Sarah Palin: GUILTY of Abuse of Power

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2008
Sarah Palin: GUILTY of Abuse of Power
485
Fri, 10-10-2008 - 10:18pm

Sarah did it! The standing Governor of Alaska is found Guilty of Abuse of Power by letting First Dude have so much access to state information, state employees, and making over 19 calls to pressure a state official to fire her BIL out of revenge. It was unlawful, but no charges??

I knew it. She did it as Mayor and got away with it. The McCain camp is making excuses as usual, instead of taking responsibility for her/their actions. Details will be released soon.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2008
Tue, 10-14-2008 - 12:15pm

Do you know what an editorial is? It's someone's OPINION. Here are the facts:

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/10/11/response.branchflower.report.pdf

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-06-2008
Tue, 10-14-2008 - 1:23pm

No, of course I don't know the difference between opinion and fact - I must be stupid.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2008
Tue, 10-14-2008 - 2:36pm

She was not "found guilty". Also, under Alaska law, the only body that has jurisdiction over cases like this is the Personnel Board.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/10/11/response.branchflower.report.pdf

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2008
Tue, 10-14-2008 - 2:38pm
If they did that it would look like they were hiding something. The press would be all over that. It would be bad for the committee members AND bad for Governor Palin.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-08-2008
Tue, 10-14-2008 - 2:38pm

Also, under Alaska law, the only body that has jurisdiction over cases like this is the Personnel Board. ...... which is currently investigating multiple ethics charges against her.


 

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2008
Tue, 10-14-2008 - 2:41pm

That's who should have legally been investigating it all along, before it was derailed my political opportunists with their own motives, and no legal jurisdiction. This is the very point the governor has been making all along.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/10/11/response.branchflower.report.pdf

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2008
Tue, 10-14-2008 - 2:45pm

Yes it was the opinion of one man who coincidentally was a partisan Obama supporter. A special prosecutor by the name of Steven Branchflower. The committee did not vote on the validity of Branchflower's conclusions, only on whether or not to release the report.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/10/11/response.branchflower.report.pdf

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-13-2008
Tue, 10-14-2008 - 7:39pm

>>> The last time that I checked....people are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN guilty, yes?

You may not have heard, but Tony Rezko was proven guilty and convicted.

>>> WOW...convenient and selective justice is sooooo pro-American. NOT.

I guess this is just ANOTHER case of stupidi...er..."poor judgment" on the part of Obama to "pal around" with a guy being investigated for wire fraud, bribery, money laundering, and attempted extortion.

>>> Obama bought his house legitimately.

So YOU say...the facts say something different.

>>> He returned all money Rezko gave him.

So YOU say.

>>> Obama's record is clear, and I know that makes Sarah and McCain jealous. lol.

No, I'm afraid not. Obama is corrupt and has many, many shady alliances.

>>> These two are a jounalist's dream. Perhaps you should check out whether Sarah might have taken favors to get her house built. Sarah did KEEP the money illegally obtained from Ted Steven's fundraising scam. Oh, Ted Stevens is on trial for corruption. Stevens is Palin's political mentor.

If you have evidence of your claims, then present them...but then I guess if you did have evidence you would have provided it, as we have concerning allegations involving Obama. I guess that proves that it's just more lib crapola.

>>> McCain possibly lied about being tortured. McCain took money from a corrupt politician, and he did give some of it back, to his credit, but he took VACATIONS with Keating. You can't give them back, can you? He took MONEY from Keating. We will never know how much or if he gave it all back. McCain ratted out his fellow senators. How noble. lol.

If you have evidence of your claims, then present them...but then I guess if you did have evidence you would have provided it, as we have concerning allegations involving Obama. I guess that proves that it's just more lib crapola.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-08-2003
Tue, 10-14-2008 - 8:03pm

You couldn't be more wrong. I'm not the one who can't debate. Anyone who claims a report by conservative Bloomberg, is full of lies, is too far out of touch for me. Bloomberg is about the most ethical report you could get. They are a conservative source. I want to debate someone who is capable of admitting when a better source has been found. I can't be bothered with someone who only likes sources that back them up. I can't think of any other reason for not accepting a reputable CONSERVATIVE source. Too bad you can't accept Obama isn't corrupt. That's your failing, not mine. So, I'm signing off because I can admit when a better source has been found. I can admit when I'm wrong. I may not like it, but I can! I can't debate someone who is completely close minded to the fact they might be wrong!


BTW:Running away is NOT my SOP! That is to be your last insult to me!! I never run away, I walk away from ... don't want a TOS violation!!

 Rose

Pages