I read today that the state investigation into this "Troopergate" issue is going to be released on 10.31.08. That could be interesting.

 

My first reaction to this issue was that it was much ado about nothing. However, the more I read and the more I hear the state Senator who is leading the investigation talk the more I think its a bit more than we initially thought. I believe he was quoted as saying that had the McCain camp fully investigated this that she would not have been chosen.

 

Lets all agree that the ex-brother in law is slime. No arguments, right?

 

Is that really pertinent to the issue?

 

Todd Palin calls the commissioner who was eventually fired and wants him to investigate. He's told its a closed case. A few days later the Governor calls requesting the same thing. She, too, is told its a closed case. She repeatedly makes this request of him over time and he tells her that she needs to back off. He's later fired.

 

On one hand we can simply write it off as "hey, that's state policitics." On the other, though, can we not at least fathom the idea that she abused her power?

 

Are we writing this off too quickly without knowing all of the facts? Remember, we all believed her when she made her clam about the Bridge.

 

By the way, this is not the first charge against her regarding firing disloyal law enforcement officials. When she became Mayor she fired a few of the police officers who signed a document supporting her opponent. She was cleared of the charge.

Three things that have always intrigued me about this NEW media attention:

 

1. This thing is really, really old?;

2. Why would she want the Trooper fired when he was her sister's only means of child support?;

3. Where is the scrutiny of the financial mismanagement of the commissioner, who incidentally was on opposite sides of the aisle from Palin, and was doing this while the firing of several other high-profile state officers from the previous administration was occurring?

 

Does noone else here see the red herring?

Three things that have always intrigued me about this NEW media attention:

 

1. This thing is really, really old?;

2. Why would she want the Trooper fired when he was her sister's only means of child support?;

3. Where is the scrutiny of the financial mismanagement of the commissioner, who incidentally was on opposite sides of the aisle from Palin, and was doing this while the firing of several other high-profile state officers from the previous administration was occurring?

 

Does noone else here see the red herring?

 

If the state is still in the middle of an investigation, is it really "old?"

 

I will assume that if the state investigation is going to make a determination as to cause of his firing that they are also investigating her claims against him.

 

Unless this investigation came up after McCain nominated her for VP I don't see the conspiracy.

 

It certainly can be a case of ugly local politics but the fact that it was already ongoing and the fact that the results are slated to be released 10.31 sure does making it intriguing.

Why would we all agree that the ex "trooper" brother-in-law is a scumbag when all of the accusations were made years after they supposively occured and in the midst of a child custody hearing? Sounds like sour grapes and manuvering for a better outcome in the custody hearing from Palin's sister.

 

Apparently more emails are becomming available, plus a recorded phone call as well as direct testomony from Monegan, the fired saftey director who would not follow Palin's directions and fire the trooper.

 

I still say she was not properly vetted. If the McCain camp thought she was then why did they dispatch a 10 person vetting team to Alaska last night.

 

Still curious as to what penalties are imposed if Palin is found quilty of abuse of office.

Why would we all agree that the ex "trooper" brother-in-law is a scumbag when all of the accusations were made years after they supposively occured and in the midst of a child custody hearing? Sounds like sour grapes and manuvering for a better outcome in the custody hearing from Palin's sister.

 

.

 

For this discussion it doesn't matter. The debate at hand is not whether the Governor was justified in asking for his dismissal (if she actually did) but, rather, did she abuse her power.

 

The guy could be slime or he could be an angel. Moot point.

For this discussion it doesn't matter. The debate at hand is not whether the Governor was justified in asking for his dismissal (if she actually did) but, rather, did she abuse her power.

 

The guy could be slime or he could be an angel. Moot point.

 

You're right....in a court of law it may not make a difference, in the court of public oppinion it means everything. How many will have sympathy for the women who shoots her drunken abusive husband vrs the woman who shoots her hard working husband, and father of three just so she could collect the insurance money and run off with her new boyfriend?

I read today that the state investigation into this "Troopergate" issue is going to be released on 10.31.08. That could be interesting.

 

My first reaction to this issue was that it was much ado about nothing. However, the more I read and the more I hear the state Senator who is leading the investigation talk the more I think its a bit more than we initially thought. I believe he was quoted as saying that had the McCain camp fully investigated this that she would not have been chosen.

 

Lets all agree that the ex-brother in law is slime. No arguments, right?

 

Is that really pertinent to the issue?

 

Todd Palin calls the commissioner who was eventually fired and wants him to investigate. He's told its a closed case. A few days later the Governor calls requesting the same thing. She, too, is told its a closed case. She repeatedly makes this request of him over time and he tells her that she needs to back off. He's later fired.

 

On one hand we can simply write it off as "hey, that's state policitics." On the other, though, can we not at least fathom the idea that she abused her power?

 

Are we writing this off too quickly without knowing all of the facts? Remember, we all believed her when she made her clam about the Bridge.

 

By the way, this is not the first charge against her regarding firing disloyal law enforcement officials. When she became Mayor she fired a few of the police officers who signed a document supporting her opponent. She was cleared of the charge.

Do you have anything to back up your assertion shown in bold above? I have read fairly extensively and have never read anything to indicate that Palin asked Monegan to fire the slimeball herself. I believe that Monegan is on record saying so himself.

Do you have anything to back up your assertion shown in bold above? I have read fairly extensively and have never read anything to indicate that Palin asked Monegan to fire the slimeball herself. I believe that Monegan is on record saying so himself.

 

It was from a blog I read. Here is the article in the Washington Post that it mentioned.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/29/AR2008082903598.html?hpid=topnews

 

It does not say in the article that there were repeated calls as the blog said.

 

It does say that , according to Monegan, the Governor called and was unhappy with his answer.

It was from a blog I read. Here is the article in the Washington Post that it mentioned.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/29/AR2008082903598.html?hpid=topnews

 

It does not say in the article that there were repeated calls as the blog said.

 

It does say that , according to Monegan, the Governor called and was unhappy with his answer.

The point is there has been no credible report that Palin asked Monegan to fire Palen even once, let alone on repeated occasions. Monegan has said that he believed that the Governor wanted him to fire the louse and that he felt pressured but he has not claimed Palin demanded or requested that he fire the guy. If you want to repeat some very damaging rumors about Palin, I suggest using Daily Kos as a source, CNN's site of choice. :lol:

The point is there has been no credible report that Palin asked Monegan to fire Palen even once, let alone on repeated occasions. Monegan has said that he believed that the Governor wanted him to fire the louse and that he felt pressured but he has not claimed Palin demanded or requested that he fire the guy. If you want to repeat some very damaging rumors about Palin, I suggest using Daily Kos as a source, CNN's site of choice. :lol:

 

But he sure lost his job pretty quickly when he didn't comply with Palin's request.

The point is there has been no credible report that Palin asked Monegan to fire Palen even once, let alone on repeated occasions. Monegan has said that he believed that the Governor wanted him to fire the louse and that he felt pressured but he has not claimed Palin demanded or requested that he fire the guy. :

 

You could be right. We'll see on 10.31.08.

You could be right. We'll see on 10.31.08.

 

Nope: I predict it will come back clearing Palin and the Democrats will be up in arms claiming coverup.

You could be right. We'll see on 10.31.08.

I am absolutely right. There has been no credible report of Palin doing what you claimed as a matter of fact. If she had directly demanded Monegan to fire her former brother-in-law, then Monegan would have said so . He did'nt. Palin's potential exposure is that a staffer might implicate Palin in directing others to make the contacts. So far, there have been no public claims that was the case.

Let me get this straight.

The October surprise that the Dems hope happen is that some staffer says that Palin ordered a contact to call for the firing of the state trooper who had threatened her family with physical abuse, tasered his stepson and Palin's nephew.

 

That is what they think is going to hurt Palin.

 

Women will support her even more if she had the guts to try and get this horse's rear fired that was physically threatening her father and sister AND had tasered her nephew.

 

Dems really think that women are going to be upset that she MIGHT HAVE tried to get him fired.

 

THEY WILL STAND UP AND APPLAUD HER ABUSING HER POSITION BY TRYING TO GET HIM FIRED!!!!!!!!!!!

Nope: I predict it will come back clearing Palin and the Democrats will be up in arms claiming coverup.

 

I am absolutely right. There has been no credible report of Palin doing what you claimed as a matter of fact. If she had directly demanded Monegan to fire her former brother-in-law, then Monegan would have said so . He did'nt. Palin's potential exposure is that a staffer might implicate Palin in directing others to make the contacts. So far, there have been no public claims that was the case.

 

Let me get this straight.

The October surprise that the Dems hope happen is that some staffer says that Palin ordered a contact to call for the firing of the state trooper who had threatened her family with physical abuse, tasered his stepson and Palin's nephew.

 

That is what they think is going to hurt Palin.

 

Women will support her even more if she had the guts to try and get this horse's rear fired that was physically threatening her father and sister AND had tasered her nephew.

 

Dems really think that women are going to be upset that she MIGHT HAVE tried to get him fired.

 

THEY WILL STAND UP AND APPLAUD HER ABUSING HER POSITION BY TRYING TO GET HIM FIRED!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

1. What do we actually know that clears the Governor of any wrongdoing? This may come back to be nothing but I have to think that there is some smoke .

 

2. LBBC - IF (and its an IF at this point) it turns out that she did indeed fire the guy for not firing her ex-B.I.L. it would go completely against the claim that she is fighting to the good fight for ethics in govt. That's really not that hard to see, is it?