9 indicted on charges of accessing Obama records

9 indicted on charges of accessing Obama records

www.washingtonpost.com

Nine people were indicted Wednesday on federal charges of accessing President Barack Obama's student loan records while they were employed for a Department of Education contractor in Iowa.

All nine are charged with exceeding authorized computer access. They are accused of gaining access to a computer at a Coralville office where they worked between July 2007 and March 2009, and accessing Obama's student loan records while he was either a candidate for president, president-elect or president.

(visit the link for the full news article)

YEAH but Obama got nothing to hide uh? Transparent administration uh?

The student loan record in particular could prove that he requested it as a foreign student because he was an indonesian citizen and could destroy him.

But of course it won't be on MSM.

Those people are patriots, THEY WANTED TO HAVE A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT and worked toward it, to find the truth. And they were arrested for doing so.

Yeah and America is free.. yeah, you're free to be arrested when you try to find the truth.

www.washingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by Vitchilo


They committed a crime, plain and simple.

reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross


Allegedly.

We must not pass judgement until all the facts are known. It is my belief that the "court of public opinion" has done more to destroy people's lives than the government itself has. I truly believe in innocent until proven guilty.

reply to post by projectvxn


Agreed, and I hope you are not one to support the idiotic theories about Obama being an illegal president.

They knew what they were doing, they should suffer the consequences if guilt is proven. I would still be interested to know what, if anything, was uncovered.

You don't think there are people out there that did the same thing when Bush was Prez?
These nine people must have discovered something really juicy.

So, anyone with 10 bucks can run a background check on me, my student loan records are accessed constantly, I have to give my SSN to any government representative that asks, employers check my criminal and financial history, anytime the police check fingerprints through their database they're also checking them against mine, doctors can read my entire medical history and virtually every website I visit is accessing information on me.

But if you check into the background of the president, who is technically the employee of the American citizen, it's a criminal offense punishable by a year in prison or $100,000 fine.

I really fail to see how these people did anything wrong.

reply to post by Shadowflux


If Joe Blow ran a search on you using government computers, he would be in big trouble.

When you work in high level positions of government, you have to expect to give up some privacy.
When you work at the highest levels of government, such as POTUS, your professional life should be an open book.

An employer has a right to investigate an employees background, and we the people have employeed Mr. Obama as POTUS. We the people should have access to all of Obama's public records (we probably do, I've never had a reason to look for anything) and maybe some private records. Considering the importance of such of a high level government position, the employer would want to do a thorough job researching a potential employee's background.

I wish these 9 people well.

reply to post by JohnnyTHSeed


Nobody has the right to use government computers, except for the work they are assigned.

reply to post by Alxandro


Were there people? Can you provide sources?

Originally posted by Alxandro
You don't think there are people out there that did the same thing when Bush was Prez?
These nine people must have discovered something really juicy.

OK, this thread is even more insane than all the birther threads so far.

Firs of all, they were not silenced. They have not been killed or sent away to some black site. They are still here, free, and able to talk. So how do you come to the conclusion that this happened because they found something juicy?

Second, if they actually found something good - why are we not hearing about it? Are they rich people with great lawyers? I think it is pretty obvious that if they found even the smallest thing showing some bad secret about Obama, there would be NO SHORTAGE of support for them - financially and otherwise. Look at all the nuts with the time and money to make signs and protest him for no reason. Look at all the people like Orly Taitz that have nothing but time to spend in court.

If they uncovered something good, all they would need to do is tell it and they would be folk heroes in so many circles that they would probably become rich and famous aside from getting all legal fees paid for them.

Last, if the MSM is so anti-Bush and pro-Obama, you know the "Left wing liberal media" then why would they let us find out about this but hide it when Bush had people arrested for the same thing as you suggest?

Logic and the anti-Obama no matter what crowd just do not seem to mix well.

Originally posted by Shadowflux
So, anyone with 10 bucks can run a background check on me, my student loan records are accessed constantly, I have to give my SSN to any government representative that asks, employers check my criminal and financial history, anytime the police check fingerprints through their database they're also checking them against mine, doctors can read my entire medical history and virtually every website I visit is accessing information on me.

But if you check into the background of the president, who is technically the employee of the American citizen, it's a criminal offense punishable by a year in prison or $100,000 fine.

I really fail to see how these people did anything wrong.

When you are questioned by an employer or government agent about such personal things does that mean you feel your neighbor or even me also then have the right to see that information?

reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross


In a perfect America, I would have the right to do whatever I wanted - so long as I did not infringe on anyone else's rights.

Obama the man has a right to privacy, but as soon as he became employed by the people, his records should have become public.

reply to post by JohnnyTHSeed


They did infringe on his rights. The consititution and Bill of Rights even apply to the president.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


It's private information, or at least I feel it should be. The difference is that when they do it to me it's "procedure", "required",my consent is mandatory. Why can we not look into the president's background yet our histories are open books?

Originally posted by JohnnyTHSeed
Obama the man has a right to privacy, but as soon as he became employed by the people, his records should have become public.

So glad that so many people have no clue how America actually works. Obama does NOT work for you.

You can not write him up.
You can not suspend him.
You can not deny him a raise.
You can not approve or deny vacation requests.
You can not have him into your office for a "corrective" chat.
You can not fire him.
You can not set his scedule.
You can not decide his tasks.
You can not declare his salary as one of your tax expenses.
You can not etc...

YOU ARE NOT THE PRESIDENT'S EMPLOYER.

[edit on 13-5-2010 by K J Gunderson]

Originally posted by Shadowflux
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

It's private information, or at least I feel it should be. The difference is that when they do it to me it's "procedure", "required",my consent is mandatory. Why can we not look into the president's background yet our histories are open books?

You did not answer my actual question. Just because it is "procedure" or "required" as part of your interaction with THAT agency, does that mean I get to look at your private information too? Is your history an open book to me?

I don't get why he hasn't released his college transcripts (something that even Bush and John Kerry did) either. BUT these people abused their positions and committed a crime. (Allegedly) If they committed a crime, they need to accept the consequences regardless of their motivation for doing so.