Interesting read in one of McCain's VP's home town papers regarding her attempt to stonewall an investigation by the Alaskan State Legislature (run by Republicans) of an improper firing of a State Trooper who happened to be the Gov's brother in law.
http://www.adn.com/opinion/story/516641.html
Apparently after promising full cooperation, she is now trying to force the closing of this investigation in favor of one by the State Personnel Board. This would, of course, kick the can down the road long enough for the November election to be history. As it is now, the legislative investigator in charge, a former prosecutor, is obliged to issue a report on October 31st, days before the election. But we can't have the people getting the truth - that's so un-Republican!
Guess the Republican legislature has had a change of heart now that Palin is a VP candidate; they've now cut the time for the investion to be completed to October 10 because the Governor has promised to cooperate even though she isn't doing so. http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gc_7tHp8gxlx1Ob87HX9hFjPbfLQ
Well 13 subpoenas were issued, including one to Todd Palin, the Guv's husband. Plus the independent counsel leading the investigations wants to talk to the VP candidate. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26677221/ And soon as the October 10th deadline is still in place. Will she dodge? Stay tuned.
The trouble between Wooten and the governor's sister broke into the open after an alleged incident in February 2005. Palin told an internal affairs investigator that she overheard on a speakerphone Wooten arguing with her sister and threatening to kill their father. Fearful for her family members' lives, Palin said she drove to her sister's house and watched the argument through a window.
"Wooten's words were, 'I will kill him. He'll eat a [expletive] lead bullet, I'll shoot him,' if our father got the attorney to help Molly," Palin said in an e-mail she wrote in August 2005 to the chief of the state police. "I heard this death threat, my 16-year-old son heard it (Track Palin), Molly heard it, as did their small children. Wooten spoke with his Trooper gun on his hip in an extremely intimidating fashion, leaving no doubt he is serious about taking someone's life who disagrees with him."
On Aug. 10, 2005, Palin sent an angry, three-page e-mail to Col. Julia Grimes, head of the state police. "My concern is that the public's faith in the Troopers will continue to diminish as more residents express concerns regarding the apparent lack of action towards a Trooper whom is described by many as 'a ticking time bomb' and a 'loose cannon.' "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/30/AR2008083002366.html
He also tased the kid, but 'only a little bit' (his words) and drove his squad while drunk.
Originally posted by MerkIf this tale was actually true, and there were several witnesses, then there is legal recourse that they could have turned to. Instead she chose to use her position to push her agenda. I don't think anyone is defending the trooper, but rather they are talking about the abuse of power.
The trouble between Wooten and the governor's sister broke into the open after an alleged incident in February 2005. Palin told an internal affairs investigator that she overheard on a speakerphone Wooten arguing with her sister and threatening to kill their father. Fearful for her family members' lives, Palin said she drove to her sister's house and watched th ...[text shortened]... kid, but 'only a little bit' (his words) and drove his squad while drunk.
Originally posted by CliffLandinA politician and an abuse of power is mostly a non-story anymore.
If this tale was actually true, and there were several witnesses, then there is legal recourse that they could have turned to. Instead she chose to use her position to push her agenda. I don't think anyone is defending the trooper, but rather they are talking about the abuse of power.
Clintons debacle will llead to this story not getting any traction. Clinton proves that - at the Executive level anyway - the incident is more important that what the politician did after the fact.
Originally posted by MerkDo you really want to get into the Presidential Abuse of power debate? Your boy W and his master, Cheney, have re-written every rule, however, they are not under investigation for it. Sarah Palin is. So it must be some kind of story. And don't blame it on the left, this began long before she was even mentioned as a VP candidate.
A politician and an abuse of power is mostly a non-story anymore.
Clintons debacle will llead to this story not getting any traction. Clinton proves that - at the Executive level anyway - the incident is more important that what the politician did after the fact.
Originally posted by MerkClinton has sex in the oval office. W makes Nixon look like a boyscout. Fabricates a war in Iraq. Signing statements take on a new meaning. CIA agent illegally named Valeri Plame as political retribution for Joseph Wilson. Gonzales instating the GOP into the DOJ. Legalized torture. US citizens held with very questionable "due process" because they have been called "enemy combatants." et cetera, et cetera. Hmmmm.
A politician and an abuse of power is mostly a non-story anymore.
Clintons debacle will llead to this story not getting any traction. Clinton proves that - at the Executive level anyway - the incident is more important that what the politician did after the fact.
This is probably why you're going to lose this election. You can't keep you're eye on the ball. I say the abuse of power argument won't get any traction because the Clinton case showed that the voters care more about the incident than what the politician did after the fact and you two go babbling on about W is/was some horrible abuser of power.
W and Nixon haven't a thing to do with this. The voters know irrational behavior when they see it. You two might want to stay out of the public eye so you don't torpedo Zeros campaign.
Originally posted by MerkYou should go back and re-read my post.
This is probably why you're going to lose this election. You can't keep you're eye on the ball. I say the abuse of power argument won't get any traction because the Clinton case showed that the voters care more about the incident than what the politician did after the fact and you two go babbling on about W is/was some horrible abuser of power.
W and Nixon h ...[text shortened]... it. You two might want to stay out of the public eye so you don't torpedo Zeros campaign.
Originally posted by CliffLandinI did read it. Perhaps you missed the part where you asked me if I wanted to get in an abuse of power debate, then went on about W and Cheney. Neither of which are running in this election.
You should go back and re-read my post.
Perhaps you missed the part where it doesn't matter much at the Executive level. (I figured you would know I was talking about the federal level when I said that "Clinton" shows us)
You yourself seem to understand that this started before she began running for VP. Most likely because the Democrats and the some Republicans in Alaska don't much like her for breaking their chokehold on political power. The people of Alska like her though, she has strong approval numbers. This case will go nowhere.
Originally posted by MerkThe case has already went to an independent counsel appointed by a Repulican dominated legislature. In Bizarro Merk World that's "nowhere".
I did read it. Perhaps you missed the part where you asked me if I wanted to get in an abuse of power debate, then went on about W and Cheney. Neither of which are running in this election.
Perhaps you missed the part where it doesn't matter much at the Executive level. (I figured you would know I was talking about the federal level when I said that "Clinton ...[text shortened]... people of Alska like her though, she has strong approval numbers. This case will go nowhere.
Originally posted by MerkYou brought up Clinton as an example. I brought up other past presidents.
This is probably why you're going to lose this election. You can't keep you're eye on the ball. I say the abuse of power argument won't get any traction because the Clinton case showed that the voters care more about the incident than what the politician did after the fact and you two go babbling on about W is/was some horrible abuser of power.
W and Nixon h ...[text shortened]... it. You two might want to stay out of the public eye so you don't torpedo Zeros campaign.
If W's abuse of power doesn't bother you, then I feel sorry for you that you don't respect our constitution more.
Originally posted by no1marauderThat's exactly correct. This story is going to stay on the lefty blogosphere. The downstream media will make a passing mention if it here and there, but that's about it.
The case has already went to an independent counsel appointed by a Repulican dominated legislature. In Bizarro Merk World that's "nowhere".
Originally posted by MrHandI've not said a single word about whether anyones abuse of power bothers me. All I said is that it's going nowhere.
You brought up Clinton as an example. I brought up other past presidents.
If W's abuse of power doesn't bother you, then I feel sorry for you that you don't respect our constitution more.
And for good reason. Bambi has fallen behind with women. If the press goes after her for getting a trooper fired that tased his own kid and threated to kill his father-in-law, it's going to hurt Obama, not help him.