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: 8
28
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Attacking Palin again?
That idiot trooper is not exactly a prime example of a model citizen, so why do Dems appear to be protecting this guy?

If she protects this country the way she protects her family, then we need her in the White House.




posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Theres a thread here on ATS, I'll try to find it. Says Palin would step down weeks before the election and the McCain team would place the original VP pick on the podium. Something about Palin never being the original selection for vp.

Where did I see that?



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Lets see, the report came out on Friday and she is already claiming victory..

Sarah Palin Lives In An Altirnative Universe



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alxandro
Attacking Palin again?
That idiot trooper is not exactly a prime example of a model citizen, so why do Dems appear to be protecting this guy?

If she protects this country the way she protects her family, then we need her in the White House.




Protect you from what exactly? You want a mother that reared 5 kids to protect you and guard the whitehouse?

Are you a child? What kind of protecting you think she will provide?


And again what will she protect you from.





Sheeple nonsense again.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Areal51
 


A biased legislative investigation committee claiming that Palin violated the ethnics act is not the same thing as a criminal conviction. Until she is convicted, she is NOT guilty of a crime.

In addition, if you bothered to do your homework, you would know that they are not even reccommending that she be tried for ethnics violations, and it is obvious why.

Clearly this political hit squad doesn't have the evidence to back up their claims, and any attempt to file charges would turn against them for heavy political back lash.

Only people willing to follow a politician like Obama are willing to believe that it is criminal for a governor to fire her top cop for failing to fire a state trooper who tasered a child. The idea that a governor should be prosecuted for firing someone who did not do their duty and fire such a cop is ludicrous. This is exactly what it boils down to. Try to muddle this all you want, these politicians who claim it is criminal to fire someone who committed such an act are way out of line.

How long have you Obama supporters been in favor of cops tasering children?



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Yet another ignorant response rife with stupidity.


I never questioned a criminal investigation. I referenced a law that had been broken, of which the Alaskan Legislative Council has the authority to determine.

8 Republicans and 4 Democrats sit on the Alaskan Legislative Council. And a vote of 12-0 in favor of an investigation was tallied by those who sit on that council.

Your bias claims are baseless and imaginary.

The rest of your post is meaningless, to me.



[edit on 14-10-2008 by Areal51]



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Areal51
 


Alaskan Legislative Council does not have the authority to convict someone. You are the one being ignorant. This committe can only reccommend that charges be brought, and they don't even do that. They just make a blatant statement that they think she violated the law without a recommendation that charges be filed. In other words, they don't have the evidence, or the savy to try and back up these weak claims.

WHAT? You don't believe in a trial by one's peers? The results of that hit squad committee don't mean squat until they are backed by a conviction, until then, claims that Palin broke a law are nothing but conjecture.

Attempting to convict Palin on these trumped up charges would be a farce. They aren't going to bring it on, because they know how badly they would lose.

It seems that the DNC now supports tasering children. Way to go.

[edit on 14-10-2008 by poet1b]



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


You don't get it. It's not about conviction. It's about determining if laws were broken. Everything else you say is meaningless to those points.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Investigators and police are invested with authority to determine if laws are broken. However, they do not have authority to convict.

Get it straight. Take some time out from hanging upside down.

[edit on 14-10-2008 by Areal51]



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Areal51
 


Yeah, and until they are convicted, it is not considered that they have committed a crime. Can you grasp this critical point?



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 05:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Areal51
 


How about answering an honest question?

What is wrong with trying to get a trooper who tasered a child fired?

Here is a second.

Exactly what it wrong with trying to get said trooper fired?

Seems to me the only thing wrong about this situation is that this trooper was not fired.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


So what?

Who else has referred to Palin as possibly being a criminal other than yourself?



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


You're not asking the right question. It took two years for Molly McCann to report the taser incident. Why did it take two years to be reported?

Maybe Mrs. McCann feared for the safety or herself and her children? The details might suggest that, and it's a reasonable assumption given what we know about Wooten, but the details also suggest that the incident was not the horrific scenario that many might imagine, and that at the time Mrs. McCann didn't think it was a big deal. Again, she did wait two years before reporting the incident. Her divorce wasn't filed until two years after the taser incident occurred.


Wooten was also found to have violated department policy in using a Taser on his then 11-year old stepson in 2003. He told investigators that he did so "in a training capacity" after the child had asked to be tased. In a September 2008 newspaper interview, Wooten said that he set the Taser to "test" mode, meaning that it was on low power.[31][32] In a statement to police, the boy said "he wanted to be tased to show that he's not a mommy's boy in front of Bristol [his cousin, Palin's daughter]. Following being tased he went upstairs to tell his mother that he was fine."[18] In a statement to police, Molly McCann said "she was up stairs giving a bath to the kids … Mike was going to show Payton what it feels like and she told Mike that he better not."[18] According to Molly's account, she remained upstairs during the incident.

Although the Taser incident happened in 2003, it was not reported to police until on or after April 11, 2005, the day McCann filed for divorce. On June 6, 2005, a police investigator asked Bristol why they "waited so long and brought the incident up after two years." Bristol said "because of the divorce."
en.wikipedia.org...

Either the trooper does something deserving of getting fired or the trooper doesn't. Apparently it's difficult for troopers to get fired. But the whole approach of "getting a trooper fired" is wrong from the outset. It suggests collusion.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Areal51
 


It also suggests that the woman was afraid of the man that she was married to, and only after the divorce was she willing to speak out. Ever hear of battered wife syndrome? Obviously her brother was very concerned about the situation.

Why did the twelve year old feel like he had to be tasered to prove that he was a man?

If it was your kid, would you have tasered him so the boy could show he was a man?

Did you ever think that Palin's husband had legitimate reasons for seeking to get this trooper fired?



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


I am agreeing with Areal51 on this one.

I read back through the thread, and it would appear you are the one that brought up half the stuff you are arguing about. NOT him.

But, since I can't resist, the question isn't if its wrong for her to try and terminate a trooper who tazered a kid. if thats the story you're going with, I'd have to ask one other question: Is it wrong for her to lie about it afterwards.

If she was REALLY trying to fire the top cop for not following through on disciplinary action that was needed... she should have just said so, and no other questions would be asked.

instead, she says she terminated him because of a trip to Washington DC... that her office authorized?

Sounds like the Top Cop was the victim of political B.S. to me...

She has a history of being vindictive, and pushing her authority around to accomplish personal goals. Hell, look at the city of Wasilla's involvement in "loosening" building/property codes so she could sell her house...



new topics




 
28
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join