Troopergate probe appears to be unraveling

Bub

You sound like you have read the final report. Where do you get the evidence for your conclusions?

Oh, assumptions, you say. Like I might assume that you beat your wife because you are so irresponsible on here that surely you must beat her too.

Get a life.

Rational Poster

Where do you get the evidence for your conclusions? I guess we should assume she is innocent. My son works for the Alaska ANG and believe me in Alaska without the cameras people think she is guilty. Abuse of power runs rampid all over her administration.

You get a life or Palin can talk to God again and get you one.

dal

Your assuming innocence until proven guilty would mirror a fundamental principle that is common in our society.

As for being guilty of abusing her power and pressuring the supervisor to fire the bad-actor trooper, let's assume she is guilty of that.

The trooper is documented (heck, he admitted some of it on camera for that matter) to having abused her sister, drank on the job, threatened her father and tasered his 11 year old stepson. I think the electorate will give her a pass on that.

Oh yeah, abusing your power as governor to run somebody out of a job is totally legitimate. I can't wait til she's our VP and can start doing that in the white house. I love it when high ranking officials get drunk with power and do whatever the hell they want, it's what makes America so great.

But you know, you're right that we shouldn't convict her before the investigation is over. However, since she thinks she's above the law and can ignore subpoenas, I think the general public "gets a pass" on saying she's a no good liar, just like W and his cronies.

I was accused in another posting of "having a liberal agenda" and there for hated republicans. My only agenda is wanting an accountable, responsible government, who in the Bush administration has been held accountable for anything? The cover up of this seemingly minor event is phenomenal and puts a new light on McPalin and their brand of democracy. Apparently "the rule of law" has no real meaning for McPalin - it's simply something to circumvent any time something upsets them personally or conflicts with their "family values". They have an agenda, and silly Sarah is going to make life difficult for anyone who descents or disagrees with her on any issue, she will (and has) imposed her personal beliefs in who she appoints and the policies she dictates. Personally I'm sick to death of her evangelical beliefs, their "born again" hype and their "family values" crap. They talk down to the rest of us like we have no values; I beg to differ. It is possible to raise a good family, get a great education and build contributing members of the society without riding a dinosaur. But, they (evangelicals) do subscribe to catchy phrases - "hold me accountable" - which sound wholesome and hard to argue with until you question their motives, then you'll have your hat handed to you and be asked to leave, by the back door - if you please. This is Sarah's world folks, believe the way she does or get off the bus....!

Where since becoming the VP nominee has Sarah Palin had anything to say about anything in your sentence that reads ---

--- Personally I'm sick to death of her evangelical beliefs, their "born again" hype and their "family values" crap. They talk down to the rest of us like we have no values; --

It sounds like you've been wronged by someone and it wasn't Sarah Palin.

Shall we discuss?

Well if as she said before she has nothing to hide why not let everyone testify. This bull of crying fouls when the people investigating her are mainly Republicans added to the MO she has that points to the same type of actions throughout her career makes the whole thing more than suspicious. The trolls will defend her but thats what they do for a living

The lame excuse that the guy was a bad person is stupid. He was investigated by his superiors and given a slap on the wrist and the union appealed the sentence and it was cut in half. The trolls excuses are lame. This is not about what he did it is about her using her office to get a person fired. The judge in the divorce case told her family to lay off of this type of action.

Rational Poster:

If she was not trying to avoid the investigation after previously asking them to hold her accountable we would know whether she was guilty or not. Most innocent people would want to wrap up the investigation not postpone it!!!

As far as her brother-in-law, he was not the one fired. The man she fired was the brother-in-laws boss. If she fired him because he refused to fire the brother-in-law that is abuse of power. We have had enough of that for the past 7 1/2 years.

Rational Poster

Hey I did not say the trooper was not an A1 idiot. No doubt the guy is a loser but that is for the government to decide not Sarah Palin. I have worked the government for years and the trooper behavior happens and it is sad but when an administrator makes it personal and fires the guy two wrongs do not make a right and now that administrator is wrong too. So yes Palin screwed up and now has to pay.

Dal, what a story! Too bad there are no reporters up there to get them on tape. Or maybe they did but don't want to show that footage because the media is all conservative. Your son was interviewed and said his piece, right?

Longdump, if someone tasered you, just playing around, is that okay? How about a cop pulls you over, walks up to your window, and tasered you? Or maybe tasered your kid while playing in park. He was only kidding. You wouldn't sue, would you. Its all good. You were never in danger. Besides, hes a cop, he knew what he was doing couldn't hurt you (sarcasm).
The cop got a slap on the wrist because his boss is a corrupt good old boy with contempt of his boss, or at least his boss Palin. Ignores his bosses directives. He himself said she never told him to fire Wooten.

LOG

You are a wise old sage. You know this so-alled troopergate thing has become totally political with the DEMs trying everything to leverage it against the GOP. It is no longer a question of did Palin pressure the sup to terminate the bad actor.

The GOP for self-preservation is going to do everything to push back.

The Repubs say it is not fair even though their own party says it is. Hypocrisy.

The laws are on the books and are only used for the Republicans against their enemies.

Dictators and their puppets rule countries exactly as this situation has developed. It's like having a democratic election with one party running for office. There are no checks and balances.....only greed and power.

Rome fell as did every other democratic society in the past. Democratic stability is a fantasy since control goes to the party in the majority or controls the votes. We shouldn't be surprised. Mr. Bush and his corrupt tenure has damaged our Republic forever.

Tired boy, The repugs on the committee have NOT said it is not fair. The committee has not met since dem French tainted the investigation. Now it appears the dems are worried about fallout of a tainted investigation and the dem Elton will probably recall the committee.

Alex, exactly.

If either of us said no to a subpeona, we would for sure be behind bars.

Oh, but you need the extra-special "Get Out of Subpoena Free" card; otherwise you go directly to jail.

Or is it possible you have subpoena envy?

"Subpoena envy"...omg...I love it...can I steal that?

I stole it from Abbie Hoffman. Or Jerry Rubin, can't remember, but now you know how very old I am.
ps - if you love it - vote for it! (I'm a comment whore - I admit it)

pixie

Here is some "greater good" for you that is FACT not innuendo. You don't have the facts yet on who said or did what in Alaska ---- yet you have Palin guilty. What kind of personal integrity is that on your part?

Consider these facts ---

Do you know that Joe Biden while in the TOP 3% of income earners in the U.S. 2005 - 2007 could not to find it in his heart to give as much as $1,000 in any year to charity for those less fortunate.

I was taught that to those that much was given, much was required.

I looked at the Obama's tax returns and same thing. In the years, 2000 - 2004, they made $202,000 - $272,000 and only chose to give about 1% to those less fortunate.

I guess their personal decisions don't match their public decisions. INTEGRITY?????????

FACT---THEY GAVE!
I'm sure the people who were helped with their "1%" donation were EXTREMELY GRATEFUL!

In addition, people donate their time...that's not recorded on a tax return. Oh, and for your information, everyone claims a deductions for charitable contributions.

Thank you

DC

More concerned about the people that did not get helped by the 5 - 10% that Obama and Biden kept for themselves that a lot of folks would think was normal and reasonable to give.

Do you understand that Biden gave JUST $350 in 2005 and 2006 and $995 in 2007?

Most concerned that their words in public do NOT match their actions in private. That is a character issue.

Rational Poster, you should consider a name change. The issue of giving to charity is a red herring. What counts is what our elected people do with the power we entrust to them. John McCain has voted against every bill to improve veterans benefits since 9/11, yet he will continue to ask them to risk life and limb for us. Sarah Palin cut funding to help children with special needs. Those are what matters.

Roger

The character of our leaders is fundamental. How many times do we get to confirm what they REALLY believe?

I think the information is revealing. They want to give and help so long as it is with our money. They are very selfish with their own.

Do you see a conflict with that? That is a character issue.

Yes, you bring up how much Obama and Biden have donated, now how about your candidates and their percentages? Oh wait, you cant give that info out for Palin because we have no idea. Her records arent out there for us to see. Why is that? There seems to be so much more about her that none of us know, Democrat or Republican, so how can u be so sure she is ready for the VP or even Pres position.

Rational Poster, I'd really appreciate it if you could give me figures on how much John McCain and Sarah Palin, and Dick Cheney, and George Bush have donated from their ungodly large pocketbooks. Do you happen to have those numbers?

Oh, and by the way, thanks for redirecting this thread from lying and corruption to charity donations. You pulled it off just like a seasoned republican.

I want to be on the record that the Palin giving % will dwarf either DEM nominee when it comes out.

Chewy

Here is how I made the thread leap. This is an integrity issue - big time.

The DEM nominees speak a lot about caring and the less fortunate. Do they walk their talk? I looked at the tax returns and it appears NOT.

REPs are stereotyped as being greedy and selfish yet the upper middle class GOP acquaintances that I know well enough to know something about their giving patterns would be in the 6 - 12% range. They believe those that have been given much have a responsibility to give generously to the less fortunate. Apparently Biden and Obama don't share that view.

As for McCain, the returns are posted. Do your own research. I did not include him because McCain gave a lot. He has given all of his book royalties since 1998 totalling $1.8 million. In 1991, the senate gave themselves a salary increase that McCain opposed and since then, he has donated all the increase totally $450,000.

Palin's returns are not posted yet. I want to be on the record as predicting her % giving will dwarf either Obama or Biden. Bush's giving would be large.

McCain can afford to donate that much, he's married to a sugar momma!

I would be interested in the facts, not a guess at how much Palin or Bush ever donated.

I find it most interesting that on her salary, and given her husband being a blue collar worker that they could ever afford that house that they live in! Most hockey mom's, with 5 kids don't have houses that look like that.

Bush could never donate enough money to make up for the damage he has done to this country by lying about the reasons to go to war with Iraq.

Cindy McCain is a wealthy woman. Good for her. That is why I did not include McCain's giving in my discussion. After some number, it becomes irrelevant.

OK. Since you asked twice, I looked it up just like you could have.

In 2007, Bush had income of $720k and gave $165k to charity.

Rational Poster.

Palin is the one , who based her candidacy on transparency. She sure showed the kind of governance she has in Alaska. Two set of rules one for herself and the cronies and the other for the rest of the local people. Some seem to ignore this fact or they are slow to pick it up.

Peace to you.

"I want to be on the record that the Palin giving % will dwarf either DEM nominee when it comes out. "

Might be, but if so, it might be that she has no problem lying on her tax forms either. Since you brought up the tax returns for the candidates, why not mention the fact that McCain though working as a senator is also collecting 50,000 dollars a year from Social Security?

By the way, how much did you donate?

Rational Poster: you are the most irrational blogger ever!!! Are you not aware that Senator Obama graduated from college and went on to become a community organizer instead of accepting one of the many career's available to him on Wall St (oh I forgot community organizers have no responsibilities) making one tenth of what he could have made.
Your candidates bid for the Senate was financed by his second wife of which he married one month after divorcing his wife who was disfigured due to a car accident she was in while she was waiting for her husband to come home!! Talk about integrity, you don't have a leg to stand on. You are a hypocrite!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

amchar, divorces happen. Are you saying everyone who is divorced has no integrity? I doubt it. You are probably just using it as one small part of the overall picture to evaluate someones integrity. Sorta just like what Rational Poster is doing, by using the fact that Obama and Biden dont walk their talk. BTW, McCain remained married to his wife for over six years after he came back from 'nam.

Theresa, devolving it to "how much did yuo donate"?

and the leap from Pixiedust's OP? Like that was on topic to begin with.

Theresa

As for how much McCain gave, read the posts. I have answered this. BIG $$$.

His tax returns are out there. Do your own research.

amchar

I am aware of everything you wrote but missed the point and do not see how I became a hypocrite or irrational.

What I know is that with both the Biden's and Obama's (2000 -2004) were in the TOP 3% of incomes in the U.S., they gave less than 1% to those less fortunate.

How does that somehow make ME a hypocrite.

That definition might fit them. EXPLAIN!

Nice post(s) rational. I agree with your point of view.

If the body that is looking at these charges conclude there is enough evidence she can be impeached by that body. Others and herself can be brought up on any criminal charges if they are found to have impeded or lied under oath.

Lorraine, If we ask trooper Wooten, I think we'll find the abuse of power punishment is a slap on the wrist. For Cops, its probably conducted over beers down at the waterin' hole.

Punishment? a presidential pardon and appointed to an ambassador. Maybe to Russia which she can see from her home?

Here is the problem. Since she is the VP nominee it has become politicized.

Do you see ANY problem with the investigation report being scheduled to come out FIVE days before the election? If you do, then you'll understand why the GOP is trying to halt that.

If you do not see a problem, then nothing I can say would matter to you.

Plenty of info has been released showing a lot of documentation for terminating the subordinate. But for argument, let's assume none of that evidence existed.

IF she did use her position to pressure for the termination of the bad-actor trooper that had abused her sister, drank on the job, threatened her father and tasered his 11 year-old son - then my bet is that the electorate would give her a pass.

I see the DEMs trying to keep this front page.

(ir)rational.....seriously?? you think the democrats are solely responsible for pushing this investigation? look at who is on the committe who UNANIMOUSLY approved moving forward.

if there was no story to report, it wouldn't be on the front page. that's got nothing to do with democrats, that's all palin's previous judgement calls.

but that's the game, screw up, blame someone else, right?

The investigation began BEFORE she was a nominee.

Guilty before being proved innocent according to you.

Look at your last line - do you see how you are presuming she "screwed up and is blaming?"

What if the investigation shows she did not "screw up and she is not blaming" anyone?

Will you apologize?

i won't have to apologize. if she's done nothing wrong, then there should be NO problems with going ahead with the probe. only people who are hiding something have to back pedal as fast as she is right now. the american people have the RIGHT to know, before the election--not after.

there is no need to apologize for simply wanting to know the truth, and believing that justice should NOT be obstructed, regardless of who you are. i mean, really---people are just going to "refuse to cooperate"? how is that even possible??

and when i said "screw up and blame someone else," i am referring to the fact that had she made decisions that didn't catch the questioning eyes of many (ie, NOT screw up), this story wouldn't be all over the place. but the campaign is trying to blame the democrats for "hijacking the investigation"?? gimme a break.

pixie

One more time, what specific inappropriate decisions do you think she made?

I am refering to your last paragraph ----

------ i am referring to the fact that had she made decisions that didn't catch the questioning eyes of many ----

there are plenty of decisions she's made that have "caught the questioning eyes of many." the firing of the commissioner over the ex-brother-in-law and the near-firing of the librarian. the earmarked funds from the lobbyists. the use of state funds for her children's travel. construction on unsecured land. there's all sorts of things that she has done that have a heck of a lot of people wondering about her ethics, possible abuse of power, knowledge of the task at hand, etc.

my point is that the people who are wondering about these decisions are NOT all democrats. the issues that have risen about her are of her own doing. if she was all squeaky clean, the story would be yesterday's news and not an ongoing topic, or better yet, full-scale investigation.

pixie

Now that is what I am talking about. Pure INNUENDO on your part.

You do not have enough detail to conclude anything on the things that you list yet you CHOOSE through innuendo to suggest that there must be wrong doing there. That is WRONG to do that.

Everything that you mention may be just as it should be legally and ethically.

Do you care that you are defaming character without facts?

Don't be too emboldened by seeing Alaskan REPs that want to get her. She took on the establishment up there and cleaned out a corrupt crew. She made some enemies.

I'd think you'd be pleased with that and encouraged what she may be able to do in the federal government.

do you care that you are putting words in people's mouths?

there is no innuendo, nor defamation of character.

are you really of the mind-set that these issues have not been all over God's creation??? there is an article about one of them above, which i am almost sure you read.

i did NOT say that there was any wrong-doing at ALL. reread what i wrote. i simply stated that her actions have brought a hell-storm of questioning eyes down upon her. surely you aren't going to argue that?

so if an eye questions, it is also accusing?? or is it just trying to figure out the truth? isn't that the whole point in asking a question? to find out an answer? or is a question automatically defined as a character assassination?

i believe that people who have nothing to hide also have no reason to get defensive when asked to provide a basis for their actions.

The investigation started BEFORE she was nominated. It was initiated by the legislature in AK and the panel is bipartisan. NOW they want to stop it because she's a VP candidate. Who doesn't see a problem with this? If she hasn't done anything wrong the result will be a boon to McCain/Palin. People who are voting have a right to know what happened BEFORE they vote not after.

I don't know if she did anything wrong or not. Personally, the case sounds a little weak. But the investigation was started and should be allowed to finish without any interference from parties outside AK.

Lastly, the fact that she was all for cooperating with the investigation and now she's not gives the appearance of a cover-up. When I heard that she backtracked on this I was stunned. She's just opening herself up to more scrutiny and it's a distraction from other issues.

Smacdo, the investigation was halted because once Palin was nominated the committee conducting the investigation went public with a statement that politicized and contaminated the investigation. That is like when the cops investigate you for a crime, and state thyen state there are looking only for facts that will conclude you are guilty. Do you not understand that such an investigation cannot proceed. It will never withstand any appeal, regardless of the outcome. So why bother. This is why the AG halted the subpoenas. Thosed subpoenaed didn't defy them, some had already testified. And the Democrat overseeing the committee (Elton) will probably call the bipartisan committee back to discuss how to proceed.

ABSOLUTELY. Once she became the nominee, it is not longer an investigation but a political tool to be leveraged against her.

How many of the 40 lawyers that Obama sent to Alaska are engaged in this?

Once it became political fodder it needs to stop. I think it is amusing that the trooper still works as a trooper. She let go of his boss. I know plenty of bosses who have been let go because they were not supporting the direction of their bosses.

This issue and the tax credits on the per diem charge while staying at her house is the best the army of operatives has come up with. Palin may be the cleanest politician to ever be nominated for this high of a national office in recent times.

Mrs Kilkenny: Thank you for that letter and thank you to the person posting it. That was enlightening and it ought to be published in the mainstream press.
I for one think it is insane that people actually like this woman Palin. She is a throwback hick that made it to the top most likely on the corny backwoods cutesy cheerleader 50's look and is a the "Wicked witch of the North" OMG is anyone out there realizing what she would do to this country and the world. Talk about Mother *** Nature...holy crap

That is re-post from several days ago. It has been making the rounds for about a week now in its current form. 5th time I have seen that exact post so far, might not want to take it for face value.

This is like a chain email - part of it is true and then the rest is opinion.

You can't argue she ran against an incumbent in her own party in the primary and won, then beat a former governor. It is clear the people in the state approve of her. The rest of this is just noise trying to take down someone who by all accounts appears to be pretty authentic.

You leave shame at the door when you decide to become a present day Republican. McCain has a new ad in the battleground states that is totally a lie.

Well - I am proud to vote for McCain/Palin and I do hope the actually reform Washington. I think the entire system is broken now - both sides of the aisle. McCain was not my first choice but he may just have the ability to get it done.

McCain is most certainly not another term of Bush. Republicans like me have really been challenged with McCain's candidacy as he goes for some bi-partisan positions like the Gang of 14, McCain-Fiengold, etc...

I truly wish we wouldn't have to get into name calling. What has she done that warrants calling her a dizzy b****? Seems to me she has been pretty successful and the folks up there generally like her.

Pixie

You are absolutely welcome to your OPINION, but don't present your OPINION as fact unless you have the evidence to support it. You have been doing that.

Would not honorariums be shown as income and as donations on the return if it is as you say? You may be right there. I do not know for certain.

I did see that in the years AFTER the Obama royalties started coming in, they upped their giving to about 5%. A lot of the folks among my acquaintances making far less than Obama made in 2000 - 2004 or Biden give in the 6 - 12% range for those less fortunate.

To those who have been given much, much is required.

You say that the Obama & Biden actions reflect their values. That is what I say as well and the returns reflect a SELF person by their not being more giving.

The McCain "family foundation" is simply a structure for managing giving. The money gets donated to qualified charities. I have been thinking about setting one up for our giving. It helps you to manage timing.

You and I agree that much can be concluded from looking at the candidates personal lives and I did.

I have offered the tax returns and the way I look at them as evidence for my conclusion of their not walking the talk.

Your closing makes many claims that once again may be your opinion but you present several negatives as fact and I think you have to be accountable for your claims.

I do not intend my pushbacks to be personal but you have to own your claims.

i **completely** own my claims, taking full responsibility for them. how can you jumble a sentence that begins with "i see" (and then throws in an "i think") as a intended statement of unobjectionable fact when it clearly starts with a SUBJECTIVE pronoun???? what i believe, what i see may not be the same thing that you believe and see. just the same, that doesn't make your views and visions facts, either. and i haven't presented my beliefs and views, regardless of negative or positive, as the end-all and be-all. we simply are looking at something and seeing very, very different things. so be it.

i am aware of what a "family foundation" is, and its purpose. i come from a family that has held onto this tradition for several generations. my point was that from where i stand, mccain's foundation, too, is deep in scandals and questionable ethics. have you reviewed where a hefty portion of those donations were dispersed? how is that not self-serving?? it looks like giving to get back to me.

i am pleased that you have friends who are fortunate enough to donate 6-12% of their incomes to those in need. are these friends also as generous with their time and efforts? please realize that people give in many manners, and although 6-12% is a beautiful contribution, not everyone just chooses to hand over cash. some prefer to incessantly volunteer in various forms, and that is just as beautiful. who can put a price tag on time spent with someone in their hour of need? i think it's narrow-minded to only put a value on a check, which seems to be a point that you are harping on.

pixie

I think we might be winding this dialogue down. Let's just say that "where your money is, there also is your heart".

Yes, the friends that I have referenced are wonderfully engaged personally along with their entire family members in several cases.

Your phrasiology is revealing. You say that you are pleased we are "fortunate enough to donate". We are NOT fortunate. We decide to do that. There is always somewhere else we could have spent that money on ourselves.

You say that you see the McCain family foundation "deep in scandals and questionable ethics." Pretty strong. How so?

I am aware they donated heavily to the private schools their kids attended. I assume they paid their tuition as well. If you looked at our finances, you'd see that we donated unusually to the college that our daughter attended - which was our alma mater - the years she was a student there. Your passion is simply raised when you have a personal connection. After she graduated, we dropped back down. She received nothing because we donated.

Are you looking for something?

ok....let me rephrase....i am pleased that you and your friends are fortunate enough to have the opportunity to donate. better???? i realize it's a choice to do so, and i am sure that your daughter's college was dually pleased to get those checks.

if you were passionate about education, why not give to an impoverished school district instead of a college (ie, higher education) that has already gotten a steep tuition for you, your wife, and your daughter?

i am not looking for anything, just again seeing it in a different manner than you.

i am fortunate enough *to have the opportunity* to send my daughter to a private school. but when i write a donation check or take time out of my life to volunteer, i don't do it at her school where strict uniforms, ridiculous admission standards, and exorbent tuition fees are enforced. i CHOOSE to give to those TRULY less fortunate than myself. i see no benefit in giving into a revolving door.

Blessings! Good night. Thanks.

I think it is quite revealing that spirit of giving by both tickets. McCain has demonstrated of years that his family gives deeply. In addition, it is hard to argue that adopting a child out of Mother Theresa's orphanage is not one of the most selfless acts a couple can do. As I understand it - McCain didn't even know Cindy had done it until he met her plane upon her return.

Biden has a pretty poor track record on giving (his money). Obama started ramping up his giving after he announced his candidacy. I am interested in Palin's tax returns and think they should be made public before the VP debates.

I agree with Rational that McCain walks the walk. I think Biden and Obama like to play with house (my) money.

Here is the problem. Since she is the VP nominee it has become politicized.

Do you see ANY problem with the investigation report being scheduled to come out FIVE days before the election? If you do, then you'll understand why the GOP is trying to halt that.

If you do not see a problem, then nothing I can say would matter to you.

I actually have more of a problem with the investigation being held until after the election. I want to know if this lady commited a crime before I even CONSIDER to give McCain/Palin my vote. This is something the American public deserve to know. It seems even more politicized now that they want to delay it when it was to be released in the first part of Oct. "If you do not see a problem, then nothing I can say would matter to YOU!"

OK. Let go worst case for Plain. Let's assume she asserted pressure to get the trooper fired that abused her sister, drank on the job, threatened her dad and tasered his stepson.

How do things change?

Are you kidding me!!!!!!!? Asserted pressure!!? If she's throwing her authority around for personal gain your damn right the public should know BEFORE the election. It changes everything. We should in no way be electing a person to the second highest office in the country if she is corrupt. And no, I'm not prematurely convicting her, but Former Marine is right, IF she is guilty we need to know before she's given even more power than she has now.

what I want to know is how a trooper gets off from firing a taser at a little kid. Why did he have the taser? Was he on duty? Round here the tasers are department property and I dont think they go home with the cops. Point being was he on duty, therefore carrying the taser? What are the department policies about use of tasers? Tasers have killed people. What if he had killed the kid! Am I allowed to get a taser and tase people? Does the public have to wonder when they get pulled over by trooper Wooten whether he is drunk, or might tase them? What other police department in this country allows this? Maybe LA.

Monegan said Palin didn't pressure him to fire Wooten. He did enough other crap to get fired. Maybe her husband made noise about Wooten. But he is just another member of the public, and has every right to question police actions.

Why does Wooten get a free pass? Every time he gets questioned on something (and he does seemed a bit on the fringe for a respectable cop) he gets to whine "oh, the governors persecuting me because in the past I beat her sister, tased a kid, threatened her family and drank on the job. Waaahhh!"

Zzxno

Another assumption of guilt on your part. Typical LIB M.O.

See my posts above.

Typical repub, using the information as you see fit and ignoring the parts you find irrelevant.

See my posts above

Thanks for correcting me sir

Nice post Charles.

OK. Fair enough.

Let assume worst case for Plain. Let's assume she asserted pressure to get the trooper fired that abused her sister, drank on the job, threatened her dad and tasered his stepson.

How do things change?

I say that the electorate gives her a pass.

As for me, I attempt to be a self-proclaimed rational advocate for the GOP.

Rational Poster, would you please cite where you got this information on how this trooper treated each of these people and did what he allegedly did? You seem to think these are facts in evidence but I've heard none of them before. So aren't you already calling the guy guilty from what you've heard, not what's been proven. And aside from that, all of what you say does not change the fact that she may have ABUSED her political power to have a person fired. It should have gone through proper channels to be dealt with. I will not "give her a pass"

Chewy, those facts about Wooten are not in dispute. There are investigated and substantiated. Google Wooten. Theres articles out there describing what a whacko cop he is, investigations by his department, not political. Research them and you'll wonder why he remains a trooper. Just because you've heard none of them before means it is YOU who are shootin from the hip, uninformed.

Monegan said Palin never pressured him to Fire Wooten. Investigated and not in dispute. Research Monegan a little and you will see he has done many many things to be fired from his position.

Dont bury your head in the sand and claim nothing happened or that Palins guilty solely because someone doesn't post page after page of facts here.

Chewy,

I guess Rightly answered it before I got to it.

Ok, I'm not claiming that she's guilty. I want both of you to read the following statement carefully. She's being INVESTIGATED for the possibility of using her power inappropriately. This means that there is some question of just that. So, since she's being investigated, I'd like to know, one way or another if she's guilty of corruption or if she's not. If she is, it needs to come out before the election. If that comes out after the election, and McCain pulls off the miracle, then we have a corrupt VP from day 1. If she's not guilty, great, I'm sure she'll be a wonderful followup to the d-bag in the position now.

Now, I'm really hoping one of you can tell me what makes her so special that she can ignore a subpoena, when the rest of us Americans (besides George, Karl, and Dick) would be given no such opportunity. I don't care if you think she was justified in canning Wooten, she probably was. The issue is THE WAY SHE WENT ABOUT IT. I have to hand it to both of you for dodging the real issue over and over again, it's very republican of you.

Well, I guess we'll find out, once a subpoena is issue to her, if one ever is. Its clever how the "unbiased" media got all yous thinking she refused to comply with a subpoena when there is no subpoena.

Just like they got all yous to believe she wouldn't answer the investigators questions. The investigator did not ask her any questions, or ask to speak to her. A reporter claims "someone" from her campaign said she wouldn't respond. Me thinks "someone" who has no name either exists only in the reporters mind; or reporter talked to the caterer (while stealing a sandwich) who said "i not gonna answer no questions" and ran with that.

BTW, Wooten wasn't fired. Five day suspension. Whopee.

And there really is no issue. And it is the dems fault the investigation had to come crashing to a halt. See my post 13.10. Im tired of typing.

I wish she would let the investigation go on. I agree that the public gives her a pass. As I understand it (though I have not read any of it) there are numerous email between her and Monegan about typical boss employee issues. Sounds like he was trying to undermine her. She is pretty tough and did certainly what I would do and that is remove the problem. He didn't win the election - she did. End of story. I think the trooper in question has had his behavior well documented and don't think there are questions to it. In the end, today, I believe he is still employed as a trooper.