Palin Panel Reaches Ethics Breach Verdict

taki15 · Post by **taki15** » Sun Oct 19, 2008 1:02 pm

I know you all think I live on Cloud 9 24/7, but I'm not an idiot.

Could have fooled me.

Post by **criddic3** » Sun Oct 19, 2008 12:38 pm

Greg wrote:
criddic3 wrote:They want to have a way to run against her in the next gubernatorial election. . .

Is this a Freudian slip by criddic about the upcoming election?

No, but if McCain/Palin does lose, which is very possible in this anti-Republican environment, she will run again for Governor of Alaska. I know you all think I live on Cloud 9 24/7, but I'm not an idiot.

Post by **cam** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 7:20 pm

Criddic supports Palin, which does not shock me, as criddic supports McCain, therefore he has to support McCain's running mate.
But Palin aligns herself with someone she calls Joe Six-Pack. I had always thought that Joe Six-Pack was kind of drunk in a wife-beater undershirt who tosses beer cans out his truck window as he weaves drunk down the freeway.
Is this the kind of person you support, criddic?

Post by **Greg** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 5:39 pm

criddic3 wrote:They want to have a way to run against her in the next gubernatorial election. . .

Is this a Freudian slip by criddic about the upcoming election?

Post by **Greg** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 5:36 pm

Mister Tee wrote:
anonymous wrote:Speaking of MSNBC, I have to say that I'm starting to fall in love with Rachel Maddow.

You do know there's going to be an unrequited element to that?

Oh, I'm sure anonymous has already fantasized about Rachel and her girlfriend.

Post by **Mister Tee** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 2:24 pm

anonymous wrote:Speaking of MSNBC, I have to say that I'm starting to fall in love with Rachel Maddow.

You do know there's going to be an unrequited element to that?

Post by **anonymous1980** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 1:00 pm

Speaking of MSNBC, I have to say that I'm starting to fall in love with Rachel Maddow.

Post by **Penelope** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 8:33 am

At least MSNBC tells the truth.

Post by **criddic3** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 1:52 am

You need to stop watching MSNBC and Keith Olberman.

Post by **Big Magilla** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 1:48 am

You need to stop watching Fox News.

Post by **criddic3** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 1:38 am

Big Magilla wrote:Yes, she did. She breached ethics rules.

Stop Todd? What makes you think he wasn't acting on her orders, or do you think Todd and various members of her staff all acted on their own in petitioning Wooten's firing?

I am telling you what the verdict, as read said. She allowed her husband to become too involved. They did say that she had not done anything wrong in her firing of Monaghan, and they also said that Wooten had very little to do with her firing of Moneghan. The whole investigation was about her firing of Moneghan. Don't try to spin this into criminal action. They want to have a way to run against her in the next gubernatorial election, so they said she somehow "abused her powers." But the fineprint suggests otherwise.

Post by **Big Magilla** » Fri Oct 17, 2008 1:10 pm

Yes, she did. She breached ethics rules.

Stop Todd? What makes you think he wasn't acting on her orders, or do you think Todd and various members of her staff all acted on their own in petitioning Wooten's firing?

Post by **criddic3** » Fri Oct 17, 2008 12:24 pm

Big Magilla wrote:She did nothing wrong in firing him as he was an at-will employee she had the right to fire for any reason.

She was guilty of breach of ethics in using her position for personal gain - not monetary gain, but the satisfaction of having her brother-in-law lose his livelihood. It's grounds for impeachment, though it probably wont come to that.

Actually, the verdict expressly said that the firing had very little to do with the brother-in-law. They only had a problem with her husband's efforts to get the trooper fired, but they said that the brother-in-law had very little to do with her decision to fire Moneghan. Their whole idea of "abuse of" her powers was that she didn't stop Todd from trying to get the brother-in-law Wooten fired.

She didn't actually do anything wrong.

Post by **Big Magilla** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:38 am

She did nothing wrong in firing him as he was an at-will employee she had the right to fire for any reason.

She was guilty of breach of ethics in using her position for personal gain - not monetary gain, but the satisfaction of having her brother-in-law lose his livelihood. It's grounds for impeachment, though it probably wont come to that.

Post by **criddic3** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:14 am

This was a very strange verdict. They said she didn't do anything wrong in term of the activity they were originally investigating her for, but that she was guilty of "inaction" with regard to her husband in the separate case of the trooper that her family had troubles with. So the firing wasn't wrong in their judgment, but letting her husband try to get the other fired (which he wasn't) was. Now the Palins have claimed that Todd wrote a letter to the commission explaining that Sarah did reign him in, contrary to what the judgment actually states.

What it all boils down to is something that reminds me of the "Scooter" Libby case. Not guilty of any actual wrong-doing, but (in Libby's case) dodging the investigation by not answering their questions exactly the way the wanted. in Palin's case, she acted appropriately in the firing of the one guy, but because she didn't stop her husband's activity with regard to the other guy they say she "abused" her authority. Inaction makes her guilty, even if neither she or Todd is accused of actually doing anything wrong. Wonderful! Tax dollars at work, folks.

Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

The internet's oldest Oscar discussion forum.

Palin Panel Reaches Ethics Breach Verdict