Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 28 of 28
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by sblanter View Post
    but never convicted like Palin.
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post
    but never convicted like Palin.
    Convicted?
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    And herein lies the problem. If the law was merely silent in the matter, then it may be worth an update; however, the law isnít. It states that she may fire a person for any reason, or no reason. I suspect that Monegan was well aware of this major detail and chose to accept the job anyway.
    Well, the issue of firing Monegan wasn't the ethic violation; it was the attempted coersion of Monegan to get him to fire Wooten. The actual ethics law states that the public officer has to:

    attempt to benefit a personal or financial interest through coercion of a subordinate or require another public officer to perform services for the private benefit of the public officer at any time...
    The first investigation stated that firing the former brother-in-law was clearly a "personal benefit", while the second narrowed the definition to require a financial benefit.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  4.    #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Well, the issue of firing Monegan wasn't the ethic violation; it was the attempted coersion of Monegan to get him to fire Wooten. The actual ethics law states that the public officer has to:
    Now you are just lying. Stop. This issue before I posted this thread was all about the actual firing of Monegan being a breach of the ethics law. After the second investigation came out people reverted to coersion as being the primary concern (when it in fact was quite secondary).

    Second, do you ever consider the comments that my comments are referencing?

    "But regardless of what the law says, firing someone to try to solve a personal, family issue is just wrong."

    Wow. Look at that! No mention of coercion. Weird . . .


    The first investigation stated that firing the former brother-in-law was clearly a "personal benefit", while the second narrowed the definition to require a financial benefit.
    And again you have it wrong. The second investigation didn't narrow any definition down . . . it stated that the definition was already intended to mean financial gain and that the previous investigation misunderstood the intent of the Ethics act.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Now you are just lying. Stop. This issue before I posted this thread was all about the actual firing of Monegan being a breach of the ethics law. After the second investigation came out people reverted to coersion as being the primary concern (when it in fact was quite secondary).
    First off, calling me a liar is just juvenile and inappropriate. I gave no personal opinion - merely stated the results from the first investigation, which said:

    "Compliance with the code of ethics is not optional. It is an individual responsibility imposed by law, and any effort to benefit a personal interest through official action is a violation of that trust. ... The term ‘benefit' is very broadly defined, and includes anything that is to the person's advantage or personal self-interest."
    That preceded the second investigation. So your contention that the firing was the breach of ethics law is simply incorrect. The finding stated clearly that the firing was not a violation (as he was an at-will employee), but the coersion of Monegan was an abuse of power. Also, the Ethics Act itself states (I'm reposting from my earlier post):

    attempt to benefit a personal or financial interest through coercion of a subordinate or require another public officer to perform services for the private benefit of the public officer at any time...
    Since the above quotes are directly from the investigation text, it should be clear that I'm not lying, but simply clarifying based upon the facts of the actual investigation. So perhaps you should dial back your hostility just a bit.

    "But regardless of what the law says, firing someone to try to solve a personal, family issue is just wrong."

    Wow. Look at that! No mention of coercion. Weird .


    And again you have it wrong. The second investigation didn't narrow any definition down . . . it stated that the definition was already intended to mean financial gain and that the previous investigation misunderstood the intent of the Ethics act.
    Well, since the wording indicated "personal or financial benefit", it indicates to me (and to the first investigatory team) that "personal" doesn't have to equal "financial", or they would have said "personal financial benefit".
    Last edited by Bujin; 11/16/2008 at 02:40 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  6.    #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Now you are just lying. Stop. This issue before I posted this thread was all about the actual firing of Monegan being a breach of the ethics law. After the second investigation came out people reverted to coersion as being the primary concern (when it in fact was quite secondary).
    I was unclear with my words and for that, I apologize.

    The point was this:

    Before this thread, the big brouhaha--here, on this forum--was all about how Palin fired Monegan and that action in itself was unlawful. In the following thread:

    Palin Abused Power

    The word "coercion" doesn't even appear once in the 119 posts in that thread.

    Furthermore, just to be sure, I read re-read the entire thread and there was not one mention of anything but abuse of power in regards to the actual action of firing Monegan (that includes the several posts from you on the topic).

    That is exactly why I started this thread . . . to point out people's arbitrary behavior. First it's, "Oh my God, Palin abused her power and this report says so and is backed up by the Ethics Act in Alaska. . . " to "Well, she abused her power by coercing Monegan and that's been the issue all along."

    Ever so odd . . . as long as the report agrees with your view, it must be good, but should a report come out that disagrees with you . . . all of a sudden it beomes a love fest of what the wording indicates to you.

    (Note: you and your being general terms in the above paragraph)


    Like I said a few posts ago:

    "Think back just weeks ago. Initially people were in an uproar about how Palin broke the Alaska Ethics Act by abusing her power. The AEA was cited over and over (even in this very forum). But . . . then when it is suggested that people might be misinformed as to the intent of the AEA, all of a sudden the law wasn't so important.

    That attitude isn't objective and shows the willingness of people to arbitrarily use the law--which is a very bad thing."

    I stated that you were lying in regards to the below in bold:

    Well, the issue of firing Monegan wasn't the ethic violation; it was the attempted coersion of Monegan to get him to fire Wooten.
    If you'll go back and actually read the Palin Abused Power thread, you'll note that the initial report that came out didn't say that either. It said her violation was her lack of inaction.

    Since I'm being juvenile . . . . PWNED.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    I was unclear with my words and for that, I apologize.
    Accepted. Although the facts clearly show that I wasn't lying....or even wrong on the issue (see below)
    Ever so odd . . . as long as the report agrees with your view, it must be good, but should a report come out that disagrees with you . . . all of a sudden it beomes a love fest of what the wording indicates to you.
    Actually, I was clarifying what the wording meant to the investigators.
    I stated that you were lying in regards to the below in bold:

    Well, the issue of firing Monegan wasn't the ethic violation; it was the attempted coersion of Monegan to get him to fire Wooten.
    If you'll go back and actually read the Palin Abused Power thread, you'll note that the initial report that came out didn't say that either. It said her violation was her lack of inaction.

    Since I'm being juvenile . . . . PWNED.
    Actually, it states the she "at least engaged in 'official action' by her inaction if not actual participation or assistance to her husband in attempting to get Officer Wooten fired....she knowingly permitted Todd Palin to use the Governor's Office and resources of the Governor's office, including access to state employees....Her conduct violated the Alaska's Ethics Act. "

    So if you're going to use terms like "PWNED", at least be sure that you're right on the issue, and don't only pick the parts that support your side of an argument. And despite your 'apology', you repeat that I was lying, when I was clearly not: I stated that the firing wasn't the ethics violation cited, it was the constant pressure to fire Wooten. That is a simple fact.

    So while I accept your apology for not being clear, I think it's a shame that you can't engage in a simple discussion without resorting to personal attacks.
    Last edited by Bujin; 11/16/2008 at 10:27 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Well, the issue of firing Monegan wasn't the ethic violation; it was the attempted coersion of Monegan to get him to fire Wooten. The actual ethics law states that the public officer has to:
    The first investigation stated that firing the former brother-in-law was clearly a "personal benefit", while the second narrowed the definition to require a financial benefit.
    You hit the nail on the head for the way most see it.

    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Convicted?
    yes neither were. I should have worded better. If some believe Palin is innocent for the reasons sited (getting off on technicality), then of course so was Clinton as he was never convicted either. Abuses of power like Palin's or outright subversion of the constitution like Nixon's are much worse than a married guy and getting a BJ and, not confirming it in testimony on a totally unrelated political witchhunt.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions