Comments on: Shock! Investigator looking into Sarah Palin has ties to John Kerry, Al Franken, the DNC and more! AP reports it as “independent investigator” http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2009/07/22/shocker-investtigator-looking-into-sarah-palin-has-ties-to-john-kerry-al-franken-and-dnc/ Exposing the Andrea Mitchell bias and Media bias in America! - This site is NOT politically correct! Terrorists are actually called terrorists! Fri, 10 Feb 2012 04:26:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: amsron http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2009/07/22/shocker-investtigator-looking-into-sarah-palin-has-ties-to-john-kerry-al-franken-and-dnc/comment-page-1/#comment-5192 amsron Thu, 23 Jul 2009 16:52:17 +0000 http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/?p=6911#comment-5192 Did you edit the Wikipedia page to make your charges seem more real? It's easy to edit a Wikipedia page. I'd recommend to anyone reading this that they review the page to see if it's been locked against editing and/or still has the verbiage quoted here. If I'm wrong, I'll apologize, but I don't think I am. Did you edit the Wikipedia page to make your charges seem more real?

It’s easy to edit a Wikipedia page. I’d recommend to anyone reading this that they review the page to see if it’s been locked against editing and/or still has the verbiage quoted here. If I’m wrong, I’ll apologize, but I don’t think I am.

]]> By: greg http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2009/07/22/shocker-investtigator-looking-into-sarah-palin-has-ties-to-john-kerry-al-franken-and-dnc/comment-page-1/#comment-5191 greg Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:21:58 +0000 http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/?p=6911#comment-5191 Hopefully, this bit of news will start the unraveling of the entire 0bama/Axelrod smear machine which has been operating in AK since last September. The Personnel Board should throughly investigage the leaking of the confidential report, subpoena Daniel (the lawyer who wrote the report), Kim Chatman (the person who filed the complaint), Rachel D'Oro (AP reporter who received a copy of the confidential report, probably from Chatman), and put the squeeze on them. One or the other would break, and spill the guts on the whole operation. Hopefully, this bit of news will start the unraveling of the entire 0bama/Axelrod smear machine which has been operating in AK since last September. The Personnel Board should throughly investigage the leaking of the confidential report, subpoena Daniel (the lawyer who wrote the report), Kim Chatman (the person who filed the complaint), Rachel D’Oro (AP reporter who received a copy of the confidential report, probably from Chatman), and put the squeeze on them. One or the other would break, and spill the guts on the whole operation.

]]> By: Karenc http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2009/07/22/shocker-investtigator-looking-into-sarah-palin-has-ties-to-john-kerry-al-franken-and-dnc/comment-page-1/#comment-5189 Karenc Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:21:56 +0000 http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/?p=6911#comment-5189 I am a liberal, but one who never has used profanity - which I see too much of on both the far left and far right. To me, it always seemed to negatively correlated to good arguments. The link you cite are pretty weak. The fact that other lawyers from this large law firm represented the Obama, Kerry and Franken campaigns does not mean that they have links to all the lawyers in this law firm. In addition, the fact that that lawyer contributed to Democrats indicates he is a Democrat - not that he has any real connection to them. (I admit to contributing to both Kerry and Obama, as did millions of other people.) I think the broader question is whether it is fair that high profile politicians on either the right or left, who need to defend themselves from law suits generated at least partially for partisan reasons can be financially devastated. The main example on the left is Bill Clinton, who faced many suits that were found to be unfounded. The same appears to be the case in the already handled Palin ones. (Neither were completely innocent - Palin was found by the Republican controlled legislature of misusing her government position to push to get her ex-brother-in-law fried and, though Clinton was not convicted by the US Senate, reading the Senate statements of Democrats, they argue that it did not reach "high crimes and misdemeanors", not that he did nothing wrong.) The idea that some have suggested is that the government should pay if the charges are dismissed. It is troubling that any public official could be financially destroyed defending themselves from bogus charges. As to the specific charges, they do not seem inflammatory. Unless I am completely missing the point, they are speaking of not complying with the letter of the law in terms of reporting contributions. If there is no misuse of money for purposes not approved of and if there is no quid por quo, it would seem this is the kind of thing that happens all the time resulting in fines. I am not impressed with Palin, but if this story is just what was reported, it really does not seem to be a big deal. I am a liberal, but one who never has used profanity – which I see too much of on both the far left and far right. To me, it always seemed to negatively correlated to good arguments.

The link you cite are pretty weak. The fact that other lawyers from this large law firm represented the Obama, Kerry and Franken campaigns does not mean that they have links to all the lawyers in this law firm. In addition, the fact that that lawyer contributed to Democrats indicates he is a Democrat – not that he has any real connection to them. (I admit to contributing to both Kerry and Obama, as did millions of other people.)

I think the broader question is whether it is fair that high profile politicians on either the right or left, who need to defend themselves from law suits generated at least partially for partisan reasons can be financially devastated. The main example on the left is Bill Clinton, who faced many suits that were found to be unfounded. The same appears to be the case in the already handled Palin ones. (Neither were completely innocent – Palin was found by the Republican controlled legislature of misusing her government position to push to get her ex-brother-in-law fried and, though Clinton was not convicted by the US Senate, reading the Senate statements of Democrats, they argue that it did not reach “high crimes and misdemeanors”, not that he did nothing wrong.) The idea that some have suggested is that the government should pay if the charges are dismissed. It is troubling that any public official could be financially destroyed defending themselves from bogus charges.

As to the specific charges, they do not seem inflammatory. Unless I am completely missing the point, they are speaking of not complying with the letter of the law in terms of reporting contributions. If there is no misuse of money for purposes not approved of and if there is no quid por quo, it would seem this is the kind of thing that happens all the time resulting in fines.

I am not impressed with Palin, but if this story is just what was reported, it really does not seem to be a big deal.

]]>