Seems like the witch hunt is finally over, but it may prove to be too late. Remember, with liberals it's not the guilt, it's the seriousness of the charge. "Gov. Sarah Palin violated no ethics laws when she fired her public safety commissioner, the state personnel board concluded in a report released Monday. "There is no probable cause to believe that the governor, or any other state official, violated the Alaska Executive Ethics Act in connection with these matters," the report says." Boom *************!
Gus, serious question. I never followed this story to closely, but I thought she already was found guilty?
Whitman: the legislature created a committee (political by nature) and determined there were ethics violations. The independent committee exonerated her.
So she has been found guilty once and not guilty once. You like one decision better than the other, cause it supports your gal. Personally I never thought the issue would have any meaning in terms of electability. She has been more popular since the initial guilty verdict, so it didn't appear that ruling hurt her to many people.
The legislative committee was made up of 10 repubs and 4 democrats, this independent crew was made up of 3 people. Not saying anything in particular, just pointing that out.
They basically said that the intimidation was legal because it's an at-will state. That's not exactly exonerating her actions, just viewing the intimidation through a different legal lens, not a different ethical one. The fact that her husband bullied the guy was not disputed.
The dude was a wife beater and endangered his son he should be fired. Mr. Palin did what any self respeting man would do to scum like that.
This was the board that had people she appointed to it, right? Then again, there's no point in even responding, because she's irrelevant.
Syracuse- From what little I've followed it and trying to drag some semblance of non tinfoil hat lunacy out of tripple on the subject this is exactly what I've been able to gather. If it's an at-will state and position then you can fire someone for any reason or no reason whatsoever. The fact that it was investigated is absurd. Additionally, the "guilty" finding said the same damn thing. This was much ado about nothing- it was just for the political show and for her name to be in the papers in a negative light. The entire issue wasn't ever legal it was always political. Now, if you want to argue that it was petty, or exhibited bad judgement, or was political and or personal retribution and we don't want that from our elected officials- fine, go ahead and argue that. But this kind of payback (both good and bad) happens in every administration at every level in the country. And that's not, to my way of thinking anyway, a bad thing. When you win elections you have the right to have people you trust in positions of power around you and you need to have people you trust in positions that you are responsible for. She felt she couldn't trust this guy so she got rid of him. Obama is going to get to install his own cabinet and make his own appointments to different executive agencies. I'm sure some people will lose their jobs just as always happens. It's what happens when there is a new sherrif in town. Make your peace with that, argue your position as much as possible but be prepared to be tossed out of office if you can't go along to get along.
A real politcal scandal looks like this: 1) Rezko gives Obama a sweetheart deal for political reasons 2) Obama takes it for monetary reasons
As stated above, the report from this shadow investigation was carried out by three political appointees whom Palin has the ability to fire. By the thinking espoused above, she could pressure them to write the correct report to exonerate her, or flash them her wink that they would face being fired. .
I guess it woudl be really, really silly to point out that the 3 people who said there was no wrong doing, all owe their current employment to Governor Sarah Palin.... So.... I think the word "independent" is a bit silly to apply to this group of Palin appointees.
If the legislative committee had ties to her predecessor, and these three had ties to the predecessor, why is it that only one group has a vendetta, but the other doesn't? The logic isn't consistent.
The various posts following mine above just confirm what I've been saying all along--whatever position you want to take, you have support. Certainly, the alleged bias of the investigators is fair game for comment-either way. Palin has made some enemies, and some of them are Republican. Some of them were on the Legislative investigation. Some on this board want to ignore that as a possible motive for some of the findings that were made in that report. Fine, you have that right. On the other hand, it is assumed here that the Personnel Board, because it is part of the Executive Branch, is in the tank for Palin. Therefore, any findings of this group are to be discounted (unless, I presume, they didn't favor Palin). I just suggest that a true consderation of the situation might lead an open minded person to a different conclusion.
