logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Sarah Palin Ethics Probe Complete, Abuse of Power?
DaytonRocker
post Oct 11 2008, 01:49 AM
Post #1


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,520
Member No.: 547
Joined: February-26-03

From: Dayton, Ohio
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Republican



The big news tonight is that an ethics probe found Sarah Palin abused her power by dismissing the state's public safety commissioner. While finding she did not illegally fire Walt Monegan, the probe found that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.11O(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.:

QUOTE
The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust."

Questions for debate?

1. Should Sarah Palin face legal consequences as a result of her actions?

2. Will this have any effect on the presidential race?


This post has been edited by DaytonRocker: Oct 11 2008, 01:51 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
BoF
post Oct 11 2008, 05:08 PM
Post #21


**********
Giga-bite: "I catch mice & rats - 2 & 4 legs."

Sponsor
October 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,126
Member No.: 3,423
Joined: August-14-04

From: Texas
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Ted @ Oct 11 2008, 11:46 AM) *
Notice again that they said her firing the man: "was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority"


But that is offset by this:


Palin violated the public trust by pressuring those who worked for her in a way that advanced her personal wishes.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNew...E4998YH20081011

Isn't this sort of like being acquitted on one count in an indictment, but convicted on another?

This post has been edited by BoF: Oct 11 2008, 05:08 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Oct 11 2008, 06:21 PM
Post #22


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,415
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



With absolutely no proof - notice this -
it was likely (not proved) a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety
Notice this “
- guess thay just had to make something out of it to please the DNC.
A failed Dem witch hut sir. The Rezko deals with Obama was much more a real story.

This post has been edited by Ted: Oct 11 2008, 06:22 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BoF
post Oct 11 2008, 06:26 PM
Post #23


**********
Giga-bite: "I catch mice & rats - 2 & 4 legs."

Sponsor
October 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,126
Member No.: 3,423
Joined: August-14-04

From: Texas
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Ted @ Oct 11 2008, 01:21 PM) *
A failed Dem witch hut sir.

As CR has pointed out, the Palin investigation was bipartisan.

I do have a question, Ted. Do witches really live in huts?

This post has been edited by BoF: Oct 11 2008, 06:26 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vsrenard
post Oct 11 2008, 07:08 PM
Post #24


********
vsrenard

Sponsor
September 2008

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,065
Member No.: 5,438
Joined: September-6-05

From: SF Bay Area
Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



QUOTE(Ted @ Oct 11 2008, 11:21 AM) *
A failed Dem witch hut sir. The Rezko deals with Obama was much more a real story.


Eight Republicans and 4 Democrats--how is this a witch hunt? If it were 11 Republicans and 1 Democrat would it still be a witch hunt?
At what point does the partisan hackery comes from the panel, or the observer?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CruisingRam
post Oct 11 2008, 07:36 PM
Post #25


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 7,934
Member No.: 927
Joined: July-25-03

From: Hawaii
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



QUOTE(Ted @ Oct 11 2008, 10:21 AM) *
With absolutely no proof - notice this -
it was likely (not proved) a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety
Notice this "
- guess thay just had to make something out of it to please the DNC.
A failed Dem witch hut sir. The Rezko deals with Obama was much more a real story.


Hey- instead of cutting and running when you are proven to be wrong ( as usual) - how do you call this a "dem witch hunt" over and over again, when this is clearly a bipartisan, but mostly republican, report? hmmm.gif

QUOTE(Ted @ Oct 11 2008, 10:21 AM) *
With absolutely no proof - notice this -
it was likely (not proved) a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety
Notice this "
- guess thay just had to make something out of it to please the DNC.
A failed Dem witch hut sir. The Rezko deals with Obama was much more a real story.


Rezko himself tells a different story- in fact, is complaining that prosecutors are trying to force him to make things up.

Problem is Ted, those stories are old, have been vetted, and found to have nothing to do about nothing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kalabus
post Oct 11 2008, 08:01 PM
Post #26


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 279
Member No.: 2,117
Joined: January-3-04

From: Illinois
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Independent



I don't get how anyone could suggest a GOP state, with a GOP populated investigative team, Conservative investigator, GOP legislature, in an investigation that was ongoing before she was named VP...was on a witch hunt. That is beyond irrational.

"I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110 (a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act." was what Branchflower said about the findings.

William Ayers never killed anyone, never tried to kill anyone. The truck heist where the cop was killed was not a Weatherman operation, it had an unarmed weatherman member in the vehicle, but was not the gun wielder and was not a Weatherman operation.

The Weathermen blew up statues and in one instance 3 of their members by accident. Ayers did not kill anyone, they went through lengths to make sure that nobody was killed, clearing buildings before hand with calls and targeting prpoerty.

They were 60's Anti-Vietnam radicals who at the end of the day didn't kill anyone, and whose big crimes were blowing up statues, sidewalks and smashing windows. In the history of terrorism book, they wouldn't get 3 words.

Ayers was picked to head that board by Walter Annenberg I read, a lieftime Republican friend of Reagan, by the time Obama went to help with education and poverty issues in Chicago, I'm not sure why Ayer's past (which Obama would have had no reason to know) would matter in that setting, why would it ever be a topic of thought?

This is such a far far reaching association smear that it's joke funny.

Here's one.

McCain was friends and close with a terrorism instigator and radical from the 40-60's. These two served on committee's together, had a close political relationship. In 2007, McCain related that this man was the greatest public servant he had ever known. This same man reigned over a state at a time of lynchings, extreme racial persecution and violence all carried out in a culture he maintained. Where crimes against blacks went unpunished and innocent blacks held accountable for crimes in racist kangaroo courts, all nurtured and enfranchised by the words and actions of this very radical, a radical who was THE GOD of the segregationalist movement. This man reigned over a state of extreme racial terrorism and persecution that would monumentally dwarf anything Ayers ever dreamed about. To compare the terrorism helped spread by McCain's radical and compare it to Ayers is to compare Hiroshima with a hand grenade..... and McCain knew about all this when he praised him and served with him.

Strom Thurmond everyone.

or Sarah Palin's husband being a member of a former Alaska Separatist organization, where members refuse to call themselves Americans, accuse the US government of assassinating past members and who several advocate secession.

or these two lovely guys, and actual associates of Sarah Pain
Palin's friends

This association stuff doesn't really stick to Obama, it's straw grasping. It can go anywhere, it's beyond a slippery slope.

Obama barely knew Ayers, they were not social. Obama certainly, as an 8 year-old, was not down with the property damage anti-Vietnam protests Ayers carried out.

Ayers was part of the Chicago political scene when Obama moved there, they served on non-profit boards trying to help education and poverty issues in Chicago. Absolutely no agreement between them about Vietnam I suspect.

It's just a silly silly connection.

And the Rezko stuff? About as silly. The ties to Blago are bad, likely criminal, but Obama's relationship is a legal property deal and returned campaign contributions. Obama has had nothing to do with his trial. This is all about Blagoevich.

The fact stands that a GOP led team found Sarah guilty of violating ethics law. That this all began before McCain impulsively chose her as a running mate. No witch hunting whatsoever

This post has been edited by kalabus: Oct 11 2008, 10:08 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nebraska29
post Oct 11 2008, 08:02 PM
Post #27


*********
Only siths speak in absolutes.

Sponsor
November 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,712
Member No.: 1,871
Joined: November-29-03

From: York, Nebraska
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat





QUOTE
The dope threatened her family


I have never seen valid evidence that this is true. Does anything exist? hmmm.gif Or are we take it solely from one side of the family of a jilted ex-wife? dry.gif

QUOTE
and tasered a 10 year old kid – and he is still working and carrying a gun. Sounds like something is wrong with that.


The official report documents that the appropriate authorities sorted truth from fiction and that he was disciplined for what he actually was guilty of. The Palin's also called in stuff that turned out not to be true. They reported the guy for dropping off his kid at the elementary schol in a patrol car. The problem?, he obtained permission from his supervisor. Shooting the moose? Well, Monagen pointed out to the governor that the governor's father would also be prosecuted if charges wer brought forward, as he helped his son in law drag it out. After that fact, the Palins wern't so intersted in justice. It was unethical and improper of the Palins to push elected officials and members of the investigative process like they did. Nothing justifies it, nothing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Peter Z
post Oct 11 2008, 09:40 PM
Post #28


*
New Member

Group: New Members
Posts: 4
Member No.: 9,351
Joined: October-11-08

Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Ted @ Oct 10 2008, 09:59 PM) *
QUOTE
. You know, Sarah and Todd figured they were doing the "right thing" harassing Monegan to fire the state trooper


The dope threatened her family and tasered a 10 year old kid – and he is still working and carrying a gun. Sounds like something is wrong with that.

QUOTE
sort of like Bill Ayers thought he was doing the "right thing" plotting and actively protesting the Vietnam War and the war machine that was running it, sending soldiers to kill and to be killed.


Hey PE I was there and part of the SDS when the split took place – we all demonstrated got tear gassed etc. but the nutcases who split off and formed the Weathermen, including Ayres were more than a little nutty. The man is still far left and so is Obama.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...p;sq=weathermen

http://patriotroom.com/?p=2764


It is in fact irrelevant how nasty and terrible "the dope" might be. The issue is whether Governor Palin abused her power as an elected official to settle a personal matter. It's not a defense for Governor Palin if "the dope" is a total creep, which he may well be. She should not be using the powers of her office to settle family matters, and she was warned by her own ethics advisors that it would be trouble for her if she did. So, yes she should face the same consequences as any elected official under the law, and of course it is not a positive for anyone running for office when a bipartisan panel concludes that ethics were violated. A reprimand from the state legislature is probably appropriate, and hopefully Governor Palin, who is new to the job, will learn from the mistake and move on. I wish her the best of luck with her family problems, but keep that
sort of thing out of the Governor's Office.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Oct 12 2008, 03:02 PM
Post #29


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,415
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
Peter Z
It is in fact irrelevant how nasty and terrible "the dope" might be. The issue is whether Governor Palin abused her power as an elected official to settle a personal matter. It's not a defense for Governor Palin if "the dope" is a total creep, which he may well be. She should not be using the powers of her office to settle family matters, and she was warned by her own ethics advisors that it would be trouble for her if she did


All we have from the witch hunt is a statement (with no proof) that it is “likely” she did …………

they found she broke no laws firing the guy and if the “ethical” violations are serious she would have broken a law and subject to prosecution. The fact that this is not the case tells me they have squat that proves any of that and are just reporting this crap to hurt here in the run up to the election.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vsrenard
post Oct 12 2008, 04:01 PM
Post #30


********
vsrenard

Sponsor
September 2008

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,065
Member No.: 5,438
Joined: September-6-05

From: SF Bay Area
Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



QUOTE(Ted @ Oct 12 2008, 08:02 AM) *
All we have from the witch hunt is a statement (with no proof) that it is “likely” she did …………

they found she broke no laws firing the guy and if the “ethical” violations are serious she would have broken a law and subject to prosecution. The fact that this is not the case tells me they have squat that proves any of that and are just reporting this crap to hurt here in the run up to the election.


You've been asked several times to define why this is a witch hunt. Why are you ducking the question?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CruisingRam
post Oct 12 2008, 04:05 PM
Post #31


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 7,934
Member No.: 927
Joined: July-25-03

From: Hawaii
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



QUOTE(Ted @ Oct 12 2008, 07:02 AM) *
QUOTE
Peter Z
It is in fact irrelevant how nasty and terrible "the dope" might be. The issue is whether Governor Palin abused her power as an elected official to settle a personal matter. It's not a defense for Governor Palin if "the dope" is a total creep, which he may well be. She should not be using the powers of her office to settle family matters, and she was warned by her own ethics advisors that it would be trouble for her if she did


All we have from the witch hunt is a statement (with no proof) that it is "likely" she did …………

they found she broke no laws firing the guy and if the "ethical" violations are serious she would have broken a law and subject to prosecution. The fact that this is not the case tells me they have squat that proves any of that and are just reporting this crap to hurt here in the run up to the election.



"I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110 (a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act."

EDIT

This post has been edited by Jaime: Oct 12 2008, 09:58 PM
Reason for edit: Edited to remove personal attack
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BoF
post Oct 14 2008, 11:01 PM
Post #32


**********
Giga-bite: "I catch mice & rats - 2 & 4 legs."

Sponsor
October 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,126
Member No.: 3,423
Joined: August-14-04

From: Texas
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



In an editorial published yesterday the Anchorage Daily News had some scorching words regarding Sarah Palin's spin on the report.

QUOTE
Sarah Palin's reaction to the Legislature's Troopergate report is an embarrassment to Alaskans and the nation.
She claims the report "vindicates" her. She said that the investigation found "no unlawful or unethical activity on my part."

<snip>

Palin asserted that the report found "there was no abuse of authority at all in trying to get Officer Wooten fired."

<snip>

Palin's response is the kind of political "big lie" that George Orwell warned against. War is peace. Black is white. Up is down.

<snip>

But it wasn't appropriate, especially for someone elected as an ethical reformer. And her Orwellian claims of "vindication" make this blemish on her record look even worse.
You asked us to hold you accountable, Gov. Palin. Did you mean it?

http://www.adn.com/opinion/view/story/555236.html

If you saw Katie Couric’s interview with Palin, you might come to the conclusion that Palin doesn’t read the Anchorage Daily News. If she read this editorial piece, I’ll bet she didn’t enjoy it. down.gif

This post has been edited by BoF: Oct 14 2008, 11:10 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cadman
post Oct 15 2008, 11:18 AM
Post #33


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 411
Member No.: 1,193
Joined: September-13-03

From: Outside of Chicago, Illinois
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Democrat



1. Should Sarah Palin face legal consequences as a result of her actions?
I would leave that up to her Alaskan constituents to decide since she wronged them and through the legislators they can voice their opinions.

2. Will this have any effect on the presidential race?
Its definitely not helping the McCain/Palin ticket at all, but neither is being Republican, the economy and McCain's history of deregulation but now for regulation blink.gif but that is another story.

QUOTE(Ted @ Oct 10 2008, 09:39 PM) *
"I find that, although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety. In spite of that, Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads," the chief investigator said in the report.
The report found that Palin violated a state ethics law that prohibits public officials from using their office for personal gain, but it does not recommend sanctions or a criminal investigation.”

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politi..._abused_po.html


Ted I don't think Palin is out of hot water just yet, you know how she wanted the her Personnel Board that she gets to appoint to do the investigation instead after she was tapped for VP and thought it might give her a more favorable outcome. Doh might not come out that way according to the Anchorage Daily News from Oct 13, 2008. ermm.gif

Board's Troopergate probe casts wider net

QUOTE
The state Personnel Board investigation of Gov. Sarah Palin's firing of Walt Monegan has broadened to include other ethics complaints against the governor and examination of actions by other state employees, according to the independent counsel handling the case.

The investigator, Tim Petumenos, did not say who else is under scrutiny. But in two recent letters describing his inquiry, he cited the consolidation of complaints and the involvement of other officials as a reason for not going along with Palin's request to make the examination of her activities more public.

Two other ethics complaints involving Palin are known. One, by activist Andree McLeod, alleges that state hiring practices were circumvented for a Palin supporter. The case is not related to Monegan's firing. The other, by the Public Safety Employees Association, alleges that trooper Mike Wooten's personnel file was illegally breached by state officials.

snipet

Attention is turning this week to the Personnel Board -- the state's official avenue for investigating ethics complaints -- after release of the Legislature's Troopergate investigation last Friday. The Legislature's investigator concluded that Palin was within her rights to fire Monegan as public safety commissioner, but abused her power and broke the ethics law in joining her husband to push for the firing of Wooten, who was once married to the governor's sister.

snipet

Petumenos has requested a copy of Friday's legislative report, including confidential backup material, said Sen. Kim Elton, D-Juneau, chairman of the Legislative Council. Elton said the council will meet Thursday to vote on whether to give Petumenos all the material gathered by its investigator, Steve Branchflower.

Petumenos was hired by the Personnel Board to handle the case because the state attorney general's office, which normally investigates ethics charges, would have a conflict investigating the governor.


Then there is this from Newsweek.

Troopergate: Not Over Yet

QUOTE
A new Alaska legislative report finding that Gov. Sarah Palin abused her power and violated state ethics laws spells new trouble for the McCain campaign. Special counsel Steve Branchflower's report could lead to fines or legislative action to censure Palin. It also directly challenges the vice presidential candidate's credibility on key points related to the "Troopergate" controversy. Palin has said she fired Walt Monegan, Alaska's public-safety commissioner, last summer solely because of budget disputes and "insubordination" by Monegan. But Branchflower found that a likely "contributing" factor was Palin's desire to fire state trooper Mike Wooten, her ex-brother-in-law. While Palin had the right to fire Monegan, Branchflower found that she allowed her husband and top aides to put "impermissible pressure" on subordinates to "advance a personal agenda." The report also questioned Palin's public contention that her family "feared" Wooten, noting that shortly after she took office she ordered a sizable reduction in her personal protection detail.


So who knows what might happen with the Personnel Board but since she requested them to do an ethics violation case against herself hoping to blunt the legislature investigation it looks like she is definitely playing at the craps table and could end up rolling snake eyes. Since the Personnel Board is broadening their investigation and is going to use the record already established by the legislative investigation they could have their report done before the election also as they have "meetings on Oct 20 and Nov 3 with confidential ethics matters in executive session" according to the Anchorage Daily News.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Oct 27 2008, 03:59 PM
Post #34


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,415
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
Ted I don't think Palin is out of hot water just yet, you know how she wanted the her Personnel Board that she gets to appoint to do the investigation instead after she was tapped for VP and thought it might give her a more favorable outcome. Doh might not come out that way according to the Anchorage Daily News from Oct 13, 2008


Fine – what come out of it will satisfy everyone – the current witch hunt was ludicrous from day one.

Certainly if McCain loses this goes away in a hurry – Palin still has an approval rate in Alaska that makes most governors envious and compared to the Congress she is a rock star. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nebraska29
post Oct 28 2008, 11:49 AM
Post #35


*********
Only siths speak in absolutes.

Sponsor
November 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,712
Member No.: 1,871
Joined: November-29-03

From: York, Nebraska
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Ted @ Oct 27 2008, 10:59 AM) *
QUOTE
Ted I don't think Palin is out of hot water just yet, you know how she wanted the her Personnel Board that she gets to appoint to do the investigation instead after she was tapped for VP and thought it might give her a more favorable outcome. Doh might not come out that way according to the Anchorage Daily News from Oct 13, 2008


Fine – what come out of it will satisfy everyone – the current witch hunt was ludicrous from day one.



Saying so, doesn't make it so Ted. Could you answer questions posed in posts #30 and 24? I'll help you out by posting them again.

QUOTE
Eight Republicans and 4 Democrats--how is this a witch hunt? If it were 11 Republicans and 1 Democrat would it still be a witch hunt?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Oct 28 2008, 12:14 PM
Post #36


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,415
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Oct 28 2008, 07:49 AM) *
QUOTE(Ted @ Oct 27 2008, 10:59 AM) *
QUOTE
Ted I don't think Palin is out of hot water just yet, you know how she wanted the her Personnel Board that she gets to appoint to do the investigation instead after she was tapped for VP and thought it might give her a more favorable outcome. Doh might not come out that way according to the Anchorage Daily News from Oct 13, 2008


Fine – what come out of it will satisfy everyone – the current witch hunt was ludicrous from day one.



Saying so, doesn't make it so Ted. Could you answer questions posed in posts #30 and 24? I'll help you out by posting them again.

QUOTE
Eight Republicans and 4 Democrats--how is this a witch hunt? If it were 11 Republicans and 1 Democrat would it still be a witch hunt?


Its well known Palin is not a friend of all Republicans up there – and for good reason.

The fact remains it was initiated by people (of either party) who did not wish here well and had no damn jurisdiction.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nebraska29
post Oct 28 2008, 10:08 PM
Post #37


*********
Only siths speak in absolutes.

Sponsor
November 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,712
Member No.: 1,871
Joined: November-29-03

From: York, Nebraska
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE
Its well known Palin is not a friend of all Republicans up there – and for good reason.

The fact remains it was initiated by people (of either party) who did not wish here well and had no damn jurisdiction.


So only friends of a person in question should be allowed to be on an investigation? blink.gif You shouldn't look into matters when there is a legitimate concern? blink.gif Could it possibly be, that they handled the matter fairly and that their findings are accurate? hmmm.gif The partisan bomb throwing about the committee came from one direction. You have any sources about the republicans who were out to get Palin on that legislative committee? Also, the dispute over jurisdiction is something I'd be more interested in finding out about if you have any sources on that. According to the official document, page 2 most specifically, the legislative committee signed a contract with Mr. Branchflower to conduct the investigation. An elected body cannot conduct investigations? There can be no special counsels? What do you base that off of?

This post has been edited by nebraska29: Oct 28 2008, 10:09 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CruisingRam
post Oct 29 2008, 09:13 PM
Post #38


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 7,934
Member No.: 927
Joined: July-25-03

From: Hawaii
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



Well, Ted, is way, way off on the jurisdiction. The supreme court, as I posted before, all republican/conservative appointments, agreed that the jurisdiction issue was decided AGAINST the governer.

You want to demonize those folks on that commitee, but the fact is just the opposite of what you state again Ted- many of those on the commitee were her ALLIES. iN FACT- four on the commitee were the ones that sued themselves to see if they had jurisdiction, just to clarify the matter.

The only one really showing real ethics- TED- was the commitee itself.

What is happening here, Ted- is that the republican party, the national party, is demonizing those in thier own state level party here, for doing thier job.

Sarah has thrown her ethics to the wind of political expediency, and it is an embarrasement.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wertz
post Oct 29 2008, 09:56 PM
Post #39


Group Icon

*********
Advanced Senior

Sponsor
January 2003

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 3,235
Member No.: 181
Joined: October-23-02

From: Franklinville PA
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Ted @ Oct 28 2008, 08:14 AM) *
Its well known Palin is not a friend of all Republicans up there – and for good reason.

The fact remains it was initiated by people (of either party) who did not wish here well and had no damn jurisdiction.

QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Oct 28 2008, 06:08 PM) *
So only friends of a person in question should be allowed to be on an investigation? blink.gif You shouldn't look into matters when there is a legitimate concern? blink.gif Could it possibly be, that they handled the matter fairly and that their findings are accurate? hmmm.gif The partisan bomb throwing about the committee came from one direction. You have any sources about the republicans who were out to get Palin on that legislative committee? Also, the dispute over jurisdiction is something I'd be more interested in finding out about if you have any sources on that. According to the official document, page 2 most specifically, the legislative committee signed a contract with Mr. Branchflower to conduct the investigation. An elected body cannot conduct investigations? There can be no special counsels? What do you base that off of?

QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Oct 29 2008, 05:13 PM) *
Well, Ted is way, way off on the jurisdiction. The supreme court, as I posted before, all republican/conservative appointments, agreed that the jurisdiction issue was decided AGAINST the governor.

You want to demonize those folks on that committee, but the fact is just the opposite of what you state again Ted- many of those on the committee were her ALLIES. IN FACT- four on the committee were the ones that sued themselves to see if they had jurisdiction, just to clarify the matter.

So, Ted, just out of curiosity: In light of facts that have been clear to everyone else here for some time, are you still maintaining that this was "a witch hunt" (or what you previously called "a Dem witch hunt" and "a Dem lead witch hunt")? If so, on what possible grounds? If not, are you - finally - willing to retract your partisan fantasy and admit, for once, that you are just wrong? Again, I'm just curious about your own ethics...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Oct 30 2008, 02:06 AM
Post #40


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,415
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
So, Ted, just out of curiosity: In light of facts that have been clear to everyone else here for some time, are you still maintaining that this was "a witch hunt" (or what you previously called "a Dem witch hunt" and "a Dem lead witch hunt")? If so, on what possible grounds


How could an investigation instigated coincidentally right after Palin is selected as VP candidate, and pursued by the wrong body in Alaska be anything else than a witch hunt? Is it just a trick of fate sir? laugh.gif laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: August 19th, 2018 - 01:54 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.