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.

 

Palin cleared in Troopergate

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Article

Alaska's Personnel Board finds that Gov. Sarah Palin did not violate ethics law.

Go to the link "article" to read the entire report.



1. There is no probable cause to believe that Governor Palin violated the Alaska Executive Ethics Act by making the decision to dismiss Department of Public Safety Commissioner Monegan and offering him instead the position of Director of the Alaska Beverage Control Board. 2. There is no probably cause to believe that Governor Palin violated the Alaska Executive Ethics Act in any other respect in connection with the employment of Alaska State Trooper Michael Wooten.


[edit on 11/3/08 by mabus325]




posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Yeah I just received the New York Times Alert about this. Amazing is it not? It should have been released a long time ago, BUT, it does go to show how the Legislative Finding is exactly as I stated. The Legislators simply attempted a coupe against Governor Palin, but admittedly stated that they had found no Prosecutable Violations with what she did.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by mabus325

Article





1. There is no probably cause to believe that Governor Palin violated the Alaska Executive Ethics Act in any other respect in connection with the employment of Alaska State Trooper Michael Wooten.


Who wrote this? "Probably cause?" I just cannot take that seriously...



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Another fabricated situation found to be just that. An attempt to influence voters. I'm gonna call it a goat's head.


At least nobody had to die to get the desired effect.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 07:33 PM
link   
It was pretty obvious to most of us that this entire thing was politically motivated. The people carrying out the investigation practically came right out and said it!



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 07:45 PM
link   
No surprise. It has always been obvious that it was politically motivated. Yet another anti-Palin smear bites the dust.

Wonderful timing, though. We hear about it one day before the election, when there's no time to undo the damage done by these false allegations.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by SectionEight
 


...



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 09:40 PM
link   

After Palin was selected as Sen. John McCain's running mate, her attorneys attempted to take the investigation out of the hands of the legislative investigator by asking her hand-picked, three-person State Personnel Board to look into the matter.

Article

You mean a investigation by a handpicked board cleared her and released their findings the night before the election. The same board consisting of individuals that could be fired by Palin. Which means it's highly unlikely they were unbiased or even independent. I would thing any rational person would question the boards findings.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Didn't they originally say that she was guilty like a few weeks ago? Wonder if they are gonna reverse this decision if her and Mccain lose the election.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 04:16 AM
link   
I have the perfect song for you old timers on here:

"It's a little to little, it's a little to late" by Pat Benatar.

way better than "barracuda" by Heart...why by the way, incase you didn't hear, we're very upset that a conservative republican would use their song without permission *(yes that's right, Heart membors asked that it not be used)...particularly one that was written against people in power control positions....so much irony here.... Also...and perhaps...oh my godness, is that Russia on the horizon? OMG, that's Putin's head rearing up, also...




[edit on 4-11-2008 by skyshow]



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 04:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Kaploink
 





I would think any rational person would question the boards findings.


Who are these "rational people" you speak of? It's election time, we left rational thought behind a looooong time ago.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Finn1916
Didn't they originally say that she was guilty like a few weeks ago? Wonder if they are gonna reverse this decision if her and Mccain lose the election.


No, they said they were going to use this investigation as an "October Surprise", which they did. Now that they've gotten the usefulness out of it, they are telling the truth. The whole thing was a nothing more than a way to drive down Mccain's numbers.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 09:20 AM
link   
She fired a guy who wouldn't fire her ex bro in law. They claim it was because he did bad things. But when he was married to her sister it didn't matter. if they had tried to fire him before the divorce there would have been no problem. But she thought his drunk driving and running over school kids with his trooper car was a great thing, until the divorce. Why it was an abuse of power. Also, the board? MAJORITY REPUBLICAN! So unless you want to claim the GOP was out to get her...



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 09:26 AM
link   
There were 2 investigations.

One was of a bipartisan board, which found her guilty on (I believe) October 10.

The other was a governor-assigned board, that found her innocent.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Oh so the board with republicans finds her guilty, the ones with her friends on it doesn't. Don't you think OJ Simpson, Manson, Bundy, would have loved that? Put your friends(Bundy), fans(OJ), followers(Manson) on the jury then be shocked that you're found innocent.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by GamerGal
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Oh so the board with republicans finds her guilty, the ones with her friends on it doesn't. Don't you think OJ Simpson, Manson, Bundy, would have loved that? Put your friends(Bundy), fans(OJ), followers(Manson) on the jury then be shocked that you're found innocent.


Where's your proof that the government-assigned board was all Republican? Ah, that's right, you don't have any. You're making up things as you go along - again.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by sos37
Where's your proof that the government-assigned board was all Republican?


She didn't say it was "ALL" Republican. She said "the board with republicans".

Now, what's your problem, again?



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by sos37
Where's your proof that the government-assigned board was all Republican?


She didn't say it was "ALL" Republican. She said "the board with republicans".

Now, what's your problem, again?


Actually in her first post she said "majority of Republicans". Still - no proof to back up that piece of fiction. My problem is that Gamergal frequently makes up her own facts when she replies to threads and rarely ever posts links to back them up, yet the mods don't seem to care about enforcing their "Call to action - ending the madness" when it comes to her.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


What? Are you serious? THE BOARD CONTROLLED BY REPUBLICANS FOUND HER GUILTY! The Board that she made with people who were her friends or could be fired if they didn't find her innocent found her innocent. Pay attention, or are you broke like many Americans and can't afford to Pay attention?



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Oh, nice. The guy was a drunk driver!? That's slick. Good to know the good ole boy system is so strong in up there. I like Alaska, personally, but uhm...from the water


Well, maybe the FBI should be called in to straighten them out a little?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join