Reply With Quote
Well, if they're corrupt it's going to be tax money no matter what...
That's what I'm wondering. Being in the military my entire adult life, I don't get to see things often from a 'civilian' side. In the military, if we're charged with something, we have an ADC, Area Defense Counsel, that works for us. (Kinda like a public defender with knowledge of military procedures/rules/regulations.)
Couldn't states charge the defendant with the lawyer bills if found guilty?
I'm just saying, it DOES seem unfair that many different people could pool resources to hit a single person up with numerous charges. You would think that if the charges were frivolous, the judge would throw them out. I'm just worried about a possible abuse of the legal system.
Also though, I think it's somewhat tacky to be complaining about lawyer's bills when you could technically get a lawyer free, though perhaps a sucky one. I've never been involved in litigation so I'm not aware of the difference in level/degree of skill between paid/unpaid.
Well, if they're corrupt it's going to be tax money no matter what...
It's a vendible system of justice, so it's best to avoid the free representation if at all possible. At any rate, I think one needs to be able show hardship to get it.
I'm pretty sure Palin has been dealing with state ethics panels and such. Pre-trial administrative determinations. So far nothing has gone to trial. According to the Juneau Empire, some of the claims were dismissed peremptorily, for not putting forth any clear violation.
Palin claims the Branchflower report exonerates her because it recommended no action against her, but finding one says this:Several of the complaints were resolved with little expense. Many failed to state an allegation of law violation, and were dismissed without further investigation.
And let's not forget:
For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39/52/110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) providesThe legislature reaffirms that every public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust.
Some cases have been resolved with repayment of possibly improper expenses and other measures.
Last edited by Winehole23; 07-08-2009 at 09:34 AM.
You betcha!!!
The presumption of innocence weighs heavy, as it should.
She knows where the money is.
The fact that "many" investigations were peremptorily dismissed deflates the myth that officialdom in Alaska has been entertaining a boatload of frivolous complaints against Palin.
Last edited by Winehole23; 07-08-2009 at 04:41 PM. Reason: "many" not "several"
As do cash settlements concurrent with official probes, for that matter.
Last edited by Winehole23; 07-08-2009 at 12:22 PM.
Rejoinder, SnakeBoy?
There might be an ethics complaint in the form of her using state money to further her national political career by way of speaking appearances and the like. The other stuff... I'm not so sure of, and I'll give the benefit of the doubt.
This is what cynics (realists, some prefer) have said, me included. Palin needed to quit to cash in.There might be an ethics complaint in the form of her using state money to further her national political career by way of speaking appearances and the like.
Which I see as the most likely of all the scenarios.
It's pretty obvious she could have raised 10 million for a defense fund with a wink of her eye.
A war bank, why not?
Putin is known to rear his head over Alaskan airspace. It makes sense.
I was thinking more for media kerfuffles and fundies, but there you go.
As was I. Your "war bank" comment cast me adrift.
Clumsy, I agree.
.War chest is the conventional usage
The State of Alaska, to its credit, did little more more than slap Palin's wrist during the campaign. It returned the reports without any recommendation to file charges on Palin in 100% of the cases so far.
Not really. You're bringing up the Branchflower report which was clearly politically driven. Wasn't she exonerated of all ethics charges in regards to troopergate the day of the election?
Is there something wrong with examining the do ent, or do you just dismiss it out of hand?
Palin, per contra, does not.
Ms. Palin relies on it as an *exoneration.*
What political bias does bringing it up irresistibly reveal, since Palin herself falls back on it?
Last edited by Winehole23; 07-08-2009 at 06:01 PM. Reason: wordiness removed, again
I was alluding to that, yes.Wasn't she exonerated of all ethics charges in regards to troopergate the day of the election?
100%, so far.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions