It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Troopergate Report: Palin Abused Power

page: 3
28
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:


posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 09:20 PM
link   
The attempted cover up by the McCain campaign is more abhorrent than the crime McPalin did herself.

There's serious talk of this leading to criminal charges and chance of a 'surprise' for the Palin McCain ticket.

They're in a lot of McTrouble.





posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 10:04 PM
link   
I see that you're all still kidding yourselves as though it matters who did what and who gets to be in the White House.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Regardless of if this report is accurate or if this was a partisan effort or if Palin is as guilty as the reports says ... it all comes down to what the voting public will think.

Palin is already treading on thin ice.

The people will suck this info up and then spit Palin out.

24 days is not long enough for the hurt this will cause the McCain camp to dissipate.

This will break their back.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Horza
Regardless of if this report is accurate


Seems to be pretty accurate.. I see one report comming right off yahoo news. They seem to be a fairly good source of up to date info.
Report: Palin 'abused power'


Palin and McCain's supporters had hoped the inquiry's finding would be delayed until after the presidential election to spare her any embarrassment and to put aside an enduring distraction as she campaigns as McCain's running mate in an uphill contest against Democrat Barack Obama.

But the panel of lawmakers voted to release the report, although not without dissension. There was no immediate vote on whether to endorse its findings.


I think this part is pretty important to know right here.

The inquiry looked into her dismissal of Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan, who said he lost his job because he resisted pressure to fire a state trooper involved in a bitter divorce with the governor's sister. Palin says Monegan was fired as part of a legitimate budget dispute.


This has to do with a bitter divorce, with the governor's sister.
This seems pretty right to me.. As you well know any of us who would have someone that hurt our family member, we would do everything in our power to stick it back to them.
It just so happens her place of power allowed her to really "stick" it too them but good.. However it seems this is going to come back to bite her.

I remain neutral on this stance.. I dont want to say this or that in anyones defence.. Im just here to share some links and info.
I have no desire to bait, or start an agrument here.
So take it what its worth, and we shall move onto the next day.

When its all said and done, I dont like any of them.. But the info is out here for those willing to take a stance on either side.
But for me.. I just think people start losing their minds when talking about this stuff.. ITs way to easy to get out of control on these issues.
Some of you guys need to just calm down before the mods come in here and start slapping you with warnings, and delete posts.

[edit on 10-10-2008 by zysin5]



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Lieberman will replace Palin this week

I don't think that the McCain campaign can possibly win with Palin on the ticket, and they are beginning to realize it. I suspect the wheels are already in motion to replace her with the man who John McCain really wanted to run with. Someone who helps him solidify his bull# "crossing the aisle" meme. If I could get ten to one odds on it, I'd lay good money that Joe Lieberman will be named McCain's new VP within the next week.

Such a move would certainly shake up the campaign, but who knows where the chips would fall. I suspect he could draw some Obama/Biden voters, but he may also depress the hard-core right wing vote. It would underscore his erratic nature, but sticks to the Shock Doctrine tactics of their campaign so far. You read it here first.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 10:44 PM
link   
Conclusion

"The framers of Alaska's Constitution vested the office of the governor with very broad discretion to fire the head of any department, for virtually any reason, without preapproval or review by the legislative branch of government.

Governor Palin has not submitted to an interview with me, or provided any written explanation of the reasons' she fired Commissioner Monegan. There are indications in the record that there was not universal support for Commissioner Monegan among other department heads. Comments in the press linked the governor suggest there was a feeling within the governor's office that he was not a team player, and there is evidence that Governor Palin had lost confidence in Mr. Monegan.

Given the entire record, I find that, although Walk 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."



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by mabus325
 


Wait, first of all... wow. Cite your sources like the rest of us, please. The only source I can find for that is this:

Some weird not reputable site that also did not cite its source

Also, of course it is within her powers to fire someone, but not if there is an ethical dilemma. My boss can fire me, sure. But she can't fire me for not sleeping with her. That's an ethical dilemma. He can't fire me because I won't loan his brother $200.

1

The report found that Palin let the family grudge influence her decision-making, even if it was not the sole reason Monegan was dismissed.



Bill McAllister, Palin's Alaska communications director, released a statement saying the report "vindicated the governor by finding that she acted within her constitutional authority to remove 'at-will' employees." But he questioned the report's abuse of power finding.


Now, also, as I recall, this is a panel of people that Palin can fire. She wouldn't allow the other more probing investigation.


Palin violated the state Ethics Act, Branchflower found.


"[Palin] knowingly ... permitted [husband] Todd Palin to use the governor's office and the resources of the governor's office ... in an effort to find some way to get Trooper Wooten fired."


So, yes, Captain Obvious, it is within her power to have fired him. It was legal in that sense. It was, however, possibly illegal because they believe she violated an ethics act.

When you violate an act it is known as being "illegal".

Basically, it's not over. There are decisions to be made, but your assertion that they found her completely vindicated is completely untrue.

*Edit

Wanted to add, from his/her own quote:


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.


Yes, that is within her authority. Unfortunately, that's absolutely meaningless since the question was of ethics, not of authority.

[edit on 10-10-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by mabus325
reply to post by bknapple32
 


This is what frustrates me with liberals. There is no legal definition of "Abuse of Power" in the Alaskan constitution. This was a political hit job once it was discovered that McCain was interested in Palin.

In fact, Monegan did not contest his firing before the Alaskan Human Rights Committee which he had right to do.



The investigation began well before McCain showed interest in Palin. So, while it may be a bipartisan political hit job by 10 Republicans and 4 Democrats in the panel, it wasn't due to McCains interest in her.

[edit on 10-10-2008 by Kaploink]



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by anachryon


AS 39.52.110. Scope of Code.

(a) 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. In addition, the legislature finds that, so long as it does not interfere with the full and faithful discharge of an officer's public duties and responsibilities, this chapter does not prevent an officer from following other independent pursuits.




That is not an abuse of power however, it is a question in regards to someones OPINION. "Ethics" is not legally bound in the same way which her Statute Defined Authority is. She acted within the law, but to the distaste of those whom she acted against. It is the same reason behind why President Clinton's Opponents could not do anything against him in regards to his in-office affairs. They were Ethical violations, but ones which lacked any definition. However, when he decided to Lie Under Oath, he then broke a Defined and Factual Law, and committed what is known as PERJURY. That is what President Clinton's Opponents took up in regards to his Impeachment Hearings.

Ethics Statues are placed into State and Federal Codes so as to Prevent and Fight against Bribery and Extortion. Unless you have DOCUMENTED PROOF in the form of E-mails, Written Letters, Receipts, Audio, or Video Recordings in Relations to such, these violations remain Speculative at best. They would not even be upheld within a Court of Law.

Governor Palin was Cleared of the one and only Statute which could be proven factually. In other words, this "Report" was Made Public with the pure purpose of spreading Speculative Allegations.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Kaploink
 


Excellent point. Apparently Obama really can see around corners if he was able to push this investigation before she was selected.

Also, to the person you were quoting (mabus), there is no "definition of abuse of power". You see, there's this thing called judicial review. It's got these guys called judges. Judges do something called "interpreting law".

What they do is look at a law, think about what it means, who it should affect, and whether it is relevant to the situation (among other things like age). Then, they make a decision that a statute was violated or not.

This hasn't been taken to court yet, but the commission found her to be in violation. That is a commission, not a court of law. They could take it to a court of law, though.

However, violating ethics to for one's own personal gain would be the definition of "abuse of power".

Unless you interpret it differently.

[edit on 10-10-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by anachryon
 


It IS something like 263 pages BUT..
It's only a little over 2mb.. Reasonable enough for people even with slower internet connections.

-ChriS



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by chiefbluefeather
Lieberman will replace Palin this week

I don't think that the McCain campaign can possibly win with Palin on the ticket, and they are beginning to realize it. I suspect the wheels are already in motion to replace her with the man who John McCain really wanted to run with. Someone who helps him solidify his bull# "crossing the aisle" meme. If I could get ten to one odds on it, I'd lay good money that Joe Lieberman will be named McCain's new VP within the next week.
You read it here first.


I'm not taking that bet even at 10 to 1.

Do you think that this political gambit was strategy and Lieberman was the choice all along and Gov. Palin was played for a Patsy and sacrificed after she played her part and got the "hockey mom" and "joe sixpac" snowed.
I do!

[edit on 10-10-2008 by whaaa]



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 11:39 PM
link   
I am glad to see this and for the record, this was in motion long before her even being considered as VP, I will bet odds 10 to 1 that the campaign with the most people in Alaska with truckloads of fill dirt were definitely in the McCain camp and they were probably there pressing suppression and probably I would not doubt got caught by the Feds intimidating the witnesses and interfering with the investigation....there is no way they can blame this on Obama, this ought to serve as notice to those that think the quiet first dude is as innocent and quiet as he seems, he was the one doing the dirty work, also think of his influence on the office of VP ? were they to win, their relationship as governor and husband are far more unusual than what we would like to see motion in the White House.

I could see it now, Palin saw Putin as she would say, " rearing his head "a little too often making threats, the first dude has to get on the horn and call the Kremlin to tell him to stop or else she is going to slap the three letters MCain saw( KGB )out of his eyes.



[edit on 10-10-2008 by phinubian]



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


What would the campaign gain by having a new VP candidate? If McCain wanted Joe L, he would have selected him. Changing VP candidates at this late date would only hurt. I believe that the McCain camp thinks that a loss is probable and that the Palin ploy failed. Why label another possible candidate as a loser. Let John and Sarah take the fall and regroup for 2012. Whoever is elected will be completely handcuffed by the actions of the Bush administration and the greed of wall street, so I don't expect it would matter much who is in office. If Sarah was a bad girl, she should pay and so should John McCain for selecting her not knowing about a pending ethics investigation.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 12:54 AM
link   
I don't get it. The Republicans are rough and tough enough to run a slanderous campaign, but when a bi-partisan committee finds her to have committed an ethics violation, it's malarkey?

Let's get something clear first... THAT BEGAN ITS INVESTIGATION BEFORE SHE WAS PICKED FOR VP, I REPEAT, BEGAN..THE..INVESTIGATION...B-E-F-O-R-E...

They performed their investigation, Palin and the McCain campaign MADE IT CLEAR they did not want to cooperate (why wouldn't they with nothing to hide?), and she is found to have breached her contract with regards to ethics?

Let's get another thing straight, I am not voting, I refuse to vote (not under this faux democracy ran by big $$$$ and lobbyists, it doesn't matter who wins the same lobbyists will still pay, buy off, do coke, and have sex with the same politicians who are supposed to be representing you).

So, do NOT label me righty lefty inbetweeny anti-American, or any other term you can think to "discredit" my opinions.

It just makes me want to vomit, when something is actually DONE to check up on a claim made against a politician, the results go in line with NORMAL ACTIVITY WE ALL BELIEVE POLITICIANS ENGAGE IN, then it is ignored because of personal bias?

GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!

Edit: (The buy off, do coke, have sex with reference comes from the oil lobbyists/politician fiasco that was hardly in the news a couple of weeks ago..)

[edit on 11-10-2008 by ImaNutter]



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by mabus325
 

The report did not condone the alibi for the firing. That statement only states that she followed the proper procedures and was within her rights as governor. The report states that she abused her power as governor notwithstanding.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaNutter
I don't get it. The Republicans are rough and tough enough to run a slanderous campaign, but when a bi-partisan committee finds her to have committed an ethics violation, it's malarkey?

Let's get something clear first... THAT BEGAN ITS INVESTIGATION BEFORE SHE WAS PICKED FOR VP, I REPEAT, BEGAN..THE..INVESTIGATION...B-E-F-O-R-E...

They performed their investigation, Palin and the McCain campaign MADE IT CLEAR they did not want to cooperate (why wouldn't they with nothing to hide?), and she is found to have breached her contract with regards to ethics?

Let's get another thing straight, I am not voting, I refuse to vote (not under this faux democracy ran by big $$$$ and lobbyists, it doesn't matter who wins the same lobbyists will still pay, buy off, do coke, and have sex with the same politicians who are supposed to be representing you).

So, do NOT label me righty lefty inbetweeny anti-American, or any other term you can think to "discredit" my opinions.

It just makes me want to vomit, when something is actually DONE to check up on a claim made against a politician, the results go in line with NORMAL ACTIVITY WE ALL BELIEVE POLITICIANS ENGAGE IN, then it is ignored because of personal bias?

GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!

Edit: (The buy off, do coke, have sex with reference comes from the oil lobbyists/politician fiasco that was hardly in the news a couple of weeks ago..)

[edit on 11-10-2008 by ImaNutter]


YES you are right.

Who cares, people want to win.

Can't have a socialist, terrorist, fascist, muslim, christian blackarchy running
this nation.

#RY FIRST!

PALIN is innocent as charged, release the butterflies and pass the gauge!



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 01:13 AM
link   
Political? I think nay. It was a bipartisan committee that looked into it. As a registered voter, I need to know if she did or did not abuse her powers before the friggin election.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 02:49 AM
link   
And Obama is friends with a terrorist, a racist black preacher, and further left than Castro. So keep it up, the right is going to get brutal on Obama with ads in the next few weeks. By NOV Obama will look like a terrorist and McCain and CO will steal another election. You should have picked Hillary.IMHO




top topics



 
28
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join