 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
Get your facts straight before making ignorant observations. Her ex-brother in law while on duty shot a moose out of season, was caught drinking alcohol on duty IN HIS PATROL CAR! In the state of Nevada, an automatic, non-appealable immediate dismissal, period! Not to mention he tazered his eleven year old son. I watched him on tv admit to that in an interview. Learn more before regurgatating leftist media bias.Originally Posted by Losthwy
I'm not making any excuses for him, but you choose to ignore the fact an inquiry found she had abused her power as governor. And that is a fact, not leftist media bias.
Here's something regurgitated from the "leftist" Fox News folks.
http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008...-abused-power/
Last edited by Losthwy; 11-08-2008 at 04:13 PM.
What its prominence suggest, and what all science confirms is that the dog is a creature of the nose- A. Horowitz.
The fact is that he should have been fired immediately by her subordinate serving at her discretion and wasn't. Therefore her subordinate was dismissed by her. She was found to be fully within her power to have done so. In all state service there are classified and unclassified employees. All classified employees serve at the discretion of the governor of that state and can be fired at any time for any reason. Her suborordinate failed to act in the best interest of the residents of Alaska by dismissing the officer for his, as I said for my state, unappealable offense. He was insubordinate and obstinate to his immediate supervisor (The Governor) and fired. The state of Alaska needs to enact legislation concerning alcohol in state vehicles as my state did the 80's. In fact my Director of the Nevada Department of Transportation was fired within one month of it's enactment. Gone period! So to classify her as an abuser of power for seeking dismissal of an employee who has taken an oath to "protect and serve" Alaskans is reprehensible. I wouldn't have him on my force in parking enforcement.
The bipartisan legislative panel (mostly Republicans) came to the conclusion she acted unethically. Palin maintains the firing of Mr. Monegan was over a "budget dispute". Do you really believe that? I don't, it's BS. She's lying. And the panel thought so as well. Mr. Monegan is to be applauded for standing up to her and her huband's unscrupulous request. Palin wasn't motivated by doing the right thing. Her motivations were strictly petty and vindictive. She's not someone who should hold any office.
What its prominence suggest, and what all science confirms is that the dog is a creature of the nose- A. Horowitz.
There you go again, spouting crap. If you actually paid attention to the news, you would have seen or heard that she was found innocent of all charges just a week or so ago. Instead, you spend all your time searching the internet, trying to dig up dirt. What's wrong? Are you afraid of women having power?
PS I'll bet you voted Obama who thinks there are 57 states, and Biden who clearly does not think before he opens his mouth.
Last edited by Paul Johnson; 11-08-2008 at 05:28 PM.
Once again get your facts right. They found that her husband had spoken to involved parties and she was in fact found to have told her husband to stop speaking to them. Never the less as I said Monegan was a classified employee serving at her discretion do you get that? As in all administrations it is very common to replace those within HER adminstration who do not govern their respective agencies as SHE sees fit. She was elected by the people of Alaska to do that, Govern her adminstration as she sees fit. It happens all the time. She didn't have to have a reason. He didn't want to be subordinate to his supervisor. He therefore was dismissed. In fact watch Obamas adminstration over the next four years. He will appoint and then fire people because they aren't running things as he wanted them to, guaranteed! It's how it works at the State and Federal level. Moneghan knew when she was elected that his and all Department heads were in jeopardy of dismissal as it is with all newly elected Governors of EVERY STATE. For you to defend this officer is hilarious. You seem to be telling me that he should continue to serve as a Police officer. Is that what your saying? I have made it perfectly clear that she could and did fire Moneghan, it doesn't matter why. She didn't want him working for her and so he was replaced. He in fact was offered a different position and refused. So he's a fool. Lost his retirement and what's he doing now except boo hooing!
Just to be clear... There was a legislative investigation initiated by the republican majority. Palin had initially agreed to cooperate with this investigation. Following her nomination, she and the McCain campaign did everything they could to try to halt or at least delay this investigation and refused to cooperate with the legislature. Several of her aids refused to testify but changed their minds under threat of legal action.
To counter the legislative investigation, Palin initiated an investigation by the Personnel Board, the members of which are appointed by the Governor.
Both the legislative commitee and the personnel board reached the same basic conclusion: Palin had acted legally within her authority in firing Monegan. However, the legislative committee went on to detail a variety of acts that it believed constituted an abuse of her power and a violation of ethics rules. Most of these actions were undertaken by Todd Palin using Palin's name and office. The issue was never whether or not her ex-brother in law deserved to be fired. The issue was whether she, in her capacity of governor, had the right to demand that his case should be handled in a special manner to satisfy her personal demands and whether or not she, as governor, had the right to pressure her staff by interfering in personnel matters.
The Personnel Board did not disagree with the legislative committee's report regarding the actions by Todd Palin. Rather, it said that Sarah Palin was not responsible for his actions. It had no evidence confirming or denying her knowledge of Todd Palin's actions and Sarah Palin denied knowing what Todd was doing. Sarah Palin had refused to testify or answer questions from the legislative committee. However, she provided testimony to the personnel board stating that she was unaware of te actions by her husband and that she never called Monegan directly. Based on that the personnel board concluded that Sarah Palin was not guilty of ethics violations and that Todd Palin, as a private citizen, was not covered by ethics rules.
There is a good description of this at http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/55232.html.
Thanks Jeff. This is the type of discussion that is needed.
No, that is not what I am saying. The officer has much to be desired.
Yes, it does matter why. Government should be transparent, not opaque. Elected officials should not use the power of their office for personal revenge. Which is the crux of this issue. And that is what she did pure and simple.
What its prominence suggest, and what all science confirms is that the dog is a creature of the nose- A. Horowitz.
You need to know and understand the the person she fired had nothing to do with Whooten, except in her mind. Monagan was the Dept of Safety Comm after the Whooten case was reviewed, he was given a slap on the hand, and the case was closed. According to his union, Monagan could not reopen the case without all kinds of crap flying, and if it went to court, Monagan would lose and be in deep crap. But Palin contined to have her staff harass him and finely fired him. Only way you can do anything about him is to find new charges. He was a problem of the past administration, and she took him on due to her personal vendetta. Most of us in AK feel he should hve been fired by the prev administration. Bud
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote