Troopergate Reaching Critical Mass: ABC Interviews Monegan

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,226
5,802
126
If all that is accurate, Palin is a few screws looser than everyone already thought.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
I agree with Robor, they are stonewalling super hard. And even if the GOP can stonewall it past 11/4/2008, its still going to continue to be an issue. And if Palin does become the VP, its still going to continue to hang over her head. Or we can go back to the days of Dan Quail or Spiro Agnew, with a politically divisive VP that is basically damaged goods.

The GOP has almost certainly made a very bad mistake. They have tried to build up the Palin image to such a HUGE extent that not even a saint could possibly live up to that painted image. And in elevating Palin to such an impossibly high pedestal, there must be an inevitable backlash when we, the American people, find out the Sarah Palin is merely a better than average GOP Governor with a set of good characteristics and bad characteristics.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Or the guy has a vendetta against Palin and this is an excellent opportunity for him to lay out his story where the media can get it and thrust him to the forefront.

It is a he says, she says.
The documented records will show which is correct and which is twisting the story for their own justification.

The records must be the final evidence - what caused the records will be subjective to interpretation no matter what is actually stated.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
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


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.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
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.
If they have nothing to hide, what are they afraid of? It's not like the bipartisan investigative team is just fabricating evidence.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
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.
If they have nothing to hide, what are they afraid of? It's not like the bipartisan investigative team is just fabricating evidence.


The knowledge that the outcome is being rigged and that their words will be snipped ouit of context for political gains.
 

smashp

Platinum Member
Aug 30, 2003
2,443
0
0
I wonder what will happen now that Governor Palin's Yahoo email account was hacked and the contenets were extracted from it.
 

QED

Diamond Member
Dec 16, 2005
3,428
3
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
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.
If they have nothing to hide, what are they afraid of? It's not like the bipartisan investigative team is just fabricating evidence.

Funny how you are using the "innocent people have nothing to hide" argument that you try so hard to discredit when the discussion is about talking to the police-- yet you believe Palin should have no issues cooperating with a panel who's leader has already indicated he knows the outcome will be.

Would you cooperate with a police investigation if they announced that they already believed you were guilty before they even talked to you? Is that your new stance?
 

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
12,257
9,079
136
Wasn't this investigation started by a 12-0 vote of Alaska state representatives? 8 republican and 4 democrats?
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
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.
Knowledge? Sounds more like an assumption to me.

Why would revealing the truth be damaging to Palin?

These are the actions of a guilty woman.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
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.
Knowledge? Sounds more like an assumption to me.

Why would revealing the truth be damaging to Palin?

These are the actions of a guilty woman.

The head of the investigation has publicly come out stating that it would be damaging.

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.

They are acting like a grand jury - present one side with their viewpoint and the otherside is deliberately being muzzled.



 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Can we please stop attaching 'gate' to the end of every scandal?
Not until the world hears the truth about Fingolfingate.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The head of the investigation has publicly come out stating that it would be damaging.
Because the e-mail/phone evidence is damaging?

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.
E-mail/phone evidence is two-sided.

They are acting like a grand jury - present one side with their viewpoint and the otherside is deliberately being muzzled.
Palin is muzzling herself.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The head of the investigation has publicly come out stating that it would be damaging.
Because the e-mail/phone evidence is damaging?

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.
E-mail/phone evidence is two-sided.

They are acting like a grand jury - present one side with their viewpoint and the otherside is deliberately being muzzled.
Palin is muzzling herself.

And the investigators have decided/stated that they want to look at it from one side.

Palin stated her case and it is documented that person was let go for violating policy.

 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Palin stated her case and it is documented that person was let go for violating policy.
If she stated her case, then the investigation has her side of the argument on record.

If the documents she provided prove her case, she has nothing to fear.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Can we please stop attaching 'gate' to the end of every scandal?

Ok, call a spade a spade. Its an official ethics investigation into the Governor of Alaska's actions, not only an officially recognized procedure in Alaska, its a tactic Sarah Palin has used at least twice against her political opponents.

And now when the shoe is on the other foot in an official investigation that was started well before Palin was named as McCain's VP pick, we now see that both the GOP and Palin herself are using all available resources to suppress a State sanctioned ethics investigation.

The suffix of gate is now in the American vernacular to describe such politically charged suppression of due process of law. And its up to the reader to decide for themselves if the suffix of gate applies.

So this once, I shall humor Fingolfin269 and call it an ethics investigation. And then point out that the American people want to know about Sarah Palin's actual ethics, and that suppressing the ethics investigation will not remove the questions.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
-snip-
If they have nothing to hide, what are they afraid of? It's not like the bipartisan investigative team is just fabricating evidence.

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
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
-snip-
If they have nothing to hide, what are they afraid of? It's not like the bipartisan investigative team is just fabricating evidence.

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. And since no one is without sin, no stones should ever be cast, even if the stone being cast is to ask for an investigation of a sin by a possible sinner. And then bottom line, any sin is therefore acceptable. And any other conclusion is biblical blasphemy. And all those words about in the bible about wickedness must now be edited away.

Lets us be Biblically and logically consistent, and just pretend to look the other way. Do not be a doubting Thomas.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
What the heck? Even fellow Alaskan conservatives who want her to win in November are asking her to cooperate; here is commentary from the Anchorage Daily News from a local conservative radio host:

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.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The employees are refusing to honor the subpoenas, they ARE NOT being ordered to ignore them.
You're either a fool or blinded by bias or intellectually dishonest.

So, an employee is told by someone who is essentially a flunky of the boss that they don't have to honor a subpoena seeking information that might discredit the boss.

Now, say the employee knows such information: For the employee to testify under such conditions amounts to whistle blowing. Do you honestly think a person is going to risk their livelihood to testify?
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
-snip-
If they have nothing to hide, what are they afraid of? It's not like the bipartisan investigative team is just fabricating evidence.

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
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
-snip-
If they have nothing to hide, what are they afraid of? It's not like the bipartisan investigative team is just fabricating evidence.

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
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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?"

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.

The fact is that the ethics charges against Palin will, even after an investigation,
still somewhat swirl, and so will charges of not bipartisan. And the only way to clear the air as much as possible will be to let the investigation proceed.

And you Fern, made a totally phony argument and got caught in the act of trying to make your innuendo trump the known facts.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
-snip-
If they have nothing to hide, what are they afraid of? It's not like the bipartisan investigative team is just fabricating evidence.

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).

The report I read said that the Republicans who filed suit to block the truth until after the election are *not* the ones on the committee, who voted for the investigation.

I have not confirmed the accuracy of the report but it makes sense - now that Palin has the nomination, the corrupt Republicans are putting party first and obstructing.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
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.

See bolded

Fern