Troopergate deepens - Page 11

cheesebeef · September 16th, 2008, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 40yearfan

Boy, you must really be sick (or bored to death).

bingo!

SirStefan32 · September 16th, 2008, 09:45 PM

http://my.barackobama.com/page/commu...HQBlog/2008/07

Kim Elton, Juneau
Hollis French, Anchorage

French is in charge of the "investigation" and Elton is on the "panel". Both of them are clearly Obama followers. There is no reason to cooperate with them.

82CardsGrad · September 16th, 2008, 09:53 PM

I really wish Palin would testify and take part in these proceedings... According to two lawyers, Lise Weil and Mercedes Colwin have reviewed the data and believe Palin has NOTHING to hide..

Watch this clip (click on the "Is it Legal" tab, and then Trooper Trouble):

http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/index.html#

UncleChris · September 17th, 2008, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 82CardsGrad

I really wish Palin would testify and take part in these proceedings... According to two lawyers, Lise Weil and Mercedes Colwin have reviewed the data and believe Palin has NOTHING to hide..

Watch this clip (click on the "Is it Legal" tab, and then Trooper Trouble):

http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/index.html#

You're making my case for me.... If there's nothing to hide, why not be open and transparent?

Because these 2 turkey lawyers are lying, I suspect.

UncleChris · September 17th, 2008, 12:15 AM

There are so many paralells to Nixon and Watergate here that I just can't believe it. The D's ought to run with that concept.

Alaska AG: Palin subpoenas won't be honored
And five Alaska lawmakers file suit to end ‘Troopergate’ probe

Sept. 16: Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has announced she won't testify in the "Troopergate" case, while Walt Monegan, whom Palin fired in the controversy, gives MSNBC his side of the story.
updated 8:21 p.m. MT, Tues., Sept. 16, 2008
JUNEAU, Alaska - Alaska's investigation into whether Gov. Sarah Palin abused her power, a potentially damaging distraction for John McCain's presidential campaign, ran into intensified resistance Tuesday when the attorney general said state employees would refuse to honor subpoenas in the case.

In a letter to state Sen. Hollis French, the Democrat overseeing the investigation, Republican Attorney General Talis Colberg asked that the subpoenas be withdrawn. He also said the employees would refuse to appear unless either the full state Senate or the entire Legislature votes to compel their testimony.

Colberg, who was appointed by Palin, said the employees are caught between their respect for the Legislature and their loyalty to the governor, who initially agreed to cooperate with the inquiry but has increasingly opposed it since McCain chose her as his running mate.

"This is an untenable position for our clients because the governor has so strongly stated that the subpoenas issued by your committee are of questionable validity," Colberg wrote.

Last week, French's Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed 13 people. They include 10 employees of Palin's administration and three who are not: her husband, Todd Palin; John Bitney, Palin's former legislative liaison who now is chief of staff for Republican House Speaker John Harris; and Murlene Wilkes, a state contractor.

French did not immediately return a telephone call Tuesday for comment.

Earlier in the day, Harris, who two months ago supported the "Troopergate" investigation, openly questioned its impartiality and raised the possibility of delaying the findings.

Like Colberg's letter, the surprise maneuver by Harris reflected deepening resolve by Republicans to spare Palin embarrassment or worse in the final weeks of the presidential campaign.

And it marked a further fraying of a bipartisan consensus, formed by a unanimous panel before Palin became McCain's running mate, that her firing of the state's public safety commissioner justified the ethical investigation.

In a letter, Harris wrote that what "started as a bipartisan and impartial effort is becoming overshadowed by public comments from individuals at both ends of the political spectrum," and he urged lawmakers to meet quickly to decide on a course.

"What I may be in favor of is having the report delayed, but only if it becomes a blatant partisan issue," he told The Associated Press, while indicating he already believes it has become politically tainted.

Democratic state Sen. Kim Elton, chairman of the Legislative Council, the 14-member panel that authorized the probe, had no immediate comment on Harris' request. Under an unusual power-sharing agreement, the council is made up of 10 Republicans and 4 Democrats.

At issue is whether Palin abused her power by pressing the commissioner to remove her former brother-in-law as an Alaska state trooper, then firing the commissioner when he didn't.

The matter risks casting a shadow on Palin's reputation, central to her appeal in the campaign, that she is a clean-government advocate who takes on entrenched interests — not a governor who tried to use her authority behind the scenes to settle a personal score.

Palin has defended her behavior and said she welcomed the investigation. "Hold me accountable," she said. But she and the McCain campaign have taken actions that could slow the probe, possibly past Election Day.

Also Tuesday, five Republican state lawmakers filed a lawsuit against an investigation they called "unlawful, biased, partial and partisan." None serves on the bipartisan Legislative Council that unanimously approved the inquiry. They want it pushed past the election or top Democrats removed from the probe.

Making clear the dispute has ramifications beyond Alaska, Liberty Legal Institute, a Texas-based legal advocacy group, was working on the lawsuit. The institute has taken on a variety of cases in defense of conservative Christian positions.

Elton called the lawsuit "a distraction."

"The silver lining in this action initiated by the five lawmakers is that some of that debate now has been kicked to the judicial branch which, unlike the Legislature and the governor's office, is more insulated from the red-hot passion of presidential politics," he said.

Palin fired public safety commissioner Walt Monegan in July.

Weeks later, it emerged that Palin, her husband, Todd, and several high-level staffers had contacted Monegan about state trooper Mike Wooten, who had gone through a nasty divorce from Palin's sister before Palin became governor. While Monegan says no one from the administration ever told him directly to fire Wooten, he says their repeated contacts made it clear they wanted Wooten gone.

Palin maintains she fired Monegan over budget disagreements, not because he wouldn't dismiss her ex-brother-in-law. She has sought through her lawyer to have the matter investigated in a more favorable forum, the state personnel board.

SirStefan32 · September 17th, 2008, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UncleChris

You're making my case for me.... If there's nothing to hide, why not be open and transparent?

Because these 2 turkey lawyers are lying, I suspect.

Why do it? If there is no evidence against you, and there is no way that you can be found guilty of anything, and somebody is trying to hurt you for political gain, you don't talk.

French and Elton are featured on Obama's website. Monegan himself admitted that neither Palin never asked him to fire the trooper.

It is ridiculous that this is even being talked about in the media. There is no scandal, there is no conspiracy and there is no getting around Sarah Palin being the next VP.

cheesebeef · September 17th, 2008, 04:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirStefan32

Why do it? If there is no evidence against you, and there is no way that you can be found guilty of anything, and somebody is trying to hurt you for political gain, you don't talk.

French and Elton are featured on Obama's website. Monegan himself admitted that neither Palin never asked him to fire the trooper.

It is ridiculous that this is even being talked about in the media. There is no scandal, there is no conspiracy and there is no getting around Sarah Palin being the next VP.

what I think is ridiculous is that a) before she was in the public eye she was apparently fine cooperating with the panel and b) that a panel of 10 republicans v. 4 Democrats could somehow be construed as some kind of witch-hunt. The fact that you don't even have questions about either one of these facts, ah, what's the use. You, like your opponents on the far left are Sixth Sense ghosts.

cheesebeef · September 17th, 2008, 04:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirStefan32

http://my.barackobama.com/page/commu...HQBlog/2008/07

Kim Elton, Juneau
Hollis French, Anchorage

French is in charge of the "investigation" and Elton is on the "panel". Both of them are clearly Obama followers. There is no reason to cooperate with them.

what about cooperating with the other people involved in the "investigation", you know, like the 10 Republicans out of a total of 14 people on the "panel".

DWKB · September 17th, 2008, 08:03 AM

Guess this goes here:

Quote:

So Sarah Palin's latest explanation for why she fired Walt Monegan is that he had gone over her head in seeking federal money for an initiative to combat sexual assault crimes, before she had approved the program.

But it now appears that the program in question is one that most elected officials would be wary of admitting they hadn't strongly backed. According to Peggy Brown, who heads the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, Monegan wanted to use the federal money to hire retired troopers and law enforcement officials, and assign them to investigate the most egregious cases of sexual assault -- including those against children.

In other words, if Palin's new story is true, she fired Monegan for being too aggressive in going after child molesters.

ABC News reported yesterday that, although Alaska leads the nation in reported rapes per capita, Palin hasn't made the issue a priority as governor.

Monegan, however, appeared eager to change that. "He seemed to get the issue and really took it seriously," Brown told TPMmuckraker.

According to the Palin camp, too seriously.

So, now we have:

An ad that attack Obama on wanting to teach kids about how to protect themselves from molesters.

A policy that makes a woman pay for her own rape kit.

A firing of the public safety commissioner for being too aggressive against sexual predators.

None of these look good by themselves, but combined....

So, she simply has some explaining to do... She's a terrific speaker so I'm sure she'll be able to convincingly put this to rest - even for us stupid folk...

Donald · September 17th, 2008, 08:13 AM

Quote:

In other words, if Palin's new story is true, she fired Monegan for being too aggressive in going after child molesters.

No, in other words she fired him in going over her head twice to the federal government.

You try going over your bosses head to the board of directors for more money in your budget, even for a great program, and see how fast that gets you tossed on the street.

Quote:

A policy that makes a woman pay for her own rape kit.

Have a good link for that? I haven't been able to verify that yet, but I've seen crap links on both sides. I lean towards BS there.

DWKB · September 17th, 2008, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donald

Have a good link for that? I haven't been able to verify that yet, but I've seen crap links on both sides. I lean towards BS there.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j...DN-wQD934TN907

Mulli · September 17th, 2008, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DWKB

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j...DN-wQD934TN907

damn.

dreamcastrocks · September 17th, 2008, 08:33 AM

Ouch.

You get raped and then f'd right after.

Wow.

Donald · September 17th, 2008, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DWKB

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j...DN-wQD934TN907

Yes I know about that, but they claim it untrue and it was unverified. However, I did find the Huffington Post wrote about it and verified it as a being a budget item, so that it was there is true. I'd like to see their response as to why the Palin team claims as they do, though.

From what I've seen, but not in a solid link, was that it was occuring Alaska wide, not just in Wasilla, and may have had something to do with the way Medicaid was billed for an Alaska program. HB270 didn't address Wasilla specifically, either. I'll try to track down more details on that stuff.

Before I say "wow, what a bitch" I think I'd like to see the actual facts of it all and the reasoning come out. Just like all the crap against Ron Paul that sounded weird on the surface (voted against honoring Rosa Parks?!?!?) I like to find out the whole story.

I don't see this as a conscious decision on her part the way it is portrayed..it would be pretty ruthless, IMO.

Donald · September 17th, 2008, 09:03 AM

And, for information's sake, this isn't an uncommon practice. Missouri just enacted a law to end it last year.

http://www.joplinindependent.com/dis...min21179504908

Quote:

Gibbons said he also was shocked to learn that rape victims many times are forced to pay for the rape kit and collection of evidence used in the prosecution of their case.

“The women who fall prey to these horrible crimes should not be further victimized by the process that is supposed to bring justice in their case,” Gibbons said. “You would be appalled if your home was broken into and the police handed you a bill for dusting for fingerprints.”

Current law in Missouri requires Medicaid or insurance carriers to cover the medical examination costs, but Gibbons said many victims end up paying the costs because they are uninsured. The measure requires the Department of Health and Senior Services to make payments to medical providers to cover the charges of forensic examinations for victims of sexual offenses. Last week, the Legislature allocated $250,000 to the department to pay for forensic exams. Victims would also be able to seek “out-of-pocket” losses from the Crime Victims Compensation Fund to cover the cost of personal property that is seized as part of the investigation.