Kasz216 said: totalwar23 said: Kasz216 said: totalwar23 said: Nope. Under Chapter VII, Russia can vote in this matter but Russia must abstain from Chapter VI, which any purely symbolic resolution will fall under. If the UNSC decides to take actions against Russia, that's where Russia can veto it.   Yeah... which is why it's so strange that NOBODY IN THE UN SEEMS TO KNOW THAT. No.  It's just you.  Your right... despite the fact that nobody in the UN from any country seems to know that. No it's not possible you just don't understand the rule.   Chapter VI is nonbinding and pointless which is why Russia can't vote on it but it is a way for the SC to move without Russia. If McCain is calling for things covered in Chapter VII, well then it's pointless, too. But hey, Obama is just some dumb hick who doesn't understand how anything works, right? He just got incredibly lucky.     Your also ignoring the Russia's veto.  Your missing the point.  Chapter 7 AND the Veto both make any georgian resolution impossible. Otherwise why hasn't one passed?

I just said in Chapter VI, the SC doesn't need Russia's vote but Chapter VI is somewhat pointless. That's why Chapter is nore tooth and nails and Russia can veto anything there. However, neither McCain or Obama wanted to take serious actions.

Oh, I don't know, how about the fact that other nations in the SC might not feel the same way as Obama or McCain and both statements made by them were just "talk"?

totalwar23 said: Kasz216 said: totalwar23 said: Kasz216 said: totalwar23 said: Nope. Under Chapter VII, Russia can vote in this matter but Russia must abstain from Chapter VI, which any purely symbolic resolution will fall under. If the UNSC decides to take actions against Russia, that's where Russia can veto it.   Yeah... which is why it's so strange that NOBODY IN THE UN SEEMS TO KNOW THAT. No.  It's just you.  Your right... despite the fact that nobody in the UN from any country seems to know that. No it's not possible you just don't understand the rule.   Chapter VI is nonbinding and pointless which is why Russia can't vote on it but it is a way for the SC to move without Russia. If McCain is calling for things covered in Chapter VII, well then it's pointless, too. But hey, Obama is just some dumb hick who doesn't understand how anything works, right? He just got incredibly lucky.     Your also ignoring the Russia's veto.  Your missing the point.  Chapter 7 AND the Veto both make any georgian resolution impossible. Otherwise why hasn't one passed?   I just said in Chapter VI, the SC doesn't need Russia's vote but Chapter VI is somewhat pointless. That's why Chapter is nore tooth and nails and Russia can veto anything there. However, neither McCain or Obama wanted to take serious actions. Oh, I don't know, how about the fact that other nations in the SC might not feel the same way as Obama or McCain and both statements made by them were just "talk"?

Yet they pass those kind of resolutions ALL THE TIME in situations like this when it doesn't involve nations with VETO power.

Where there does it say Russia can't Veto it?

That law was put in place to keep down people on the security council without veto power when they did bad things.  Not people with veto power.

A veto is not a vote.

 

 bit more on the Hollis French issue:

Part 1:

Source

“‘If they had done their job they never would have picked her,’ said French. ‘Now they may have to deal with an October surprise,’ he said,

Source

"It's likely to be damaging to the Governor's administration," said Senator Hollis French

...

Part 2:

In a letter sent on Friday, Gov. Palin's new lawyer, Thomas V. Van Flein, requested a full list of documents, other evidence and witness statements from the Senate's investigation.

Senator French responded "it would be highly unusual for an investigator to share information with one of the targets of the investigation."

 

Part 1: These comments are highly innapropriate for someone involved in an investigation, and particularly when you consider that Palin's cited reason for firing Monegan was over insubordination in the budget dealings.  An issue which Hollis French aided Mr Monegan in supporting budget proposals that the governor had already veteod.  Mr. French should recuse himself as he clearly has involvement in the case.

Part 2: Also, it is apparent that Mr French is unaware of the Discovery Process. A right afforded to you even if you're going to court for a traffic ticket.  Of course technically he mayb be correct since the legislature has no jurisdiction here I'm not sure if she would be entitled to Discovery in a circus court.

totalwar23 said: Sqrl said: totalwar23 said: That's great except you forgot to mention that the personal board is appointed by Governor Palin. If you were the boss and you wanted your employees to investigate you for wrongdoing, you would expect them to do what, exactly? Secondly, in the eyes of the public, she looks like she has something to hide by not cooperating and initially, she welcomed the investigation. And there's the fact that the Republican legislature is being sued to stop it. That, is fishy at best.   What do you want me to comment on?   @bolded, Did you even read it? It doesn't matter who appointed the board, its called the LAW.  You don't just ignore it because you don't like it. In the eyes of the public it looks shady that the guy who is leading the legislative investigation (Hollis French) was part of the reason Monegan got fired, and it looks shady that he was declaring what he would find before the investigation ever started...now those are things you actually forgot to mention.  You don't have to comment on any of it, not responding speaks for itself, I just wanted to give you the opportunity to respond before I assume you have nothing more to add to those issues.   I've already admitted my mistake in an earlier post. I've been here for 2 hours talking to you and I am a bit tired. A Republican control board approved the investigation and if they have such a problem with French, why don't they just torpedo the investigation? As I've mentioned, the Legislature is being sued to stop. And you're right, I've been arguing with you guys for a long time and I like to take a break.

 

I can't post and read comments at the same time, I had no way of knowing you had already been called on that.

As for the rest of it I think you have a pretty weak case if you're suggesting that they shouldn't follow the law because you don't like it.  Their report and investigation will have plenty of scrutiny during and after the fact.  Declaring the board to be biased before looking into the members is silly, perhaps if you could show a connection between at least one of them  you might have at least something to stand on..but right now your position seems to be that we should ignore the law just because you don't like it.  If thats not what you're saying then please elaborate.

On the issue of taking a break, feel free, you don't have to respond immediately or even ever.  This isn't debate jail or anything, I'm planning on going to dinner soon myself anyways =)

Kasz216 said: totalwar23 said: I just said in Chapter VI, the SC doesn't need Russia's vote but Chapter VI is somewhat pointless. That's why Chapter is nore tooth and nails and Russia can veto anything there. However, neither McCain or Obama wanted to take serious actions. Oh, I don't know, how about the fact that other nations in the SC might not feel the same way as Obama or McCain and both statements made by them were just "talk"? Yet they pass those kind of resolutions ALL THE TIME in situations like this when it doesn't involve nations with VETO power. Where there does it say Russia can't Veto it? That law was put in place to keep down people on the security council without veto power when they did bad things.  Not people with veto power. A veto is not a vote.

Ah, i was just about to go home, too.

Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.

See, I'm not the only one that misses all the information that comes on the board. What I posted earlier. If the UNSC makes a nonbinding, toothless but a strongly worded resolution against Russia, Russia can't veto it out of a conflict of interest. But that's never going to happen as you have to factor in China or a bunch of other countries. It's never going to happen but it can be done without Russia.

totalwar23 said: Kasz216 said: totalwar23 said: I just said in Chapter VI, the SC doesn't need Russia's vote but Chapter VI is somewhat pointless. That's why Chapter is nore tooth and nails and Russia can veto anything there. However, neither McCain or Obama wanted to take serious actions. Oh, I don't know, how about the fact that other nations in the SC might not feel the same way as Obama or McCain and both statements made by them were just "talk"? Yet they pass those kind of resolutions ALL THE TIME in situations like this when it doesn't involve nations with VETO power. Where there does it say Russia can't Veto it? That law was put in place to keep down people on the security council without veto power when they did bad things.  Not people with veto power. A veto is not a vote.   Ah, i was just about to go home, too. Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting. See, I'm not the only one that misses all the information that comes on the board. What I posted earlier. If the UNSC makes a nonbinding, toothless but a strongly worded resolution against Russia, Russia can't veto it out of a conflict of interest. But that's never going to happen as you have to factor in China or a bunch of other countries. It's never going to happen but it can be done without Russia.

 

So your saying that Obama was still ignorant that such a matter wouldn't get passed then?  Even if it was a toothless one.

While John McCain at best(for you) was ignorant that a toothless bill couldn't be vetoed by Russia... who was threatening to do it....

and at worst (for you) was suggesting that they pass something with some bite in it to make Russia veto it.

 

Sqrl said: totalwar23 said: Sqrl said: totalwar23 said: That's great except you forgot to mention that the personal board is appointed by Governor Palin. If you were the boss and you wanted your employees to investigate you for wrongdoing, you would expect them to do what, exactly? Secondly, in the eyes of the public, she looks like she has something to hide by not cooperating and initially, she welcomed the investigation. And there's the fact that the Republican legislature is being sued to stop it. That, is fishy at best.   What do you want me to comment on?   @bolded, Did you even read it? It doesn't matter who appointed the board, its called the LAW.  You don't just ignore it because you don't like it. In the eyes of the public it looks shady that the guy who is leading the legislative investigation (Hollis French) was part of the reason Monegan got fired, and it looks shady that he was declaring what he would find before the investigation ever started...now those are things you actually forgot to mention.  You don't have to comment on any of it, not responding speaks for itself, I just wanted to give you the opportunity to respond before I assume you have nothing more to add to those issues.   I've already admitted my mistake in an earlier post. I've been here for 2 hours talking to you and I am a bit tired. A Republican control board approved the investigation and if they have such a problem with French, why don't they just torpedo the investigation? As I've mentioned, the Legislature is being sued to stop. And you're right, I've been arguing with you guys for a long time and I like to take a break.     I can't post and read comments at the same time, I had no way of knowing you had already been called on that. As for the rest of it I think you have a pretty weak case if you're suggesting that they shouldn't follow the law because you don't like it.  Their report and investigation will have plenty of scrutiny during and after the fact.  Declaring the board to be biased before looking into the members is silly, perhaps if you could show a connection between at least one of them  you might have at least something to stand on..but right now your position seems to be that we should ignore the law just because you don't like it.  If thats not what you're saying then please elaborate. On the issue of taking a break, feel free, you don't have to responrd immediately or even ever.  This isn't debate jail or anything, I'm planning on going to dinner soon myself anyways =)

The point of this scandal is that her lack of cooperation makes it seem like she has something to hide from the public. She welcomed the investigation from them in the first place. Who's not following the law, as if the investigation is illegal, it would have been shut down. somebody would find a way. And then came all of the refusals to testify and then she decided to ask the board to investigate her way after. If I was a voter, and I am, that would be one of the reasons as to why I might not want her to be president. I don't care so much as to whether Obama or McCain becomes president despite what I've been posting but when Palin became his runningmate, I swung the other way. Now, I going to actually take a break. By everyone.

 

Kasz216 said: totalwar23 said: Kasz216 said: totalwar23 said: I just said in Chapter VI, the SC doesn't need Russia's vote but Chapter VI is somewhat pointless. That's why Chapter is nore tooth and nails and Russia can veto anything there. However, neither McCain or Obama wanted to take serious actions. Oh, I don't know, how about the fact that other nations in the SC might not feel the same way as Obama or McCain and both statements made by them were just "talk"? Yet they pass those kind of resolutions ALL THE TIME in situations like this when it doesn't involve nations with VETO power. Where there does it say Russia can't Veto it? That law was put in place to keep down people on the security council without veto power when they did bad things.  Not people with veto power. A veto is not a vote.   Ah, i was just about to go home, too. Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting. See, I'm not the only one that misses all the information that comes on the board. What I posted earlier. If the UNSC makes a nonbinding, toothless but a strongly worded resolution against Russia, Russia can't veto it out of a conflict of interest. But that's never going to happen as you have to factor in China or a bunch of other countries. It's never going to happen but it can be done without Russia.   So your saying that Obama was still ignorant that such a matter wouldn't get passed then?  Even if it was a toothless one. While John McCain at best(for you) was ignorant that a toothless bill couldn't be vetoed by Russia... who was threatening to do it.... and at worst (for you) was suggesting that they pass something with some bite in it to make Russia veto it.

dammit, last one.

i'm saying both of them knew that nothing was really going to get done but they say it anyway because it was politics. That's my point the entire time.

 

totalwar23 said: Kasz216 said: totalwar23 said: Kasz216 said: totalwar23 said: I just said in Chapter VI, the SC doesn't need Russia's vote but Chapter VI is somewhat pointless. That's why Chapter is nore tooth and nails and Russia can veto anything there. However, neither McCain or Obama wanted to take serious actions. Oh, I don't know, how about the fact that other nations in the SC might not feel the same way as Obama or McCain and both statements made by them were just "talk"? Yet they pass those kind of resolutions ALL THE TIME in situations like this when it doesn't involve nations with VETO power. Where there does it say Russia can't Veto it? That law was put in place to keep down people on the security council without veto power when they did bad things.  Not people with veto power. A veto is not a vote.   Ah, i was just about to go home, too. Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting. See, I'm not the only one that misses all the information that comes on the board. What I posted earlier. If the UNSC makes a nonbinding, toothless but a strongly worded resolution against Russia, Russia can't veto it out of a conflict of interest. But that's never going to happen as you have to factor in China or a bunch of other countries. It's never going to happen but it can be done without Russia.   So your saying that Obama was still ignorant that such a matter wouldn't get passed then?  Even if it was a toothless one. While John McCain at best(for you) was ignorant that a toothless bill couldn't be vetoed by Russia... who was threatening to do it.... and at worst (for you) was suggesting that they pass something with some bite in it to make Russia veto it.   dammit, last one. i'm saying both of them knew that nothing was really going to get done but they say it anyway because it was politics. That's my point the entire time.

Yet Obama never mentioned it... while McCain did.

Basically your saying we should take Obama's word that he knew it wouldn't get passed.

Unlike McCain who outright said the resolution he supported wouldn't pass.

You're once again suggesting that I assume the guy who is telling me to buy the sandwhich knows I can't buy the sandwhich and is giving me some sort of hidden signal.

You've basically defeated your own arguement.

totalwar23 said: Sqrl said:     I can't post and read comments at the same time, I had no way of knowing you had already been called on that. As for the rest of it I think you have a pretty weak case if you're suggesting that they shouldn't follow the law because you don't like it.  Their report and investigation will have plenty of scrutiny during and after the fact.  Declaring the board to be biased before looking into the members is silly, perhaps if you could show a connection between at least one of them  you might have at least something to stand on..but right now your position seems to be that we should ignore the law just because you don't like it.  If thats not what you're saying then please elaborate. On the issue of taking a break, feel free, you don't have to responrd immediately or even ever.  This isn't debate jail or anything, I'm planning on going to dinner soon myself anyways =) The point of this scandal is that her lack of cooperation makes it seem like she has something to hide from the public. She welcomed the investigation from them in the first place. Who's not following the law, as if the investigation is illegal, it would have been shut down. somebody would find a way. And then came all of the refusals to testify and then she decided to ask the board to investigate her way after. If I was a voter, and I am, that would be one of the reasons as to why I might not want her to be president. I don't care so much as to whether Obama or McCain becomes president despite what I've been posting but when Palin became his runningmate, I swung the other way. Now, I going to actually take a break. By everyone.

So your point isn't that she actually did anything wrong, your point is just that it "seems" that way?  And here I thought what mattered was what actually happened, and not simply the appearances resulting from her exercising her legal rights.

Being serious though, why should she cooperate with a body that has no authority on the matter? Do you even argue the point that the legislature has no authority (if so we can take a look at laws that spell it out plainly)? If not, then why shouldn't she push to get it handled by the proper authority? Would you cooperate with an illegal investigation being lead by a person who you consider to be a vehement political adversary who has previously attempted to undermine you?  If not then why should she?

Her cooperation with the personnel board has not been questioned and as it is the only investigation that has legal standing, it is also the only investigation she should be cooperating with.  At no point that I'm aware of has she or her staff declined an opportunity to cooperate with the legally authorized investigation, feel free to let me know if you have evidence to the contrary. 

I think you should read up on the ethics filings and briefs that are publicly available, I've linked to several of them on these boards before.  At the very least you should read Palin's side of the story as this document explains her position and substantiates much if not all of what they say with sources cited including Alaskan Laws, publicly available documents on a host of issues, and even a few quotes from those on the other side.  In addition this 27 page filing provides a great deal of insight into the problems with the illegal investigation being conducted by the legislative council.

And since I may not be checking this tomorrow here are the portions of the Alaskan Constitution and Statutes regarding this matter:

Constitution:

Article 1 § 7. Due Process

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. The right of all persons to fair and just treatment in the course of legislative and executive investigations shall not be infringed.

Note: The right to Due Process includes her right to the discovery process, which conclusively proves that Mr French doesn't know what he is talking about in the slightest.

Article 2 § 20. Impeachment

All civil officers of the State are subject to impeachment by the legislature. Impeachment shall originate in the senate and must be approved by a two-thirds vote of its members. The motion for impeachment shall list fully the basis for the proceeding. Trial on impeachment shall be conducted by the house of representatives. A supreme court justice designated by the court shall preside at the trial. Concurrence of two-thirds of the members of the house is required for a judgment of impeachment. The judgment may not extend beyond removal from office, but shall not prevent proceedings in the courts on the same or related charges.

Note: The illegal investigation is being done in the state senate not the house. But this is not an impeachment trial anyways.  In fact the legislative investigation is being done by the legislative council which has literally zero basis for any investigation of this sort, impeachment or otherwise. 

Alaskan Statutes:

AS Title 39 Chapter 52 § 310. Complaints.
Note AS = Alaskan Statutes
(c.) If a complaint alleges a violation of AS 39.52.110 - 39.52.190 by the governor, lieutenant governor, or the attorney general, the matter shall be referred to the personnel board. The personnel board shall return a complaint concerning the conduct of the governor or lieutenant governor who is a candidate for election to state office as provided in (j) of this section if the complaint is initiated during a campaign period. The personnel board shall retain independent counsel who shall act in the place of the attorney general under (d) - (i) of this section, AS 39.52.320 - 39.52.350, and 39.52.360(c.) and (d). Notwithstanding AS 36.30.015 (d), the personnel board may contract for or hire independent counsel under this subsection without notifying or securing the approval of the Department of Law.

Notes: An independant counsel has been retained to substitute for the AG, and AFAIK he is the one who advised state employees to disregard the legislative subpoenas. You can follow the rest of those links to all pertinent information but basically Title 39 Chapter 52 §110 through 190 deals with Improper Use of Office (120), Gifts (130), Improper use/disclosure of information (140), Improper influence in state grants, leases, loans, etc..(150), Improper Representation (160), Restriction of Outside Employment (170), Restriction of Employment after leaving office (180), and Aiding another officer in violating anything in this chapter is also a violation (190).

Of these only Title 39 Chapter 52 § 120 has been cited as being violated to my knowledge, so I will list it here:

AS Title 39 Chapter 52 § 120. Misuse of Official Position.

(a) A public officer may not use, or attempt to use, an official position for personal gain, and may not intentionally secure or grant unwarranted benefits or treatment for any person. (b) A public officer may not (1) seek other employment or contracts through the use or attempted use of official position; (2) accept, receive, or solicit compensation for the performance of official duties or responsibilities from a person other than the state; (3) use state time, property, equipment, or other facilities to benefit personal or financial interests; (4) take or withhold official action in order to affect a matter in which the public officer has a personal or financial interest; (5) attempt to benefit a personal or financial interest through coercion of a subordinate or require another public officer to perform services for the private benefit of the public officer at any time; or (6) use or authorize the use of state funds, facilities, equipment, services, or another government asset or resource for partisan political purposes; this paragraph does not prohibit use of the governor's residence for meetings to discuss political strategy and does not prohibit use of the communications equipment in the governor's residence so long as there is no special charge to the state for the use; in this paragraph, "for partisan political purposes" (A) means having the intent to differentially benefit or harm a (i) candidate or potential candidate for elective office; or (ii) political party or group; (B) but does not include having the intent to benefit the public interest at large through the normal performance of official duties. (c.) In addition to other provisions of this section, a public officer who is a member of the Board of Fisheries or the Board of Game may not act on a matter before the board if the public officer has not disclosed in the manner set out in AS 39.52.220 all personal or financial interests in a business or organization relating to fish or game resources. (d) In this section, when determining whether a public officer is considered to be performing a task on government time, the attorney general and personnel board shall consider the public officer's work schedule as set by the public officer's immediate supervisor, if any. A public officer other than the governor and lieutenant governor who, during the work days, engages in political campaign activities other than minor, inconsequential, and unavoidable campaign activities shall take approved leave for the period of campaigning. (e) Except for supplying information requested by the hearing officer or the entity with authority to make the final decision in the case, or when responding to contacts initiated by the hearing officer or the individual, board, or commission with authority to make the final decision in the case, a public officer may not attempt to influence the outcome of an administrative hearing by directly or indirectly contacting or attempting to contact the hearing officer or individual, board, or commission with authority to make the final decision in the case assigned to the hearing officer unless the (1) contact is made in the presence of all parties to the hearing or the parties' representatives and the contact is made a part of the record; or (2) fact and substance of the contact is promptly disclosed by the public officer to all parties to the hearing and the contact is made a part of the record.

On the points I underlined here first and foremost her complaints against Wooten are substantial and a matter of public record.  The trooper investigation by Julia Grimes concluded a number of illegal activities on the part of Wooten so Palin's actions were warranted even if they manage to prove she has done things that she denies she did.

On the second underline she never used an official action to have Wooten fired, and her emails prove conclusively, by Monegan's own admission, that he was insubordinate and that he was fired for that reason (technically transferred, but he turned it down so its the same thing really).

And finally on the third underline the party that stood to gain the most from Monegan being fired was the public interest, he was going against her budgetting process and slowing the process while undermining the authority of the people by undermining her budget decisions.  Similarly with Wooten he was a liability to the state troopers and as someone who had been found to be drinking on duty (by Julia Grime's investigation) while driving a squad car he was a lawsuit waiting to happen that would have cost the taxpayers a subsantial sum of money.