"The decisive vote in the committee's 3 to 2 decision was cast by Charlie Huggins, a Republican senator from the Palins' home town of Wasilla. He explained his vote by saying, 'I say let's just get the facts on the table, the sooner the better.' "

I get a sneaky suspicion that Charlie Huggins will not win re-election next time.  He'll need to avoid flying for a while, too....

I would like to see what Sarah Palin's approval ratings in Alaska will be in a few weeks. As best as I can tell the Alaska state legislature was also elected by the the people of Alaska. A legislative committe comprised of 8 Republicans and 4 Democrats unanimously initiated this investigation.

The AP was wrong in uncritically reporting that McCain's campaign characterized the vote to subpoena as "hijacked" by Democrats. Wht isn't anyone reporting the role of the McCain campaign in attempting to derail the investigation?

Them sneaky dems. First they dropped the fighting 101st lawyer brigade deep behind enemy lines in Juneau to take key bridges to nowhere, and then they airlifted in the Screamin' Legals to make frontal assaults on civility. Soon the Legal Expiditionary Force will make a seaborne invasion along ANWAR to shut down 20% of the US oil production followed by a blitzkreig lightning attack on earmarked targets.

And the most ironic thing is their weapon of choice, the blackberry, was invented by John McCain!

What chance do the Republicans have when Barack Obama personally sends in a team of 1600 hand-picked lawyers into Alaska to crucify poor Sarah Palin?  ;>)

BTW, did you know you can see Russia from Alaska...?  ;>)

                ****  free sarah palin ****

yes, you too can support this important cause.  the brilliant sarah palin is being kept from the press, the morning shows, and the sunday shows by the mccain campaign.   free sarah and let her talk to the press as every other presidential and vice presidential candidate has always done.   free sarah.

McCain's got brass ones for accusing anyone of hijacking.

He's the one who hijacked the issues for a political personality contest.

The old boys network in Alaska doesn't like Palin because she broke the corruption in the Dems and GOP.  The old oil interests don't like it when they no longer get the money.  

Well, thank you Mr. Limbaugh! You get an A+++ for repeating that line ad-nauseum!

It is just typical old boys style politics.

ScienceGuy rears his ugly head.

Again!

Not so fast, WK. This one seems to be able to capitalize and use some punctuation. Unless it's some new super-bionic improved Science Guy.

And she has been willing to stand up to the moose who have been terrorizing citizens for years.

Nice attempt to spin her disgrace, but that has nothing to do with Limbaugh and the McCain campaign lying about Democrats "hijacking" the investigation.  The facts are in stark contradiction to the lie.

So why is Palin stonewalling the investigation after previously stating that she would cooperate?

Since the investigation will not wrap up before the election - Only bad can come out of it for her.  Nothing good.

So that justifies stonewalling a legitimate investigation?  It appears to me that she's placing her own selfish concerns ahead of the public good.  And is willing to make false charges in order to accomplish that.

  What public good can come out of a governor firing a police chief because he wouldn't fire a child abusing employee? Is there a controversy because of the child abuse angle? We all know how liberals lover their child abusers (Bernie Ward). So, if you're just pissed because a child abuser's protector got fired, well...just get over it.

Wow. What a stretch that you're making there about liberals loving child abusers, that's actually downright offensive.

Here's the thing Phil. She may have broken the law. She is under investigation for it. An independent prosecutor has been brought in to review the charges, and the case, and you know, prosecute, if anything was found untoward. She is innocent until proven guilty. If she has nothing to hide, then why are her allies now suing to stop the investigation? She said she did nothing wrong, well, if that's the case, cooperate with the investigators, and get it all out there, and over and done with. This case, really has NOTHING to do with the brother in law, or former brother in law, and or what he did, or didn't do to his son. Nothing. Nadda. Zilch. That's a different case, and funny enough, there were no child abuse charges filed against the trooper. This is about abusing her power as governor of Alaska. But once again, for folks like you, I'm sure IOKIYAR. I'm sure you were a big proponent of impechment for Clinton.

You guys are laughable. I'm not saying if she's guilty or innocent, I'll let the prosecutors decide that, and I'd be more than willing to go along with whatever it is they find. How come everytime a republican gets investigated for something, all of a sudden it's a partisan witch hunt of some sort? But when a dem is under investigation, it's all about the rule of law.

"I'm sure you were a big proponent of impe[a]chment[SIC] for Clinton."

   Darn right, I was. I don't want a criminal in the presidency....just like you don't want one. Hence...your investigation of Palin for firing a guy who wouldn't fire a child abuser. I guess you wouldn't care what she did if she had been getting sex under the desk, like Clinton.

Again, thing is, Clinton didn't do anything illegal in having sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky. He lied about it under oath, that was the illegal part.

Palin wasn't trying to get him fired because of alleged child abuse (that he's never been charged for by the way), she wanted him fired and inserted herself into a situation that didn't warrant her involvement. She also smeared the trooper in question, and there are actual court orders by the judge in the case telling her to stop disparaging her former brother in law.

I don't want a criminal in the White House either, so I don't see what your big opposition is to this investigation. If she's innocent, they'll find that out, and we'll all move on.

Wow, that's about as sleazy and dishonest a response as I could have imagined receiving.  No, actually I don't think my imagination could have come up with something that disgusting, though I'm not surprised you were able to produce it.

There is evidence that Palin used the power of her office in order to engage in a personal vendetta.  This would be illegal under Alaskan law.  It's perfectly reasonable to investigate this as the republican-dominated legislature and republican-dominated judiciary committee agreed.  This makes it a lie by the McCain campaign to assert that Democrats have hijacked the investigation.  And it makes it a matter of curiosity why there are suits by some republicans to halt the investigation.

The old boys network in Alaska doesn't like Palin because she broke the corruption in the Dems and GOP.

Nope. She reported it because she wasn't getting her cut.

Paline is awsome! Seriously. Already, even before the elections, she manages to hide from the press (Cheney?) and try to obstruct an investigation (Bush et. al). Truly, she is ready to inherit the august duties from McCain. 

And she can see Russia from Alaska...  ;>)

Her lawyers asked a 3 person panel she appointed to review her potential misdeeds 2 weeks ago instead of the legislative body.

Now those same lawyers are telling that 3 person panel that there's nothing 'there', and so they are trying to rescind their request that the panel investigate, because there's no 'there' there!

First they want the panel to investigate, and then they don't, but if there's no 'there' there, why do they have any issue with anyone investigating?

And how much of this do you suppose Sean Hannity will ask her tomorrow in his "exclusive" interview with her?

palin is reality going to interview inshannity. I believe they will date for a while have a 3 legged imbisillic mongoloid (didn't mean to interject babybush here) that will leader of the new church Rattleitolics of the adventists. They will believe the second coming is Michael Jackson with a snake coiled around his ...(use your imagination here as this religion is in its infancy and a lot needs to be worked out). These zealots spend 16 hours a day knocking on doors recruiting new converts.

Wow! I kind of went off on a tangent but not quite orthogonal. I am going to watch this interview just in case I get a glimps of Russia or a moose or maybe even a beaver.

LOL...He's interviewing Sarah Palin...not Sharon Stone.  ;>)

I would like to interview S. Stone and after the interview have a few words with her. I gotta go someone is knocking on my door....

I mean it is a situation where only bad can come about for her.   Seriously what do you think the chances of her being found guilty in anything are ?

high.

I think the question is what Palin thinks the chances are.  Considering her renege on her promise of accountability, it seems fair to say she doesn't like her odds.

It is all contingent on the meaning of "there". I have spent the last few minutes trying to channel Webster. The glint from her designer glasses is interfering with Webster's ectoplasmic transmogrofication. Obsfucation is the motis operandi of the repukelicans. I saw r. nixon on tv do this innumerable times. It is as if the right has memorised the play book to a tee. There is nothing new to this behavior on her part. I would be shocked if a righty acted any different.

I have spent the last few minutes trying to channel Webster.

I don't understand what a little black kid from an 80's sitcom has to do with the Palin investigation...

I know you r funnin w/me. of course I mean the dictionary guy.. I finally got hru to webster but, he is still working on "is".

" because there's no 'there' there!"

   It all boils down to "depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is". Now we have 'there there' and 'is is'. I must say, Clinton's version is the best. You can't beat a liberal for finding some kind of excuse for immorality.

Thing is there Phil, Clinton's immorality, as disgusting as it was, was NOT illegal. Lying about it under oath was, but the act itself, yeah, not so much.

   So, what you're saying is that Clinton lying to a grand jury is excusable, but Palin firing a guy who wouldn't fire a child abuser isn't?

I didn't say that. You did.

Clinton lied, he was impeached because of it, and then exonerated during said impeachment. Should it have gone that far? No. For lying about a sexual non illegal relationship?

Palin, used her office to try and influence and get her former brother in law fired. This has NOTHING to do with child abuse, as I keep telling you, the man was never charged with child abuse, and I'm sure if he had been, he would have been fired. She wanted him fired because he was going through a messy divorce with her sister, allegedly. We don't know the facts. Because she won't allow the investigation to continue, and or refuses now to cooperate with said investigation. Stop saying this is about child abuse. It's not. It's about the potential illegal abuse of her office and position as governor of Alaska.

"Palin, used her office to try and influence and get her former brother in law fired."

   No, she told the child abusing-former BIL's boss to fire the child abuser but the boss would not. So, she (being his boss) fired the child abusers boss for not following orders. 

"This has NOTHING to do with child abuse, as I keep telling you, the man was never charged with child abuse, and I'm sure if he had been, he would have been fired."

   Yes, it does. The guy admitted to tazering a child. THAT IS ABUSE! Charged or not, that is abuse. So, thank you for admitting that the guy should have been fired. And, when his boss wouldn't fire him, the boss's boss fired the boss. I would have done the same thing (ask the child abuser's boss to fire him and if he didn't do it, then I would fire the boss too) A police department does not need the image of hiring and promoting child abusers. If you think child abusers should be allowed on your police force then more power to you, but I don't want child abusers on any police force near me. 

"She wanted him fired because he was going through a messy divorce with her sister, allegedly (italics mine). We don't know the facts." 

   That's right, you have no idea what you're talking about. The facts are out there, you just refuse to accept them until they become something that will denagrate Palin. You can't handle the truth! 

"Stop saying this is about child abuse. It's not."

   I'm sorry, what would YOU call tazering a 10 year-old? Let me put it this way, would you allow tazering of terrorist prisoners in the same manner? What would you call that form of tazering if it were to be done to prisoners? I would call it abuse. Since the cop did it to a 10 year-old, it IS called child abuse. He does not need to be charged with the crime to be guilty of it, since he admits to having done it.

If there are credible charges of child abuse, there's a proper way of handling that.  You need to prove it, then fire him, instead of pressuring someone to do it.  It creates an impression of impropriety.

Who can't handle the truth?  If what Palin did was appropriate, then she shouldn't have any problems with an investigation.  She said she was accountable, now she's changed her tune.

"If there are credible charges of child abuse, there's a proper way of handling that.  You need to prove it, then fire him, instead of pressuring someone to do it."

   There do not have to be charges in order to fire someone for child abuse. Heck, at my work if I fail a drug test I get fired---no charges though. I'm sure that is true at your work too, I'm absolutely positive that's true at any police dept. So, you're wrong on that point.

   The guy admits to tazoring his 10 year old child, no further proof is needed (unless you're like maggy who doesn't seem to think tazoring is abuse, which means he/she doesn't mind if we tazor terrorist prisoners). So, Palin tells the abuser's boss to fire him. The boss would not fire the child abuser, so Palin fired the boss. It's not Palin's position to control the employees, her job is to control the management.

Is there a physical test to find out if you're a child abuser, like there is for drug use?

If he admitted it, then it should be even easier to process it somehow.  She's making herself look guilty by doing this in the first place and then refusing to cooperate with an investigation.  Shouldn't she have had the sense to handle this better, considering the personal connections to the trooper?

There's a similar story about someone who was fired for no apparent valid reason, where it was a personal grudge of Todd Palin (I believe he was dating an ex-girlfriend of one of Todd's friends).  It's also said that Todd sits in on official government meetings, even though he has no paid role whatsoever.

Again, appearance of impropriety, and that warrants investigation. 

"Again, appearance of impropriety, and that warrants investigation. "

   Is that what you say for all of Clinton's "improprieties"???  No? I didn't think so. Oh, you only mean republican improprieties. I saw that one coming!

No, they investigated Clinton, and that's fine.  The problem there was it didn't go anywhere and they kept at it for years.

"The problem there was it didn't go anywhere and they kept at it for years."

And that will be the "problem" here. You will continue to demand investigations on Palin and none will go anywhere. Now, that makes you liberals no better than republicans. Since you have the same desire to ruin someone's reputation.

I guess you can attribute all the evil motivations in the world if that's what makes you feel better.  Personally, I would say if the investigation yields nothing then that should be the end of it.

Do you want to accuse me of anything else while you're in the neighborhood? 

"Do you want to accuse me of anything else while you're in the neighborhood? "

  Well, I can say...stop your liberal whining.  How do you feel about terrorist prisoners being tazored to get information? Do you feel as much disgust with them being tazored as you don't seem to show for a 10 year old being tazored? It sounds like you don't think the cop did anything wrong and shouldn't even be fired. It sounds like you would prefer child abusing cops running around your streets protecting your kids from harm.

You really do have imaginary conversations going on in your head, don't you?  I'm not complaining about anything, you are.

I didn't say anything even close to what you are suggesting.  They should investigate and take appropriate action, just do it through proper channels.  Why is this too much to ask, if it's such a cut-and-dry matter?

"They should investigate and take appropriate action, just do it through proper channels."

   Investigate what?!?  Investigate the child abuse by the trooper or investigate his boss for allowing child abuse by another trooper or investigate the governor for firing the boss because he wouldn't investigate the child abuser? I see, you want to investigate the only one of the three who actually did something in an attempt to curtail the child abuse. But, you never answered whether you even think tazoring a child is abuse or (if it isn't) can we tazor terrorist prisoners. But, if you answer it is abuse, WHY are you questioning the motives behind firing someone who would NOT fire a child abuser?

"Investigate what?!?  Investigate the child abuse by the trooper or investigate his boss for allowing child abuse by another trooper or investigate the governor for firing the boss because he wouldn't investigate the child abuser?"

It's pretty obvious I was referring to the trooper.  That's what "proper channels" is all about.  Look into it, file charges, take action, just do it the right way. 

"I see, you want to investigate the only one of the three who actually did something in an attempt to curtail the child abuse. But, you never answered whether you even think tazoring a child is abuse or (if it isn't) can we tazor terrorist prisoners. But, if you answer it is abuse, WHY are you questioning the motives behind firing someone who would NOT fire a child abuser?"

Of course it's abuse.  So why don't they file charges?  Why don't they call Child Protective Services on it?  I'm questioning the motives because there's a personal motive for firing him, and they created a situation of doubt by the way they handled it.  And again, if it's all above-board, then why refuse to talk to investigators?  What does she have to hide?

Does that clarify things, or do you have any more imaginary statements of mine you'd like to spout off about? 

Lying about it under oath was

Or would have been, had he actually done that. He didn't, and there were no charges filed. Any impeachment charges that were filed resulted in not guilty verdicts, as a majority-GOP-run Senate couldn't get the votes needed.

   OH??  Why did he get disbarred again? If no charges were filed and he was 'guilty' of nothing why did he lose his license to practice law?

Disbarring someone and prosecuting someone require different standards.  He lied under oath, but it wasn't perjury because it wasn't relevant to the case.  Under one set of standards he can be punished for that, but not under the other.

Isn't this the same political network of 'good ole boys' that she was hired by Alaskans to get rid of?  Sounds to me like a bunch of squealing pigs fighting the application of lipstick.

http://www.adn.com/troopergate/story/527346.html