Who would you like to ask if there is an investigation if you were given the chance?

But, if that's all the evidence that exists against such an investigation

Maybe I am just overlooking it, but what exactly is the evidence there is an investigation.

Cock-ass with the microphone wins. Good to see Bradblog has caught the undivided attention of 1 of the major US corporate mass media TV propaganda outlets. Lying fact manufacturers make it up as they go along with their plan to keep the US sheep hypnotized dummied down to a 7 year old mentality and repeating their shit over and over and over.

Another possibility is that there could have been an investigation of some kind, but whoever had the evidence gave her a way out by resigning and having the potential investigation dropped. If you think of her speech in that context, it starts to make sense.

Although I agree that the level of reporting about Palin's resignation has been less than journalistic, I feel obligated to point out that Larry Persily is no friend or supporter of Palin's. How do I know? He's a friend of mine and a former boss (and he was a journalist and newspaper editor for many years before he went into government). He's also very much a liberal.

In fact, shortly before Larry left the job you mentioned here, I asked him if Sarah was as stupid as people were saying. He said she did fine if she had everything written down for her on a half-sheet of paper. This was just a few weeks before McCain picked her.

Her real problem was she was that she liked being governor, she just wasn't that into governing.

Yuh, just like the unrehearsed chest wader interview with Mrs Greenspan today....riiight

Good story Brad, but...
when was it that Nightline was great?

Remember when Nightline started? The hostage crisis; it was a nightly report on the U.S. embassy personnel held hostage in Iran after the revolution which deposed the Shah (for the second time).

The hostage crisis went on for 444 days. That gave Ted Koppel 444 opportunities to so little as mention the crucial background of the 1953 C.I.A.-instigated coup which was still fresh in the minds of the hostages' captors.

But, no. Nada. I watched every day. It was as though history had begun after the end of Vietnam's decades-long struggle to throw off Western imperialism, another lesson of history to be buried in ignorance.

No, Nightline was never "great". It was born in ignorance and has lived up to that standard ever since.

"I do not believe there are any criminal investigations underway at the state or federal level against Sarah Palin or any member of her family."

"I do not believe" - good enough to close the case - proof positive that it is so!

"It is rumored" - slanderous, worthy of a lawsuit!

Sheesh!

miss skeptic #4

I've seen that theory bantered around in a number of places.

Brad,

It seems they don't have a lot of back up their theory, and you don't really have a lot to back up yours.

It also seems that you did not commit any great journalistic sin, nor, perhaps, did ABC (well, at least by ABC's rather lame standards).

I agree their logic is weaker, but the case to prove an allegation or the existence of a basis for it, is quite greater than the case to deflect it (or "prove a negative") in the first place.

In your original story, you do engage in some careful, judicious journalism; "The BRAD BLOG has not been able to receive confirm from any federal sources on this." But then you note the following curiosity; "Our information comes from local Alaskans who follow Palin, and who have been keeping an eye on this for some time, while keeping it quiet at the request of federal investigators."

"Local Alaskans who follow Palin"??" Okay, perhaps. Although there was no indication from your piece whether this was the case or not, perhaps these are not just wishful thinking Palin detractors. So fair enough. But, "keeping it quiet at the request of federal investigators"? Did said request from said federal investigators to "keep quiet" contain a reversal clause in the event of a sudden, inexplicable, perhaps even bizarre, seemingly frazzled Palin resignation announcement? Or were said followers simply too excited at this news to continue adherence to the otherwise heretofore respected request. I'm not suggesting. I'm just asking.

I still think the ongoing, highly misleading, manipulative, and hypocritical nature of Palin's representations, and how so many are unaware of this, is more of an issue. But that's just me.

What a horrible waste of resources.

Why do folks keep voting for the same old arrogant jackass nonsense? It's about time people rid this nasty infestation of the both (D) and (R) corporate fascists, and vote (if you can get your vote counted once it goes into the unvalidatable electronic vote tabulation devices and machines) for people who have a history of "integrity and honor" and who actually serve and represent the people, and protect and defend the US Constitution vs. arrogant anti-constitutional jackass pieces of crap who have a past history of lawsuits, felonies, corruption, bribery, dirty tricks, blackmail, failed security awareness and just plain lack of common sense and goodwill and who keep costing us more and more and are running the country into the ground.

Quit playing party politics! Quit listening to corporate fascist based news! End this nonsense already! Grow up and think for yourself! Turn that god damned TV off. Maybe even take a deep breath go outside and look around, see those little shanty towns who the police hassle everyday now? It's because of these god damned so called leaders. They are not leaders they are scum. They don't even defend the constitution, or protect our country, they are destroying everything. They don't care about your life, your health or anything except profit. If they did care, we would instantly be rid of all these nanny state crap laws, spying, banksters and the rest of all this crap we have to deal with.

Sarah Palin should have seen a jail cell for lying about her yahoo email account not being used for government business. Instead the crackers who exposed her for doing just that, get to be the bad guys.

Come on people use your god damn heads. People like this are a disaster for our country. They come neatly wrapped and fine tuned with a big (D) and a big (R) in front of their name which makes all this crap about liberal/conservative a moot point. It's right vs. wrong. It's fascist vs honorable. It's darkness and secrets vs sunlight and integrity.

ABC is part of fascist corporate media, they have already proven they have zero integrity. There is no god damned journalism coming from ABC, it's propaganda, and censorship. All these stupid networks are the same, and there's only five of them, everything comes from these five. These five decide who your next president will be. Your vote won't matter when they have eliminated your candidate before you even get to the poll.

I hope these idiots do roll out internet voting, and I hope it gets a nasty worm and Michael Jackson is elected president, with Hannah Montana for Veep. Who knows they probably would do a better job. It serves us all right for allowing these vulnerable exploitable unvalidatable electronic vote tabulation devices in the first place, instead of getting the hell up off our asses "Legally Blond 2" style and raiding DC until they end this charade.

Wanna' hear a real conspiracy theory? Notice how quickly gov pawlenty allowed Sen Frankin to be seated after Mark Sanford fell? Tired of following repub playbook and sees himself as the next president.Don't wanna' be no obstructionist. Notice how jebb bush steps up to the plate and criticizes Obama when palin gave it up? Some say she seemed frightened. bush stamp of disapproval.

Now for the dems. I think dem 2012 candidates are being picked off by the clintons. Was it just me or did the FBI getting in on John Edwards campaign funds seem a little heavy handed?
Chris Dodd says he took the CEO bonus caps out of bail out the banks legislation because the WH wanted him to. Some say Larry Summers. Rahm Emmanuel says single payer is off the table while Obama is in Russia.
My conspiracy theory is hillary is working her a-- off with Rahm to ruin Obama. Mitt Romney and the bushes are fighting it out on the repub side.

I recall an edition of Nightline where Ted had a two presidential candidates on - one was a socialist and the other was a libertarian from the Libertarian Party. The conversation ended with Ted saying that it was obvious that these two parties (socialist & libertarian) individually did not have the votes to compete with Dems & Repubs....so he asked if they thought it was possible for the two parties to join together. I laughed out realizing that Ted was not even listening to or understand the conversation - which as you might expect - consisted of these two candidate extolling the virtues of these nearly opposite economic philosophies.

Fuk that, Nightline was born by the corporatists to take out Carter and help 'Worse than Nixon' in the next election. They used the hostages as pawns, Iran got some weapons.

That was my take back then.

...and they're going to do it to Obama also if he tries to go left too far to suit them. Believe it or not, Palin is popular enough, with a little (chest wader wardrobe, CMSM) help and a little help from the IRI with destabilization somewhere in the third world, they'll grind the Dems popularity down again.

This is a science to them now. Go ahead and think all of it is coincidental. Whatever.

Ed Bernays would be proud.

Nightline went punk-ass commercial ever since they got rid of Ted Koppel to shut up his critical stories of Israel. Nightline without Koppel is like a ship with no rudder.

My theory...

Don't sell Obama short intellectually.
He may be playing the "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer" game. Molly @#11 makes a valid point. The political parlor games on both sides are interesting.
Make no mistake, the left got Obama elected President. Had it not been for lefties Hillary would be in the Whitehouse. Obama has seemingly abandoned the left and is playing center right at this time.
I sincerely hope that Obama is just placating bluedogs until he can solidify his left wing support and govern from there...right now that looks iffy. For my tastes bluedogs are just republicans without the bluster...
Healthcare will be the true belweather; if there is no viable public option then Obama has completely sold out and we'll have a Clinton administration sequel, which when seen in the rearview mirror wasn't that good. Clinton also campaigned from the left but governed center right.
I was first alarmed about Obama by his appointents of Geitner and Summers; now I'm alarmed that Rahm Emmanuel is seemingly directing policy.

Maybe, just maybe Obama has a long term plan and will move left...if not then America continues down the same slow torture of dismantling that started with Reagan and continued with Bush-Clinton and sped up by W Bush...the Corporate forces that run this country are proving to be more insidously powerful even in their weakened state. Obama is going to need to hear from us (progressive-liberals) in a meaningful manner to make him move on the progressive policies he ran on. Most of those progressives are young folks who won't hesitate to leave the Dems and support another 3rd party option...probably the Greens. So if the Dems cave as is their habit this time; they'll be out in the wilderness with the GOP.

American politics is at a crossroads..the old order better realize that and act on the will of the people.

C'mon, Zardoz! Koppel is an empty suit with a bad hairpiece on top! You cannot be serious if you are saying you think he has an iota of credibility.

It's a shame that this Palin moron is in the news all the time distracting people from far more interesting things like Major General Stubblebine's recent interview in Germany saying 9/11 was a fraud.
This investigation is getting legs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daNr_TrBw6E

Instead of just trying to "debunk rumors," Nightline, or some media outlet, should do an actual investigation into the building of Palin's house. Was it built by the same company that did the Wasilla sports center? Do they have the same windows as the sports center? Are they made of the same materials? Ask to interview Palin, Todd and the owners of the building company on the record about how the house got built. Ask for records of the materials bought for the sports center. Seems to me, if the building company has records that say they bought 100 windows for the sports center, and the sports center has 90 and the Palins home has 10, well, something's fishy. And if they all refuse to cooperate, that's also a good story.

Comment #19....RYOGAM...

Come on man...what want the media to actually do some real journalism ?

Those corporate lackies couldn't find a square white object in Yankee stadium.
Sarah Palin puff pieces sell...to actually ask Sarah Palin actual journalistic probing questions is way over our media's heads. TMZ does better reporting than any of the MSM outlets now.

But nevertheless...yours is a great point.

Palin is about to be indicted for insurance fraud. She is not the mother of Baby Trig; but claimed the maternity benefits for his birth.

In my experience doing federal criminal cases, the government typically does not reveal the existence of any investigation and has the court seal any indictments until all of the defendants have been arrested. It doesn't really help an investigation for the suspects to know that they're being wiretapped and that they're selling their drugs to undercover agents. It's perfectly kosher for the government to fib about ongoing investigations.

The FBI agent who disclaimed any investigation is just the PR guy with the Anchorage office, and at most he would be speaking only for the FBI. They're not the only US government agents. In drug cases, you rarely see any reports by any FBI agents --- they're all from the DEA. The IRS has its own agents, and they're out of Treasury, a completely different department.

There actually has been some investigation reported into tax issues, like Palin trying to deduct all her expenses in Wasilla as travel away from her "home" in Juneau. The reports made it sound like this was a State issue, but Alaska doesn't have an income tax for individuals...

Another possibility is that there could have been an investigation of some kind, but whoever had the evidence gave her a way out by resigning and having the potential investigation dropped. If you think of her speech in that context, it starts to make sense.

I've thought of that since the beginning of this story. I mean after all if some bad sh!t is going to come out anyway, why resign before it comes out? Unless of course by resigning you can stop the bad news from coming out. However, logical thinking isn't one of Palin's strong suits from what we know of her from the past year.

The hostage crisis went on for 444 days. That gave Ted Koppel 444 opportunities to so little as mention the crucial background of the 1953 C.I.A.-instigated coup which was still fresh in the minds of the hostages' captors.

Yeah, Koppel has never demonstrated that he is a good journalist, and that's a good example. Unfortunately when I see him now he's so much better than most MSM reporters its crazy. I don't think he has gotten any better, I think the playing field has simply deteriorated that much.

It was as though history had begun after the end of Vietnam's decades-long struggle to throw off Western imperialism, another lesson of history to be buried in ignorance.

Actually, the Vietnamese had fought Chinese imperialism for 1000+ years, and French (western) imperialism for 270 years. Over a 1000 years of occupation by foreign powers and they NEVER STOPPED FIGHTING for self-rule.

http://www.terragalleria...etnam/info/timeline.html

The US was NOT going to change things in 10 years. Another never-mentioned fact is that the US never had Vietnam hold open elections because Ho Chi Minh would have won hands down as he was by far the most popular individual in Vietnam.

Damn, I hate having to do this.

If she IS under investigation, then something official needs to come out. Lacking that, it will always be just a rumor.

This idiot from Alaska has enough indisputable and publicly-observable negative attributes to not concern ourselves about rumors.

Besides, to dwell on a rumor gives support to the Palin supporters' argument that she's a victim.

I'd rather just focus on her opinion that the White House Department of Law will throw out all the ethics charges once she becomes President as the most recent in a full-on tsunami of stupid - reminding all the Palin-supporting zipperheads how ridiculous that support makes them appear.

Once the other shoe drops, then we can start talking about how cute she'll look in an orange jumpsuit.

Another possibility is that there could have been an investigation of some kind, but whoever had the evidence gave her a way out by resigning and having the potential investigation dropped. If you think of her speech in that context, it starts to make sense.

I hope BlueHawk reads that and remembers what I said to him yesterday.

White House Department of Law

Google Alaska Department of Law. It isn't as stupid as it sounds once you realize that the AG's office in Alaska is indeed housed in the Department of Law. Criticize her for something she really doesn't know instead of calling it what she is familiar with.

John Pilger: "Its almost a historic opportunity the we understand that the perception of our world is utterly distorted, most of the time through what are seen as credible sources of information."

http://www.democracynow...._john_pilger_on_honduras

Here's a flashback to ABC's "integrity":

Glenn Greenwald:

Vital unresolved anthrax questions and ABC News

Much more important than the general attempt to link the anthrax to Islamic terrorists, there was a specific intent --- indispensably aided by ABC News --- to link the anthrax attacks to Iraq and Saddam Hussein. In my view, and I've written about this several times and in great detail to no avail, the role played by ABC News in this episode is the single greatest, unresolved media scandal of this decade. News of Ivins' suicide, which means (presumably) that the anthrax attacks originated from Ft. Detrick, adds critical new facts and heightens how scandalous ABC News' conduct continues to be in this matter.

http://www.salon.com/opi...wald/2008/08/01/anthrax/

So, Palin's "guys" who vouch for her are the highly regarded ABC & FBI. Since when are ABC & the FBI reliable sources? I guess when it suits your purposes, they are.

I bet Axey (and others) are ones to rail on the "liberal media", like ABC...except when they quote them. That's called "being selective".

And Palin was beyond a doubt referring to a "Department of Law" at the FEDERAL level, not in Alaska, because she said the "Department of Law" would protect her if she reached the White House. So, stop saying that. She didn't say, if she reached the White House, Alaska's Department of Law would protect her.

Why isn't Alaska's Department of Law protecting her right now, btw?

Comment #25.....Axey

If Palin thinks that her resignation will end the investigation and possible prosecution of embezzlement and fraud charges; then she may be sadly mistaken.

Given Palin's lack of understanding of the law and legal processes it wouldn't surprise me if she actually thought her resigning would end this.

There may have been a deal to resign...but if that's the case we'll be hearing about prosecution and resitution in the coming weeks or months.
Palin's electoral life has ended and her credibility has been so damaged that almost any public life won't be possible. She has her fan club of adoring fans....but hey so did Michael Jackson and I'm sure no one cared about what Michael Jackson thought about policy matters.

Sarah Palin has been exposed as a fraud...and possible criminal.

In Palin's rambling disjointed resignation speech. She kept mentioning her "personal legal bills" of $500,000.
What's up wid dat ?

Did anyone in the MSM bother to question why being the governor of Alaska would incur such a personally heavy legal debt ? I don't hear any other elected officials talking about that kind of personal legal debt. And if that's the case why was she whining about the legal debt of Alaska for her to deal with all the ethics charges...something just doesn't add up.
Why has she incurred a private legal debt of half a million dollars ?

Could it be the iceberg investigation and legal dealing ?

And Palin was beyond a doubt referring to a "Department of Law" at the FEDERAL level

Yes. But she referred to it by the name that is familiar to her in Alaska. So sue her. Or don't vote for her. Or something equally awful because she called the federal arm by the name she knows it to be in Alaska. You've already determined she isn't ready for primetime. I don't understand why she is not a footnote in history by now. To democrats especially.

Could it be the iceberg investigation and legal dealing ?

Yes. That could be it. Why on earth didn't anyone else think of that? You posted the list yesterday of all of the ethics charges she has had to deal with. Those legal fees come out of her personal pocket. Look it up.

Comment #36....Axey...

The "legal dealing" I was speaking of is maybe plea bargaining regarding the iceberg investigations.
If that is true then we'll hear more coming down the pike because obviously the investigative part is done and we're actually into the sentencing-restitution phase.

We'll see

BlueHawk,

I don't know how you get from A to Z but it is fun to watch. How is anything obvious? You just said yesterday that you had no more information saying it was true than I did saying it wasn't true. How is it now obvious to you that the investigation is over and they are in the sentencing-restitution phase? I honestly can't get there with you.

Question: What's the difference between reporting that an associate of Palin (and the FBI) says she's not under investigation, and reporting anonymous sources that say she is?

Answer: Even if the associate is wrong, at least the first reporter identifies the source.

Can't say that for Moore or Bradblog, can we.

Okay Axey...what the hell are you talking about ?

My point is that IF Palin's resignation is part of an arrangement to cop to the housegate thing THEN OBVIOUSLY THE INVESTIGATION IS OVER...

and what we're now watching for is sentencing-restitution ...not investigation.

it was a speculation...why would something that's been dealt with and resolved need to be investigated ?

Everyone here is speculating...so I joined in....maybe you should read my posts again...or I didn't express myself well.

Have I missed something ?

Axey...read my post #34 again. I asked why did Sarah Palin have a half million dollar personal legal bill ?

I SPECULATED that it could have been her legal dealing (as in plea bargaining) for the iceberg thing...
I still find it hard to believe that a sitting governor has to pay her own legal defenses for ethics charges incurred while doing the state's business. That doesn't make sense.

Also in Sarah's rambling presser she spoke of the cost to Alaska for her legal defense...she has said her legal defense has cost Alaska as a state a huge amount and put her personally in the hole for half a mil.

Something doesn't add up...to my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong); the only time an elected official has to pay their own legal defense is of they are charged with a crime...I would think defense costs from ethics violations charges would be paid by the state.

Sarah Palin cited huge costs to the state and huge personal costs...again I say...it doesn't add up.

Axey: You can't honestly say that Sarah Palin was the GOP's best choice for VP pick. No one, including Republican voters & backers, was talking about Sarah Palin and a lot of them didn't even know who she was. When she was picked, suddenly she was "the best pick". That's bullshit. I bet you never even heard of her, before she was picked as McCain's VP. I know a lot of people never heard of her. The GOP lost when they picked Sarah Palin as their VP choice.

If Sarah Palin WASN'T picked as McCain's VP choice, no one STILL would have heard of her.

Yeah, it adds up. they fined her out of the public sphere and media influence so no one could hang anything on her. The half mil is the fine and the legal costs I'll bet.

By having a private attorney rather than using the State attorneys she would have more confidentiality and less accountability for her actions.

Brad, the mainstream media is squirming in the awareness the public sees through them, their lies, their in-house stock-promoting "news," and is turning to blogs and other more reliable sources of information (more reliable if not always reliable). Of course the mainstream media squirms in green-faced envy at the freedom of bloggers to actually report unwatered down news. Naturally, fascist conglomerates that these war-profiteering corporations are, they're hoping to end this threat by taking over the internet (trying to kill net neutrality)

Dismissing Larry Persily as "Palin's own former employee" misses entirely his perspective and institutional knowledge of Alaskan politics.

Persily has an extensive background in public service and with the press. Among other positions, from June of 1999 to June of 2003, Persily served Alaska as Deputy Commissioner for the Department of Revenue. He has held numerous positions in the press, including with The Associated Press, Juneau Empire, Anchorage Times, and editorial page editor at the Anchorage Daily News.

I'll bet he even knows a thing or two about due diligence, unlike a certain blogger that I won't mention.

I'm curious, who were your other "sources" ?

And what about this little nuggie,
Update: This just in my inbox, from a source connected sometimes to CNN:

"Here's a quote I got from law enforcement here in Alaska yesterday afternoon regarding Palin "a criminal indictment is pending authorization." ? ? ?

Woemstac @ 39 asked:

Question: What's the difference between reporting that an associate of Palin (and the FBI) says she's not under investigation, and reporting anonymous sources that say she is?

Here's the difference, Woemstac, among several. The Palin associate said he "do[es] not believe there are any criminal investigations underway" (he didn't say she's not under investigation, as you averred, just for the record). It's true that he said that, we saw it on camera, and I've got no complaint about his speculation, even if we were to stipulate that it's "informed speculation" (which it may or may not be.)

It's also true that sources in AK believe there may be an impending indictment based on an ongoing investigation, as I reported.

The difference then, is that I took care to report that it was uncofirmed by federal officials at this time, and that the sources only *believed* that to be the case. It may be true, it may not be. We don't know. And that was clear from my reporting.

In ABC's case, on the other hand, they also don't know whether there is an investigation or not. Yet, they said there was no investigation. Period.

That may or may not be true, but clearly they don't know one way or the other. Nonetheless, they said they did, when they slapped a big "NOPE!" in their promised separation of "fact from fiction" on that particular theory.

Had they said "We've found no evidence of any such investigation," I'd have had no complaint (other than urging them to use their far greater resources than mine, to actually do a thorough investigation to find out, rather than ask one friend/former employee, and quote an FBI official denying something that was never alleged, and then prematurely reporting there was no investigation.)

Hope that helps answer your question.

Mustafa @ 46 said:

Dismissing Larry Persily as "Palin's own former employee" misses entirely his perspective and institutional knowledge of Alaskan politics.

His "perspective and institutional knowledge of Alaskan politics" has little do with anything. I'm sure he's a wonderful and knowledgeable fellow. But the fact that a former Palin official, no matter how well-informed, "do[es] not believe there are any criminal investigations underway" is fine information from one perhaps-biased, perhaps-fair, person.

Does it mean there is no investigation? Of course not. Yet ABC reported it as if it did. As I wrote in the article above, they did so with "no ifs, ands, buts, maybes, or 'we were unable to find evidence fors' about it."

I'm sure you see the difference. If you don't, or won't admit as much, I suspect it's because you simply don't wish to.

As to your "little nuggie" quoted above, that was reported by someone else, on an entirely different website. So you'll have to press them for answers about it if you are actually looking for any.

Brad, here's an idea:

Since the FBI was asked and denied any federal-level investigation, has Moore or you or anyone covering this "story" gone to every possible investigating agency in Alaska and asked

them?

There's only a small handful of agencies that might do such an investigation, and their not hard to find. Tell Moore to ask them all and see if she gets the old "We can neither confirm nor deny that" response.

That would be journalistic of her, after all, and could be done without getting out of her chair.

If you think this is a bad idea, please explain why.

BTW, I wanted to post this suggestion over on Moore's site but, last I checked, dissenting opinion was being vaporized. I honestly do appreciate you allowing comments such as mine; it shows you operate on a higher level than she does.

Comment #49...WOEMSTAC

I would suspect that Ms. Moore is now editing her site because of the flood of Palin followers posting acrimonious comments there ...I don't know because I haven't visited Ms. Moore's site in a few days.

The fact that Sarah Palin singled her out and threatened a nefarious lawsuit in the MSM signaled sent her sycophants to Ms. moore's site to vent outrage...

I don't know...but I'm just sayin'.

It is a right wing tactic to swamp dissenting opinions with their noise.

It is a right wing tactic to swamp dissenting opinions with their noise.

That's correct: comment swamping is a wholly right wing tactic. Leftists never, ever try to swamp the email and message boards of others who disagree with them.

Oh, wait, yes they do...but that's different because leftists are always correct, morally and intellectually. Right, Bluehawk?

As to your "little nuggie" quoted above, that was reported by someone else, on an entirely different website. So you'll have to press them for answers about it if you are actually looking for any.

But Brad, lest you forget (I'm sure you'd like to), you claimed essentially the same thing on 7-3. You quoted "Alaska sources" and wrote,

FEDERAL INVESTIGATORS have been looking into this for some time, and indictments could be imminent...[and that your sources were] keeping it quiet AT THE REQUEST OF FEDERAL INVESTIGATORS."

Again, I appreciate your willingness to discuss it with us here, but if Moore and FDL are guilty of recklessly reporting lies re: the Feds, so are you. Whatever credibility you all had on this story was shot in the ass right there.

Comment #51...WOEMSTAC...

That wasn't what I said...you massaged a whole 'nother meaning from my post.

#1 If you think that I meant that only right wingers flood sites; you wrong because I didn't say that.

#2 I never said lefties are always right...I said maybe Shannyne Moore edited her site because Palin groupies were flooding it with distracting noise.

#3 Righties do attempt to drown out unfavorable (to them) opinions, news etc etc) with distracting noise. It's not a singlular right wing tactic; but it is the main tactic that righties use...ie...Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and those like them.

From my experience...lefties do value debate more than righties. Maybe I'm baised but it's been my experience.

Brad - My suggestion is that Mr. Persily probably knows the right people, both socially and professionally, that he could probably glean information as to whether the Feds are looking at the Palin's.

The Dept. of Integrity out of Washington DC has been running the Alaska investigation, and as you know their house is not in good order right now.

My criticism isn't the possibility that the Palin's could have gotten extra benefits, i.e. the house, but the reporting of it by the AK Bloggers.

They were clearly spreading this story around, for what purpose I don't know. I do know that last weekend after Palin's announcement, the story spread very quickly.

And for those who poo-poo the LA Times.....

Remember it was the LAT that broke the original Ted Stevens scandal story back in June, 2003 by Chuck Neubauer which first brought public attention to this whole mess.

Take it one step further, it was the LAT that ran a story on former Alaska Teamster boss, Jesse Carr, and the culture of corruption that was prevalent in Alaska during construction of the Trans-Alaska pipeline.

Coincidence, or not ?

Here's video of Sarah Palin that was NOT played like the media played Rev. Wright 24×7, anyone care to explain this huge break Sarah Palin got from the media vs. Rev. Wright/Obama?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sixDDLSN46s

I'm well read on dominionists/theonomists, and I would oppose mightily if I knew one sought governmental power. However, I did not hear in those clips what the poster on Utube was implying.

It is true that balls-out dominionists are very legalistic and are all for taking government by force if necessary - that is a fact (they'll never, ever pull it off is beside the point).

The true dominionist is very open, honest and unapologetic about he thinks is wrong with the world and what is to be done about it, and why...they're up-front about it to the point of being quite frightening to listen to. I know, I've heard them before. However, I did not get that at all from these clips. Sorry.

Also, there are degrees here. Not every church or individual involved with the charismatic/Third Wave/Manifest Sons of God/theonomy movement (and that's a BIG umbrella) is as radically hard-core as a few. Most, in fact, are not, and many openly oppose their extremism. This church does not appear to be of the radical type you'd rightly fear. Sorry.

With all that said, I wonder what's the difference in a person whose religious beliefs lead them to believe power must be taken by deception and force if necessary, and nonreligious people who believe power must be taken by deception and force if necessary? Answer: none. They're both animals and should be opposed by all reasonable men.

PS I'm not charismatic, pentecostal or anything like it - which (with a couple of Reformed/calvinistic exceptions) is almost a pre-requisite for being a dominionist.

Woemstac @ 52 said (along with selectively quoting):

But Brad, lest you forget (I'm sure you'd like to), you claimed essentially the same thing on 7-3. You quoted "Alaska sources" and wrote,

FEDERAL INVESTIGATORS have been looking into this for some time, and indictments could be imminent...[and that your sources were] keeping it quiet AT THE REQUEST OF FEDERAL INVESTIGATORS."

Again, I appreciate your willingness to discuss it with us here, but if Moore and FDL are guilty of recklessly reporting lies re: the Feds, so are you. Whatever credibility you all had on this story was shot in the ass right there.

Huh? Who ever said Moore and FDL "are guilty of recklessly reporting lies"??? Why are you making things up to make your case?

Also, why did you conveniently cut out the "according to the Alaska sources" which would have been where the elipses is in what you quoted above? I think the answer is probably rather obvious. And unfortunate.

I have no interest in "forget[ting]" anything reported here and, unless where otherwise noted with a transparent correction, I stand by it 100%, no matter how much you seem to enjoy selective quoting, and attributing comments to me which I've never made.

Mustafa @ 54 said:

My suggestion is that Mr. Persily probably knows the right people, both socially and professionally, that he could probably glean information as to whether the Feds are looking at the Palin's.

And I even "stipulated" as much in my response to you above. Whether it's true or not, I don't know, but even if we assume he is wonderfully knowledgable, are you suggesting that one former employee of Sarah Palin's who "do[es] not believe" there is an investigation is enough for ABC News to conclude there is NOT an investigation?? Because that's what they did.

And for those who poo-poo the LA Times....

And now, you're doing what Woemstac did --- creating a strawman argument. Who is "poo-poo[ing] the LA Times"? (Though they deserved to be poo-pooed, but that's a different topic, and not one that was raised, at least in my article).

The point is simply because one AK FBI spokesman is unaware of an FBI investigation, does not mean that there is no federal investigation --- even if we presume the AK FBI spokesman was correct in his denial.

Are these points really that difficult for you all to understand? Or are you just doing and saying everything you can to try and salvage the credibility of the outgoing Alaska Governor despite her own very competent work at discrediting herself on almost every score?

Guys, it's "pooh-pooh".

Please... unless, I guess, you both mean to be alluding to shitting on the LAT....

Huh? Who ever said Moore and FDL "are guilty of recklessly reporting lies"??

I did, because they are.

Also, why did you conveniently cut out the "according to the Alaska sources" which would have been where the elipses is in what you quoted above? I think the answer is probably rather obvious. And unfortunate.

Watch the bold as I quote myself:

But Brad, lest you forget (I'm sure you'd like to), you claimed essentially the same thing on 7-3. You quoted "Alaska sources" and wrote,

FEDERAL INVESTIGATORS have been looking into this for some time, and indictments could be imminent...[and that your sources were] keeping it quiet AT THE REQUEST OF FEDERAL INVESTIGATORS."

Brad, are you stoned or just naturally not very good at this?

Are these points really that difficult for you all to understand? Or are you just doing and saying everything you can to try and salvage the credibility of the outgoing Alaska Governor despite her own very competent work at discrediting herself on almost every score?

Brad, 28 year Alaskan here, non partisan, didn't vote for Palin and never will.

Don't presume that I'm a supporter of her.

My criticism is with the reporting and lack of vetting.

Did you vet this with anybody outside of the circle of Alaskan bloggers ?

All I can say is that if it came down to trusting a source, either Persily or Moore, I'd take Persily in a heartbeat, even before she made a name for herself.

I've always considered Moore a lightweight when it comes to being a professional journalist, which is how she likes to portray herself.

She is not a journalist, she's a host, a commentator, an agitator, an advocate.

Moore is at best, a pretend journalist, she doesn't even begin to shine a light on Persily when it comes to being a journalist.

Sorry, I should have clarified, it was another commenter, not you, that seemed to downplay the LAT reporting on this.

That's all, thanks for the opportunity to discuss.

M

FINALLY!!

Someone is asking the question I asked.

Keith Olberman did a piece on the convuluted "legal fees" reason for Sarah Palin's resignation.
Alaska's "dept of law" or whatever it is... has a budget and investigating, defending or working with the Sarah Palin ethics charges are covered by that budget.
Secondly Sarah Palin has several legal defense funds (google Sarah Plain defense funds)that are easily covering her legal fees.

Sarah Palin quoted $2 million dollars as the cost to Alaska for legal fees...Alaska paid it's citizens $730 million dollars in energy relief payments. Palin's $2 million dollars in legal fees paid by Alaska is peanuts.

So Sarah Palin's "piling legal fees" for her personally and the state of Alaska is just more bulls-it.
What is this woman hiding...?

Hopefully this legal fees lie is followed up and exposed as the lie it is.

woemstac: Palin's in the video with this witchdoctor religious guy. You're really not addressing that. That's off the charts!

I mean, did you watch the video???

That's Palin in the video, right???

wtf???

Look, let me post it again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sixDDLSN46s

Now, that's BATSHIT CRAZY! Right???

That is, in fact, Sarah Palin, right???

And I don't think I saw Obama with his arm around Rev. Wright, in the video where Wright said: "the chicken's have come home to roost".

But YET...the association only, of Obama to Wright, was connected over and over 24×7 for weeks, if not months.

In that Palin video, Palin is ACTUALLY IN THE VIDEO WITH THIS CRAZY WITCHDOCTOR!!! And it got NO AIR PLAY IN THE MEDIA!

You really didn't address this! This favorable media treatment of Palin vs. Obama (witchdoctor vs. Wright).

Big Dan...
If I'm not mistaken Obama wasn't even at the church when Wright gave his "chickens coing home to roost sermon"
or his "god damn America sermon"

And then there's McCain seeking and recieving John (bat shit crazy) Hagee's and Rod Parsley (foaming at the mouth nuts) endorsments...and of course Sarah Palin being "blessed" by the witch doctor...but you're right all we heard about was Rev. Wright.

...from the "liberal media"...you know, that's owned by those 5 "liberal" corporations.

The question isn't if the mainstream media is liberal or not, it isn't, the question is why do they want us to think it is! That's the biggest story of our lifetime, not 9/11, but that we're supposed to think the mainstream media is liberal. Beyond a doubt, it is not.

Anyone got any ideas as to why they want us to think that, though?

I think even Brad would agree, that the media isn't liberal. But we're supposed to think it is.

One idea I have, is that if we think the media is liberal, we'll believe what they're saying. Part of the sham, too, is to have the extreme right media declaring that the mainstream media is liberal. You need your "testimonials", right? Like a staged infomercial.

I am 100% convinced of this. Wake up and realize this, and examine the possible reasons as to why this is.

If the mainstream media is "liberal", why doesn't it look like Democracy NOW! ??? Because it doesn't.

Do you know anyone, personally, that says the mainstream media is liberal? Did you ever notice, the only ones saying that are: Rush Limbaugh, Brent Bozell, etc...? So, part of the "play", is to have this faction whining that the (not) liberal media is liberal. Or else, there would BE NOBODY claiming the corporate mainstream media is liberal. That's essential. Does everyone get this?

Do you know anyone, personally, that says the mainstream media is liberal?

And I don't mean your friend who listens to Rush Limbaugh. I mean an intelligent friend who gives examples of the mainstream media being liberal. EXAMPLES! Not someone repeating Rush Limbaugh.

I gave you an example of how Palin's KOOKY church video was ignored by the MSM, and they paraded Rev. Wright.

How about how the MSM doesn't cover protests? Or that they cover protests in Iran, but not the U.S.??? Or they cover "suspect" elections in other countries, but not ours?

We're not supposed to realize the MSM isn't liberal. But the NEED people to say it is: Rush Limbaugh, etc...or the game is over.

The "liberal" media doesn't cover electronic voting machines. Ask yourself, why you think the MSM is liberal? It's because you hear people like Rush Limbaugh saying it is! That's the only reason! But when it really comes down to it, and I ask you for examples, there are none!

The "liberal" media isn't covering single payer. And definitely not calling politicians from both sides on shutting out single payer. EVEN THOUGH...76% of the public want a public option!

The media is liberal is straight up right wing propaganda.

A right wing/corporate tool to nullify any dissent before it manifests....Noam Chomsky says it best.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYlyb1Bx9Ic

Dan, apparently YOU are the one who either didn't watch the clips or totally missed the point of why they were posted.

I know what Dominionists believe and preach. Even if Palin's church is truly Dominionist, these clips do not show it. Instead, it looks like your run of the mill pentecostal/charismatic tongues babbling congregation that still has some focus on evangelism (not all do). To that end, the video is a failure.

Comment #73....WOEMSTAC

Actually that video succeeded in demonstrating Palin's loony religious beliefs. You calling that video a "failure" is really self serving. The video made it's point very well.

You citing "dominionist" doctrine or "end timers" rationale doesn't address the meat of what the Palin video showed. That Sarah Palin was blessed by a witch doctor.

Nice try at spinning what was obvious to anyone that watched the video.

Karl Rove would be proud.

Comment #73....WOEMSTAC

Actually that video succeeded in demonstrating Palin's loony religious beliefs. You calling that video a "failure" is really self serving. The video made it's point very well.

You citing "dominionist" doctrine or "end timers" rationale doesn't address the meat of what the Palin video showed. That Sarah Palin was blessed by a witch doctor.

Nice try at spinning what was obvious to anyone that watched the video.

Karl Rove would be proud.

I've been reading your absurdities for a few days now and this has to be the worst yet.

Despite your bleating to the contrary, the video was neither produced nor posted here to show Palin's mere theological "looniness." It was supposed to give evidence that Palin is a dominionist - a charge that would bear serious investigation because, as I've already explained, the key thought of dominionists is taking governmental power by force, if they have to.

The video does not show dominionism.

It may show what you classify as "looniness," and you know what? So do I! I believe charismatics commit some fundamental theological errors. But the clips in no way shows what the poster claimed it showed.

So you have nothing to argue about.

The Family on C Street

Comment #75...WOEMSTAC

For clarity I watched the video BigDan posted again (comment #55)...because I like to be sure of what I'm talking about.
Contrary to your conflation, the video wasn't a tutorial on dominionism. It was a demonstration of the very strange religious beliefs Sarah Palin has adopted.
I didn't see the video poster attempt to instruct the audience on the finer or not so fine points of dominionism...the video poster intended to and succeeded in demonstrating that Sarah Palin is a theocrat, or at best a panderer to those with really strange, fringe religious beliefs.

The video poster (Oilwellian) writes...
"Another video recently surfaced that raises new questions about Sarah Palin's religion. I could care less what religion people practice, unless they conflate their religious beliefs with their politics..."

By the video poster's own words...he was demonstrating Sarah Palin's loony beliefs and how she intended to bring those beliefs to public office...He was not doing a tutorial on dominionism, it was simply identified as the strange brand of religion Palin practiced...but I knew that, because the focus of the video was on SARAH PALIN; not dominionism.

By reading the video poster's (Oilwellian) own words he succeeded in his intent of questioning Sarah Palin's religious beliefs...and by posting it here BigDan's question is valid.
Why were we bashed daily with Rev. Wright...when Sarah Palin hung out with these loons ?

A valid question indeed.

WOEMSTAC you seem to be a wily, squirmy dodger of the point. You'll conflate the point to one of your own creation...
But I'm experienced now in "debating" righties. When one stays focused on the topic and is sure of one's facts no righty's deflecting tactics can hide the truth.

On the liberal media issues raised in these comments, from discussions I have had with conservatice co-workers, family members etc they just don't watch network news of CNN (can't fault them on CNN, it is crap) and they are all canceling their local print newspaper because it is a liberal rag. I expected they would watch Fox over ABC, NBC but this rant by them about the local print newpaper being a liberal rag was a surprise to me. As bad as newspapers may have and as bad as they have gotten, they always seem superior to me compared to TV news in that the stories were more in depth. Also I thought print news would not be to objectional to them because it seemed reporters seemed really try to balance both the traditional liberal and conservative spin on a story, so as to not be accused of taking one side, which of course at times is avoiding the truth as they find.

When I pressed them for the specifics of the "liberalness" of the local print media, they were actually really thin on info, examples. But what I finally figured out was that they were not being present with what Fox and Rush gave them. Anything less than a Fox/Rush spin on news, even a psuedo balance between percieved liberal and conservative traditional viewpoints seems liberal and unacceptable to them.

As a progressive, I like watching MSNBC or reading BradBlof or HuffPost, I think I pick up information and analysis there that I would not get from other sources, but I acknowledge they are emphasizing liberal/progressive points of view are not necessarily "balanced".

When I then go to listen to mass-appeal news source trying to present news facts to those of all ilks, such as reading a local paper or listening to NPR, I do not discount them and reject them because they don't repeat every liberal perspective or ask all the questiosn liberals are asking on MSNBC. I have issues with NPR such as with ret. Generals paid to shill to them and thier coverage on Israel that is often not fully truthfull or seems to overly emphasize the position of powerful people. But I do not stop listening becuase I think it is more NPR is more conservative than AirAmerica. It is a valuable source of information, facts and it generally gets its facts right, even if it buries some important things, self-censors etc..

And yet conservatives seem not to be able to tolerate the middle of the road, trying to balance the story, presenting the whole story in some depth. Any thing more thorough, balanced and fact=-checked than Fox or Rush is considered a liberal mouth piece. This is troubling to me. Its like a deep level, there is something they to do want to let go of regardless of facts.

I have all kinds of criticisms about Obama admin even tho I voted for the guy, I can believe he/his admin people could be corrupt, and I'm concerned about that, vigilant of it. I can listen to mass appeal media presented "balanced" facts, and listen to conspiracy theories on Clintons and Obama etc with open mind and willing give some credence. Why can't conservatives do the same????

As previous poster noted, this die-hard adherence to party line has to go. Corruption or incompetence on either side must acknowledged and resisted.