Blatant lies

[barfo]

For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.

I'm very, very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing, any hint of any kind of unethical activity there. Very pleased to be cleared of any of that.

I am the starting point guard for the blazers averaging 25 assists per game, I was born on Jupiter, I have more money than Bill Gates, and I've got a 12" pianist.

barfo

 

[el_Diablo]

it only depends on what you view as "unethical" ..

 

[Nikolokolus]

it only depends on what you view as "unethical" ..

If she's actually guilty, I'd call abuse of power in order to pursue a personal grudge pretty "unethical," though I'm not sure why that needs to be in quotation marks? ...

 

[el_Diablo]

If she's actually guilty, I'd call abuse of power in order to pursue a personal grudge pretty "unethical," though I'm not sure why that needs to be in quotation marks? ...

but maybe she doesn't.. it's not a lie if you believe it.

 

[Minstrel]

but maybe she doesn't.. it's not a lie if you believe it.

It doesn't matter what she believes about the incident. She said she was happy to be cleared of all wrong-doing, any hint of unethical activity, which is the opposite of what the investigator concluded.

Perhaps she thinks that "I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act" means "I find that Governor Sarah Palin acted ethically and should be cleared of all suspicion."

In which case, she may not be a liar, just dangerously insane.

 

[Nikolokolus]

but maybe she doesn't.. it's not a lie if you believe it.

I have a 4 year old nephew who believes in the Easter Bunny, "Sandy Claws," and the Tooth Fairy ... believing something doesn't make it real or true. It's also pretty irrelevant if Palin "believes" she acted wrongly or not, if she vilolated a law or statute her "belief" in the rightness of her actions won't do a whole helluva lot for her if or when a judge hands down a sentence (and I stress if because all we know right now is that an investigation concluded there is enough evidence to proceed with charges, and presumably will conduct a trial at some point).

 

[el_Diablo]

In which case, she may not be a liar, just dangerously insane.

.. my point exactly

 

[Natebishop3]

I am the starting point guard for the blazers averaging 25 assists per game, I was born on Jupiter, I have more money than Bill Gates, and I've got a 12" pianist.

barfo

Can I have some of that money? Is that you Sergio?

 

[barfo]

Can I have some of that money? Is that you Sergio?

Based on your avatar, it seems your pianist is much bigger than mine, so I'm keeping the money.

barfo

 

[ABM]

(which barfo was referencing) for the reasons explained in section iv of this report, i find that governor sarah palin abused her power by violating alaska statute 39.52.110(a) of the alaska executive branch ethics act.

fwiw --

sec. 39.52.110. Scope of code.

(a) the legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any
effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust.
In addition, the legislature finds that, so long as it does not interfere with the full and faithful
discharge of an officer's public duties and responsibilities, this chapter does not prevent an
officer from following other independent pursuits. The legislature further recognizes that
(1) in a representative democracy, the representatives are drawn from society and,
therefore, cannot and should not be without personal and financial interests in the decisions and
policies of government;
(2) people who serve as public officers retain their rights to interests of a personal or
financial nature; and
(3) standards of ethical conduct for members of the executive branch need to distinguish
between those minor and inconsequential conflicts that are unavoidable in a free society, and
those conflicts of interests that are substantial and material.

 

[ABM]

Based on your avatar, it seems your pianist is much bigger than mine, so I'm keeping the money.

barfo

Then again, might all depend on if your instrument is an upright................or not.

 

[e_blazer]

I'm not sure exactly what I feel about this whole issue. On the one hand, we'd all like our public officials to be above any petty personal motives in taking actions relating to their offices. On the other hand, I think that the Palins were in the best position to know that this former brother-in-law state trooper had serious anger issues and that those issues probably made him unfit for his job. It's also clear that the original ethics investigation regarding the firing of Walt Monegan, the Public Safety Commissioner, was determined to be within the Governor's proper discretion:

"I find that, although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety. In spite of that, Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads," the chief investigator said in the report.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/10/palin_abused_po.html

The e-mail record shows that Monegan had gone against the Governor's wishes in seeking federal funding for the State Police. Those actions by themselves warranted his dismissal.

The report found that Palin violated a state ethics law that prohibits public officials from using their office for personal gain, but it does not recommend sanctions or a criminal investigation.

So, from the standpoint that Palin's original position regarding Monegan's firing has been supported by the investigation and the fact that the report does not recommend any sanctions or criminal investigation, Palin can stretch it to claim she's been cleared of any "legal wrongdoing" perhaps, but the statement about being cleared of "unethical activity" is over the top.

It seems to me that in any other climate than the current political season, this probably wouldn't have even gotten play in Alaska. It's pretty small potatos.

Now, does anybody want to discuss the ethical implications, as far as personal gain goes, of Tony Rezko's helping the Obamas in their buying their house?

 

[barfo]

It seems to me that in any other climate than the current political season, this probably wouldn't have even gotten play in Alaska. It's pretty small potatos.

I think you are wrong about that - this was news in Alaska well before Palin was selected by McCain.
Given that it resonates with the other Alaska elected official corruption scandals (Young, Stevens), I think it would certainly have been a big story in Alaska regardless.

barfo

 

[BlazerWookee]

What did she gain?

 

[Nikolokolus]

I think you are wrong about that - this was news in Alaska well before Palin was selected by McCain.
Given that it resonates with the other Alaska elected official corruption scandals (Young, Stevens), I think it would certainly have been a big story in Alaska regardless.

barfo

Precisely. This matter was already well in play before McCain tapped Palin to be his running mate. Would that story have been elevated to the national stage so prominently if she had not been selected? Probably not, but she is up for the second highest office in the land and therefore this is worthy of national coverage.

 

[Minstrel]

On the other hand, I think that the Palins were in the best position to know that this former brother-in-law state trooper had serious anger issues and that those issues probably made him unfit for his job.

Quite a stretch as a justification. The incidents that are used to show his unfitness (tasering his son, shooting a moose out of season, etc) all happened while he and Palin's sister were happily married and were not reported by the Palins then. They were only reported after the messy divorce.

So, either these incidents were a big deal and the Palins (including Sarah) were doing the public a disservice by covering this up due to Palin's sister being married to him, or they were not a big deal and Sarah Palin acted unethically out of personal issues after the divorce. You can't have it both ways--fine to not report them when the marriage is happy AND fine to report them and use them as justification to try and get him fired once the marriage has gone sour.

Now, does anybody want to discuss the ethical implications, as far as personal gain goes, of Tony Rezko's helping the Obamas in their buying their house?

That has actually been discussed on this forum. In the "Palin's email hacked" thread, for one, and a couple of other threads too, I think.

 

[e_blazer]

Yeah, you guys are probably correct. This story would have had some legs in Alaska. Probably about the same as Obama's house deal got in the Chicago press. In the end, it would have blown over after this report came out and recommended no charges be filed.

 

[e_blazer]

Quite a stretch as a justification. The incidents that are used to show his unfitness (tasering his son, shooting a moose out of season, etc) all happened while he and Palin's sister were happily married and were not reported by the Palins then. They were only reported after the messy divorce.

So, either these incidents were a big deal and the Palins (including Sarah) were doing the public a disservice by covering this up due to Palin's sister being married to him, or they were not a big deal and Sarah Palin acted unethically out of personal issues after the divorce. You can't have it both ways--fine to not report them when the marriage is happy AND fine to report them and use them as justification to try and get him fired once the marriage has gone sour.

Politics is sooo fun. No matter what somebody says, there's always a counterpunch to throw. I have no idea as to the chronology of events regarding this tool of a brother-in-law and I'm not trying to make excuses for Palin. I'm just saying that there may be legitimate reasons why this guy didn't belong in a police uniform.

That has actually been discussed on this forum. In the "Palin's email hacked" thread, for one, and a couple of other threads too, I think.

Great. There's no problem as far as I'm concerned in discussing the warts in a politician's background. If you stick yourself out there for public office, you're fair game. We just need to be sure that we don't fall into hypocrisy of ignoring the faults of one candidate while bringing up every negative of the other.

Now, if you can find a politician to run for president or vice president who doesn't have some baggage, I supect they'll be the first one.

 

[barfo]

What did she gain?

She didn't gain anything. But what she tried to gain was revenge on her ex-brother-in-law.

barfo

 

[e_blazer]

She didn't gain anything. But what she tried to gain was revenge on her ex-brother-in-law.

barfo

Your assumption.

She may equally likely have wanted to get a guy she knew to be unfit for the job out of his position.

 

[barfo]

Your assumption.

She may equally likely have wanted to get a guy she knew to be unfit for the job out of his position.

I don't think that is equally likely. I've read everything posted on the subject on adn.com (the local newspaper). It includes transcripts of the witness statements by the trooper, by the Palins, etc.

It tells a very clear story.

barfo

 

[e_blazer]

I don't think that is equally likely.

So, you don't think that using a Taser on his stepson, illegally shooting a moose, and accusations of driving drunk are incidents that call into question whether a guy should be able to retain his badge?

I've read everything posted on the subject on adn.com (the local newspaper). It includes transcripts of the witness statements by the trooper, by the Palins, etc.

You need to get a life.

 

[Dumpy]

So, you don't think that using a Taser on his stepson, illegally shooting a moose, and accusations of driving drunk are incidents that call into question whether a guy should be able to retain his badge?

(a) this is Alaska, where it is said about men that "the odds are good, but the goods are odd." It sounds ridiculous, but Alaskans can't be held to the same standards as people in the rest of the country. They just think differently and act differently.

(b) the question is whether she has exceeded her authority. She doesn't have hiring or firing authority over individual police officers.

(c) it seems like the bigger issue is whether her husband was given space in the governor's office and allowed to pursue this issue, which would constitute a clear breach of protocol and a blurring of public/private activity. Remember, if there is going to be even an APPEARANCE of impropriety, a public servant should (and often must) recuse him or herself.

 

[barfo]

So, you don't think that using a Taser on his stepson, illegally shooting a moose, and accusations of driving drunk are incidents that call into question whether a guy should be able to retain his badge?

Probably he did deserve to lose his badge, but that isn't the question at hand. The ends don't justify the means.

Besides, as Minstrel pointed out, if Palin was really offended by those actions, she would have reported them when they happened, not years later.

You need to get a life.

Well, yes.

barfo

 

[e_blazer]

Besides, as Minstrel pointed out, if Palin was really offended by those actions, she would have reported them when they happened, not years later.

Probably, but this may have been the first time that she was in a position to try and do something about it. Again, I don't want to get into being the defender of Sarah Palin (primarily because I think she was a horrible choice by McCain), but I do know that when you make assumptions about people's motives, you're often wrong.

 

[e_blazer]

(b) the question is whether she has exceeded her authority. She doesn't have hiring or firing authority over individual police officers.

Actually, that's not the question. She didn't fire the police officer. She fired his boss, primarily because he didn't follow her directives relating to federal funding policies.

(c) it seems like the bigger issue is whether her husband was given space in the governor's office and allowed to pursue this issue, which would constitute a clear breach of protocol and a blurring of public/private activity. Remember, if there is going to be even an APPEARANCE of impropriety, a public servant should (and often must) recuse him or herself.

I know very little to about what her husband may have done in this incident, so I'm not going to comment.

 

[barfo]

Probably, but this may have been the first time that she was in a position to try and do something about it. Again, I don't want to get into being the defender of Sarah Palin (primarily because I think she was a horrible choice by McCain), but I do know that when you make assumptions about people's motives, you're often wrong.

I am? Nah, couldn't be.

Here's an editorial from Alaska:

Palin vindicated?

Sarah Palin's reaction to the Legislature's Troopergate report is an embarrassment to Alaskans and the nation.

Palin's response is the kind of political "big lie" that George Orwell warned against. War is peace. Black is white. Up is down.

Gov. Palin and her husband were obsessed with Wooten the way Capt. Ahab was obsessed with the Great White Whale. No Wooten, no peace.

barfo

 

[e_blazer]

While we're looking at editorials dealing with ethics issues, this one from the Chicago Tribune raises several interesting questions, including:

How was the Rezko-Obama real estate deal, the one that Obama himself described as "boneheaded," never made a subject of a Senate Ethics Committee investigation?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-kass-0510,0,7245642.column

Is it that Palin's transgressions were of greater import than Obama's, or does the fact that the Democrats who brought the investigation had political motivations to do so, as did the Democrats in Illinois who chose not to bring an investigation against Obama?

 

[barfo]

Is it that Palin's transgressions were of greater import than Obama's, or does the fact that the Democrats who brought the investigation had political motivations to do so, as did the Democrats in Illinois who chose not to bring an investigation against Obama?

"the Democrats" did not bring the investigation of Palin. The legislative committee (which voted unanimously to release Branchflower's report) was composed of 8 republicans and 4 democrats.

And the other troopergate inquiry, the one run by the Personnel board, the one that is still ongoing - that one was brought by Sarah Palin.

barfo

Edit - sorry, I was wrong. The correct count is 10 republicans and 4 democrats.

 

[Dumpy]

While we're looking at editorials dealing with ethics issues, this one from the Chicago Tribune raises several interesting questions, including:



http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-kass-0510,0,7245642.column

Is it that Palin's transgressions were of greater import than Obama's, or does the fact that the Democrats who brought the investigation had political motivations to do so, as did the Democrats in Illinois who chose not to bring an investigation against Obama?

Why must a discussion about Palin or McCain always devolve into bashing Obama? Why is it responsive to say, "well, we're no worse than the other guy?" Shouldn't the relevant question be whether ANY candidate is ethical, and their government acts open and transparent? When I read a response trying to change the issue to the other candidate, it is obvious to me that there IS no defense. If you want to discuss Obama's dealings, open another thread--or contribute to the hundred or so that have already been created.

Quite frankly, I'm tired of this tactic. It is embarassing, and a little sad.