The former college student who guessed his way into Sarah Palin’s Yahoo e-mail account during the 2008 U.S. presidential election was sentenced to a year and a day in prison Friday.

David Kernell’s lawyers had been hoping for probation only; federal prosecutors had asked for an 18-month sentence.

The judge in the case recommended that Kernell serve his time at a halfway house rather than federal prison, but that decision is up to the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Department of Justice said. Following his one-year sentence, Kernell must serve three years’ probation.

Kernell, a 20-year-old college student at the time of the incident, got into Palin’s gov....@yahoo.com account by guessing answers to the security questions used by Yahoo to reset the account’s password. In chat logs, Kernell said he was hoping to find information that would “derail” her 2008 vice presidential election campaign.

Palin was then governor of Alaska, and her critics thought she may have been conducting state business via the Yahoo account, in order to sidestep Alaska’s open records law. Kernell found no such evidence after examining her Yahoo account.

Politics aside. one year in prison followed by three years probation seems reasonable. In her autobiography, “Going Rogue,” Ms. Palin describes the incident as  “the most disruptive” of the campaign because it cut off easy communication with her colleagues in Alaska.

Mr. Kernell, who went  by the internet handle “Rubico,” was able to gain access to Ms. Palin’s private Yahoo! mail account by correctly the answers to her “secret questions” — her date of birth, her postal code, and information about where she met her husband Todd and then resetting her password.

Mr. Kernell then posted examples of Ms. Palin’s private emails, the addresses of her friends & family, and family photos on Wikileaks. Mr. Kernell also bragged that hacking into the vice-presidential candidate’s Yahoo account was child’s play… and it was. Standard challenge questions like “What is you date of birth?”, “What is your home zip code” or “Where did you meet your spouse?” are marginally effective for Mr. and Mrs. Average, but for a public figure like Ms. Palin whose life is well documented they’re pretty much useless… The answers can found in a matter of minutes using public sources like Wikipedia.

Previous

• Sarah Palin’s Private E-mail Account Hacked
• Palin E-mail Hack Follow-up
• A Quick Update on the Palin E-mail Hacking Case
• Newsflash: Palin E-mail Hacker Indicted
• Palin E-mail Hacker Hit With Additional Charges
• Palin E-mail Hacker Convicted on Two Counts

(Reuters) – A college student who hacked into former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s e-mail account and posted some of its contents on the Internet was found guilty Friday.

After four days of deliberations, a federal jury found David Kernell, the 22-year-old son of a Democratic Tennessee state legislator, guilty of obstruction of justice, a felony, and unauthorized access of a computer, a misdemeanor.

Kernell was cleared of a wire fraud charge, and the jury could not agree on a verdict on a charge of identity theft.

Judge Thomas Phillips declared a mistrial on the identity theft charge but did not set a date for sentencing.

The obstruction charge alone carries a prison sentence of up to 20 years, while the misdemeanor count is punishable by up to one year in jail.

Ms. Palin issued a statement via her Facebook page, thanking the jury and prosecutors their efforts and explaining the case’s importance:

My family and I are thankful that the jury thoroughly and carefully weighed the evidence and issued a just verdict. Besides the obvious invasion of privacy and security concerns surrounding this issue, many of us are concerned about the integrity of our country’s political elections. America’s elections depend upon fair competition. Violating the law, or simply invading someone’s privacy for political gain, has long been repugnant to Americans’ sense of fair play. As Watergate taught us, we rightfully reject illegally breaking into candidates’ private communications for political intrigue in an attempt to derail an election.

I want to thank the public servants who worked so hard on this case, particularly the jurors who gave up precious time from their jobs and families to listen to the evidence and reach a decision.

My family and I appreciate the good people of Knoxville, Tennessee, who showed us true Southern hospitality. We can’t wait to visit again – but without having a subpoena in hand.

Although I expect Mr. Kernell will see some jail time it’ll be far less than the 20 year maximum, federal sentencing guidelines set a range of 15 to 21 months and allow for probation in cases like this. I do think prosecutors overreached a little in this case and as one witness said “put on a dog and pony show“. They had to though, never mind basic privacy considerations… Sarah Palin was a Vice Presidential candidate in the middle of hotly contested election, investigators and prosecutors had to aggressively pursue this case to send  a message that these types political dirty tricks won’t be tolerated.

Related

• Jury convicts Palin e-mail intruder on two counts; mistrial declared on ID theft – Knoxville News Sentinel
• Protecting Against Password Reset Attacks – Randy Abrams, Eset Software.

Previous

• Sarah Palin’s Private E-mail Account Hacked
• Palin E-mail Hack Follow-up
• A Quick Update on the Palin E-mail Hacking Case
• Newsflash: Palin E-mail Hacker Indicted
• Palin E-mail Hacker Hit With Additional Charges

Republicans called on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to resign his leadership post over remarks he made in 2008 about then-presidential candidate Barack Obama, adding to the Nevada Democrat’s political troubles.

Mr. Reid, who supported Mr. Obama’s candidacy, said in private remarks during the campaign that the country was ready for a “light-skinned” African-American president with “no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.” The remarks are recounted in a new book, “Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime.”

A spokesman for Mr. Reid said the senator wouldn’t resign his leadership post. “He has no intention of stepping down,” Jim Manley said. “Unlike others who advocate moving our nation backwards and viewing this moment for political gain, he’s working…to move our country forward.”

The controversy comes at a critical moment for Mr. Reid, who is facing an uphill battle for re-election this year and is trying to shepherd Mr. Obama’s health-care overhaul through the Senate.

I’m not going to waste your time with rants about the blatant double standards of the media, Congressional Democrats or even Al Sharpton… Any sane person instinctively understands that Senator Reid’s remarks were foolish and racially insensitive, if not out right racist.

The sad reality is that, as the Washington Times points out many of the people now trying to excuse or defend Sen Reid are the same people who were calling for the Senate Majority Leader Trett Lott’s resigantion:

But several Democrats — including Mrs. Feinstein — did in fact target Mr. Lott after his remarks. “This statement casts a dark shadow over Sen. Lott’s ability to be a credible party leader,” she said in 2002, according to an Inland Valley Daily Bulletin news story.

“I can tell you if a Democratic leader said such a thing, they would not be allowed to keep their position,” Sen. Mary Landrieu, Louisiana Democrat, said of Mr. Lott in 2002.

Sen. John Kerry also called on Mr. Lott to resign, saying “I simply do not believe the country can today afford to have someone who has made these statements again and again be the leader of the United States Senate,” according to a Boston Globe article.

Bottom line our elected representatives should be held to highest standard of conduct, not the lowest. Harry Reid has shown himself to be a racially insensitive idiot and he should step down… Period.

Umm, well they weren’t… The Federal Elections Commission has dismissed a complaint by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) saying the purchases were legal:

The Republican National Committee’s (RNC) campaign clothing spending spree for Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was legal, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has ruled.

The FEC dismissed a complaint by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) against Palin and the RNC, ruling that the approximately $150,000 spent on clothing for the governor and her family was permitted as coordinated party expenditures.

A Palin spokeswoman said the governor and her supporters are “pleased” to learn that the purchases were in compliance with the law.

“The clothes in this campaign were treated just like the many stages upon which the governor stood and the hundreds of lights used to illuminate them; all were used during the campaign and returned upon its conclusion,” Palin spokeswoman Meghan Stapleton said in a statement.

Stapleton also railed against the media’s “obsessive” fixation on Palin’s clothes.

“It is difficult to reconcile the obsessive reference to clothing on the campaign trail with any legitimate political issue and that leaves the unsettling conclusion that Governor Palin is the single national political figure who is critiqued on policy, family and clothing,” she said. “When people start asking details about the personal effects of other candidates, then maybe the double standard will be eliminated.”

The FEC’s ruling shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone with more than two working brain cells and modicum of commonsense… The RNC’s clothing purchases may have been ill-advised and badly handled but they weren’t illegal.

Related

• Palin Campaign Clothes Complaint Dismissed: Little Coverage in Old Media – NewsBusters

Alaska Senator Ted Steven has lost his re-election bid… Steven’s was defeated by Democrat Mark Begich after being convicted on corruption charges in October.

Hey Ted, thanks for the memories

Now just go… and good riddance.

4. A Republican candidate could have won the presidency this year.

I doubt it. In the hastily penned postmortems of campaign ’08, much of the blame for McCain’s loss seems to have fallen at the feet of the candidate and his advisers, who (so the narrative goes) made a series of lousy strategic decisions that wound up costing the Arizona senator the White House. There’s little question that some of the choices McCain and his team made — the most obvious being the impulsive decision to suspend his campaign and try to broker a deal on the financial rescue bill, only to see his efforts blow up in his face — did not help. But a look at this year’s political atmospherics suggests that the environment was so badly poisoned that no Republican — not Mitt Romney, not Mike Huckabee, not even the potential future GOP savior, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal — could have beaten Obama on Nov. 4.

Why not? Three words (and a middle initial): President George W. Bush.

In the national exit poll, more than seven in 10 voters said that they disapproved of the job Bush was doing; not surprisingly, Obama resoundingly won that group, 67 percent to 31 percent. But here’s an even more stunning fact: While 7 percent of the exit-poll sample strongly approved of the job Bush was doing, a whopping 51 percent strongly disapproved. Obama won those strong disapprovers 82 percent to 16 percent. And Bush’s approval numbers looked grim for the GOP even before the September financial meltdown.

Just one in five voters in the national exit polls said that the country was “generally going in the right direction.” McCain won that group 71 percent to Obama’s 27 percent. But among the 75 percent of voters who said that the country was “seriously off on the wrong track,” Obama had a thumping 26-point edge.

Those numbers speak to the damage that eight years of the Bush administration have done to the Republican brand. It’s a burden that any candidate running for president with an “R” after his — or her — name would have had to drag around the country.

5. McCain made a huge mistake in picking Sarah Palin.

No subject is more likely to break up a dinner party early than the Alaska governor McCain chose as his running mate. Everyone not only has an opinion about her qualifications (or lack thereof) but also feels it necessary to share those opinions with anyone within shouting range.

Love her or loathe her, the data appear somewhere close to conclusive that Palin did little to help — and, in fact, did some to hurt — McCain’s attempts to reach out to independents and Democrats. But just because Palin doesn’t appear to have helped McCain move to the middle doesn’t mean that picking her was the wrong move.

Remember where McCain found himself this past summer. He had won the Republican nomination, but the GOP base clearly felt little buy-in into his campaign. A slew of national polls reflected that energy gap, with Democrats revved up about the election and their candidate and Republicans somewhere between tepid and glum.

Enter Palin, who was embraced with a bear hug by the party’s conservative base. All of a sudden, cultural conservatives were thrilled at the chance to put “one of their own” in the White House. In fact, of the 60 percent of voters who told exit pollsters that McCain’s choice of Palin was a “factor” in their final decision, the Arizona senator won 56 percent to 43 percent.

For skittish conservatives looking for more evidence that McCain understood their needs and concerns, Palin did the trick. It’s hard to imagine conservatives rallying to McCain — even to the relatively limited extent that they did — without Palin on the ticket. And without the base, McCain’s loss could have been far worse.

I agree with Cillizza on both points.

1) Republicans had no chance in this election… Over the last decade they’ve abandoned traditional conservative principles in favor of some sort of squishy, centrist/populist quasi conservative “Republicanism” that lead to out of controlled spending and bad policy ideas like campaign finance reform, no child left behind, and amnesty for illegal aliens.

If Republicans expect to have any chance in the 2010 mid-terms or in 2012 Presidential election they need rediscover traditional conservative principles. Defining those principles isn’t a simple task but for me they start with a fundamental unwavering belief that, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, “… all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

It used to be that Republicans embodied those principles by fighting for fiscal responsibility, limited government, private property rights, and a strong national defense. I’m not sure how or when the Republican party lost its way what I do know is they’ve lost lost two straight elections because they’ve alienated both their conservative base and independent voters.

2) Sarah Palin may not have helped McCain with independent voters she did energize the conservative base of the Republican party… Without her on ticket I think it’s a safe bet that Barack Obama’s margin of victory would have been larger.

Personally, I think some of Palin’s problems with independent voters sterm from the McCain campaigns management of her. They would have been better served by having her do a handful of interviews on talk radio and with local media outlets in swing states to tell her story directly to voters before having her do national media interviews with Charlie Gibson and Kattie Couric.

Of the 47 appointees named so far to transition or staff posts, 31 have ties to the Clinton administration, including all but one member of the 12-person Transition Advisory Board.

Transition chief John Podesta served as Clinton’s chief of staff from 1998 to 2001.

Other Clinton-era appointees include former Deputy Secretary of Defense John White, former State Department official Wendy Sherman, and former deputies to National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, Defense Secretary William Perry, and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Politico.com reports.

Also on the Obama team are transition adviser Michael Froman, who served as Rubin’s chief of staff, and Christopher Edley, who served Clinton and is married to a former Clinton deputy chief of staff.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel, a senior adviser to Clinton, has been named Obama’s chief of staff.

Enough!

All this finger pointing ignores one simple truth: Republicans had ZERO chance of winning this election. They have spent much of the past decade destroying their “brand”, they abandoned solid conservative principles in favor of quasi conservative/centrist/populist ideas that lead to out of control spending and bad policy ideas like campaign finance reform and amnesty for illegal aliens that alienated their conservative base.

That plus the Bush Administration’s mismanagement of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, coupled with their ham-fisted response to hurricane Katrina and failure to engage their opponents in a meaningful policy debate not only deepened the divide with the party’s conservative base it helped alienate independent voters.

The basic problem for Republicans is that they’ve forgotten Conservatism is not policy idea it is a fundamental unwavering belief that, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, “… all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

If Republicans expect to have any chance of winning in the 2010 mid-term elections, much less the 2012 Presidential election, they have to rediscover those fundamental principles and return to being the party that embodies them through policies that promote fiscal responsibility and a smaller less intrusive government.

These truths should be self-evident; unfortunately they aren’t, they have to be articulated constantly, lest people forget what they are.

It’s easy to lay the blame at Palin’s feet but doing so misses the larger picture; Republicans had no chance of winning this election for a number of reasons:

1. Fatigue – Simply put Pres. Bush and Republicans in the House and Senate abandoned Conservative principles and alienated Republican an independent voters with out of control spending, bad policy ideas like amnesty for illegal immigrants, and campaign finance reform and by grossly overreaching on some social issues. That coupled with the Bush Administration’s failure to engage the opposition in a meaningful policy debate left grass roots conservatives demoralized… We fought for them but for the most part they didn’t fight for us.
2. Lack of vision – For all intents and purposes the Republican Party ran an agendaless campaign. Yes, they had ideas but they never communicated them in an effective manner and allowed Democrats to color the ideas they did have as just more of the same.
3. The Economy – For 8 years democrats and media have called the Bush economy the worst in 50 years, something that’s simply not true… But because of the Bush Administrations failure to engage it’s resonated with voters. September’s economic collapse helped to validate that belief.

That said John McCain and Sarah Plain did about as well as a Republicans could do in this environment.

Where do go from here?

To be honest I’m not sure. Unless things change dramatically Republican prospects don’t look good for the 2010 mid-terms or in 2012.

We need new leadership at the RNC and in the House and Senate… Personally I’d love to see someone like Newt Gingrich as the next RNC chairman. Yes, Newt’s a lightening rod, but he’s also the one of the most effective advocates for conservatism we have.

Ed Morrissey has additional thoughts at Hot Air,  Michelle Malkin says “Enough with the “re-branding” crap” and Congressman Thaddeus McCotter has must read column in the American Spectator:

Now, Seize Freedom!

By Thaddeus G. McCotter on 11.5.08 @ 6:07AM

Welcome to “Republican Rock Bottom.”

Possessed of no vision, no principle, no purpose, and no appeal, we deserved our fate.

Now, seize freedom!

Finally, we are divorced from self-deceits. Dead is the self-indulgent imbecility of “re-branding” — as if the Republican Party was a corporate product to be repackaged, not a transformational political movement to be led. Despite what the media will tell you, and what so-called “conservative leaders” will discuss ad nauseam during “secret” meetings, this situation is not a crisis. It is an opportunity. Today, we are as the Great Emancipator proclaimed during another time of national trial: unbound by the tired dogmas of the past; and free to think and act anew.

First, we must not mindlessly mimic the momentarily triumphant Left. Sleek, detached, media savvy non-entities posing as existentially anguished leaders are neither in our nature nor our future. We are not teeny-bopper, pop-star politicians or the ideological dinosaurs of wealth redistribution.

At heart, we Republicans are flesh and blood and backbone, the proud servants of people. If we re-orient our vision, renew our purpose, and reaffirm our principles, the times will demand us — not as we were, but as we must be! Read the rest…

I voted about an hour ago… Turnout was heavy but not overwhelming, I was in and out in about 10 minutes.