Posted 1 year, 1 month ago in 
Loading ...
All major American newspapers and TV news shows judged the news that Sarah Palin had been found guilty of abuse of power to be a front-page news story. The Daily Sentinel judged it to be a page 7A story.
Would you have made the same judgment if it had been the Democratic candidate for vice president who had been the subject of an ethics investigation? Please confine your political persuasions to the editorial pages and give us an even-handed reporting of the news.
JIM CRITTENDEN
Grand Junction
43 Responses to “Palin’s guilt should have been front-page story”
Posted October 14th, 2008 at 11:39 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
The reason stories such as Palin’s lawbreaking receive such scant attention in this newspaper is not surprising considering the Sentinel has consistently demonstrated they are the local print equivalent of Fox News.
Posted October 14th, 2008 at 12:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
thanks to fox news! the closest thing to delivering unbiased news reporting, considering what other channels offer.
Posted October 14th, 2008 at 12:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ullr, please give us exactly what law she broke and then tell us why she hasn’t been arrested.
Posted October 14th, 2008 at 2:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“Such impermissible and repeated contacts,” the report states, “create conflicts of interests for subordinate employees who must choose to either please a superior or run the risk of facing that superior’s displeasure and the possible consequences of that displeasure.” The report concludes that the action was a violation of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.
Does “violation” have any meaning to you? She had every right to fire him for any reason but the circumstances leading up to the firing violated the state’s ethics statutes. Is there a penalty for that? Does it matter? If there is not a specific penalty for it, was it perfectly OK to do what she and her husband did?
Republican ethics, I guess.
Posted October 14th, 2008 at 3:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh golly, an ‘ethics violation’….
Which democrat congress person should we start with?
Posted October 14th, 2008 at 3:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullishfrog - According to the official report, Gov. Palin “abused her power by violating Alaska statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.”
As to why she hasn’t been arrested, she probably has been given a pass by the Alaska courts until November 5th, when she will return to her post as Governor.
Posted October 14th, 2008 at 4:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The document produced was a ‘report’. And that does not result in any type of arrest. So, bullishfrog’s question is irrelevant at this time.
A ‘report’ is forwarded to a prosecutor, who reviews it, searches for additional ‘evidence’, and presents it to a grand jury. Only if the grand jury returns an indictment is an arrest warrant issued.
As to such as Mr. Johnson, he will see nothing wrong in any ‘Republican’ committing any unethical or even illegal act. After all, one should not criticize ANY Republican, as he/she is politcally correct. He does like the Daily Sentinel has done more than once, use a double standard.
Of course, it violates the rule by which some of us try to live our lives; When using a standard to judge others, first make sure that those you apply to yourself are not only as high, but actually higher.
Posted October 14th, 2008 at 5:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Now RL, you know that I’m a lot harder on sorry *ssed republicans than you are on any democrat regardless of the offensive behavior.
I haven’t noticed you slamming the democrat creep that replaced Foley in Florida.
Is that because you approve of his actions?
Do you have an extra $121,000 in leftover campaign funds to buy some womans silence?
Posted October 14th, 2008 at 5:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL, once again you suffer from an inability to comprehend what is written here because you are in such a hurry to philosophize and attack anyone who is on the other side of the political spectrum.
I questioned Ullr as to why she hadn’t been arrested because he claimed that she had broken the law. Now that youi have had a chance to re-read what was written, was my posting irrelevant?
Ullr, I posed the question to you because I had heard numerous times that the report found her guilty of violating an ethics ACT. That she had not violated any laws. I have googled this thing and I have not yet found conclusive evidence whether or not she has been found to have broken a law and is a candidate for prosecution. If you can find anything on that, I would like to read it. Thanks.
Posted October 14th, 2008 at 5:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog states: “Ullr, please give us exactly what law she broke and then tell us why she hasn’t been arrested.” Post #3
Then, when it is explained as to how “arrests” are not generated from ‘reports’, he responds with the following (Post #7): “RL, once again you suffer from an inability to comprehend what is written here because you are in such a hurry to philosophize and attack anyone who is on the other side of the political spectrum.”
It would seem to me that the gentleman may be the one who lacks ‘reading comprehension’. Or, he may not recall his own posts?
Posted October 14th, 2008 at 7:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL, you are truly dense. The question is whether or not a law has been broken. If you ever figure that out, get back to us. A yes or no, with a valid reference, will suffice. No need to give us your 1000 word philosophy of the world.
Posted October 14th, 2008 at 7:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullisfrog states: “RL, you are truly dense. The question is whether or not a law has been broken.”
And, apparently bullishfrog apparently cannot yet understand that we don’t yet know if a law has been broken or not. Nobody knows if a law has been broken until a verdict or guilty plea. He should check post #6, above. Unlike his adamant request for an answer to a question that has not been answered by a legal body, and thus rendering his persistence nonsensical, some of us care to wait for final judgment, if there ever is one.
Posted October 14th, 2008 at 8:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL, from post #1:
” Ullr
Posted October 14th, 2008 at 11:39 am PM This User Report this comment
The reason stories such as Palin’s lawbreaking receive such scant attention in this newspaper is not surprising considering the Sentinel has consistently demonstrated they are the local print equivalent of Fox News.”
GJbubba quite plainly uses the term “lawbreaking”.
Please feel free to explain why this phrase has gone unnoticed in your diatribe.
Why is it that you have not called gjbubba to account for his hateful, uninformed, vicious and malevolent attack on Mrs. Palins character.
Or, I suppose you could just continue to ignore the garbage that emanates from your political allies.
Posted October 14th, 2008 at 8:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullishfrog - You said, “Ullr, I posed the question to you because I had heard numerous times that the report found her guilty of violating an ethics ACT. That she had not violated any laws. I have googled this thing and I have not yet found conclusive evidence whether or not she has been found to have broken a law and is a candidate for prosecution. If you can find anything on that, I would like to read it. Thanks.”
Bullishfrog - All I’ve been able to find out so far is that violation of certain portions of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act carry fines of up to $5,000. Nothing yet on whether it entails felony criminal sanctions, but I’ll continue to look.
Posted October 14th, 2008 at 8:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Odd, a confirmed atheist praying for a miracle…
I LIKE it.
Posted October 14th, 2008 at 8:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL: “And, apparently bullishfrog apparently cannot yet understand that we don’t yet know if a law has been broken or not. Nobody knows if a law has been broken until a verdict or guilty plea. He should check post #6, above. Unlike his adamant request for an answer to a question that has not been answered by a legal body, and thus rendering his persistence nonsensical, some of us care to wait for final judgment, if there ever is one.”
Well then, Mr. Philosopher, if a law has not been broken then you should have gone after Ullr with the same gusto as you would someone on the other side of the political spectrum. After all, he said Palin was a lawbreaker.
But no, your philosophical rants are reserved strictly for Republicans because you have no sense of fairness.
Posted October 14th, 2008 at 9:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish, it’s not his “fairness” that is at issue, but his “HONESTY” that is in question.
An HONEST person would have made an effort to have the original poster retract or prove his statement when it became obvious that the original poster was in error.
Such was not the case.
Posted October 14th, 2008 at 10:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullisfrog responds with: “Well then, Mr. Philosopher, if a law has not been broken then you should have gone after Ullr with the same gusto as you would someone on the other side of the political spectrum. After all, he said Palin was a lawbreaker.”
Actually, Ullr said no such thing. What he did was quote a conclusion reached by the investigator. That is why it was in quotes.
However I must ask if bullishfrog has even attempted to read the report himself, or perhaps he does not want to, stuck in ‘reactionary defensive mode’, without not only knowing the facts, but without making any attempt to establish them for himself.
One might also question if Mr. Johnson missed the quotation marks in Ullr’s post also.
Posted October 15th, 2008 at 7:20 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL, I stand by my statement, and am even willing to restate the fact that you have no honesty in this debate.
Please show everybody the quotation marks in the following copy and paste of post #1.
18 Responses to “Palin’s guilt should have been front-page story”
1. Ullr
Posted October 14th, 2008 at 11:39 am PM This User Report this comment
The reason stories such as Palin’s lawbreaking receive such scant attention in this newspaper is not surprising considering the Sentinel has consistently demonstrated they are the local print equivalent of Fox News.
As can be seen here, or you can scroll to the top, such is not the case.
There are no quotation marks to be missed, only your failure to research your false claims.
Posted October 15th, 2008 at 8:21 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullisfrog: “Well then, Mr. Philosopher, if a law has not been broken then you should have gone after Ullr with the same gusto as you would someone on the other side of the political spectrum. After all, he said Palin was a lawbreaker.”
RL: “Actually, Ullr said no such thing. What he did was quote a conclusion reached by the investigator. That is why it was in quotes.”
This is exactly what Ullr wrote in post 1:
“The reason stories such as Palin’s lawbreaking receive such scant attention in this newspaper is not surprising considering the Sentinel has consistently demonstrated they are the local print equivalent of Fox News.”
Given RL’s lack of reading comprehension, let me repeat the key words:
“The reason stories such as Palin’s lawbreaking receive such scant attention in this newspaper”
Now, Mr. philosopher, will you just admit that Ullr wrote that Palin was a lawbreaker, that he was wrong in saying that, and that you are wrong in your interpretation of this discussion? Of course you won’t.
Posted October 15th, 2008 at 8:26 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Who said the quote in question was in Post #1? RLaitres didn’t say Post #1.
The quote by Ullr referred to by RLaitres was post #6. That is where the quote (in quotation marks) is located.
Posted October 15th, 2008 at 8:31 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. Johnson states: “There are no quotation marks to be missed, only your failure to research your false claims.”
As usual, we look at different parts of different posts. If Mr. Johnson would care to scroll up to Post #6, looking at the first paragraph, he might find the quotes he has not been able to find. What is interesting is that Ullr provided the information at the request of none other than bullishfrog, another defender.
It would seem that Ullr has more of a basis to consider the subject ‘guilty’ of a violation of statutes than either bullishfrog or Mr. Johnson in their purely reactionary defenses.
Posted October 15th, 2008 at 9:08 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
As usual, RL attempts to bypass the original charge and tries to divert the attention of the other posters.
OK, we’ll go with post #6.
The quote is quite obviously taken out of context.
Now there can be several reasons for that.
One would be that the portion truncated at the beginning alters the meaning of the actual quoted portion.
Or, perhaps the following truncated sections clarify the findings that do not support the posters political agenda.
Perhaps it was done for space considerations.
But, in the end, RL states his position quite clearly when he declares Mrs. Palin ‘guilty’ without a trial.
This is an odd case to follow.
The Alaska State Trooper in question had some serious behavioral problems from drunk on duty, to tasering an 11 year old stepson, to threatening to kill the governors father, (the list continues).
Now the Governor made numerous attempts to persuade the head of Public Safety to “do the right thing” by dismissing this embarrassment to the department for numerous just causes.
The person refused to dismiss his friend and was eventually fired for his failure to perform his duties.
Basically, it is the same ‘old boys club’ we have here in happy valley, only there, the Governor actually ‘did the right thing’.
Now we see a conundrum for the local liberals.
We are constantly bombarded with the “Do the right thing” mantra, but when somebody actually performs to their demands, they condemn the actions.
Posted October 15th, 2008 at 9:30 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
Trying to convince you of anything is like trying to push a string. Would you like to give us your take on the involvement of your heroines’ hubby in the Alaskan Independence Party ( or Movement, or Group, or whatever it is called )? He is such a patriot that he wants to secede from the United States. She is pretty chummy with that group as well. What do you make of that?
Posted October 15th, 2008 at 9:33 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc, would you please show the relationship of your personal attack on me to the current subject at hand?
Posted October 15th, 2008 at 9:41 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
OK, bottom line, Sara Palin has not broken any laws. And with that, I will step away from this thread since it has deteriorated into nonsense.
Posted October 15th, 2008 at 9:44 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
So pointing out that Willis was wrong when he claimed there were no quotes is “bypassing the original charge and diverting attention.”
You were wrong Willis. You leapt to the conclusion that RLaitres meant Post #1 when in fact he said no such thing. In fact, you even accused him of dishonesty, and now that it has been plainly demonstrated that you screwed up, you are the one trying to distract attention from your mistake. Don’t think that everyone here can’t see it.
An apology would be considered appropriate at this point, but I think we know you well enough not to expect one.
Posted October 15th, 2008 at 9:52 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I agree Scott, there is an apology due.
Bullishfrog and I wait in breathless anticipation.
However, the “original charge” was in post # 1, but that’s only a fact, and as such, to the liberal mindset, irrelevant.
Posted October 15th, 2008 at 10:22 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
So you think you can accuse someone of dishonesty, and you did to RLaitres in post #17 and #19, be shown to be completely wrong in that accusation, and then walk away without apologizing?
Conservative ethics never fail to amaze me.
Posted October 15th, 2008 at 10:27 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
No Scott, I showed his dishonesty.
Perhaps you would like to respond to post #8?
The democrat perverts name is Tim Mahoney.
Posted October 15th, 2008 at 10:30 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullishfrog - You said, “OK, bottom line, Sara Palin has not broken any laws. And with that, I will step away from this thread since it has deteriorated into nonsense.”
With all due respect, the above statement is simply your opinion and has no efficacy from a legal perspective. Whether what Palin did broke any “laws” is up to the courts in Alaska, not you.
Posted October 15th, 2008 at 10:35 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Gjbubba, it is also not up to you to determine guilt.
Posted October 15th, 2008 at 10:51 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis - I didn’t determine Gov. Palin’s guilt, the official report did when it said Gov. Palin, “abused her power by violating Alaska statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.”
Duh!
Posted October 15th, 2008 at 10:59 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Yeah, ya really did in post # 1.
” Ullr
Posted October 14th, 2008 at 11:39 am PM This User Report this comment
The reason stories such as Palin’s lawbreaking receive such scant attention in this newspaper is not surprising considering the Sentinel has consistently demonstrated they are the local print equivalent of Fox News. ”
And the report is not quite the same as the verdict.
From her history of taking on the establishment in Alaska, I’m betting that she will be found innocent of all charges.
After all, she was just trying to get an entrenched useless bureaucrat to do his job.
When she exhausted all reasonable attempts, she fired the piece of garbage.
And, to me, firing useless government bureaucrats is an admirable objective that should be encouraged.
Especially right here in happy valley.
Posted October 15th, 2008 at 11:00 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“The democrat perverts name is Tim Mahoney.”
Willis,
He may be a jerk and a contemptable creep, but not a pervert. He had consentual sex with a person of the opposite gender. Where is the perversion there?
Posted October 15th, 2008 at 11:05 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
Let me spell it out for you, since you apparently don’tr understand the situation.
You accused RLaitres of dishonesty - twice (#17 and #19). As evidence of this supposed dishonesty you went on to explain that there were no quote marks in Ullr’s post #1, contrary to what you claimed RLaitres said.
It was pointed out that RLaitres never said that the quote was in Post #1, but was in fact in post #6. Therefore, your claim of dishonesty against RLaitres is without merit. To most people, this would trigger an apology but obviously not in one such as you. Instead, you refer to this proof that you made a mistake as “distracting” the readers. This has nothing to do with the claim of law-breaking, and nothing at all to do with your post #8, which is off-topic by any measure. It seems to be obvious who is attempting to distract people away from what actually happened.
Posted October 15th, 2008 at 11:14 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Quite obviously Scott, literacy is not your strong suit.
Posted October 15th, 2008 at 11:34 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
What is quite obvious is that while some wish to discuss, others merely want to argue, and have the ‘last word’, no matter what. Something useful can come out of the first, but absolutely nothing can come from the second and is but a waste of time.
Posted October 15th, 2008 at 11:50 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
What did you accuse RLaitres of being dishonest about, Willis? (Hint: Look at your post #19.)
Now, please quote the post where RLaitres said the quotation he referred to was in post #1. (Hint: You can’t, because he didn’t say that.)
Now whose the one with the literacy problem?
Posted October 15th, 2008 at 2:38 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
That would be you and RL.
Please show where he made any effort to correct the lie in post # 1.
Posted October 15th, 2008 at 4:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Completely irrelevant.
You accused RLaitres of being dishonest about the quote in post #1. Unfortunately, he never made such a claim. The quote was in post #6, which has been amply demonstrated. You screwed up, plain and simple. I can see it, everyone else can see it, and I’m sure you can see it too, it just goes against everything you stand for to admit it.
The Willis Leon Johnson two step just keeps going on.
Posted October 15th, 2008 at 4:42 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
You guys are veering off topic. Please move on. Thank you.
Posted October 18th, 2008 at 6:45 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
The following is per Politifact.com: “But the issue here is Palin’s characterization that the report concluded that she did not do anything ethically wrong. The report concluded just the opposite. The report says she did abuse her authority and she did violate state ethics laws. By saying otherwise repeatedly, in what seems to be a deliberate attempt to mislead or confuse voters who don’t know the facts, Palin isn’t just wrong, she’s Pants on Fire! wrong.”
Politicfact.com has levels of honesty about candidates statements…True, half True, Barely True, Mostly True, False and lastly Pants on Fire wrong.
Per the Alaska Daily News article dated 10-17-08, a second investigation is already in the works about troopergate.
All the above need to check out sites such as Politact.com & Factcheck.org to get unbaised information about this election…just try it…there more reliable than any newspaper
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.