’)Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the GOP vice presidential candidate, has hired a private practice attorney to defend her and members of her staff in the investigation into the firing of her public safety commissioner.
Heck of a vet, McCain.
ALSO: Was Palin a member of a group advocating Alaskan secession from the U.S.?
Oliver do you support state troopers making threats against the family of the Governor, tasering their step-children and drinking and driving in their patrol vehicles?
yes or no?
“maverick governor!”-all the McCainstream media anchors on friday
Duh, do you support the rule of law? Yes or no? If yes, then the character of that trooper has nothing to do with the question of whether Gov. Palin violated the law; if no, then you truly are a Republican.
I support no more than I support governors disrespecting the rules of law. We don’t have vigilantism for a reason, no matter how good it may feel.
Duh… obviously your mother never taught you that two wrongs do not make a right.
So far, Palin has cooperated fully with the investigation, to the point of the investigators making a point to say that they had not had to issue a single subpoena.
Now she wants a lawyer to advise her? That’s her Constitutional right, and almost always a good idea.
She could have followed the example of Ted Kennedy at Chappaquiddick, where the very first person he told that he’d drove his car off a bridge was his lawyer, and notified the police that there might be a person in the car somewhat… um… oh, yeah, he never did; it was found the next morning by someone who DID call the cops.
Hey, here’s a thought: Palin just might have a hell of a lot more to deal with than an investigation that she’s already cooperated fully with, so she’s hired someone to represent her interests and keep her aware of what’s going on while she deals with running for vice president AND her daughter’s unplanned pregnancy suddenly becoming national news? Maybe she re-assessed her priorities, decided that the investigation wasn’t at the top of her list of things to watch like a hawk (possibly because it’s largely turning out to be bullshit pushed by the same corrupt Republicans she’s spent the last few years beating like a drum), so she decided to slough the day-to-day crap off on a lawyer?
Nah. Too common-sensical. Can’t be that. We haven’t found a way to tie in Karl Rove yet.
J.
Wow, really, Chappaquiddick again? Is there a macro on the keyboard for you guys whenever a GOPer is in trouble you go back to the Jurassic era to bring up Chappaquiddick?
It isn’t Ted Kennedy’s fault that John McCain picked an ethically compromised person like Palin, unvetted, as his running mate. Don’t lash out at Teddy K. Next, you’ll be telling me this the fault of the Clenis.
I wondered, when I put in the Ted Kennedy reference, whether or not you’d use that as an excuse to not address anything else I said. For some reason, I didn’t think so.
My bad.
J.
Well, Jay, I address things with the contempt they deserve. Palin is under investigation. Maybe she’s totally innocent, but usually when people are choosing veep candidates they pick ones who aren’t currently under active investigation. What this has to do with Ted Kennedy, I don’t know, but that’s what your retort chose to lead with.
So far we have no evidence of any wrongdoing. What we do have is a bad state trooper, and an ineffective government employee who was removed from his job, by the governor as was her right. Oliver won’t answer the simple question because he knows if he does he will be trapped. As any right thinking person can see, that trooper should have been fired. As such, even if the governor initiated that conversation, it was the right thing to do. Further, it is absolutely correct to fire someone who isn’t doing their job, as in the the public safety commissioner who is responsible for those troopers.
There is NO evidence of any ethical or legal violation. This is just more of Oliver’s poo flinging. It hasn’t been sticking, but it sure is making Olliver’s hand stink…..
Jay Tea: “I wondered, when I put in the Ted Kennedy reference, whether or not you’d use that as an excuse to not address anything else I said. For some reason, I didn’t think so.”
Friend of mine had a site that, among other parts, had a section with logical fallacies. One of them was, ‘Don’t take advice from a known idiot.’
When you bring up Chappaquiddick, you become a known idiot.
If you want to be treated serious, don’t act like a fucking retard.
Or is that concept too difficult for you?
Sure it’s ethical to fire someone who isn’t doing their job. That isn’t what Palin did. She tried to use her political muscle, and then lied about it after. If Palin hadn’t lied about it there would be no investigation. And yet, she did.
“Sure it’s ethical to fire someone who isn’t doing their job. That isn’t what Palin did.”
And it is not the first time she did it…
huffingtonpost.com/eric-schmeltzer/palin-almost-recalled-as_b_122769.html
This is becoming worse choice than Harriet Miers was, and we are less than a week into the discovery process.
So after 3 days we have found out that
1. Her underage daughter is pregnant (and may have been the mother of Trigonometry as well).
2. She flew 12 hours while in labor, putting her unborn child at risk not to mention everyone else on the plane with her.
3. She is being investigated for firing someone who wouldn’t fire her brother-in-law, who is involved in a messy divorce.
4. She lied about her non-support of the “Bridge to Nowhere”
5. She abused power as mayor of Wasilla.
6. She ran a tiny town into 20 million in debt.
7. She giggled as a fellow Alaska politician was called names like “a cancer” on a shock radio show.
She’s a keeper. It’s hilarious how the trolls defend her. At some point she’s got to step aside “to spend more time with her family” wouldn’t you think?
Duh, you really picked a good name for yourself. It’s the only true thing you’ve ever said.
“I wondered, when I put in the Ted Kennedy reference, whether or not you’d use that as an excuse…”
Like it’s anything other than a reflex. Like they have to sit there, while composing their posts, and saying, “Does this merit me playing the Chappaquidick card? Or should I save up?”
These guys are as predictable as ants at a picnic.
Further, it is absolutely correct to fire someone who isn’t doing their job, as in the the public safety commissioner who is responsible for those troopers.
No argument, but of course there are PROCEDURES for firing public servants, just so politicians can’t exact any kind of revenge on them.
I have no idea who is right or wrong in the divorce or custody case, but I am under the impression that it was handled in the normal manner and the normal punishment was meted out. This punishment included loss of pay, but did not include dismissal.
Indications are that the “normal” punishment was not sufficient for the governor’s ex-brother in law in the governor’s eyes, but of course the procedures that he had faced did not include any contribution by the governor. The governor does not have a “normal” role in day-to-day discipline matters.
Any instance in which the governor weighs in on the side of a relative in a civil case and uses the power of the state to modify the outcome is not likely to be ethical, but of course we should wait until we hear the evidence from both sides. The governor will be required to give a depostion soon, sworn, under oath, penalty of perjury and all that.
Through a wonderful quirk of the schedule, that testimony should be available about a week before the election. I’m sure you agree that is excellent news for John McCain, as it will lay the matter to rest and people will have forgotten about it before they vote.
The problem is, there is no evidence of a lie. There is no evidence that the governor sided with a relative, but rather that the guy was demonstrably bad at his job, and any reasonable person would fire him.
These lefties are basically saying “yea, we think he should have been fired, but she did it unethically…” without of course proving that in any way shape or form.
From my right wing perspective, this all appears to be shallow attempts to get some sort of traction against this woman. The enlightened liberal sock-puppets list is a great example, throwing out little useless and or unproven tidbits in a crass attempt to make some sort of a list that appears to demonstrate something…..
How about proving anything?
“throwing out little useless and or unproven tidbits in a crass attempt to make some sort of a list that appears to demonstrate something…..”
Wasn’t duh/Dr.P the one trying to push the shady associations with that guy that served with Obama on the Annenberg board? This troll even makes the jays almost look lucid.
How about proving anything?
Isn’t the deposition the governor is about to give part of an investigation to compare her statements with the other records? Wouldn’t the outcome of that investigation be “proof” of something?
Well then, there you have it, it’s being done “by the book.”
It is my understanding that she has given statements that are contradicted by other evidence, including taped phone calls.
I’m sure you agree that it is important to get her on the record, sworn, with penalty of perjury, to make sure she is telling the truth in this matter, and to clear up the obvious inconsistency created by the recording of the phone call.
yes I agree repack, totally. However none of your fellow leftists agree, and throw out “culture of corruption” etc, etc ad infinitum, without a lick of real evidence.
And no, sock puppet liberal, I wasn’t. It was your esteemed host who felt it was reasonable to attempt to tar someone because they were on a committee with someone under investigation. My feeling is, Palin’s involvement with Ted is a hell of a lot more reasonable than The Obama with Ayer’s. I mean, Ted never tried to kill a police or army officer.
What’s good for the goose and all that….
“It was your esteemed host who felt it was reasonable to attempt to tar someone because they were on a committee with someone under investigation.”
Now that’s a lie. Their connection was greater than that.
I doubt you could tell me Obama’s exact connection to Ayer without looking it up on the internet.
Yup, you are correct. If I hadn’t looked it all up myself, I wouldn’t have known anything.
Whats your point?
That Ayer was more than a “neighbor down the street” of The Obama? That together they squandered millions of dollars for educational programs that didn’t work? That the very foundation that The Obama was the director of, neglected to even thank him in the preamble of their report on their progress?
Well, if those are your points, then you are correct. And I had to look them all up on the internet.
Her underage daughter is pregnant (and may have been the mother of Trigonometry as well).
Wait, she actually named her child that? Forget everything else. If she can’t decide on sane baby names, she can’t be trusted the office of the VP.
So, if you hire a lawyer, you must be guilty?
Somebody clarify , please !?!?
So, if you hire a lawyer, you must be guilty?
Not in the eyes of the law. That may not be the only standard in effect though.
Somebody clarify , please !?!?
The average GOP voter probably DOES believe that hiring a lawyer is tantamount to a guilty plea. But that’s just them, not me, and that would be a problem for the GOP, not for the Democrats.
I think that it should be stressed non-stop for the next couple of weeks that even though Palin has retained an attorney to represent her in the investigation of her governor’s office, and even though she must give a sworn deposition soon, just the fact that she is represented by an attorney should not be considered evidence that she is guilty of anything. Everyone has a right to an attorney, and Sarah Palin is presumed innocent of the myriad charges being investigated, until proven guilty, guilty, GUILTY AS SIN, beyond a reasonable doubt, in a court of law.
Just to show what a good guy I am, I’ll even help get the message out. We could print up posters and everything.
Palin is the gift that keeps on giving.
I giver her two more weeks.
“So, if you hire a lawyer, you must be guilty?”
When your lawyer tries to delay the final report till after the election, then yes, you are likely guilty. This is not the actions of an innocent person.