• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Our Analysis of the Branchflower Report

Vision

Well-known member
http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/troopergate-results-branchflower-finds-sarah-palin-guilty-of-not-keeping-her-husband-todd-from-defending-his-family-from-a-maniac-state-trooper/

There is the link and read away.

The problem that Branchflower has is the he cannot make an evidentiary case for his claim of abuse of power and really doesnt try to, which I find most interesting.

Branchflower even got the part that was right about the governor wrong..

Governor Palin’s firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.

Palin didn't fire Monegan, she reassigned him and he resigned.

Either way all read our analysis which is backed up by all the official documents and analysis from experienced trial attorney's.

So go read our report. You will find out just how silly this all was...and as usual, OT and FFF wont be able to touch it with a ten meter cattleprod.... and Alice wont even try.

Be sure to read it carefully.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The law should not be written in such a way as to prevent a governor from protecting the public from a threat such as a rogue cop like Wooten.

Right there tells me what a joke your analysis is....Because no matter what you think- that is the law- and you just don't violate it or pretend it doesn't exist because you think its wrong- unless you're GW Bush, or Cheney, or now Palin :shock:

Why do you think government departments have WRITTEN policy and procedure for investigating allegations against officers (all employees) and standard procedures they must follow for handling the disciplining and firing of any employee.?..And then on top of that many have special union rules also....

Sister Sarah is apparently so dumb she doesn't understand that if she had succeeded in getting Monegan to fire her brother in law because of her interference - he would have had an immediate appeal and strong case for rehiring and backpay from the state- just because of her misuse of authority interference...

That the last thing we need in the White House is another 4 years of folks that don't understand in or believe in following the rules or the rule of law this country was built on....Has Lady Justice not been abused and raped by Bush and Cheney enough that we need another like them :???:

And its laughable to me that a bunch of snot nosed, pimply faced college kids believe they have more knowledge of government procedure and a better interpretation of the law than a 28 year State prosecuter that was then appointed by the Alaska Legislature to head up their newly created Office of Victims' Rights.... :roll: :wink: :lol:

So guess what you can do with your analysis.... :???: :wink: :lol: :p
 

Vision

Well-known member
Thats the rub OT - she didnt break the law.

The partisan investigator says that he supposes that Palin had more than one reason to fire Monegan and IF she had multiple reasons and Todd than acted and Sarah didnt stop him (which Todd's testimony says Sarah asked him to stop) than he believes the state ethics law could cover it.

That is a whole lot of hops and in court who is going to buy that when the ethics law was written it was designed to prevent a husband from stopping a rogue cop who threatened his family multiple times.

Good luck with that one.

Besides OT we both know that you did not take the time to read our analysis anyways.

:lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: 8)
 

Vision

Well-known member
Besides OT - how many times did you all say that she fired Monegan illegally.... and not even these royally biased people who did this report would say that....

Besides she didnt fire him, she reassigned him and he left government of his own free will.

Sux to be proven so wrong so often doesnt it?

:lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :lol: 8)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
But by her sticking her nose in a personal matter that she had a conflict of interest with Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110 (a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act...

Or doesn't rules, the law, or ethics in office matter to this new neocon Republicanism anymore :???:
 

Vision

Well-known member
The law should not be written in such a way as to prevent a governor from protecting the public from a threat such as a rogue cop like Wooten.

I forgot OT - with you I am speaking to the legally ignorant so for you I will have to explain it as if I was explaining it to a little kid.

The number one reason courts throw out laws or do not apply them in certain circumstances is because those laws are written in an overly broad way and are thus applied in such a way that they were never intended.

The legislature never intended for the law to be used in such a way that would prevent the Governor from protecting people and enforcing the law. In this case protecting people from a rogue state cop who has no business owning a gun period.

The whole point is that laws need to be written carefully and/or have exceptions written into them.

Palin never broke this law, I am making the case with my short statement that when Palin realized how her political enemies wanted to interpret the law, she should have went to court and challenged the law's use in that application. I would have.

Instead she chose to follow the law instead of challenging its application in this case, which I believe is a mistake.
 

Vision

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
But by her sticking her nose in a personal matter that she had a conflict of interest with Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110 (a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act...

Or doesn't rules, the law, or ethics in office matter to this new neocon Republicanism anymore :???:


She used the proper channels to get something done, he family was threatened. The "proper channels" werent acting so they had to hirte a private investigator and push.

Your argument is saying that the Governors family is not entitled to the equal protection of the law from an abusive state cop as anyone else.

Lets not forget that Branchwater's conclusion is based on a supposition which he freely admits in the report. The supposition that Palin fired Monegan partially because he would not fire Wooten. Palin didn't fire Monegan, she reassigned him.

Since all of those statements are based on a supposition and not an evidentiary case, Palin did not break the law.

Even in the report itself Branchfloweer prefaced his statenments with "I believe" - not "the evidence shows".

Nice try OT but since I read the report and have gone over it for hours and hours you dont have a snowballs chance in the pit of beating me on this.

Branchwater:

Governor Palin’s firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I thought conservatives and Republicans were against Legislating from the bench :???:
No wonder I left them when these Neocons came around and took over the party....

If the Legislature thinks their ethics rules/laws are wrong, then they should change them...Until then those sworn to follow and enforce those rules/laws should do so....
 

Vision

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
I thought conservatives and Republicans were against Legislating from the bench :???:
No wonder I left them when these Neocons came around and took over the party....

If the Legislature thinks their ethics rules/laws are wrong, then they should change them...Until then those sworn to follow and enforce those rules/laws should do so....


Your an idiot - judicial review in the application of the law isn't legislating form the bench.

It is why the courts exist you dummy.

Legislating from the bench is inventing new law out of thin air form the bench.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Vision said:
Oldtimer said:
I thought conservatives and Republicans were against Legislating from the bench :???:
No wonder I left them when these Neocons came around and took over the party....

If the Legislature thinks their ethics rules/laws are wrong, then they should change them...Until then those sworn to follow and enforce those rules/laws should do so....


Your an idiot - judicial review in the application of the law isn't legislating form the bench.

It is why the courts exist you dummy.

Legislating from the bench is inventing new law out of thin air form the bench.

How far is is reviewing :???: So when the Court decided Roe vs Wade that was reviewing... And all the Repubs keep screaming it was legislating from the bench... :wink:
 

Vision

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Vision said:
Oldtimer said:
I thought conservatives and Republicans were against Legislating from the bench :???:
No wonder I left them when these Neocons came around and took over the party....

If the Legislature thinks their ethics rules/laws are wrong, then they should change them...Until then those sworn to follow and enforce those rules/laws should do so....


Your an idiot - judicial review in the application of the law isn't legislating form the bench.

It is why the courts exist you dummy.

Legislating from the bench is inventing new law out of thin air form the bench.

How far is is reviewing :???: So when the Court decided Roe vs Wade that was reviewing... And all the Repubs keep screaming it was legislating from the bench... :wink:

Roe v. Wade was legislating from the bench.

No one can make the case that when the 14th amendment was made it was done so to protect abortion. Back then abortions were illegal and stayed so for years after the 14th was passed.

Wow - you should stop while your behind.

:lol: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Vision said:
Oldtimer said:
Vision said:
Your an idiot - judicial review in the application of the law isn't legislating form the bench.

It is why the courts exist you dummy.

Legislating from the bench is inventing new law out of thin air form the bench.

How far is is reviewing :???: So when the Court decided Roe vs Wade that was reviewing... And all the Repubs keep screaming it was legislating from the bench... :wink:

Roe v. Wade was legislating from the bench.

No one can make the case that when the 14th amendment was made it was done so to protect abortion. Back then abortions were illegal and stayed so for years after the 14th was passed.

Wow - you should stop while your behind.

:lol: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll:

So what is the neocon standard for reviewing from the bench- and when does it not become legislating from the bench :???:

If its in your favor its just a review- and if its against you its legislating :???:

Thanks I think I understand it all now :wink: :lol: :p
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Frankie- I've answered your little question many times---I'm not running for office anymore-- Palin/McCain are....When I run again I will consider answering them...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
See the SCRIPTURE SAYS LET HIM WHO IS WITH OUT FAULT CAST THE FIRST STONE.

If we use that standard than this forum would cease to exist...Or are you saying that all you McCain/Palin folks are sinless and without fault :???:

You radical right wingnuts operating under the guise of Christianity scare me worse than anything..

One of the things that bothered me most when I found out she was a "Holy-Roller and a Pentacostal- that has a history of tying government with religion.....
 

Vision

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Vision said:
Oldtimer said:
How far is is reviewing :???: So when the Court decided Roe vs Wade that was reviewing... And all the Repubs keep screaming it was legislating from the bench... :wink:

Roe v. Wade was legislating from the bench.

No one can make the case that when the 14th amendment was made it was done so to protect abortion. Back then abortions were illegal and stayed so for years after the 14th was passed.

Wow - you should stop while your behind.

:lol: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll:

So what is the neocon standard for reviewing from the bench- and when does it not become legislating from the bench :???:

If its in your favor its just a review- and if its against you its legislating :???:

Thanks I think I understand it all now :wink: :lol: :p


Neocon means Jews. Take your anti-semitism and cram it.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Vision said:
Oldtimer said:
Vision said:
Roe v. Wade was legislating from the bench.

No one can make the case that when the 14th amendment was made it was done so to protect abortion. Back then abortions were illegal and stayed so for years after the 14th was passed.

Wow - you should stop while your behind.

:lol: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll:

So what is the neocon standard for reviewing from the bench- and when does it not become legislating from the bench :???:

If its in your favor its just a review- and if its against you its legislating :???:

Thanks I think I understand it all now :wink: :lol: :p


Neocon means Jews. Take your anti-semitism and cram it.

Nope- not anti-semetic...Never heard that description of it.. Neocon is short for neoconservative...

In fact your accusation is very comical...We have 2 or 3 Jewish families/people in our area- and I had one working for me as my Administrative Assistant for several years who was the nicest lady in the world- that I have talked about and praised on this site several times over in the last few years... :roll:
 

Vision

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
See the SCRIPTURE SAYS LET HIM WHO IS WITH OUT FAULT CAST THE FIRST STONE.

If we use that standard than this forum would cease to exist...Or are you saying that all you McCain/Palin folks are sinless and without fault :???:

You radical right wingnuts operating under the guise of Christianity scare me worse than anything..

One of the things that bothered me most when I found out she was a "Holy-Roller and a Pentacostal- that has a history of tying government with religion.....


Liar...

New York Times: Palin left the Pentecostal Church because it was “too extreme” - Associated Press: “Palin did not push creation science as governor”

http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2008/09/06/new-york-times-palin-left-the-pentecostal-church-because-it-was-too-extreme-associated-press-palin-did-not-push-creation-science-as-governor/


USA Today: Palin ‘governed from the center,’ went after big oil
http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2008/09/14/usa-today-palin-governed-from-the-center-went-after-big-oil/
 

Vision

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Vision said:
Oldtimer said:
So what is the neocon standard for reviewing from the bench- and when does it not become legislating from the bench :???:

If its in your favor its just a review- and if its against you its legislating :???:

Thanks I think I understand it all now :wink: :lol: :p


Neocon means Jews. Take your anti-semitism and cram it.

Nope- not anti-semetic...Never heard that description of it.. Neocon is short for neoconservative...

In fact your accusation is very comical...We have 2 or 3 Jewish families/people in our area- and I had one working for me as my Administrative Assistant for several years who was the nicest lady in the world- that I have talked about and praised on this site several times over in the last few years... :roll:


Wrong again
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

Antisemitism
Some believe that criticism of neoconservatism is couched in antisemitic stereotypes, and that the term has been adopted by the political left to stigmatize support for Israel. In The Chronicle of Higher Education, Robert J. Lieber warned that criticism of the 2003 Iraq War had spawned[39]

a conspiracy theory purporting to explain how [American] foreign policy... has been captured by a sinister and hitherto little-known cabal. A small band of neoconservative (read, Jewish) defense intellectuals... has taken advantage of 9/11 to put their ideas over on [Bush]... Thus empowered, this neoconservative conspiracy, "a product of the influential Jewish-American faction of the Trotskyist movement of the '30s and '40s" ([Michael] Lind)... has fomented war with Iraq... in the service of Israel's Likud government (Patrick J. Buchanan and [Eric Alterman).

David Brooks derided the "fantasies" of "full-mooners fixated on a... sort of Yiddish Trilateral Commission", beliefs which had "hardened into common knowledge... In truth, people labeled neocons (con is short for 'conservative' and neo is short for 'Jewish') travel in widely different circles..."[40] Barry Rubin argued that the neoconservative label is used as an antisemitic pejorative:[41]

First, 'neo-conservative' is a codeword for Jewish. As antisemites did with big business moguls in the nineteenth century and Communist leaders in the twentieth, the trick here is to take all those involved in some aspect of public life and single out those who are Jewish. The implication made is that this is a Jewish-led movement conducted not in the interests of all the, in this case, American people, but to the benefit of Jews, and in this case Israel.


Spare me the "I have Jewish Friends" line... every KKK member says that about black people too.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
From the same wiki- never heard of it being used around anti-semitism and from what I read that is a newly developed definition some have given it...I will continue using it with the meaning I have- of war mongers- that believe in nationbuilding, that promote world industry and world trade over US industry and US workers- and put global interests and globalism ahead of country- in their current desire to have a North American Union on the way toward a One World Order.....
Like I said- I have no jews living here to be anti-semetic to if I wanted to :wink: Just like if I was racist- I only have about a dozen blacks in the county to be intolerant to- and one is my drinking buddy... :wink: :lol: :lol:

Neoconservatism (or Neocon) is a right-wing political philosophy that emerged in the United States from the rejection of the social liberalism, moral relativism, and New Left counterculture of the 1960s. In United States, they align themselves with most conservative values, such as free market, limited welfare, and traditional cultural values. Their key distinction is on international affairs: they prefer a proactive approach internationally that would protect the national interests.
-----------------

Distinctions from other conservatives
Most neoconservatives are members of the Republican Party. They have been in electoral alignment with other conservatives and served in the same presidential administrations. While they have often ignored ideological differences in alliance against those to their left, neoconservatives differ from traditional or paleoconservatives. In particular, they disagree with nativism, protectionism, and non-interventionism in foreign policy, ideologies rooted in American history and exemplified by former Republican paleoconservative Pat Buchanan. Compared with traditional conservatism and libertarianism, which may be non-interventionist, neoconservatism emphasizes defense capability, challenging regimes hostile to the values and interests of the United States[citation needed]. Neoconservatives also believe in democratic peace theory, the proposition that democracies never or almost never go to war with one another.
-------------

Michael Lind, a self-described former neoconservative, explained:[8]

Neoconservatism... originated in the 1970s as a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey and Henry ('Scoop') Jackson, many of whom preferred to call themselves 'paleoliberals.' [After the end of the Cold War]... many 'paleoliberals' drifted back to the Democratic center... Today's neocons are a shrunken remnant of the original broad neocon coalition. Nevertheless, the origins of their ideology on the left are still apparent. The fact that most of the younger neocons were never on the left is irrelevant; they are the intellectual (and, in the case of William Kristol and John Podhoretz, the literal) heirs of older ex-leftists.
-----------------------------------------

Antisemitism
Some believe that criticism of neoconservatism is couched in antisemitic stereotypes, and that the term has been adopted by the political left to stigmatize support for Israel. In The Chronicle of Higher Education, Robert J. Lieber warned that criticism of the 2003 Iraq War had spawned[39]

a conspiracy theory purporting to explain how [American] foreign policy... has been captured by a sinister and hitherto little-known cabal. A small band of neoconservative (read, Jewish) defense intellectuals... has taken advantage of 9/11 to put their ideas over on [Bush]... Thus empowered, this neoconservative conspiracy, "a product of the influential Jewish-American faction of the Trotskyist movement of the '30s and '40s" ([Michael] Lind)... has fomented war with Iraq... in the service of Israel's Likud government (Patrick J. Buchanan and [Eric Alterman).

David Brooks derided the "fantasies" of "full-mooners fixated on a... sort of Yiddish Trilateral Commission", beliefs which had "hardened into common knowledge... In truth, people labeled neocons (con is short for 'conservative' and neo is short for 'Jewish') travel in widely different circles..."[40] Barry Rubin argued that the neoconservative label is used as an antisemitic pejorative:[41]

First, 'neo-conservative' is a codeword for Jewish. As antisemites did with big business moguls in the nineteenth century and Communist leaders in the twentieth, the trick here is to take all those involved in some aspect of public life and single out those who are Jewish. The implication made is that this is a Jewish-led movement conducted not in the interests of all the, in this case, American people, but to the benefit of Jews, and in this case Israel.

The charges of antisemitism are controversial. As with the contested concept of the new antisemitism, some commentators claim that identifying support of Israel with the Jewish people is itself antisemitic. For example, Norman Finkelstein says it would be antisemitic "both to identify and not to identify Israel with Jews."[42]



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
 

Vision

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
From the same wiki- never heard of it being used around anti-semitism and from what I read that is a newly developed definition some have given it...I will continue using it with the meaning I have- of war mongers- that believe in nationbuilding, that promote world industry and world trade over US industry and US workers- and put global interests and globalism ahead of country- in their current desire to have a North American Union on the way toward a One World Order.....
Like I said- I have no jews living here to be anti-semetic to if I wanted to :wink: Just like if I was racist- I only have about a dozen blacks in the county to be intolerant to- and one is my drinking buddy... :wink: :lol: :lol:


Nope you mean Jews. You make judgments that are too rash and hateful to be anything else.

Its ok. I am used to left wingers like you being bigots.

Besides that definition you gave doesnt fit me at all. I think that the UN should be dismantled. While I believe in free trade, it should be tempered with human rights and labor rights monitoring. I certainly apoose any kind of world government, because I know that foolish bigots like you would get ahold of it, and we would have to oust you in a civil war just to preserve basic human rights.

Since that definition doesnt fit any of my previous statements - there is only one left, the bigoted one.

So I hear you are an ex-cop. Unfortunately there are more than enough bigoted police. So sad but that is the state of the world.
 
Top