Homeland security

It's Cute That Janet Napolitano Avoids Email So Nobody Can Catch Her Breaking the Law


Janet Napolitano barely staying awake.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, claimed in an interview today that she doesn't use email.

Worse, the Homeland Security Department's chief executive tried to use this claim as a laugh line. 

"Don't laugh but I don't use email at all," Napolitano said during a panel at, of all things, a Cybersecurity Summit hosted by National Journal and Government Executive.

When asked for an explanation for that perverse habit, Napolitano said, "For a whole host of reasons." 

Washington Examiner Executive Editor Mark Tapscott describes what some of those reasons might be in an article about Christopher C. Horner's new book The Liberal War on Transparency:

* While working as deputy White House chief of staff, President Obama's current campaign manager, Jim Messina, used his AOL account to orchestrate the controversial deal by which drug companies lobbied for and ran ads supporting passage of Obamacare, which was just one example in a government-wide trend.

* Political appointees at another federal agency who found a clever way to not only use private email accounts but to rig the system automatically to remove all traces of them from government servers.

* The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency created secret email accounts that few there knew about and no one apparently can now access, according to an internal document, thus calling into question EPA's compliance with certain laws and lawsuits.

I have not read Horner's book, but we already have evidence from the Solyndra case of Obama administration staffers hiding their correspondence from the public. "Don't ever send an email on doe email with a personal email addresses," former Department of Energy official Jonathan Silver wrote to an incautious underling in August 2011. "That makes them subpoenable."  

What makes Napolitano think anybody would laugh at her admission? The most charitable thing you can say is that it shows her to be unfit for a job that involves overseeing important parts of the American online security apparatus. And that seems to be the interpretation she wants us to take away. "I don't have any of my own accounts," she said in the interview. "Some would call me a Luddite." 

Related: DMX gets his first look at teh Googles: 

NEXT: Military Action Against Iran Unlikely, But an Option, Says Romney

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Really people, are you going to keep tolerating this?

    1. They absolutely are.

      1. Why? Is it the drugs? The video games? The fact that we don’t spend our time shoveling shit anymore? What?

        1. I have no idea, dude. My best guess is that most people go about their daily lives and ignore the politicians for the most part, so it doesn’t even register with them that she says retarded shit. Which to be honest is probably healthy, but unfortunately the government is so massive it’s fast becoming unhealthy not to pay attention.

          1. Maybe if we all ignored them, they’d disappear.

            1. Maybe if we all ignored them, they’d disappear.

              I tried for a couple of years… it got worse.

              1. Ditto.

          2. It’s healthy to not want to involve yourself in politics every minute of every day, but a society the buys into the idea that government has a role outside very basic services is unhealthy in itself.

        2. Part of it is the fact that our lives are generally so easy (not shoveling shit) that we don’t have to actively pursue improvements at this point in history. Another part is the converse, that we seek out distraction to keep our minxs busy, but most people seek pleasant distractions rather than unpleasant or truly fruitful ones. As long as most people are “free” to pursue their lives without anything more than (to them) minor inconvenience, pretty much anything seems to go.

  2. What makes Napolitano think anybody would laugh at her admission

    Obama lovers?

  3. She *does* send out Tweets, though, right? I mean, how else can “the system work”?

  4. That makes a ll kinds of sense dude. Wow.


  5. I think many officials avoid email for exactly that reason. Never put anything into writing and no one can hold it against you. I heard Carl Rove , Rumsfeld, and Cheney say the same thing. It is probably wise if you have enemies not to give them anything more than you have to.

    1. Hit submit too quick.

      “Some would call me a Luddite.”

      I am sure some would Janet, but that isnt what I would call you.

      1. I’d call her a very handsome woman.

        1. I know a very good optometrist. Would you like her number?

          Wait, if your eyesight is that bad, then you have only heard the voice….how did you figure out it was female? From the voice alone any reasonable person would assume it is a man.

          1. From my understanding that’s essentually what he’s saying. Saying a woman is handsome is essentially the same as saying “tranny alert”.

            1. “Saying a woman is handsome is essentially the same as saying “tranny alert”.”

              Never seen a tranny *that* homely.

            2. That’s a man, baby!

            3. A Star Trek NG episode (a really good one) had Picard when he was much younger telling an older woman she was handsome. She slapped him.

              Actually the woman was a very hot older redhead.

        2. That’s something you say about an old lady. She doesn’t need your pity. ::throws drink in face::

    2. If the federal govt were small enough that everyone could work in the same three story building, they wouldn’t need to use email.

      I would say that we should assign a personal drone to every federal government official to follow them around all day and record their activities for posteriority, but the consensus here is that would violate their right to privacy.

      1. If the federal govt were small enough that everyone could work in the same three story building, they wouldn’t need to use email.

        Uhm, yes they would. I work in a (four?) story building and email is my preferred method of communication. Largely because I can’t stand talking face-to-face with most of the people in this organization- subtracting the group I support who is outside of this building.

        If there’s one thing I cannot fucking stand about my organization, is someone will say to me, “I’ve been trying to get ahold of you all day”*

        I’ll look at my phone, no voicemail, look at my email, no email, look at my text messages, no text message, look at my cell phone, no missed calls, no voicemail.

        I know this technology thing can be a lot to wrap your mind around (not you, Tulpa– you the greater ‘you’) but when there are no less than 27 vectors of communication that can be used to “get ahold” of me, and not a single one shows any sign of being twiddled, then you need to get another job.

        *the fact of the matter is they’re lying. They have something hot that they were supposed to do two days ago, and now it’s an emergency– and the person who told them to do it is asking “why hasn’t this been done”, at which point they say, “I’ve been trying to get ahold of [Paul.] all day long and he won’t call me back”.

        Lying liars are lying. Use email, there’s a record of it. I don’t care if you’re in the cubicle next to me.

        1. To be perfectly honest, if I have to communicate with someone here at the uni about something that might possibly one day be something I don’t want the world to know about, I either try to find them in person or send them a very vague email proposing a meeting.

          1. Surely you have tenure and shit.

            1. I have one of those.

        2. I’m sure they can’t stand talking to you either. :-p

          1. If that were true, they wouldn’t be continuously seeking my ass out. 😀

            But I’m actually quite pleasant in real life. This internet shit is where I get my rant on. And in email to the coworkers I trust.

  6. So any one of them would order the coal fired train to go through the eight mile tunnel, but ask them to put the order in writing and they’ll just have you arrested.

    1. That is a silly silly book that bears no resemblance to reality. None whatsoever. Nope, not one bit.

      1. GM bond holders would like a word.

  7. It really is breathtaking just how openly evil these fuckers are. They’re not even pretending anymore.

  8. So I guess we can send gay porn and goatsies to her email address with impunity?

  9. I haven’t seen an administration with such an assemblage of reprehensible characters since… the last administration.

    “The fact that we don’t spend our time shoveling shit anymore?”

    We’d better start shoveling, because it’s piling up quick. There’s a picture of 180 pounds of it stuffed into a gray pantsuit at the top of the article.

    1. Well hell, that’s a shovel ready job right there, Mr. Christ.

    2. There’s a picture of 180 pounds of it stuffed into a gray pantsuit at the top of the article.

      Jesus: Once again showing his charitable side.

  10. * The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency created secret email accounts that few there knew about and no one apparently can now access, according to an internal document, thus calling into question EPA’s compliance with certain laws and lawsuits.

    Ummmmmm, unless they created them on Hotmail and “forgot” the passwords, someone, somewhere *can* get into the email accounts. They have these things called “administrators” and if they’re using say, an “Exchange” server, then you call this guy who is an “administrator” and he resets your password and gives you access to the account. That’s how this whole computer thing works in an enterprise the size of the EP fucking A.

  11. I wonder if big sis uses text messages?

  12. That was a misunderstanding. She sends out a ton of emails. Just never gets any back. Old Reno responded once, but it was just gibberish. Like she was texting from a trampoline or something. But it wasn’t that, it was a plea for help. ‘Cause they got her locked up in the basement, servin’ as a massager for the first lady, they have. Real effective, too. Yeah, they got her and old A. Wiener down there twenty-four seven, vibratin’ their hands all over the first lady, in shifts. The prez, I hear, wanted to, and I quote, “get in on that,” but an aide misheard and just passed him a doob. But he’s easy, and so rolled with the punches. Hoovered up half it in one go. It’s ‘cuz he’s off the fags. No kidding. It’s what you do when you’re the most powerful man on earth for a few years, you start whittlin’ away on those broken resolutions of yester-new year. One year, he’d swore to quit bein’ a pushover, and now he’s a hardass. Major personal accomplishment, that. And the proof’s in the pudding, too, just ask ol’ Moammar Q. and Osama. “Who’s next, boys!” Well, step right up, ‘cuz that’s the deal now. Maybe it’ll be daddy’s boy Kim. Too busy chasin’ smokin’ hot party tail to know what hit him. Comrade, he calls ’em…in public. In private? Doesn’t call ’em at all. No action — it’s all for show. Kim’s no fem, though, don’t mistake. No, he’s got his own deal, and it’s a whole other deal. Got an inbox full of emails from big sis, he does. And life is good.

      1. not enough caps or cats

      2. Dude! I miss HERCULE TRIATHLON SAUVIGNON. He had gravitas.

      3. Naah.
        Herc didn’t do irony; herc was *serious*.
        But this is good!

      4. 0x90 has commented here before. I don’t remember it being this stream of consciousness awesomeness.

    1. I’m not sure what this is.

      But it’s amazing. WRITE MOAR

    2. I followed most of it. Who the hell is Kim? Philby?

      1. Think North Korea

  13. She sends all her extrajudicial assassination orders by text.


      1. You forgot “lol!”

      2. wht r u waiting 4? shoot 1st ask ?’s l8r.

          1. yeah, I suck at netspeak

  14. “And that seems to be the interpretation she wants us to take away. “I don’t have any of my own accounts,” she said in the interview. “Some would call me a Luddite.” ”

    You should be so lucky that the worst anyone called you was “Luddite”.
    “Sleazebag” is getting closer.

  15. You know what would be a good SNL skit? Resurrect the old “It’s PAT” routine, and have Pat go through a TSA checkpoint and refuse the nudie scan so they have to pat Pat down. Then all the agents would spend ten minutes trying to ask indirect questions to figure out whether they should have a male or female agent do the patdown. Finally one of them calls the supervisor, played by Ned Beatty. He says that he knows exactly what they need to do, gets on the cell phone, and a few minutes later Secy Napolitano shows up to do the patdown. During the examination, of course, we would have Pat asking the same uncomfortable indirect questions that the agents were asking her.

    1. …the agents were asking Pat.

      My knowledge of who played Pat is ruining the explanation.

      1. That is already funnier than most SNL skits.

        1. this is not a difficult hurdle to overcome.

    2. Oh my, I’d pay good money to see that skit 🙂

    3. Better than anything SNL has aired in a decade.

    4. That’s actually pretty good, Tulpa.

      1. That is pretty good.

  16. She’s not smart enough to use email is the actual reason.

  17. Judge’s scathing ruling against Alberta ‘freeman’ could signal clampdown on anti-government movement

    “All this is a consequence of the fact gurus proclaim they know secret principles and law, hidden from the public, but binding on the state, courts, and individuals. And all these ‘secrets’ can be yours, for small payment to the guru. These claims are, of course, pseudolegal nonsense,” the judge wrote.

    1. Finally his eyes grow dim, and he no longer knows whether it’s really getting darker around him, or if his eyes are merely deceiving him. And yet, in the darkness, he now sees a radiance that streams forth, inextinguishably, from the Door of the Law. He doesn’t have much longer to live, now. Before he dies, everything he has experienced over the years coalesces in his mind, into a single question he has never asked the Doorkeeper. He motions to him, since he can no longer straighten his stiffening body. The Doorkeeper has to bend down to him, for the difference in size between them has altered greatly, to the Man’s disadvantage.

      “What do you want to know now?” asks the Doorkeeper, “You’re insatiable!”

      “Everyone strives to reach the law,” says the Man, “how does it happen then, that in all these years, no one but me has requested admittance?”

      The Doorkeeper sees that the Man is nearing in his end, and in order to reach his failing hearing, he roars at him, “No one else could gain admittance here, because this entrance was meant solely for you. I’m going to go and shut it now.”

      1. Excellent. If as many people read that shit as claim to have read that shit our government would have never become the behemoth that it is today.

  18. Director of National Intelligence says, well, yeah, ok, so it was a coordinated terrorist attack on the Libyan embassy and we were, uh, shielding the Obama administration from political blowback by calling it a spontaneous protest.

    Intelligence agency says it initially got Libya attack wrong

    The Office of the Director of National Intelligence appeared to be trying to shield the Obama administration from a political backlash over its original accounts of the deadly Benghazi attack


    Whoops, their bad.

    1. Yes, but did you know Romney once drove with a dog strapped to the roof of his car?

      Also, he’s rich and said that people that support Obama just want free shit. And we know that’s a lie because his supporters are HUMANITARIANS and they just LOVE the little guy. So put that in your pipe and smoke it, suckas!!

      And no I won’t be voting for Romney either.

    2. I thought the administration’s line now was that their original comments were “strategic misinformation”.

      They were apparently trying to lull al-Qaeda into a false sense of security or something. Fucking 3-D chess, how does it work?

  19. Seattle Times endorses Obama. Again. But with less enthusiasm, and with reservations…


    In 2008, Barack Obama was The Seattle Times’ choice for president. Four years later, we endorse him again, with less enthusiasm. But he is a better choice than Mitt Romney, and could still go down in history as a good president.

    Foreign affairs: President Obama inherited two wars, one defense secretary and too many assumptions from George W. Bush. American forces should have been out of Iraq and Afghanistan by now.


    Bottom line: Obama’s presidency has been disappointing, but he still has promise. Romney would be too much of a gamble

    Summary: Why switch horses midstream?

    1. It isn’t midstream, it’s a new river (why think two terms as one, when they aren’t? Look at history: only 14 presidents have served two terms, with one egotistical sic-Hoover-on-political-dissidents breaking Washington’s tradition).

      Rather change horses given that this one is likely to drown me mid-stream or otherwise.

    2. Are you ****ing kidding me? Obama ran against Bush’s foreign policy in 2008. Why didn’t he choose his own assumptions about foreign policy? Why didn’t he choose his own defense secretary? Not coincidentally, the guy he “inherited” was by far the most competent member of Obama’s cabinet and the first one to endorse getting rid of DADT.

      Maybe the Times is worried that Romney will inherit Obama’s wars and cabinet choices too?

    3. Wasn’t that logic crushed by GWB’s second term?

    4. and could still go down in history as a good president.


  20. I’ve lived in Arizona since 1970. Napolitano ignored all legal process to get Squaw Peak and Squaw Peak Parkway changed to Piestawa respectively. She had no right to declare the name change, none. It’s done by a commission, a commission that is supposed to be independent that usually requires a waiting period of 5 years, for obvious reasons of maps, history, and to avoid heat of the moment political gain. Napolitano used political pressure and threats to force the commission to capitulate after she declared the name change.

    She is a political opportunist, nothing more, and nothing more is important to her.

  21. We will never reach peak bullshit.

    1. Oh, I must so disagree, with Napolitano serving anywhere in government we are always at Peak bullshit.

      When Reno served at least you didn’t have to worry about being arrested while jogging. With Napolitano, all bets are off..

  22. Admit it, everything that Janet Napolitano does is cute!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.