Maybe you missed this from the above: [Q] - However, investigator Branchflower refuses to do so, saying that he must consult with Mr. French, the Alaskan Democratic Senator leading the "troopergate" investigation.
On Sep 16, 12:39 pm, PoliticalAmazon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The bi-partisan committee unanimously authorized the independent > investigaton. > > Hollis French is their "implementer." > > They can rein him in, or assign his duties elsewhere whenever they > want. > > I am an "implementer" for a governing agency. The Board sets policy, > some of which I implement. The Board can ask me to design the program > differently if they want and, at their whim, they could pull the > program from my control, or cancel large portions of it. Fortunaely, > the Board doesn't act so capriciously, but they can and they would if > they felt it needed to be done. > > ---------------- > > This is about as bi-partisan of an investigation of a politicians > ethics I've ever seen. They have gone out of their way to make it so. > On Sep 15, 8:56 pm, "d.b.baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The so-called "independent" investigator is getting his marching > > orders from a Dem senator who supports Barack Obama (i.e., Sen. Hollis > > French). > > > On Sep 15, 11:46 pm, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > d.b > > > > How would you define an "independent" investgator? According to you a > > > Democrat would be biased and partisan, logic dictates a Republican > > > would be also. So, who do you suggest? How about investigatoes from > > > the National Inquirer? Either way it turns out they get headlines and > > > that's all they care about. > > > > On Sep 15, 10:21 pm, "d.b.baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > [Q] - I have run across some very explosive audio from an Alaska Joint > > > > Judicial Committee Hearing. What you will hear is the committee > > > > discussing who's really running the investigation. One of the > > > > committee members tells the "independent" investigator Branchflower > > > > that he has the right to put someone on the subpoena list who was > > > > omitted for some reason. However, investigator Branchflower refuses to > > > > do so, saying that he must consult with Mr. French, the Alaskan > > > > Democratic Senator leading the "troopergate" investigation. This > > > > confuses the committee member, who wonders why he has to consult with > > > > Hollis French at all. Does that mean Hollis French, a partisan > > > > Democrat and Obama supporter, is putting the list together for > > > > political purposes? If that is so, then it seems this is much more > > > > than just a deep conflict of interest. > > > > > Here is the audio: > > > > > Why does Mr. French have any say in putting the subpoena list > > > > together? How independent is an investigation being run by a partisan > > > > Alaskan Democrat Senator, Hollis French? Aren't the political > > > > motivations of Mr. French too strong to run a fair investigation? Is > > > > he using it to promote his career and the agenda of the extreme Left, > > > > which is to destroy Sarah Palin at all costs? As you can hear in the > > > > audio, it is extremely fishy to say the least. This is looking more > > > > and more like a partisan witchhunt. > > > > -http://blog1.thejtandbearshow.com/2008/09/14/explosive-audio-in-palin...Hide > > > > quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
