All that may be true. But a legislative committee comprised of 4 dem and 10 repubs looked over all the evidence and disagreed with your analysis that this is a cut and dry matter and instead decided there should be an investigation. I'm guessing they no more than you and I about the real evidence. You're a rationale poster, how can you be so convinced she did nothing wrong when her own state representatives who have studied this issue and have evidence we aren't privy to, bi-partisianship committee, isn't convinced and orders an investiation. So you may say the "if doesn't matter, but that "if" is exactly what they are investigating. If she didn't do anything wrong, well I would hope that is what the investigation will reveal. If she did do something wrong, well to quote her, she should be held accountable.
It's not an assumption. I didn't say it happened, like you are saying that Monegan was fired for proper reasons. I'm not going out that far and pretending I know all the facts in this incident. It is what they are investgating, I don't understand why that is so hard to understand.
I realize that, they have found taht the evidence they were presented dicates an investigation. They also have not cleared her of any wrongdoing and that is also a fact.
What IF she's violated no law or ethics by firing the guy for all the reasons that are you worst fear? (This is most likely the case)
lol that picture of Bill Murray actually adds emphasis. The investigators are trying to catch a weasel.
Once upon a time in the McCarthy era, a politician was quoted (roughly) as saying "I didn't mean to imply my opponent is a communist!" That's not the first time this sleazy rhetorical technique was used, but it's a fine example. Those out to get her talk about impeachment (I didn't mean to imply she should be impeached!) and possible ethical violations (I didn't mean to imply she's done anything unethical). Judging by all the fuss over nothing, the technique still works.
If she did not violate laws or ethics, or there is not convincing evidence taht she has, her name should cleared of all this. (And that is not a straw man that is the issue here.) How are any of us really to know what is most likely the case when we don't have teh investigation results before us. I, personally, will reserve judgment unitl at least the incomplete investigation results are released in October.
She crossed the street but not in the middle of a crosswalk! Dammit, I demand an investigation. In fact, if she's actually guilty, let's get a rope and hang her! But seriously, we should investigate because I really want to see her name cleared. (Pardon the parody)
OK whatever. There is a lot of fuss over nothing. And you know that because you have sat in those committee meetings, reviewed the allegations, the evidence, disagree with the voting memebers of the committee and concluded this is fuss over nothing it is really a technique of McCarthy era being emplyoed by both democrats and republicans up in Alaska. If only the Alaskan congress were as enlightened as you.
Hmm, let's see. Three of the four democrats have been on Obama's Alaska team from the get-go and Palin made her bones by challenging the corruption of her own party. You don't think there are folks in the legislature in her own party who wouldn't mind knocking her down a peg? My point is I don't think she did anything wrong, because I believe she has the right to hire and fire at her will. "If" we have an investigation for every "if" regarding the firing of a state employee, the government would come to a standstill.
DC, how many Alaskan governors do you know that have been investigated? Doesn't quite happen as often as for say . . . walking acorss the street in the middle, does it. But sure, you want to say the allegation of firing someone because they wouldn't fire someone else due to an ugly divorce is the same as jaywalking . . . well I'm jsut glad congress disagrees with you.
And we don't, which is why this is somewhat of a big deal. You want to write this off as one big conspiracy against Palin before she was ever announced as VP, well I think Yega would agree. : ) So you don't think she did anything wrong? You never answered my question, what if she fire Monegan and at the heart of it was because of a divorce.
I think I've responded to this idea before, but you may want to google "Frank Murkowski". Alaskan politics are every bit as dirty as those in Chicago. The difference is that Palin bucked the machine while Obama went along with it.
I assume very few things. Among those are that she's innocent until proven guilty (I find many people find her guilty until proven innocent), and that govt. conducts bazillions of investigations into itself at all levels. The ALLEGATION is of no crime at all, even if the worst claimed about the situation is true. I don't see why anyone would care if she fired either or both of these guys, except the police union and pro Obama forces that can make a lot of smoke out of not much fire.
Great so chalk up Pailin's name right next to Murkowski and state reprentatives that are bing investiagted. Nice crowd.
Congress cares about wielding power over the governor if she won't go along, period. There's a bigger question here than the investigation into this trivial matter. The state there has a specific agency to investigate these things, specifically to appoint special investigators, and congress is doing an end around that agency.
