Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan While all eyes were on last night's debate, an Alaskan judge refused to block the robe into Sarah Palin's possible abuse of power in "Troopergate." <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7649978.stm" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wor...9978.stm</a> This isn't what team McCain wanted.
Originally Posted By Mr X If I was an Alaska judge, I'd sure refuse to block the robe too...if Palin was askin.
Originally Posted By Mr X Sorry. <==puts serious face back on ANYWAY...I'm sure team McCain doesn't want a LOT of things. And people in hell want ice water. Personally, I'm getting a little depressed. A McCain/Palin presidency means a LOT to folks like me. Folks who care about regular things. Things like good comedy, for example. And a Palin/McCain presidency would almost CERTAINLY result in FAR MORE FUNNY SNL stuff than those boring other guys. You know, the "experienced" ones. The ones who don't care about "change" or "700 billion dollar health care bailouts for jobs".
Originally Posted By RockyMtnMinnie Say it ain't so Joe! (Sorry, my husband has been saying this all morning).
Originally Posted By velo yeah, well, I have a son and a DH with that name so it's gotten REALLY old around here at this point!
Originally Posted By RoadTrip If you want to start tossing around unproven allegations Palin's state patrol thing is insignificant compared to the Obama/Tony Rezko situation.
Originally Posted By queenbee <<Rezko Redux The ad lists convicted Illinois businessman Tony Rezko as Obama's "money man," "client" and "patron." Rezko was convicted on 16 counts of wire fraud and mail fraud in June. But Obama has not been seen with Rezko for some time, and he donated the former businessman's $11,500 in campaign contributions to charity in 2007. As we concluded back in December 2007, "Obama has a relationship with Rezko that dates back many years, but there’s no indication Obama did anything improper.">> -from factcheck.org I agree that the allegations are unproven against Obama and Palin. I disagree that refusing to cooperate with the investigation in insignificant in Palin's case.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <If you want to start tossing around unproven allegations Palin's state patrol thing is insignificant compared to the Obama/Tony Rezko situation.> Actually a much more comparable situation to Obama/Rezko is McCain/Keating. Both guys were too cozy with a guy who turned out to be crooked, but neither has been found to have done anything wrong. Palin's situation is abuse of the powers of her office, which is a different thing. And yes, as of yet, nothing found wrong there either. But it's a different sort of animal.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 Here in this great midwestern state of Michigan, when a citizen exercises her God-given American right to stonewall a criminal investigation, we don't call her "unfair." We call her "patriotic!"
Originally Posted By chickendumpling I got behind on this. She blew off the subpoena, didn't she? As did her husband, and some of her staffers, right? How is that okay? Is that what I can expect from their presidency if they're elected? I mean heck if that's the attitude before you even get in the White House, what on earth is your attitude gonna be like once you get in power?! Doesn't that bother anyone else? Is it really okay to just say "thanks, but no thanks" to a subpoena? Holy cow!
Originally Posted By chickendumpling Well, I would hope so but I wonder. Could you imagine what would happen if we all just started acting like that? "Yeah, I know I've been subpoenaed to jury duty but I'm gonna say, 'thanks, but no thanks!'". "Yes, officer, I remember getting that speeding ticket but I thought you were prretty unfair with me so I'm gonna have to say, 'thanks, but no thanks' to appearing in court on that one! It's just a witch hunt, you just think I'm guilty anyway!"
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< I got behind on this. She blew off the subpoena, didn't she? As did her husband, and some of her staffers, right? How is that okay? Is that what I can expect from their presidency if they're elected? I mean heck if that's the attitude before you even get in the White House, what on earth is your attitude gonna be like once you get in power?! >>> It certainly bothers me. It's one of the major problems with W's administration, IMHO, but not one that usually grabs headlines. Despite attempts at distancing the two, I think this can be added to the long list of ways that a McCain/Palin administration would just be a continuation of Bush/Cheney.
Originally Posted By Mr X Apparently now her staff is being forced to give testimony...no word on why Palin and his wife continue to remain exempt.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< no word on why Palin and his wife continue to remain exempt. >>> Interesting way of putting it! She can always "take the 5th," and actually, so can he, as the only situation other than self-incrimination where you can't be forced to testify is if your testimony might incriminate your spouse. It would certainly be interesting to have her hauled in front of a judge and forced to either a) give testimony, b) take the 5th, or c) be held in contempt. That's certainly what would happen to us ordinary folk were were subpoenaed and just chose to ignore it.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***That's certainly what would happen to us ordinary folk were were subpoenaed and just chose to ignore it.*** Yup. I find it very interesting that the Presidential "executive privilege" angle is now being used for folks who are former staffers (Rove), VP candidates (Palin) and even at this point someones spouse!
Originally Posted By nemopoppins And if it were Biden brushing off a legal accusation of abusing his power? McCain would have Palin attacking him to no end. Why do the press and the Democrats have to be so quiet in Palin's case?
