Who didnt see this coming?Follow

Is your memory really this short?

I can actually remember the news from a month ago. I'm sorry for you if you can't.

He's sub-d by default, Nads.

People don't remember the news they don't want to hear in the first place.

And gbaji, of course I would expect the VP candidate, and possible President, to be investigated for any possible form of authoritative misuse...considering the position that's up for grabs. It's not like we're hiring the next Ronald McDonald. So where you argue the "digging dirt just to have dirt" argument, I'll argue the "better safe than sorry" argument. There's probably a good chance that 80% of Americans had no clue who Palin was before she was up for VP...so it should come as no surprise that her short duration as Governor is going to be scrutinized for any wrong doing by not just American's, but the Government itself.

Where there's doubt, there's usually a cause for that doubt. If proven wrong, so be it; it is what it is. What kills me is the blindly loyal cronies to makeshift political icons simply because of their political colors without any rhyme, reason, or intelligent knowledge of the situation.

Yes. An investigation that right up until she was selected as McCain's VP choice had found no real evidence beyond the circumstantial to support the allegation, and was more or less a formality. No one really took Monegan's allegation seriously except for a few far left bloggers. Literally a week or two before the announcement of her being the VP pick, the Democrat overseeing the investigation was talking about how there was no real need for subpoenas, and they'd just do some depositions and likely close the matter soon.

Suddenly that all changed. Now. Do you think that the facts of the case changed, or the political situation? That's why they're saying it's "tainted". A guy who a month ago was saying there was nothing really to the investigation is suddenly talking about the findings being an October Surprise? Gee... Could he be a bit more obvious...?

She was already under investigation. I have no problem with that. But when the state senator overseeing the investigation is in the opposing political party and has such a radical shift in terms of outlook on the case after the person in question is picked for said VP slot, to the point of saying that the findings will represent an "October Surprise", it's not a stretch to say that the investigation has become "tainted".

I don't have a problem with an honest investigation. But you can't say what he said without clearly viewing the investigation in the context of its effect on the election itself. That *automatically* should raise massive alarm bells for anyone with regard to the legitimacy and fairness of the investigation itself.



Yes. It's an important position. So isn't it equally important that the investigation be handled in a professional and unbiased manner? Again. When the guy overseeing it says (before more than a handful of people have given depositions) that the findings will be an "October surprise", it kinda casts doubt on the legitimacy of his objectivity, doesn't it?

How about we *not* have Ronald McDonald running the investigation? Assuming you honestly care about it and not just in the context of the damage that can be done to her and McCain politically that is...




In politics, it usually works the other way around. Where there's evidence of wrongdoing you've got a case. Where doubt comes in is in the ability to sway voters with an investigation that leaks carefully constructed information in the weeks leading up to an election. You know. An October Surprise...




How is it being blindly loyal to suggest that perhaps its inappropriate for the guy overseeing an investigation of a politician who's running for VP of the other political party to state that his findings will be an October Surprise? I think it's common sense to say that he's biased in some way and is using the investigation to help his party out politically in the election. Heck. The mere fact that he made that statement adds more of the very "doubt" you referred to.


The greater blindness is not seeing that his statements about the case shouldn't have been made.

No, the findings date was always scheduled for late October. Commenting on what they had ready in August, two weeks after they allocated the money, is stupid.Because the people were cooperating. After they stopped (at Palin's orders), subpoenas were needed. See how easy that is?You're right. the McCain campaign fucked up the situation.

Cite? Since it was "viewed by most" this way, it should be easy to find something from a reputable source.I said "the people" stopped cooperating.When people were cooperating, no subpoenas were needed. Now that they're not, they're being subpoenaed.

Are you really this stupid? You think that the investigative committee would decide to just subpoena people who were cooperating and risk having the subpoenas rejected and the witnesses now hostile? For no good reason?

Although, speaking of e-mails, ADN also has a nice editorial about Palin's refusal to hand over e-mails from her husband, claiming "executive privilege". A mighty fine source for all things Palin, that Anchorage Daily News.

Edited, Sep 16th 2008 5:14pm by Jophiel

One key problem Joph. She retained the attorney a couple weeks *before* the decision for several staffers to cancel their appointments, and well before she was picked to be McCain's VP. That wasn't significant in itself at all.

What *is* significant are a series of events:

1. Her attorney requested documents relating to the investigation on Aug29th, the same day she was selected as McCain's VP. Probably not coincidental, and honestly not that strange either given the situation. French told the lead investigator not to provide the documents (we can assume that happened *after* he knew she was the VP pick). We can speculate as to the unusualness of the request, but the significant issue is that it was French who made the decision, not the investigator. It goes towards showing who's really running the show IMO.

2. Over the next few days there was some jockeying in terms of how to proceed. It's pretty clear that the Palin camp believed that French's position as an active Obama supporter put him in a conflict of interest and wanted the investigation shifted to an ethics board. French refused. In either case, there was a motion in place challenging the current investigation.

3. On Sep 2nd, French made statements to the media about the case, including his "October Surprise" comment. More correctly, they were reported in the newspapers that day, so they were presumably actually made the day before. This prompted calls for him to be removed as the overseer to the investigation.

4. Also on Sep 2nd, presumably in response to those statements, one of the witnesses canceled his interview for the following day. The official reason was that there was a dispute over who had authority to run the investigation. This is a bit of "cart before the horse", but not a particularly uncommon legal tactic in a situation like this.

5. ON Sep 5th, several others also canceled for the same reason.

6. Also on Sep5th a Republican member of the Alaska senate attempted to get French replaced as the head of the investigation. That attempt failed as well.



The bit you're glossing over is that his statements to the media happened before the cancellations. He's displayed a clear conflict of interest here, and it's pretty reasonable for Palin's lawyer to challenge this. It's pretty much unthinkable that you'd allow a member of a state legislature to run an investigation into an issue surrounding someone who is in a direct campaign against someone that legislator supports politically. Prior to the pick of Palin as McCain's VP, one could argue that French had no conflict of interest. Now. He's got a big one. Yet, instead of removing himself or limiting his actions, he appears to be using press releases and statements about the investigation to essentially "campaign" on behalf of Obama.


I don't think it's at all unreasonable to request that someone else who's a bit less politically invested in the outcome of the election run the investigation. That he seems to steadfastly refuse to do this, despite pretty overwhelming evidence of his own bias in the matter is crazy. That so many people think this is ok, presumably because it also benefits them politically is also crazy.


Step back from the specifics of the case Joph. Look at it in the abstract. You should be able to see the conflict of interest here. The refusal of the witnesses to submit to interviews is a response to that clear conflict on his part. The most recent statement about the investigation being "tainted" is also in response to that. Look. It *is* tainted. You can't possibly believe that she can get a fair shake in this investigation as long as French is in charge. He's practically convicted himself on that account by his own statements...

I'm still waiting on that cite that the investigation is/was a mere formality.

Everyone knew it, right? Sure is taking you a long time to find something to the effect.

In regards to the rest of it, once again you find your initial query easily answered (the subponeas were a direct result of the people who used to be cooperating clamming up) and so try to expand your argument -- oh no! We're not looking at the biiiiiiiiig picture!

And, although it never ceases to amaze me that the same party who managed to fuck up the 2004 election can somehow maintain an Illuminati-like grasp and deftly pull the strings of every investigation of a Republican in modern history, I'm still waiting on you to back up your original statements. Namely that the investigation was a formality and that it was almost completely wrapped up. Nothing I've read on it (and I've been loosely following it since late July or early August when her name started floating around, especially on Electoral-Vote.com) suggests what you say is accurate but I have full confidence that you can provide the documentation to prove me wrong.

Edited, Sep 16th 2008 10:08pm by Jophiel

You guys are all missing the point.


Branchflower is a fantastic name.


They should marry Willow off to one.