Palin dogs ethics complaints

V

valkyrie

Well-Known Member
Ethics complaints still dog Palin - CNN

Looks like Palin had a good reason to resign as governor of Alaska.

I find it rather disgusting that she used her position to profit from the people she was supposed to serve. Tisk tisk tisk.
Some of the ethics complaints filed...
  • claimed per diem funds when she stays at her Wasilla, Alaska home
  • travel expenses for nine trips, accompanied by her children, after the state paid for them
  • Another inquiry led to some new ethics training for a staff member
  • (an old complaint) Palin inappropriately fired the state's director of public safety (An independent counsel found she had a right to fire him, but in doing so had violated a state ethics law. It found she had abused the powers of her office by pressuring employees to get the trooper fired.)

I found it shocking that the person who filed 4 of these complaints is a registered Republican! :eek:
 
She has beaten every single ethics complaint. Nothing new here. Someone is looking to destroy her at any cost. It's easier to file lots of false claims, making headlines, then having them dropped, getting page 28 disclosure.
 
On November 3, 2008, the Alaska Personnel Board had concluded its probe and determined that Palin had not violated ethics laws
Click to expand...

you had a 404
 
Gonz said:
you had a 404
Click to expand...
Go look at my link. There is no 404 there. It says...
" The public safety director claimed he was let go because of his refusal to fire a state trooper who was Palin's former brother-in-law and who was locked in a bitter divorce and custody battle with the governor's sister.

Palin and her supporters argued it was because the director was insubordinate.

An independent counsel found she had a right to fire him, but in doing so had violated a state ethics law. It found she had abused the powers of her office by pressuring employees to get the trooper fired."

GUILTY AS CHARGED! BAM!
 
valkyrie said:
An independent counsel found she had a right to fire him, but in doing so had violated a state ethics law. It found she had abused the powers of her office by pressuring employees to get the trooper fired."
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, you feel that a supervisor who refuses to fire a law enforcement officer that threatens to kill his in-laws and tasers his 10 year old son is the kind of person you want in charge?
 
Frodo said:
Just to clarify, you feel that a supervisor who refuses to fire a law enforcement officer that threatens to kill his in-laws and tasers his 10 year old son is the kind of person you want in charge?
Click to expand...

All that matters is that the words "Palin" and "guilty" occur in the same sentence. She must be destroyed because she is a threat to the Liberal status quo.
 
Frodo said:
Just to clarify, you feel that a supervisor who refuses to fire a law enforcement officer that threatens to kill his in-laws and tasers his 10 year old son is the kind of person you want in charge?
Click to expand...

You're a huge fan of the Straw Man aren't you?

All that matters is that the words "Palin" and "guilty" occur in the same sentence.
Click to expand...

Especially when the sentence is "Palin was found guilty".

She must be destroyed because she is a threat to the Liberal status quo.
Click to expand...

She's not threat to anything really. She's comedy gold though.
 
spike said:
You're a huge fan of the Straw Man aren't you?
Click to expand...

Listen.....There's that noise again!

pekin-duck.jpg


Quack
 
Val, you're not gullible enough to believe that she's alone having done this, are ya? Every politician uses their influence to get done what they want. She may have been less discrete about how she did it, but it's hardly anything new. It's essentially the same abuse of power when someone has that pal at city hall help them squash a parking ticket.

While we may wish it otherwise, people don't seek power to help others. They seek power to serve themselves. A comedy of errors that can't be helped when you give the power to make laws to the same people charged with enforcing them at the highest levels. That's why you have two branches of gov't, congress and senate; to separate the power. Unfortunately, it's nowhere near separate enough anymore.
 
Professur said:
Val, you're not gullible enough to believe that she's alone having done this, are ya? Every politician uses their influence to get done what they want. She may have been less discrete about how she did it, but it's hardly anything new. It's essentially the same abuse of power when someone has that pal at city hall help them squash a parking ticket.

While we may wish it otherwise, people don't seek power to help others. They seek power to serve themselves. A comedy of errors that can't be helped when you give the power to make laws to the same people charged with enforcing them at the highest levels. That's why you have two branches of gov't, congress and senate; to separate the power. Unfortunately, it's nowhere near separate enough anymore.
Click to expand...

The House of Representatives and the Senate are BOTH "Congress" and only constitute ONE branch of government known as the legislative branch. The two were set up so that states had one half of Congress with equal representation, (the Senate) as well as having representation proportional to population (the House). The other two are the executive branch, (President and Vice President) and the Supreme Court which is the Judicial branch.

Just thought I'd clarify that.....
 
Thanks, RJ. Our parliament and senate are set up differently. The senate is essentially a house of lords who's jobs are by appointment and they're good for life. They seldom are indebted to the current regime for more than the term in which they're appointed, and usually are picked to serve as spoilers against the next guys in power.
 
The concept is the same though, in that is is supposed to be about "checks and balances".

Seems more like bad checks and negative balances though....
 
House members are & always have been voted on by the people in their respective states & its districts.

Sentors were appointed by the Governor of their state, leaving them more concerned about state matters. Somebody got the bright idea to change the Constitution & make them also popularly voted.

House of Lords/Commons now.
 
Gonz said:
House members are & always have been voted on by the people in their respective states & its districts.

Sentors were appointed by the Governor of their state, leaving them more concerned about state matters. Somebody got the bright idea to change the Constitution & make them also popularly voted.

House of Lords/Commons now.
Click to expand...

Actually, the Senators were to be appointed by a vote of the legislatures of the several states. This worked quite well until they passed, and unfortunately ratified, the seventeenth amendment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top