? They have longer assured terms to feather their nests.

What can't be defended is your behavior here. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for making false insinuations about people, only that would probably take a bit more self-awareness and decency than you can possibly muster.

For the future, stick to the topic of the OP, or do a little checking before you shoot off your mouth. That way you won't have to pry your foot out of it.

[HipChick]

2. Is there such a thing as a private gmail address?

[MADem]

6. Hell, the Bush administration used YAHOO like it was dot GOV mail!!

And they weren't exchanging "purely personal" notes, they were conducting government business and making policy on fucking YAHOO.

Come on--let's be real, here. If you have something "personal" to say, you use your personal email. If you're talking government business, you use your dot gov/dot mil address. In fact, I know plenty of people who got disciplined for forwarding stupid jokes and pictures on their government accounts, making party arrangements, emailing their broker, etc. You don't conduct your personal business on company time, particularly when your company is the USG. That's how it is supposed to work, anyway.

I want to know what was in the personal email, now, since it's been brought up--but if it was something along the lines of "I'll bring the beer and hot dog buns for the cookout, could you remember paper plates and napkins?" then I don't think there's any "there" there. If it talks "policy" then he mis-stepped.

He's a pretty careful person, I would be surprised if he screwed up on this score.