Originally posted by: conehead433
So now the Alaska Attorney General has made it clear that any state employees subpoenaed in the troopergate investigation would refuse to honor the subpoenas. Apparently the AG, Talis Colberg, appointed by Palin, has stepped up to the plate to help Palin get out of a jam. The governor questioned the validity of the subpoenas so therefore no state workers will testify. Probably get fired if they did. I'm thinking that Bush might take a back seat to Palin's disregard for the law.
Article
If they have nothing to hide, what are they afraid of? It's not like the bipartisan investigative team is just fabricating evidence.Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The employees are refusing to honor the subpoenas, they ARE NOT being ordered to ignore them.
It seems as if the employees feel that it is a personal vendetta rather than an honest investigation.
When the head of the investigation starts condemning before people have been questioned, it should raise read flags about impartiality.
Originally posted by: jpeyton
If they have nothing to hide, what are they afraid of? It's not like the bipartisan investigative team is just fabricating evidence.Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The employees are refusing to honor the subpoenas, they ARE NOT being ordered to ignore them.
It seems as if the employees feel that it is a personal vendetta rather than an honest investigation.
When the head of the investigation starts condemning before people have been questioned, it should raise read flags about impartiality.
Originally posted by: jpeyton
If they have nothing to hide, what are they afraid of? It's not like the bipartisan investigative team is just fabricating evidence.Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The employees are refusing to honor the subpoenas, they ARE NOT being ordered to ignore them.
It seems as if the employees feel that it is a personal vendetta rather than an honest investigation.
When the head of the investigation starts condemning before people have been questioned, it should raise read flags about impartiality.
Knowledge? Sounds more like an assumption to me.Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The knowledge that the outcome is being rigged and that their words will be snipped ouit of context for political gains.
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Knowledge? Sounds more like an assumption to me.Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The knowledge that the outcome is being rigged and that their words will be snipped ouit of context for political gains.
Why would revealing the truth be damaging to Palin?
These are the actions of a guilty woman.
Not until the world hears the truth about Fingolfingate.Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Can we please stop attaching 'gate' to the end of every scandal?
Because the e-mail/phone evidence is damaging?Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The head of the investigation has publicly come out stating that it would be damaging.
E-mail/phone evidence is two-sided.Yet the investigation has not completed, not all players interviewed. They stated this with only one side of the evidence being presented. The others have decided to not participate in the charade.
Palin is muzzling herself.They are acting like a grand jury - present one side with their viewpoint and the otherside is deliberately being muzzled.
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Because the e-mail/phone evidence is damaging?Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The head of the investigation has publicly come out stating that it would be damaging.
E-mail/phone evidence is two-sided.Yet the investigation has not completed, not all players interviewed. They stated this with only one side of the evidence being presented. The others have decided to not participate in the charade.
Palin is muzzling herself.They are acting like a grand jury - present one side with their viewpoint and the otherside is deliberately being muzzled.
If she stated her case, then the investigation has her side of the argument on record.Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Palin stated her case and it is documented that person was let go for violating policy.
Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Can we please stop attaching 'gate' to the end of every scandal?
Originally posted by: jpeyton
If they have nothing to hide, what are they afraid of? It's not like the bipartisan investigative team is just fabricating evidence.Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
-snip-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: jpeyton
If they have nothing to hide, what are they afraid of? It's not like the bipartisan investigative team is just fabricating evidence.Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
-snip-
Jpeyton,
You are purposefully emphasizing that the investigation TEAM is bipartisan.
I see that confirmed ONLY in blog sites.
A bipartisan group authorized the investigation (BTW: the Repubs who did so have now filed suit saying the investigation has been hijacked for partisan purposes).
Can you somehow prove that the investigators themselves are composed of a bipartisan group?
TIA
Fern
DAN FAGAN
You really can't experience the full effect of Monday's news conference featuring Palin spokeswoman Meghan Stapleton unless you hear it for yourself. Stapleton passionately attacked former Commissioner of Public Safety Walt Monegan. Her rhetoric was plain, desperate, and obvious. Her tone, pure shrill.
With intensity, urgency, and alarm in her voice, Stapleton described Monegan's behavior as commissioner as egregious insubordination, full of obstructionist conduct and a brazen refusal to follow instructions.
Did Walt Monegan, former Marine, and lifetime crime fighter deserve this? Of course not.
But history has proven, get in the way of Sarah Barracuda's political ambition, and you won't know what hit you.
If anyone should be on the hot seat, it's not Monegan, but Palin for her inconsistencies.
The governor has given so many different reasons for firing Monegan I've lost count. From the "we need new direction" and "new energy" to "he wasn't hiring enough cops," to "he wasn't doing enough about alcohol in the bush" to "he lobbied for budget increases" to the latest version, which is a doozy; Monegan displayed "egregious rogue behavior."
The governor also originally said that neither she, Todd nor anyone from her administration pressured Monegan regarding Trooper Wooten. Palin then was forced to admit there was serial contact once the Frank Bailey tape surfaced. But she insisted she was just learning of it. But e-mails have surfaced detailing Palin complaining to Monegan about Wooten.
The governor also originally said an investigation was needed and promised to cooperate. Then she instructed her employees not to talk to the investigator and has herself refused to be interviewed.
Palin can't constantly change her story and expect us to believe her each time she does.
Meanwhile, this Palin VP thing has Alaskans all stirred up? Much like Palin divided the Republican party, she has managed to divide the state over her national candidacy.
Clearly most Alaskans choose to ignore the facts of the Troopergate scandal. They want Palin to make it to the national stage.
Republicans scold me all the time, "You don't want Obama to win do you? Stop criticizing Palin!"
My question to my conservative friends is simple. Does the truth still matter?
Truth is at the very heart of the conservative movement. Isn't it true that smaller government, self empowerment, and personal responsibility are worth fighting for? Isn't it true that promoting a culture of life and defending marriage will keep us strong as a nation?
But some Republican leaders are abandoning truth and closing ranks to help Palin cover up her scandal by attacking the investigation.
Representative John Coghill has been especially disappointing on this.
And so has Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell. He called the investigation a "complete farce."? Parnell said, "I'm disappointed by the complete hijacking of what should be a fair and objective process,"
Parnell knows eight Republicans along with four Democrats voted to launch this independent investigation.
Contrast Sean "Captain Zero" Parnell with Republican Senator Charlie Huggins. Palin would have gotten away with shutting down the investigation if it were not for Huggins.
His swing vote allowed for subpoenas. Huggins put the quest for truth above his party. He said, "Let's just get the facts on the table, the sooner the better,"
But too many in my party are interested in the facts. They want Palin to win -- at all cost.
I want McCain and Palin to win too. But with Palin's refusal to cooperate with the independent investigator and her transparent delay tactics, Americans deserve to know what Palin is trying to hide before we vote her a heartbeat away from the leader of the free world.
My fellow conservatives, remember how frustrating it was when Bill Clinton committed perjury and liberals looked the other way.
As conservatives, we are no better unless we demand full disclosure from our governor when it comes to Troopergate.
No politician is so popular and charismatic that they should be above accountability and telling the truth. Not even Sarah Palin.
You're either a fool or blinded by bias or intellectually dishonest.Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The employees are refusing to honor the subpoenas, they ARE NOT being ordered to ignore them.
Originally posted by: Lemon law
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: jpeyton
If they have nothing to hide, what are they afraid of? It's not like the bipartisan investigative team is just fabricating evidence.Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
-snip-
Jpeyton,
You are purposefully emphasizing that the investigation TEAM is bipartisan.
I see that confirmed ONLY in blog sites.
A bipartisan group authorized the investigation (BTW: the Repubs who did so have now filed suit saying the investigation has been hijacked for partisan purposes).
Can you somehow prove that the investigators themselves are composed of a bipartisan group?
TIA
Fern
Ah yes, that biblical Jesus point, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
-snip-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Lemon law
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: jpeyton
If they have nothing to hide, what are they afraid of? It's not like the bipartisan investigative team is just fabricating evidence.Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
-snip-
Jpeyton,
You are purposefully emphasizing that the investigation TEAM is bipartisan.
I see that confirmed ONLY in blog sites.
A bipartisan group authorized the investigation (BTW: the Repubs who did so have now filed suit saying the investigation has been hijacked for partisan purposes).
Can you somehow prove that the investigators themselves are composed of a bipartisan group?
TIA
Fern
Ah yes, that biblical Jesus point, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
-snip-
Ah yes, that irrelevent LemonLaw point, let me type to see myself in print.
It's simply a question about a *fact*, nothing more nothing less.
Fern
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: jpeyton
If they have nothing to hide, what are they afraid of? It's not like the bipartisan investigative team is just fabricating evidence.Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
-snip-
Jpeyton,
You are purposefully emphasizing that the investigation TEAM is bipartisan.
I see that confirmed ONLY in blog sites.
A bipartisan group authorized the investigation (BTW: the Repubs who did so have now filed suit saying the investigation has been hijacked for partisan purposes).
Originally posted by: Lemon law
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-
No Fern, you put the onus of the proof on yourself by asking jpeyton to prove the FACT of "Can you somehow prove that the investigators themselves are composed of a bipartisan group?"
He made the claim himself, the rules here are if you make the claim, you back it up.
jpeyton has already made his case that its bi-partisan, now you prejudge and stone throw asserting its not without offering a single relevant argument to even start to support your case.
He's done no such thing. He claims the investigating TEAM is bipartisan.
-snip-
And you Fern, made a totally phony argument and got caught in the act of trying to make your innuendo trump the known facts.
I make no argument, I simply asked for confirmation of his claim. If you refuse to acknowledge any difference in a bipartisan vote to authorize an investigation, and a claim that the investigating team is bipartisan, that's your problem. And kindly butt-out and let JPeyton answer my question as addressed to him.
