Blatant lies

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? ...

 

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.

 

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).

 

.. my point exactly

 

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

 

fwiw --

 

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

 

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.

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?

 

What did she gain?

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

Your assumption.

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