Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 28
  1.    #1  
    I'm just wondering if the same attention will be given:

    Washington Post

    Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin did not violate state ethics rules as governor when she fired her state police commissioner and allegedly tried to engineer the firing of her brother-in-law from the Alaska State Troopers, an investigator for Alaska's State Personnel Board found in a report released on the eve of the election.

    --snip--

    Timothy Petumenos, investigator for the personnel board, said there was "no probable cause to believe that Governor Palin violated the Alaska Executive Ethics Act" by firing Monegan or "in any other respect in connection with the employment of Alaska State Trooper Michael Wooten."
    Note:

    Timothy Petumenos, independent counsel for the Alaska Personnel Board who wrote the report, said the legislative probe did a good job of assembling facts but did not interpret the ethics law properly.

    "The Ethics Act is primarily directed at personal financial benefit," Petumenos told a news conference presenting the report. "People have a lot of misconceptions about the scope of the Alaska Ethics Act."
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  2. #2  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    I'm just wondering if the same attention will be given:

    Washington Post
    Yea! Time to celebrate! After reviewing the Alaska Ethics statute in detail they have determined that Sarah did not violate the law after all....whew. Never mind the intent she clearly had - or that she used the power of her office to weed out an "ex" for her dear ole' sis and that there is overwhelming evidence that supports that. The Alaska Ethics statute doesn't really cover that since its more about using the office for financial gain than it does firing enemies of one's family as some sort of vendetta.
    Lucky break. But what the heck? The GOP can used any shred of good news it can get...even if it is a technicality.
  3. #3  
    wink
  4. #4  
    I wish I could pick my own judge and jury when I was accused of something wrong. This finding was by people Palin has the authority to fire. Since she's already demonstrated that she is willing to fire people who won't do her bidding, I'd say this outcome was a forgone conclusion.

    Look, I haven't read the Alaska ethics law (how many have?). But regardless of what the law says, firing someone to try to solve a personal, family issue is just wrong. Having your staff and husband badger and threaten a government official for personal reasons is just plain wrong. But given that she is from the same party whose elected leaders had federal prosecutors fired because they followed the law, instead of Republican orthodoxy, why should anyone be surprised?
    Bob Meyer
    I'm out of my mind. But feel free to leave a message.
  5. #5  
    What cracks me up is the number of right wing blogs today saying the liberal media won't cover the findings -- yet don't mention the findings are noted on the front page of my wash post this morning!

    Timothy Petumenos, independent counsel for the Alaska Personnel Board who wrote the report, said the legislative probe did a good job of assembling facts but did not interpret the ethics law properly.

    "The Ethics Act is primarily directed at personal financial benefit," Petumenos told a news conference presenting the report. "People have a lot of misconceptions about the scope of the Alaska Ethics Act."
    Yeah that gets to the heart of the matter. cleared for not getting financial gain. By that standard the Bill Clinton impeachment for lying about a bj, would have never occurred, the Richard Nixon impeachment for subverting an election would have never been threatened, the Tim Foley (r-FL) ethics findings for screwing underage House Pages would have never occurred either.
  6. #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post
    Yeah that gets to the heart of the matter. cleared for not getting financial gain. By that standard the Bill Clinton impeachment for lying about a bj, would have never occurred, the Richard Nixon impeachment for subverting an election would have never been threatened, the Tim Foley (r-FL) ethics findings for screwing underage House Pages would have never occurred either.
    yes... and that is what bothers me... but it is the law... she got away with that one...

    BUT, like OJ, it will catch up to her sooner or later. Like OJ, she won't be able to keep her nose clean.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  7.    #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny
    Yea! Time to celebrate!
    Umm, no . . . I wasn’t going that far.

    After reviewing the Alaska Ethics statute in detail they have determined that Sarah did not violate the law after all....whew.
    Which of course was the issue . . . something you seem quite content in ignoring rather suddenly. If I recall correctly (and I do), it was you who posted the first post regarding Palin and her abuse of power as determined by the Bi-Partisan panel—who, based their conclusion of the abuse of power on the state ethics law.

    Never mind the intent she clearly had - or that she used the power of her office to weed out an "ex" for her dear ole' sis and that there is overwhelming evidence that supports that.
    Oddly enough, neither this report nor the previous panel support your conclusion—which makes me suspect of your objectivity.

    Quote Originally Posted by meyerweb
    I wish I could pick my own judge and jury when I was accused of something wrong. This finding was by people Palin has the authority to fire. Since she's already demonstrated that she is willing to fire people who won't do her bidding, I'd say this outcome was a forgone conclusion.
    Except that Timothy Petumenos doesn’t work for Palin and is a democrat who helped her opponent in 2006—thus removing any necessity on his part to favor Palin.

    I haven't read the Alaska ethics law (how many have?).
    Actually, I have. Why? Well, if I’m going to sit here and side one way or another and the ethics law is at my fingertips (Google), it seems like an ethical thing to do considering I am judging her on ethics. Call me crazy, but a few minutes of my time to be properly informed doesn’t seem so bad.

    But regardless of what the law says, firing someone to try to solve a personal, family issue is just wrong.
    And herein lies the problem. If the law was merely silent in the matter, then it may be worth an update; however, the law isn’t. 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by aero
    Yeah that gets to the heart of the matter. cleared for not getting financial gain. By that standard the Bill Clinton impeachment for lying about a bj, would have never occurred, the Richard Nixon impeachment for subverting an election would have never been threatened, the Tim Foley (r-FL) ethics findings for screwing underage House Pages would have never occurred either.
    You’re right . . . the President is not only bound to follow the Alaska Ethics Act, but that in fact would be the only legal determination for which to determine wrong doing.

    Keep in mind, I’m only exonerating her legally (which was what the fuss was about); I still believe she should have been more willing to delineate affairs under her control. It is always best to keep a solid distinction of right and wrong when possible so as to reduce obfuscation. I do think it’s funny that people were concerned about Palin breaking laws until it came out that maybe she didn’t break the laws, but then the laws didn’t matter so much—so much for objectivity.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  8. #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Is this news?
    Who is Sara Palin?
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    Who is Sara Palin?
    http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourc...6&q=Sara+Palin

    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  10. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    You’re right . . . the President is not only bound to follow the Alaska Ethics Act, but that in fact would be the only legal determination for which to determine wrong doing. .
    again this means that you don't think Nixon did anything wrong, nor did Bill Clinton (who got caught up in fibbing about something irrelevant after a massive investigation.

    There is no question that Palin was involved in wrongdoing and abuse of power. It is only the narrow view that abuse of power only involves financial gain that allowed her to escape.

    If you think abuse of power is only about money, you think Nixon didn't abuse power (!!), you think the Clinton impeachment was bogus, etc.
  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    Who is Sara Palin?
    She is someone who once made a good parody on saturday night live and who help cost McCain the election.
  12.    #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post
    again this means that you don't think Nixon did anything wrong, nor did Bill Clinton (who got caught up in fibbing about something irrelevant after a massive investigation.

    There is no question that Palin was involved in wrongdoing and abuse of power. It is only the narrow view that abuse of power only involves financial gain that allowed her to escape.

    If you think abuse of power is only about money, you think Nixon didn't abuse power (!!), you think the Clinton impeachment was bogus, etc.
    Don't be obtuse, Nixon broke laws (illegal wiretaps, break-ins, just to name a few) and Bill Clinton not only had sexual relations with an employee and more importantly comitted perjury--which is a crime by the way.

    Furthermore, don't put words in my mouth, I never stated that abuse of power is only about money. What I did suggest was that it is quite possible that what Palin did simply does not fall under the scope of the Alaska Ethics Statute (something I actually read)--ergo, she didn't break the law.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Don't be obtuse, Nixon broke laws (illegal wiretaps, break-ins, just to name a few) and Bill Clinton not only had sexual relations with an employee and more importantly comitted perjury--which is a crime by the way.

    Furthermore, don't put words in my mouth, I never stated that abuse of power is only about money. What I did suggest was that it is quite possible that what Palin did simply does not fall under the scope of the Alaska Ethics Statute (something I actually read)--ergo, she didn't break the law.
    Waht was implicit was that your argument was obtuse. You pointed to Palin getting of on a technicality and then I pointed out examples to which you must agree that there was also no guilt.

    Since you simply don't know US history here it is: Nixon as never convicted of wire tap or breaking. Never. He was never convicted of associating with anyone who did. By your logic, he was guilty of nothing. That is my point.

    With Clinton you again miss the point. Clinton was being investigated for a completely different issue (where it turned out he was completely innocent). If you understand how abusive and politically motivated prosecutor sometimes works, they used accusations in another matter where he committed no illegality but which would be personally embarrassing. The prosecutor, coming up empty on their real charge, asked a highly public figure if he was having an sexual affair in testimony that was bound to become public.
  14.    #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post
    Waht was implicit was that your argument was obtuse. You pointed to Palin getting of on a technicality and then I pointed out examples to which you must agree that there was also no guilt.
    Umm, no. 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.

    Since you simply don't know US history here it is: Nixon as never convicted of wire tap or breaking. Never. He was never convicted of associating with anyone who did. By your logic, he was guilty of nothing. That is my point.
    Umm, no . . . again. I have said previously in this thread that I believe she was in error. In light of this newest revelation, I was objective enough to take a second look at the legal perspective. Face it, if the law doesn't apply to a certain circumstance, it is in the best interest of ALL citizens to keep from forcing it to apply.

    As for Nixon, I believe the actual account is that he was not convicted based on two key events:
    1. He resigned, which gave Ford the office of POTUS
    2. President Ford issued a pardon, which removed the possibility of any future indictment
    With Clinton you again miss the point. Clinton was being investigated for a completely different issue (where it turned out he was completely innocent). If you understand how abusive and politically motivated prosecutor sometimes works, they used accusations in another matter where he committed no illegality but which would be personally embarrassing. The prosecutor, coming up empty on their real charge, asked a highly public figure if he was having an sexual affair in testimony that was bound to become public.
    Regardless, perjury is a crime. A simple, "yes" would have solved that issue.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  15. #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    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.
    Um no. The Abuse of Power is was not solely limited to that single statute. The statute doesn't even envision the abuse Palin engaged in because it limits abuse to profit motive as opposed to personal vendetta.

    Again,by your statement you believe Nixon did not abuse power because he was not in fact convicted as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    As for Nixon, I believe the actual account is that he was not convicted based on two key events:
    1. He resigned, which gave Ford the office of POTUS
    2. President Ford issued a pardon, which removed the possibility of any future indictment
    LOL! Again you miss the point. Nixon did abuse his power. Perhaps you are part of the three people on the planet who don't think so.


    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Regardless, perjury is a crime. A simple, "yes" would have solved that issue.
    On Clinton's perjury, it was on a question completely out of the scope of the prosecution and the reason why a simple "yes" would have been a prolblem is that his testimomy uniquely would have gotten ont th the public record.

    The prosecutor did this because he had spend tens of millions on a poilitical witch hunt right out of Hawthorn (or Miller), had gotten nowhere with establishing any wrongdoing by Clinton or his wife and decided go for something unrelated.

    It is the irony you miss. Clinton did not abuse power, Nixon and Palin did. Clinton got slapped.
  16.    #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post
    Um no. The Abuse of Power is was not solely limited to that single statute. The statute doesn't even envision the abuse Palin engaged in because it limits abuse to profit motive as opposed to personal vendetta.
    Well then, what statue does her particular abuse fall under? Because so far, the new claim is that she did nothing illegal.

    Again,by your statement you believe Nixon did not abuse power because he was not in fact convicted as well.
    That's a nice make-believe perception of my view, but I didn't say that. I merely pointed out that Nixon most likely would have been, but luck worked in his favor.

    On Clinton's perjury, it was on a question completely out of the scope of the prosecution and the reason why a simple "yes" would have been a prolblem is that his testimomy uniquely would have gotten ont th the public record.

    The prosecutor did this because he had spend tens of millions on a poilitical witch hunt right out of Hawthorn (or Miller), had gotten nowhere with establishing any wrongdoing by Clinton or his wife and decided go for something unrelated.

    It is the irony you miss. Clinton did not abuse power, Nixon and Palin did. Clinton got slapped.

    In the end, he broke the law, period. No amount of justification on your part absolves him of it.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  17. #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Well then, what statue does her particular abuse fall under? Because so far, the new claim is that she did nothing illegal.
    Firing someone for personal interest is an abuse of power. We all agree there is a hole in the Alaska statute that limits it to financial gain. It doesn't cover firing someone for not sleeping with your, and firing someone without cause ijn many cases. Abuse of power is an ethical issue that is much much broader than law.

    Nixon was convicted under no statute but there were brad ethical abuses of power. For example sicking the IRS on people wasn't illegal but an abuse of power. Or di you care to name the statue in the 1970's under which it was illegal for Nixon to do so?

    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    In the end, he [Clinton]broke the law, period. No amount of justification on your part absolves him of it.
    Actually he never did break any law, as what is fascinating, is that under your definition he didn't!
  18.    #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post
    Firing someone for personal interest is an abuse of power.
    According to you. It appears that you haven't been paying much attention because if you had been, you would already know that Palin's firing of Monegan not only doesn't fall under the scope of the Alaska Ethics Act . . . but actually does fall within the legal scope afforded her--which was established well before she took office.

    According to Monegan himself:

    Effective yesterday afternoon, I have been replaced as the Commissioner of DPS.

    --snip--

    I was surprised, but being an at-will employee, it was a possibility ever present.

    And according to Alaska's Constitution (Article 3, Section 25):

    "The head of each principal department shall be a single executive unless otherwise provided by law. He shall be appointed by the governor, subject to confirmation by a majority of the members of the legislature in joint session, and shall serve at the pleasure of the governor, except as otherwise provided in this article with respect to the secretary of state."


    Do you know what an at-will employee is? I'd look into if I were you.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  19. #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post

    Do you know what an at-will employee is? I'd look into if I were you.
    yes, I do, and it is unethical to fire one for personal vendetta and an abuse of power.

    of dozens of definitions of abuse of power legal definition seems to always be secondary to ethical one.

    By the way are you still saying Clinton guilty of any crime?

    he was acquitted genius.
  20. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post
    fibbing
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions