Paper Trail Catches up to Palin

[Malerin]

"Fighting back against allegations she may have fired her then-Public Safety Commissioner, Walt Monegan, for refusing to go along with a personal vendetta, Palin on Monday argued in a legal filing that she fired Monegan because he had a "rogue mentality" and was bucking her administration's directives.

"The last straw," her lawyer argued, came when he planned a trip to Washington, D.C., to seek federal funds for an aggressive anti-sexual-violence program. The project, expected to cost from $10 million to $20 million a year for five years, would have been the first of its kind in Alaska, which leads the nation in reported forcible rape.

The McCain-Palin campaign echoed the charge in a press release it distributed Monday, concurrent with Palin's legal filing. "Mr. Monegan persisted in planning to make the unauthorized lobbying trip to D.C.," the release stated.


The document, a state travel authorization form, shows that Palin's chief of staff, Mike Nizich, approved Monegan's trip to Washington D.C. "to attend meeting with Senator Murkowski." The date next to Nizich's signature reads June 18."
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5844710&page=1

[corplinx]

If this is where the paper trail leads, I think its time to get a life.

[BenBurch]

Another documented lie?

Why am I not surprised?

But most shocking is that she seems to make these mendacious statements in utter ignorance of our ability to find paperwork to contradict them. She seems to think that the past is just GONE.

[quixotecoyote]

If this is where the paper trail leads, I think its time to get a life.

Probably. Does "get a life" mean "stop supporting politicians whose alibis for charges of abuse of power have been shot full of holes?"

[leftysergeant]

Palin's office authorized the trip, so she is screwed if she uses that trip as an excuse to fire him.

If she didn't, why didn't the ninny want federal money to help fight rape? Last I looked, she was a woman, and trying to call herself some kind of feminist.

Seriously, there must be a rapist in every dark alley in Alaska, to look at the statistics.

In Wasilla, you are about twice as likely to be raped as to be robbed.

What kind of town is that?

Palin is soft on rape and out of touch with the needs of Alaskans and with the truth.

How Republican of her.

[Uzzy]

I am shocked that any nation that considers itself civilised can treat what Palin did in this case as anything less then a national disgrace, and further appalled at the fact that the person who did that is able to run for any type of public office. How was she not utterly disgraced?

Do American Small Town Values really include charging rape victims the cost of the rape kit? How is every single American not disgusted by this woman?

[not_so_new]

I am shocked that any nation that considers itself civilised can treat what Palin did in this case as anything less then a national disgrace, and further appalled at the fact that the person who did that is able to run for any type of public office. How was she not utterly disgraced?

Do American Small Town Values really include charging rape victims the cost of the rape kit? How is every single American not disgusted by this woman?

I agree.... sad.... but I agree.

[AZAtheist]

The further adventures of Caribou Barbie. I wonder is Sarah going to be McCain's impeachment insurance policy? Cheney serves that role now. She's off to a great start following in this administration's footsteps. Surround yourself with yes men, mix in your religious beliefs, and by all means thumb your nose at the court system. Checks and balances are for wimps.

[gdnp]

I don't see this as a smoking gun. It is quite possible that Palin was against this trip and that her chief of staff was out of the loop and signed off on the travel request as something routine, not realizing the significance.

We'll find out after the elections.

[WildCat]

Do American Small Town Values really include charging rape victims the cost of the rape kit? How is every single American not disgusted by this woman?
Maybe you'll be the first person to name one single person in Wasilla who was charged for a rape kit!

BTW, under a law passed in Illinois which Obama co-sponsored a rape victim charged by an Illinois municipality for a rape kit can seek compensation from the state if their insurance won't pay or they have no insurance... the same type of law Alaska has had since 1971!

I eagerly await your outrage over Obama's failure to stop Illinois municipalities from charging rape victims for a rape kit... :rolleyes:

This was covered in the thread about this subject, apparently political agendas take precedence over actual facts because this nonsense keeps coming up in the many Palin-bashing threads here.

[not_so_new]

So does this remind anyone of anything?

Tricky Bill Clinton come to mind? I deplored the legal wrangling that his team used back then, it wasn't about the sex it was about the lying and the deceit in the name of politics. The smoke screen they used was "this is all politically driven, we don't have to comply with subpoenas because we don't agree with them and they wouldn't treat us fairly anyway."

I am almost POSITIVE every Palin supporter was up in flames about what Clinton did but now that the shoe is on the other foot.... well.... it must be okay because she is batting for their team.

Pathetic.

[BenBurch]

...

I eagerly await your outrage over Obama's failure to stop Illinois municipalities from charging rape victims for a rape kit... :rolleyes:

...

You *do* know he proposed such a law and it died in committee, right?

[WildCat]

You *do* know he proposed such a law and it died in committee, right?
So Democrats (who have the governor and both houses here) support charging rape victims for rape kits, got it.

[Alferd_Packer]

It is quite possible that Palin was against this trip and that her chief of staff was out of the loop

And you don't see any significance in this?

[BenBurch]

So Democrats (who have the governor and both houses here) support charging rape victims for rape kits, got it.

Fellow traveler allegations are disingenuous and don't go far... Obama is running, not Emil Jones.

[Uzzy]

Maybe you'll be the first person to name one single person in Wasilla who was charged for a rape kit!

BTW, under a law passed in Illinois which Obama co-sponsored a rape victim charged by an Illinois municipality for a rape kit can seek compensation from the state if their insurance won't pay or they have no insurance... the same type of law Alaska has had since 1971!

I eagerly await your outrage over Obama's failure to stop Illinois municipalities from charging rape victims for a rape kit... :rolleyes:

This was covered in the thread about this subject, apparently political agendas take precedence over actual facts because this nonsense keeps coming up in the many Palin-bashing threads here.

Firstly, I hope that America allows rape victims anonymity. So asking me to name a victim is probably impossible.

Secondly, Biden sponsored a bill in the Senate to ban this practice across all the states, a bill that was co-sponsored by Obama and not by McCain. Source. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-10-rape-exams_N.htm)

Palin's actions in this violate basic human dignity, and I frankly expected better from America. Unlike a lot of people in Europe, I quite like America, but seeing people like Palin get this close to the White House makes it harder and harder to support your nation.

[Alferd_Packer]

The Illinois law (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=2028&ChapAct=740%C2%A0ILCS%C2%A045/&ChapterID=57&ChapterName=CIVIL+LIABILITIES&ActName=Crime+Victims+Compensation+Act.)

[boloboffin]

Maybe you'll be the first person to name one single person in Wasilla who was charged for a rape kit!

The state legislature acted because this was happening. That's what the Frontiersman article says. I don't see the need to violate these victims' privacy at all for your personal gratification on such a minor talking point.

[BenBurch]

The state legislature acted because this was happening. That's what the Frontiersman article says. I don't see the need to violate these victims' privacy at all for your personal gratification on such a minor talking point.

You think their privacy matters much to those who make arguments like this?

[gdnp]

And you don't see any significance in this?

I do see a significance: that the chief of staff signing off on the travel request does not imply that Palin wasn't against the trip and in the midst of a power struggle with Monegan. It would tend to imply that her chief of staff was out of the loop, that her office is disorganized, or somehow the system broke down (the request was handled as a routine matter, stamped with the chief of staff's signature by his secretary.) It does not prove that Palin approved of the trip and is making up the story that Monegan was guilty of insubordination, which is what some wish to infer.

[Alferd_Packer]

I do see a significance: that the chief of staff signing off on the travel request does not imply that Palin wasn't against the trip and in the midst of a power struggle with Monegan. It would tend to imply that her chief of staff was out of the loop, that her office is disorganized, or somehow the system broke down (the request was handled as a routine matter, stamped with the chief of staff's signature by his secretary.) It does not prove that Palin approved of the trip and is making up the story that Monegan was guilty of insubordination, which is what some wish to infer.


So, in other words, she is not vindictive, but merely incompetent.

[Puppycow]

I do see a significance: that the chief of staff signing off on the travel request does not imply that Palin wasn't against the trip and in the midst of a power struggle with Monegan. It would tend to imply that her chief of staff was out of the loop, that her office is disorganized, or somehow the system broke down (the request was handled as a routine matter, stamped with the chief of staff's signature by his secretary.) It does not prove that Palin approved of the trip and is making up the story that Monegan was guilty of insubordination, which is what some wish to infer.

But it does prove that the trip was authorized, no? They called the trip "unauthorized." That is not strictly true, is it?

Do you really think that the real reason he was fired isn't his failure to fire Palin's former brother-in-law? We can get pedantic about the details, but that's the big picture, right?

[Puppycow]

So her story is that she was against "seeking federal funds for an aggressive anti-sexual-violence program"? That's why she fired him?

If Alaska leads the country in forcible rape, why exactly would she be against that?

[Malerin]

I do see a significance: that the chief of staff signing off on the travel request does not imply that Palin wasn't against the trip and in the midst of a power struggle with Monegan. It would tend to imply that her chief of staff was out of the loop, that her office is disorganized, or somehow the system broke down (the request was handled as a routine matter, stamped with the chief of staff's signature by his secretary.) It does not prove that Palin approved of the trip and is making up the story that Monegan was guilty of insubordination, which is what some wish to infer.

I might be charitible about this if it were anyone but Palin. Has this woman ever told the truth about anything?

Allow me to coin a new term: "Palin's razor"- the more sinister explanation is the preferable one.

[WildCat]

The state legislature acted because this was happening.
It was? Did the Alaska fund refuse to pay for the kit? :confused:

That's what the Frontiersman article says. I don't see the need to violate these victims' privacy at all for your personal gratification on such a minor talking point.
True, but where is the evidence this ever happened? No need for a name, a bill with the name blacked out will do, along with the proof that the Alaska fund refused payment.

[BenBurch]

So her story is that she was against "seeking federal funds for an aggressive anti-sexual-violence program"? That's why she fired him?

If Alaska leads the country in forcible rape, why exactly would she be against that?

Maybe she is one of those women (always women who have never been raped) who think that other women "ask for it" by how they dress and act, or what bar they drink at, or what substance they use to dull the pain of living?

[WildCat]

The Illinois law (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=2028&ChapAct=740%C2%A0ILCS%C2%A045/&ChapterID=57&ChapterName=CIVIL+LIABILITIES&ActName=Crime+Victims+Compensation+Act.)
Thank you for confirming that in Illinois rape victims are charged for rape kits, but the state will pay if the victims have no insurance.

Exactly like the law Alaska had... 30 years before the Illinois law.

[corplinx]

What I can't believe is that this story is actually getting play in the national media because the blogo-fanatics keep finding minor discrepancies in a story that doesn't matter anyway.

Refusing to fire a guy that the governor personally knew was criminally and mentally unfit was one thing, but the governor can get rid of him just because she doesn't like his hair.

[boloboffin]

It was? Did the Alaska fund refuse to pay for the kit? :confused:

Produce a case where the fund did. By my reading of the VCCB information, they didn't cover things like rape kits and they never would have had to, because ONLY WASILLA was charging victims. Read the Frontiersman article again.

True, but where is the evidence this ever happened? No need for a name, a bill with the name blacked out will do, along with the proof that the Alaska fund refused payment.

I've given you the evidence. The paper said it was happening. The police chief would have offered this in his defense (we've not had to do it yet). The reason it was noticed was because people were being charged, and the outcry was so great that the legislature took noticed and passed the bill outlawing the practice.

That's the plain meaning of the Frontiersman article. You have to tap dance around it to pretend otherwise.

[Dan O.]

I'm sure everybody that has done any research on this subject has already seen this article:
Knowles signs sexual assault bill (http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt)
(Published on Monday, May 22, 2000 9:00 PM AKDT)
... the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests.

[Malerin]

What I can't believe is that this story is actually getting play in the national media because the blogo-fanatics keep finding minor discrepancies in a story that doesn't matter anyway.

Refusing to fire a guy that the governor personally knew was criminally and mentally unfit was one thing, but the governor can get rid of him just because she doesn't like his hair.

Except her reason for getting rid of him is now contradicted by an internal memo. Obviously, with an ongoing abuse-of-power investigation, she couldn't just say, "Uh, I didn't like the guy's hair! Yeah, that's the ticket!". She had to come up with a valid reason for removing the guy (i.e.,"Well, he went on an unathorized trip!"). Now she's caught in yet another lie.

[BenBurch]

Thank you for confirming that in Illinois rape victims are charged for rape kits, but the state will pay if the victims have no insurance.

Exactly like the law Alaska had... 30 years before the Illinois law.

Where does it say that they are charged in there? I know my local municipality here does not charge. I know Chicago does not charge. What city charges?

Can you show me EVEN ONE bill that proves somebody in Illinois was charged? :D

[Gravy]

Palin's office is spinning this by saying they knew about the trip but not about its true purpose. However, had Monegan lied about the purpose of the trip they certainly would have said that. This implies that the office authorized a fairly expensive trip without having any idea why. I would think that someone would have asked, "You want to meet with (Alaska) Senator Murkowski in D.C.? What for?"

Either way it doesn't say much for Palin's office or her use of this as the "final straw" against Monegan.

[Gravy]

Thank you for confirming that in Illinois rape victims are charged for rape kits, but the state will pay if the victims have no insurance.

Exactly like the law Alaska had... 30 years before the Illinois law.I didn't read the whole thing, just the part about sexual assault victims. It doesn't say victims are charged as a matter of policy. It says they are entitled to compensation in case of losses due to evidence collection. That's if they have a claim, not because they will have a claim. Nor does it imply that a sexual assault evidence collection fee would need to be covered by insurance. Am I missing something?

[boloboffin]

Exactly like the law Alaska had? Not true, Wildcat. Show me where anyone was reimbursed for rape kits in Alaska. Why wouldn't the police chief defend himself by stating this was possible? He said he charged to insurance when possible. He said he put it on the restitution itemization for the criminal. Why wouldn't he say that victims can get reimbursed?

Because they couldn't. Because AK law DIDN'T provide for reimbursement of rape kits. Before Palin started charging for rape kits, it wasn't a problem.

[Gravy]

According to the Sexual Assault Emergency Treatment Act, the Illinois Department of Public Aid will reimburse the costs of ER treatment if you do not have public aid or private medical insurance.

Under the Illinois Crime Victim's Compensation Act, if you report the assault to the police within 72 hours of the crime and if you file a claim application within two years of the date of the crime, you can be reimbursed for out-of-pocket medical expenses, loss of earnings, psychological counseling, and loss of support income due to the crime. Reimbursement can be up to $27,000.

http://sexualviolence.uchicago.edu/immediate-er-cost.shtmlSo, I think it's safe to say the at least some people in Illinois are billed by hospitals for their evidence collection costs ("public aid" isn't defined...could include other compensation funds). But this is further evidence that in no case does a victim in Illinois who has properly reported a crime legally bear those costs.

ETA: a bit more.
The practice of charging rape victims for evidence collection still occurs more often around the country than it should. US News & World Report recently reported on the problem:In order to qualify for federal grants under the Violence Against Women Act, states have to assume the full out-of-pocket costs for forensic medical exams, as the rape kits are called. But according to a 2004 bulletin published by the NCVC [National Center for Victims of Crime], "Feedback from the field indicates that sexual assault victims are still being billed."From an Obama speech today:
Change means having a Vice President who's spent his career working to improve women's lives. Joe Biden wrote the Violence Against Women Act so we'd finally treat domestic violence like the heinous crime that it is. And in case you were wondering, John McCain voted against that legislation.

http://www.local6.com/politics/17519695/detail.html

[Beth]

So, if she didn't fire him for refusing to fire her ex-brother-in-law, she fired him for taking an 'unathorized trip' her chief of staff had approved. That doesn't sound any better to this voter. Either way, I don't want her in the vice-president's office.

[corplinx]

So, if she didn't fire him for refusing to fire her ex-brother-in-law, she fired him for taking an 'unathorized trip' her chief of staff had approved. That doesn't sound any better to this voter. Either way, I don't want her in the vice-president's office.

Or maybe its the inverse. The only reason why you care about her firing someone she had complete authority to fire is because you don't want her in office.

[BenBurch]

Or maybe its the inverse. The only reason why you care about her firing someone she had complete authority to fire is because you don't want her in office.

And maybe you would excuse anything she did whatsoever because you DO want her in office? The shoe fits the other foot too.

[zigaretten]

Mr Packer is citing the wrong law, the correct Illinois law is:

"Sec. 7. Charges and reimbursement.
(a)When any....hospital provides hospital emergency services and forensic services....to any sexual assault survivor....who is neither eligible to receive such services under the Illinois Public Aid Code nor covered as to such services by a policy of insurance, the ambulance provider, hospital, health care professional, or laboratory shall furnish such services to that person without charge......."

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs...+Treatment+Act (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1531&ChapAct=410%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B70%2F&ChapterID=35&ChapterName=PUBLIC+HEALTH&ActName=Sexual+Assault+Survivors+Emergency+Treatme nt+Act).

And no, Alaska did not reimburse for charges involving rape kits. It is also not clear to me whether Wasilla charged uninsured victims or not. Remember, you're dealing with what was almost certainly fewer than 10 victims, so the question may never have arisen. It's also not clear to me whether insured victims in Illinois were eligible for reimbursement for their deductable.

[corplinx]

And maybe you would excuse anything she did whatsoever because you DO want her in office? The shoe fits the other foot too.

No. Sarah Palin isn't my preference for a president of vice president. I believe her to be provincial, probably bigoted on the subject of gays, and too compromised in her religious beliefs.

However, those are personal preferences. We put those in the dissonance bucket and try to think and reason skeptically. Well, I do. Burch just locks himself in a closet and keeps repeating to himself "must... keep.. posting.... smears....".

1. Is it her right to hire/fire this position as governor? Does that position serve at the governor's pleasure?

2. What is an unacceptable reason to fire him? Originally, the governor gave a vague and ambiguous reason for firing him. The kind of reason you give when you don't want to smear him in addition to firing him. Why keep digging unless money changed hands?

This whole situation appears to be what the governor claims, a partisan witchhunt. Its whitewater-lite and she isn't even elected yet.

[Malerin]

No. Sarah Palin isn't my preference for a president of vice president. I believe her to be provincial, probably bigoted on the subject of gays, and too compromised in her religious beliefs.

However, those are personal preferences. We put those in the dissonance bucket and try to think and reason skeptically. Well, I do. Burch just locks himself in a closet and keeps repeating to himself "must... keep.. posting.... smears....".

Smears? So it's a smear that she lies in nearly every speech about the Bridge to Nowhere and what an awesome earmark reformer she is? That she originally said she would cooperate with the invesitgation and is now stonewalling like mad? That she fired an official for taking an unauthorized trip to Washington that was AUTHORIZED by her chief of staff?

If by "smears" you mean "more lies that are being exposed", then yes, we will keep posting them. Eventually, reasonable people will see her for the fraud she is.


Why keep digging unless money changed hands?

Huh? So Clinton perjuring himself and lying to the American people was OK because no money changed hands?

This whole situation appears to be what the governor claims, a partisan witchhunt. Its whitewater-lite and she isn't even elected yet.

Uh huh:

"Summer 1994
The House and Senate Banking committees begin hearings on Whitewater. Twenty-nine Clinton administration officials are subpoenaed or testify at congressional hearings. All are cleared of any wrongdoing."

Jan. 22, 1996
Kenneth Starr subpoenas Hillary Clinton in a criminal probe to determine if records were intentionally withheld. This is the first time a wife of a sitting president has been subpoenaed.

Jan. 26, 1996
Hillary Clinton testifies before a grand jury about the discovery and content of the billing records.

April 28, 1996
Clinton testifies on videotape as a defense witness for just over four hours. He denies Hale's charge. The tape is played to the Whitewater trial jury on May 9.

July 7, 1996
President Clinton testifies on tape for the second Whitewater trial.

April 25, 1998
Starr and deputies question Hillary Rodham Clinton about Whitewater for nearly five hours at the White House. The testimony is videotaped for the Little Rock grand jury.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/timeline.htm

[Beth]

1. Is it her right to hire/fire this position as governor? Does that position serve at the governor's pleasure?

No, while it may be her perrogative to hire whom she pleases, she still has to hire a person who is competent and able to perform the functions of the job. Likewise she should not be able to fire that person without justification. Persumably, if it was legal for her to do so, there wouldn't be such a brouhaha about it. Instead, she's fighting a court case regarding whether or not it was legally justified.

2. What is an unacceptable reason to fire him? Originally, the governor gave a vague and ambiguous reason for firing him. The kind of reason you give when you don't want to smear him in addition to firing him. Why keep digging unless money changed hands?
Maybe because it was an illegal abuse of power and such things ought to be pursued, even when it is the governor or the president. Perhaps even especially when it is the governor or president. The scandal over the federal attorneys hired by the justice department is said to have done irrepairable harm to that department.

This whole situation appears to be what the governor claims, a partisan witchhunt. Its whitewater-lite and she isn't even elected yet.
Except this started months ago. I gather that the guy she fired doesn't feel it was justified and is fighting back. As is his right.

[Wangler]

Smears? So it's a smear that she lies in nearly every speech about the Bridge to Nowhere and what an awesome earmark reformer she is? That she originally said she would cooperate with the invesitgation and is now stonewalling like mad? That she fired an official for taking an unauthorized trip to Washington that was AUTHORIZED by her chief of staff?

If by "smears" you mean "more lies that are being exposed", then yes, we will keep posting them. Eventually, reasonable people will see her for the fraud she is.

I think the smears are the ones like:

completely false rumors of affairs,
completely false rumors of book-banning, with bogus book-ban lists,
sordid rumors about her youngest child actually being her daughters.

you know, the ridiculous stuff that clearly indicate the extreme panic she evokes in the liberal left.

[corplinx]

Except this started months ago. I gather that the guy she fired doesn't feel it was justified and is fighting back. As is his right.

If it was illegal, he should had one of his men arrest her. He was kinda in charge of that.

[corplinx]

She's a lieing, criminal, book banning, creation teaching, retard baby swapping, abortion outlawing, no good man in a woman's body.

I find her exaggeration of her opposition and role with the bridge to nowhere as tiresome as the next guy, but some of you people are approaching the level of derangement the white power guys have for Obama.

[gdnp]

Is it her right to hire/fire this position as governor? Does that position serve at the governor's pleasure?
Monegan may have served at the governor's pleasure, but if he was fired for refusing to carry out an illegal request to fire a police officer outside of the official procedures for doing so because the governor had a personal vendetta against her ex-BIL then I see this as an ethical and possibly criminal violation. Governors are not allowed to use public officials in public capacities to get back at their enemies.

ETA: remember, Archibald Cox served at Richard Nixon's pleasure. When Elliot Richardson refused to fire him, Nixon fired Richardson. Cox is quoted as saying (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archibald_Cox#Watergate_special_prosecutor) "whether ours shall be a government of laws and not of men is now for Congress and ultimately the American people." I vote for a government of laws.

This whole situation appears to be what the governor claims, a partisan witchhunt. Its whitewater-lite and she isn't even elected yet.
Before she was chosen by McCain this was seen as a bipartisan investigation. It was only after the McCain camp got frightened that the results were going to be announced before the election that they air dropped in lawyers, played the "witch hunt" card, and stonewalled the investigation, not only refusing to testify but refusing to allow others to testify. If the committee goes ahead and tries to release a report on October 10 as the committee plans I expect Palin to ask for an injunction barring its release.

ETA 2:
Bonus question: Who eventually fired Archibald Cox?

[Beth]

If it was illegal, he should had one of his men arrest her. He was kinda in charge of that.

Not after she fired him!

[EBU]

Monegan may have served at the governor's pleasure, but if he was fired for refusing to carry out an illegal request to fire a police officer outside of the official procedures for doing so because the governor had a personal vendetta against her ex-BIL then I see this as an ethical and possibly criminal violation. Governors are not allowed to use public officials in public capacities to get back at their enemies.

ETA: remember, Archibald Cox served at Richard Nixon's pleasure. When Elliot Richardson refused to fire him, Nixon fired Richardson. Cox is quoted as saying (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archibald_Cox#Watergate_special_prosecutor) "whether ours shall be a government of laws and not of men is now for Congress and ultimately the American people." I vote for a government of laws.


Before she was chosen by McCain this was seen as a bipartisan investigation. It was only after the McCain camp got frightened that the results were going to be announced before the election that they air dropped in lawyers, played the "witch hunt" card, and stonewalled the investigation, not only refusing to testify but refusing to allow others to testify. If the committee goes ahead and tries to release a report on October 10 as the committee plans I expect Palin to ask for an injunction barring its release.

ETA 2:
Bonus question: Who eventually fired Archibald Cox?

Bork?

[BenBurch]

Bork?

Hint; He's was an AG in this present administration.

[boloboffin]

probably bigoted on the subject of gays

Actually, from her interview with Gibson, she refused to offer an opinion on whether being gay was a choice or genetic. And to this gay man, it did NOT sound like she was refusing to reveal a prejudice against gays. On the contrary, it sounded like she knew and appreciated someone in her circle of family and friends that was gay.

[gdnp]

Bork?

Yep. I had forgotten this little footnote to history.

[JoeTheJuggler]

She's a lieing, criminal, book banning, creation teaching, retard baby swapping, abortion outlawing, no good man in a woman's body.

I find her exaggeration of her opposition and role with the bridge to nowhere as tiresome as the next guy, but some of you people are approaching the level of derangement the white power guys have for Obama.

Nice response. I see you're slaying straw men right and left.

Care to respond to the topic of THIS thread now? Palin claimed Monegan's "unauthorized" D.C. trip was the last straw that led to her decision to fire him. Yet here we have authorization of that trip from her office.

So WHY did she fire him?

[Puppycow]

I think the smears are the ones like:

completely false rumors of affairs,
completely false rumors of book-banning, with bogus book-ban lists,
sordid rumors about her youngest child actually being her daughters.

you know, the ridiculous stuff that clearly indicate the extreme panic she evokes in the liberal left.

The book-ban list was completely false (that came out of left field and was not made by the press that I was aware of), but she did test those waters multiple times and threatened the librarian's job. I think she would have had books removed from the library if she thought she could get away with it politically. She only backed down when she realized that it would be bad for her political career.

A charge does not become become "completely false" just because some random internet yahoo cook up a false book-ban list. Is Obama absolved of all criticism because some internet yahoos made up false charges against him?

[boloboffin]

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/Politics/palinwootenrec.jpg

To be fair, this was written before any of the incidents that she and her family told the police about during the divorce.

Then again, you'll note that she neglects to inform the recipient of this glowing recommendation that Wooten happens to be her brother-in-law.

[Puppycow]

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/Politics/palinwootenrec.jpg

To be fair, this was written before any of the incidents that she and her family told the police about during the divorce.

Then again, you'll note that she neglects to inform the recipient of this glowing recommendation that Wooten happens to be her brother-in-law.

Has anyone yet interviewed Wooten himself to get his side of the story?
The family went to great lengths to get this guy, even hiring a private investigator to dig up dirt on him. I'm still not convinced he's such a terrible person. He might have bended a few rules, but some of the charges seem pretty silly, while others depend on the word of members of Palin's family, without objective evidence.

[gdnp]

Has anyone yet interviewed Wooten himself to get his side of the story?
The family went to great lengths to get this guy, even hiring a private investigator to dig up dirt on him. I'm still not convinced he's such a terrible person. He might have bended a few rules, but some of the charges seem pretty silly, while others depend on the word of members of Palin's family, without objective evidence.

I found it amusing that the same people who were willing to defend Palin in the librarian firing because the charges against her were hearsay were willing accept the claim that her attempts to fire Wooten were justified, even though the charges against him, at this time, are also hearsay.

I do find it ethically suspect for the Mayor of the town to write a letter of recommendation for her brother in law, with or without mentioning the relationship. Especially a mayor who has a track record of punishing those she finds disloyal.