Your Garage Editors' Picks Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Totes Amazon Cash Back Offer PilotWave7B PilotWave7B PilotWave7B  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis Shop Now

Frank Bailey Was Advised to Take Ethics Training While Palin was Cleared!


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 40 posts in this discussion
Initial post: May 11, 2011 11:23:24 AM PDT
S. Flesher says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on May 13, 2011 10:12:45 AM PDT
Face reality, Stephen. You were duped by a fraud. Sarah PAlin is a deeply corrupt liar and she will never, ever hold office again. All of your whining and boo-hooing won't change that fact.

Although, I do see her starring in next season's Celebrity Apprentice. Maybe she will win that...if she doesn't quit first.

Posted on May 13, 2011 7:49:41 PM PDT
H. Tran says:
Excuse me, how exactly was Palin cleared of anything? In the Wooten trooper investigation, a panel of 8 republicans and 4 democrats unanimously found that Palin "abused her power by violating Alaska statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act."

Just because Palin says she was cleared does not mean she was. The woman is a pathological liar.

Other "frivolous" ethics complaints were resolved by Palin agreeing to certain terms, like returning $350,000 donated to her legal fund. Doesn't sound like they were frivolous at all, eh?

But that's ok, just continue supporting Palin and giving her money...she has no intention of running for president and is laughing all the way to the bank. I feel sorry for folks like you.

Posted on May 23, 2011 2:19:38 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on May 23, 2011 2:20:12 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2011 2:20:28 PM PDT
jemimy says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2011 5:14:25 PM PDT
It's so good that folks remember that the Branchflower report did, in fact, state the Ms. Palin abused her authority as Governor. Thanks, H.Tran.

Posted on May 23, 2011 5:26:42 PM PDT
S. Flesher says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 24, 2011 12:16:44 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 24, 2011 12:52:45 AM PDT
Lisa K. says:
H. Tran, don't forget the almost $10,000 she payed the state in reimbursement for illegally charging the state to reimburse her for her children's travel expenses. Rather than have that issue investigated, Palin settled the issue.

In reply to an earlier post on May 24, 2011 12:37:23 AM PDT
Lisa K. says:
Stephen:

Palin was found guilty of abusing her authority in the Troopergate case. Read the findings. The case blatantly states that she abused her authority. Was she legally allowed to dismiss Monegan? Yes. But her actions in the case were found to be blatantly unethical.

Jemimy:

You are quoting the 3 person Personnel Board. Those 3 individuals were appointed by PALIN and all 3 were conservatives, which violates AK law.

The Branchflower investigation was an investigation by the Alaskan legislature and consisted of 8 Repub legislators and 4 Dem legislators. Those 12 people were voted into office by Alaskans. The 3 person personnel panel was comprised of folks appointed by the very person they were investigating. That person was their boss and could fire them without cause.

Finally, one of the criticisms in the Personnel report was that legislature didn't enforce subpoenas when those subpoenaed didn't cooperate. Who didn't cooperate? "Todd Palin, Annette Kreitzer, Michael Nizich, Brad Thompson, Frank Bailey, Randall Ruaro, Ivy Frye, Dianne Kiesel, Kristina Perry, Nikki Neal and Governor's Executive Secretary Janice Mason." Why didn't they cooperate, Jemimy?

The Personnel finding is a ridiculous farce. The Branchflower investigation was done by the state legislature, not Palin's own cronies. And yes, Branchflower is a conservative.

If an investigation of Obama were to proceed in such a manner, you would go with Congress' report, not with a small agency's report. You know you would. Hypocrite.

In reply to an earlier post on May 24, 2011 7:28:02 PM PDT
S. Flesher says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 24, 2011 7:35:30 PM PDT
S. Flesher says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 24, 2011 10:14:06 PM PDT
Lisa K. says:
Typical; changing the subject, eh, Stephen?

Palin's actions were investigated by 12 of her peers. She was found guilty of abusing her power as Gov and was found guilty of violating state ethics laws. The panel's ruling was unanimous.

12 legislators investigated her. It was a bipartisan panel. Suck it up and quite lying about Palin's record.

In reply to an earlier post on May 24, 2011 10:28:30 PM PDT
S. Flesher says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 24, 2011 10:43:51 PM PDT
Every decent American ideal is fundamentally rooted in liberalism. Civil rights and universal suffrage and public education and yes social security and medicare. President Obama is and has been a great blessing to the people of America and to the world. He has begun at least to bring dignity and competency back to the presidency. The fact that the financial crisis has not yet been resolved is not a testament to his inabilities but instead a monument to just how terrible the Republican party left our nation's finances. Remember when Bill Clinton left office unemployment was in single digits and the economy in ascendancy

A progressive Democrat both proud and liberal Obama 2012

In reply to an earlier post on May 25, 2011 3:50:45 AM PDT
Lisa K. says:
I clearly stated that she was within her rights to fire Monegan (see further up on this page). However, she was found to have violated ethics laws. Sugarcoat that any way you want to. Fact is fact.

The 2nd investigation was far from independent; in that investigation, she was investigated by 3 people that she appointed, all of whom are conservatives (a violation of state law which has occurred under many Govs, not just Palin). Palin could have fired them at any time. That indicates a massive conflict of interest for all 3 members.

I don't see how one could call a 3 person investigation by one's own staff whom were appointed rather than elected as being independent.

Palin was found to have "knowingly" violated state ethics laws (pg 51 of Branchflower report http://media.adn.com/smedia/2008/10/10/16/Branchflowerreport.source.prod_affiliate.7.pdf).

"Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda ...." (pg 66).

Just because some are unclear about the actual reasons for Palin being found guilty of ethics violations doesn't mean YOU can say that she was found innocent of any ethics violations or that her guilt was meaningless. Those ethics laws exist for a reason. They aren't superfluous. And no, the issue wasn't "regarding Todd's association with the government office". The issue was that Palin allowed Todd AND others (including Bailey) to exert undo pressure on Monegan which she was ethically bound BY LAW to control.

Your excuse for changing the subject is more laughable that the fact that you actually changed the subject. You get called out for manipulating facts, change the subject, and then claim to show how "distasteful" it is for "the left" to correct folks like you when you manipulate facts?

Oh brother.

Oh, and why was Bailey was found in violation of ethics laws? Oh yea, it was when he was doing Palin's bidding in Troopergate, making phonecalls at Todd Palin's request! Why was Bailey not taken on the VP campaign? Because news of his phonecall reached the media. He followed orders and Palin threw him under the bus.

Finally, regarding this latest "ethics investigation". To my knowledge, there isn't an investigation; their is a complaint. Whether or not this becomes an investigation has yet to be seen. Perhaps it will become an investigation. Perhaps that investigation will lead to Bailey being found guilty of violating ethics laws. If that is the case, then I will condemn Bailey for behaving unethically. Until an investigation is completed, I have nothing to base my opinion on.

In reply to an earlier post on May 25, 2011 3:51:37 AM PDT
Lisa K. says:
Best comment I have read on Amazon in over a week.

Thanks, Richard!

Posted on May 25, 2011 3:53:28 AM PDT
Lisa K. says:
Stephen, why did you label this thread with a blatant lie??? Palin wasn't cleared. Bailey was ordered to take ethics training, but it is a lie to state that Palin was cleared of ethical violations.

In reply to an earlier post on May 25, 2011 4:25:59 AM PDT
Lisa K. says:
One more thing for Stephen:

You state:

"He was found out on 2 separate ethics violations and now is under investigation for using vague e-mails to paint his own convenient picture."

Did you know that Bailey worked WITH the AK Attorney Gen's office to get the ok to publish the emails he published?

From a Washington Post interview: http://live.washingtonpost.com/sarah-palin-book.html

Question:

"Most every story about your book mentions that the Alaska Attorney General is investigating your use of Palin's emails in your book. Few if any, however, mention your efforts to work with the AG's office specifically to avoid any illegal use. Could you please describe what steps you took to insure that the emails in your book were used legally and if the current investigation is possibly a politically-motivated "flip-flopping" on the "vetting" you sought from the AG?"

Bailey's response:

"I did everything that I could to comply with the Attorney General's office as I did in the fall of 2008 when they asked for emails. These are my emails, sent to and from me on my personal accounts.

We detail points in the book specifically where the Attorney General's office wanted specific emails removed."

Ya, the new "investigation" against Bailey is going to be a shocker! Esp since the AG wrote off on the emails in the book before it was published!

Posted on May 25, 2011 6:00:18 PM PDT
S. Flesher says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on May 26, 2011 5:38:24 AM PDT
H. Tran says:
It's obvious Palin supporters such as Stephen will always turn a blind eye to facts that prove them wrong. Every one else: read Bailey's book and decide for yourself whether Sarah and Todd were behind the efforts to try to get Trooper Wooten fired, and when that didn't work, whether they then fired Commissioner Monegan for failing to do their whim.

Bailey uses tons of the Palin's own emails to prove his point. How do you argue with the Palin's own words, Stephen?

The current investigation into Bailey is whether he used official state email for personal gain, in writing this book. However, the emails his book were sent and received from his personal yahoo email account.

It's well known that Palin purposefully conducted much state business on her personal yahoo email account in order to avoid public scrutiny. It's ironic that this tactic has backfired in a major way. Bailey's emails were in his personal email account; therefore he can personally use them in whatever way he sees fit. This "investigation" into him is simply another smear tactic being used by Palin and her supporters to destroy Bailey.

Posted on May 26, 2011 7:13:39 AM PDT
S. Flesher says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 26, 2011 9:47:24 PM PDT
Chilly Down says:
"Decide for yourself whether Sarah and Todd were behind the efforts to try to get Trooper Wooten fired, and when that didn't work, whether they then fired Commissioner Monegan for failing to do their whim."

How can Todd fire anyone? He wasn't governor.

In reply to an earlier post on May 26, 2011 10:23:41 PM PDT
H. Tran says:
"how can Todd fire anyone. He wasn't the governor."

Exactly. And yet he tried to to do just that. Sheesh. I can't waste anymore time arguing with people who haven't read the damn book.

In reply to an earlier post on May 26, 2011 10:31:02 PM PDT
H. Tran says:
Hey Flesher, read the title of you post and then read this

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/10/four_pinocchios_for_palin.html

And this

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/oct/14/sarah-palin/report-finds-palin-violated-ethics-laws/

They don't really support your title, do they?

If after reading todd and sarah's emails in Bailey's book you still think Sarah did nothing wrong, then we can chat some more. Until then, toodles.

Posted on May 27, 2011 2:09:50 PM PDT
S. Alexander says:
Having worn out her welcome in her home state of Alaska, Palin has migrated to Arizona. Wonder how many Palin bots here will get thrown under her "champagne" bus? (or was that "campaign"?) Personally, I plan to kick back in a lawn chair and enjoy a bowl of popcorn and an adult beverage. That is how a sensible Progressive deals with "Quittypants" Palin.
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Participants:  11
Total posts:  40
Initial post:  May 11, 2011
Latest post:  Jun 15, 2011

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about