The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.
Ignoring subpoenas? YEP, they're republican!
cnn.com — Aides to Gov. Sarah Palin won't comply with subpoenas issued by state lawmakers investigating the firing of Alaska's former public safety commissioner, since Palin "has declined to participate" in the probe, her attorney general says. In what kind of crazy, ***** up world do we live in where subpoenas are ignored by republicans?
algaeturd- 4429 diggs
- digg it
- hansfriedee, on 09/17/2008, -27/+478WHY IS THIS NOT BIGGER NEWS?!!??!?! she's even abusing her power as governor to cover up the fact that she abused her power as governor!!!! if you put lipsti....
nvm ;-P- apastafarian, on 09/18/2008, -20/+10
It's not bigger news because the Obama campaign's strategy for Palin is to ignore Palin.- Donboy, on 09/18/2008, -2/+5That seems stupid. They should be cutting her to ribbons, cause it seems like it'd be easy to do. She's an easy target.
- revisrev, on 09/18/2008, -0/+35She cuts herself to ribbons. This election should be about issues.
- treed, on 09/18/2008, -0/+12Only a sexist would dare cut a woman to ribbons.
- jehan60188, on 09/18/2008, -0/+5yah, a real man would cut her into... bailing twine!
- bbtweb, on 09/18/2008, -0/+2The Obama campaign is talking more about the issues which is good. At least one campaign is.
On the topic at hand...sounds to me like she can't make up her mind why she fired the guy. - Charlotte_Web, on 09/18/2008, -15/+7Barack Obama's connection to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:
http://digg.com/world_news/Barack_Obama_s_Fannie_M ...
FTA:
"Freddie and Fannie used huge lobbying budgets and political contributions to keep regulators off their backs... They have been places for big Washington Democrats to go to work in the semi-private sector and pocket millions... It appears the man attacking McCain — Sen. Obama — was at the head of the line when the piggies lined up at the Fannie and Freddie trough for campaign bucks. Sen. Barack Obama: No. 2 on the Fannie/Freddie list of favored politicians after just four short years in the Senate." - haydesigner, on 09/18/2008, -3/+9@Charlotte_Web: "Barack Obama's connection to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:"
Non sequitur. - apastafarian, on 09/18/2008, -0/+6-6 for stating the campaign strategy? That's novel. I happen to agree with the strategy. This is and should be about McCain and Obama, not the VP. Ignore Palin and watch her fade away. Biden ignores her and even when they send Clinton out on the trail, she avoids mentioning her or appearing at the same event. The conservatives may think it's because the Obama campaign is scared, but it's really that she has already had way more attention than she`s earned or deserves. The only ones paying her much heed now are the delusional right wing religious nut jobs that view her as someone of substance and the muck raking left wing blogs like Huffington who are obsessed with attacking anything the right wing nut jobs see as important. The convention honeymoon is over and everyone is now realizing the beautiful bride is really a cheap tawdry call girl.
- mikesoba, on 09/20/2008, -0/+1Not Obama - the press.
- chanop, on 09/18/2008, -17/+3I've seen this everywhere. I saw it yesterday and today on the news. I saw it on the news sites. *****, it's been on digg front page 5 times allready.....
- SenorBudd, on 09/18/2008, -0/+9Do you ever get away from your computer? Maybe you want to learn to spell check if this is what you do for a living.
- TheLoneHoot, on 09/19/2008, -0/+3good - I'm glad. It needs to be on the front page of every newspaper and on every MSM channel too.
- gaoshan, on 09/19/2008, -0/+2We'll stop talking about the crap being spewed by McCain/Palin when the Republicans finally quit spewing it.
- inboxnews, on 09/18/2008, -57/+2Gee, this has only been on digg's front page 17x in the last 48 hours. Inaccurate. Dupe. Buried -- AGAIN!!!
- TheLoneHoot, on 09/19/2008, -0/+3Sooooooo
it's been on the front page multiple times and that makes it inaccurate? - hansfriedee, on 10/07/2008, -0/+1450 diggs versus negative 55. and ya fail.
- TheLoneHoot, on 09/19/2008, -0/+3Sooooooo
- Yimyack, on 09/18/2008, -0/+51Even bigger news: Media turning a blind eye to the bombing in Yemen.
Republicans say they're the only ones that can keep the country safe, eh? Uhh... I thought a U.S. Embassy is considered American soil - not so safe, is it.- bodisatvah, on 09/18/2008, -5/+9Oh no! You've got it backwards! That is EXACTLY why we need republicans, because the left has prevented us from being as tough on terrorism as we should be!
(The above is sarcasm for you denser folks) - bodisatvah, on 09/18/2008, -3/+6Okay... if you can't acknowledge that the above post is a satirical representation of the fear-mongering tactics of the GOP then you don't have a sense of humor and ***** you or you are a repub and ***** you...
- thbigtiket21, on 09/19/2008, -6/+6regardless of what you think about bush, there has not been another attack on US soil. just thought that i would note that.
- beaunewcomb, on 09/19/2008, -0/+5thbigtiket21:
Such a cop-out response played over and over and over...
How about considering the implications of these questions:
Was there an attack on US soil while Bush was in office?
When was the last major attack before Bush? I'm sorry, but 7 years is a minute amount of time to base such a bold statement on. Purely spun political propaganda. - bitbytebit, on 09/19/2008, -0/+1@bigtiket
because there hasn't been a need for another one ..yet - macdady843, on 09/19/2008, -2/+1@beaunewcomb
"Was there an attack on US soil while Bush was in office?
When was the last major attack before Bush?"
To answer your questions the last attacks were during the Clinton Administration when the USS Cole was bombed (although that was not on American soil) and the WTC was bombed and Clinton decided to do nothing. Then low and behold look what happened they did it again only this time it was much bigger and Bush wasn't a pussy about it and went after those responsible. I guess Bush should've done nothing just like Clinton huh? That was real good for the citizens of the United States and the employees of the WTC wasn't it? - mikesoba, on 09/20/2008, -0/+1@thbigtiket21thbigtiket21 -
1. Why was there even one attack of this magnitude under Bush?
2. Neo-cons constantly refer to the embassy attacks under Clinton as attacks on US soil. Now that it's happened again, why are embassies not US soil?
@macdady843 - Clinton lobbed shells at Taliban encampments in Afghanistan. What did Bush do? Go to war with the wrong country and allow bin Laden, the son of a good Bush family oil friend, to disappear into a cave after promising the nation he would go to the ends of the earth capture him.
- bodisatvah, on 09/18/2008, -5/+9Oh no! You've got it backwards! That is EXACTLY why we need republicans, because the left has prevented us from being as tough on terrorism as we should be!
- jamesalfaro, on 09/18/2008, -0/+30Aides to Palin wont comply with subpoenas? Why does that sound so familiar? Hmmm...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19662270/- jehan60188, on 09/18/2008, -1/+4lipstick on a pig
republican regime
4 (8?) more years of the same crap
etc
- jehan60188, on 09/18/2008, -1/+4lipstick on a pig
- gquaglia, on 09/18/2008, -35/+3Its not bigger news because Donks ignore subpoenas as much as Repubs do.
- treehugger87, on 09/18/2008, -2/+32[citation needed]
- dfeifer, on 09/18/2008, -0/+24hmm.. and what happens if someone like you or I, decide to ignore a subpoena?
- mleh, on 09/18/2008, -0/+16I think it usually results in a contempt of court charge or a bench warrant being issued, possibly both.
- GoodKharma, on 09/18/2008, -2/+22DIGGERS UNITE!!!!! Get this to the top ASAP! Karl Rove ignores subpoena...Sarah Failin ignores subpoena... WTF people!!!!
- BeefBaron, on 09/18/2008, -0/+19If one of us normal people were to ignore a subpoena we would get our houses raided and be arrested.
- brycelb, on 09/19/2008, -3/+3"DIGGERS UNITE!!!!!"
Was that serious? - coyote1284, on 09/19/2008, -0/+1Digg is not your personal army
- GVR90, on 09/19/2008, -0/+2Someone should start a petition and post the link... I'm too lazy to do it, but I would sign it lol.
- mbraynard, on 09/18/2008, -11/+3Legislative bodies do not have the lawful authority to issue 'subpoenas.'
Little thing called 'habeas corpus.'
Otherwise, why do you think members of both parties routinely ignore these phony demands?- Dumbledorito, on 09/18/2008, -0/+51. I thought Republicans didn't like habeas.
2. "Habeas Corpus" would only apply if she was being imprisoned. - GliTCH82, on 09/19/2008, -0/+2Nice work, dumbass. You nailed it.
- Dumbledorito, on 09/18/2008, -0/+51. I thought Republicans didn't like habeas.
- weareright, on 09/18/2008, -13/+2everyone should be ashamed for blasting this wonderful woman. she has executive experience, Obama has none. I believe that Sarah Palin is far more promising than Kennedy was. you watch, it will be McCain/Palin in the end and they will silence all the naysayers and doubters. This is the dream team! USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA!!!!!!!
- LushNinja, on 09/18/2008, -1/+8I'm unsure if this is just massive sarcasm or if this is actually what some people think.
If it is the latter, I suppose this is just one more example of a poster throwing reason and logic to the winds... - templethegoof, on 09/18/2008, -1/+7I hope to god, for this man's sake, that it is pure sarcasm.
- pdxdavid, on 09/19/2008, -1/+4Buried for pure stupidity.
- dggeek, on 09/19/2008, -0/+4"A 36 year-old male from Las Vegas, NV (US) who joined Digg on September 18th, 2008"
This is either a joke or a sock puppet account.
- LushNinja, on 09/18/2008, -1/+8I'm unsure if this is just massive sarcasm or if this is actually what some people think.
- greenmacaw, on 09/18/2008, -2/+4Until the court systems issuing the subpoenas enforce the law by having those who ignore them arrested and held in contempt of court they will be ignored.
What is the secret service going to do when the Sherifs department shows up to legally arrest governor Palin for contempt of court, shoot a law enforcement officer in the line of duty? Thats a great way to start a civil war.
Until the judges grow balls and do more than issue subpoenas they know will be ignored those who abuse power will continue to abuse it.- spankaccount, on 09/18/2008, -2/+2Wake up, there won't be an actual subpoena. This is a political GAME. Democrats Vs Republicans.
- mummbleswers, on 09/18/2008, -2/+6You know the real slogan right? Palin / McCain - Campaign First.
- gaoshan, on 09/19/2008, -0/+3That's Campaign Fist, not First.
- lamiaconfitor, on 09/19/2008, -0/+2"Win, by any means necessary!"
- spankaccount, on 09/18/2008, -3/+4You have to be pretty new to politics not to realize that this who thing is motivated by politics and really not worth of time. Can we please talk about the issue kids?
- TheLoneHoot, on 09/19/2008, -0/+5this WHO thing?
not worth of time?
Can we please talk about making some ***** sense?
- TheLoneHoot, on 09/19/2008, -0/+5this WHO thing?
- Rubiksphere, on 09/19/2008, -0/+4Wait a minute. Current members of the Bush administration have already ignored subpoenas and you're pissed about an Alaskan governor doing the same thing?
- Oea420, on 09/19/2008, -0/+1winner winner chicken dinner
welcome to america - lamiaconfitor, on 09/19/2008, -0/+1...or an Alaskan Governor that is running for Vice president...
actually kind of puts her a notch above (or below?) the head of the list for the accountability roll call.
- Oea420, on 09/19/2008, -0/+1winner winner chicken dinner
- martalli, on 09/19/2008, -1/+8It was on the front page of CNN for two days. It is not bigger news because people have gotten used to this crap from the Republicans. People (especially the Republican masses) are actually starting to believe that folks like Cheney and Palin actually are above the law for such trifles as subpoenas regarding corruption and abuse of authority. If the Republicans win again we may never climb out of this mess...
- TheLoneHoot, on 09/19/2008, -0/+6Well, she's following the example Darth Cheney set for her - the VP is the fourth branch of government, remember?
- macdady843, on 09/19/2008, -7/+1This is not bigger news because no one gives a ***** about one little trooper being fired. The only people who care are all the libtards who are afraid that Palin is going to derail their "Messiah" and keep him from taking The White House. McCain Palin 08' Babyyyy!!
- lamiaconfitor, on 09/19/2008, -1/+4Buried for adding 'tards' to the end of a word, proving that you are a five year old.
- lamiaconfitor, on 09/19/2008, -0/+2..ck on a Republican Governor its still a Republican Governor?
- apastafarian, on 09/18/2008, -20/+10
- theNazz, on 09/18/2008, -19/+94A pig is a pig by any other name...
- holesome, on 09/18/2008, -4/+24Even if the pig uses lipstick?
Hypothetically? - Andrwmorph, on 09/18/2008, -0/+9SQUEEE! SQUEEE!
^ Pig sounds- haydesigner, on 09/18/2008, -3/+2(if you have to explain it...)
- kaplanfx, on 09/18/2008, -0/+4Oink would also have worked.
- ConAmoreEFuoco, on 09/18/2008, -1/+2Reet reet.
- thesimo, on 09/19/2008, -0/+1you like job for a cowboy too?
- cbags, on 09/18/2008, -1/+10A criminal is a criminal...except when they say they are a republican...then they are criminal that is allowed to REFUSE to participate in investigations.
- StevenColbert, on 09/18/2008, -2/+5Calling her a pig is an insult to pigs...can I borrow your lipstick?
- thbigtiket21, on 09/19/2008, -3/+3last time i checked republican was an ideology, not a lifestyle or generic characterization of someone's morals. just goes to show how biased some people can be. but then again democrats never lie do they? *cough* clinton.
- martalli, on 09/19/2008, -2/+4I don't even think it is an ideology. Libertarianism is an ideology. If anything, the Republicans have a belief in maintaining power through whatever means best suit them.
- ogmwtfbbq, on 09/19/2008, -1/+3piggie got sad?
- djoobacca, on 09/19/2008, -1/+6republicans are losers. lol
- mikesoba, on 09/20/2008, -0/+1Ah come on. Clinton lied about having sex outside of wedlock, not unlike Palin's daughter.
Palin has lied about, well just about everything.
- dgn3, on 09/19/2008, -1/+2ahahahah, the mccain camp has facilitated all of you calling her a pig by bringing attention to it. time to retire maybe. lol
- Skooma714, on 09/19/2008, -1/+1Ha ha! Charade you are!
- jtmitl, on 09/19/2008, -1/+1You are a sexist whore!
as long as you don't look into my history and discover I once said the same thing - xcrixtx, on 09/19/2008, -1/+1She is no pig, but i think technically she called herself a b*tch though...
- spankaccount, on 09/19/2008, -3/+1"A pig is a pig by any other name..."
It's official, BO supporters are some of the classiest people out there.
- holesome, on 09/18/2008, -4/+24Even if the pig uses lipstick?
- DFutureIsNow, on 09/18/2008, -12/+136Wow! and the media continues their eternal silence, she is worst than Bush I'm telling you, at least he waited till he was president to start abusing power and destroying evidence, Palin has done it as mayor and as governor, If this was horse race betting I would say she is going for the trifecta!
- obamamessiah, on 09/18/2008, -30/+4Unbelievable, Do any of read the FULL story, or just selective reading. Get the facts straight bozo's! The Obama camp and it henchman French have taken over control of the investigation. It is no longer impartial and is aimed at smearing Mrs. Palin. Also the legislature is out of its legal boundries to even call for this witch hunt. Even common sense tells us that Monegan was fired for insebordination not his roll in a Payton Place story.
- treehugger87, on 09/18/2008, -3/+21Just because it's on the radio doesn't make it true. Nice Limbaugh impersonation, though. Just stick "my friends" in there a bit more and you'll have it down.
- jamesalfaro, on 09/18/2008, -2/+17[citation needed]
- IphtashuFitz, on 09/18/2008, -2/+21Yeah, the Obama camp and all 8 of the Republicans on the committee doing the investigation and who unanimously voted in favor of the subpoenas.
- Kyzzyxx, on 09/18/2008, -2/+17@Obamamessiah
Yes, it IS unbelievable. But what is unbelievable is your idiocy. The McCain campaign has flown in a bunch of high-power lawyers to squash this whole story. First, they tried to say that the legislature should not be the one handling this (what?! BS!) and that the Personnel Board, a board hand-picked by Palin, should be the one handling this. A Personnel Board should NOT be the ones handling the abuse of power by a Governor, that is pure *****. Then, within 24 hours after that they then tried to say that the Personnel Board should NOT be the ones handling this matter as they have no grounds so the whole thing should be thrown out! LOL, what a *****' joke!
Also, they have given out half a dozen reasons on why she fired him. The latest reason is cause he was against her desire to have rape victims pay for their own rape kits. What kind of pathetic human is she? She'll spend $50,000 of taxpayer money to redesign her office without clearing it officially. She will build a useless multi-million dollar stadium with taxpayer money, but she won't spend $14,000 a year of taxpayer money for ***** rape kits for victims. Pathetic!
That legislature is exactly in it's boundaries to call this for this investigation AND it was decided by majority by a board of 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats. Hello?!
Also, I haven't seen Obama get his hands in this at all. I am not saying he hasn't, I don't pretend to know everything. But, why would he? She, with the help of McCain and his campaign, is hanging her all by themselves.
PS. Pick up a *****' dictionary!
- nathanbrisk, on 09/18/2008, -10/+7How do you define CNN and media-attacks on Palin daily as "eternal silence."
We're being a little bit dramatic here, aren't we? (let alone wrong)- biotch, on 09/18/2008, -3/+1I would have to agree with nathan,
Anyone who thinks the media has been silent about the recent escalation in dishonesty coming from McCain/Palin, cant be paying much attention. - martalli, on 09/19/2008, -0/+2Unfortunately, the media report it, and the people ignore it. If the people keep turning off the TV, the media quickly get the message and go back to reporting on Wall Street and the fracas in front of the womans house in Florida.
- biotch, on 09/18/2008, -3/+1I would have to agree with nathan,
- discofreak, on 09/18/2008, -7/+2Again, does nobody remember when a certain Democrat lied under oath?
Nobody is perfect - but all of this "fault" you're finding in Palin is ridiculous. Fix all of the problems with each and every democrat before you try and criticize a single republican - same goes for republicans, too.- Caffeinate, on 09/18/2008, -2/+7Disco, she won't go "under oath". That is the problem, and most Americans are fed up with it.
She (McCain campaign) is trying to block investigations and prevent evidence from being heard - evidence of abuse of power - does that not strike you as both ironic and suspicious?
She isn't the only one that has done it, just the latest in a string of Republicans that have decided that they answer to no one. - teamgwho, on 09/18/2008, -2/+10so how the ***** does that work? if the dems cant criticize republicans till the dems take care of their house and vice versa then no one can complain. Besides why does the fact that Clinton lied nullify a legitimate complaint that palin (and her staff won't testify?) I think Bill was wrong for lying. There. I said it. Can I complain now?
Stupidest thing I've read on digg in a while. - biotch, on 09/18/2008, -2/+5Yeah and it was wrong to lie about that BJ disco. I also remember how his approval rating went up after the ordeal because the republicans made such a huge mockery of themselves by vehemently trying to humiliate him.
How in the world does all that make it ok for people to ignore subpoenas?
- Caffeinate, on 09/18/2008, -2/+7Disco, she won't go "under oath". That is the problem, and most Americans are fed up with it.
- scojac, on 09/19/2008, -0/+1It's a dangerous precedent when the laws of the land are no longer followed.
Manly tears, my democratic brethren.
- obamamessiah, on 09/18/2008, -30/+4Unbelievable, Do any of read the FULL story, or just selective reading. Get the facts straight bozo's! The Obama camp and it henchman French have taken over control of the investigation. It is no longer impartial and is aimed at smearing Mrs. Palin. Also the legislature is out of its legal boundries to even call for this witch hunt. Even common sense tells us that Monegan was fired for insebordination not his roll in a Payton Place story.
- bitfreak, on 09/18/2008, -9/+203The interesting bit will be Todd Palin. He is not a government employee, I don't any umbrella of denial or protection extending to him. If he ignores the subpoena, he should be held in contempt and arrested as any other citizen would.
- schroeder, on 09/18/2008, -4/+14Spousal privilege?
- rald84, on 09/18/2008, -1/+10only covers conversations between husband and wife. not if he was getting into govt mucky mucky
/law and order - mountainwater, on 09/18/2008, -0/+5ditto with raid. if he was copied as a part of a group of people on some of the messages and there was not expectation of privacy between just him and sarah.... the privilege is broken for those emails. i haven't seen the subpoenas but they might cover other things than just he and his wife. he might have had other conversations with advisors. he might have had one on one conversations with the guy who was fired. hard to know what kinda fishing expedition this is.
aside from all that, i think that when any citizen ignores a subpoena without defensive legal filings that they are should cuffed, processed and brought into the harsh light of the courts.... the legal system should not halt if they are of a high executive branch. yes, naive... idealistic... but wrong? no. - Caffeinate, on 09/18/2008, -0/+5I have the same issue with this that you do, mountain. No one should be above the law.
- rald84, on 09/18/2008, -1/+10only covers conversations between husband and wife. not if he was getting into govt mucky mucky
- drhex31, on 09/18/2008, -17/+7I would goto jail for my wife. Tell them to kiss your ass Todd.
- Whackly, on 09/18/2008, -3/+5I'm no Palin fan. I think she's scary but why is this dude getting dugg down? I'd do time for my wife as well. Easy. I wouldn't even have to think mull it over.
- schroeder, on 09/18/2008, -2/+4Hopefully he does go to jail if he covers for her, as well as all those subpoenaed. Lovely little trail of martyrs she will have to get her into office. If she has such a trail going in, imagine the coverage she will have on the way out. Horray for the justice system and transparency!
- Gutterpunk, on 09/18/2008, -2/+2Would I take a misplaced stand when I have 5 kids at home and the possibility of my wife not being there much anymore?
No. I'd tell her to man up if she has nothing to hide like Palin does. - mummbleswers, on 09/18/2008, -2/+2Yeah Todd, tell the government to kiss your ass. Worked out real well for that succession party you loved so much.
- TheLoneHoot, on 09/19/2008, -1/+1"I would goto jail for my wife. Tell them to kiss your ass Todd."
Oh once he's in jail they'll do more than kiss it - I guarantee you. He probably ought to practice sitting on greased up traffic cones until then.
- treed, on 09/18/2008, -3/+8A spouse may not be compelled to testify against their spouse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spousal_privilege- bitfreak, on 09/18/2008, -1/+7The privilege generally applies only where both of the following fact situations are present: (1) a third party was not present during the communication (the presence of a third party would destroy the confidential nature of the communication), and (2) both parties intended that the communication be confidential.
if there were emails where a third party was included or CCd, the rule is invalid. I don't think it will stick.
- bitfreak, on 09/18/2008, -1/+7The privilege generally applies only where both of the following fact situations are present: (1) a third party was not present during the communication (the presence of a third party would destroy the confidential nature of the communication), and (2) both parties intended that the communication be confidential.
- stilesja, on 09/18/2008, -0/+32Hello? I don't care who your boss is, I thought a subpoena was a subpoena. If I refused to comply after being subpoenaed, the next step would be an arrest warrant. Since when did ignoring a subpoena even become an option. We are a nation of laws. I could understand if the King told you that you didn't need to comply but we don't have kings and Presidents and Governors are certainly not given the power of Kings, although it seems they are being allowed to just take it.
- anubis2night, on 09/18/2008, -1/+2I think he's gonna try this new Republican invention it's called "a lie" patent pending...
- magus_melchior, on 09/18/2008, -0/+2Nah, John Cleese holds the patent, and he's fuming that the Republicans haven't paid royalties.
(Hint: Room 12A. Stupid git.)
- magus_melchior, on 09/18/2008, -0/+2Nah, John Cleese holds the patent, and he's fuming that the Republicans haven't paid royalties.
- notanidiot, on 09/19/2008, -0/+7"On behalf of our clients, we respectfully ask that you withdraw the subpoenas directed to our clients and thereby relieve them from the circumstance of having to choose where their loyalties lie."
Yes, because subpoenas require you to tell the truth, and that may interfere with the loyalties of Palin's aides. Priceless! - LenBaird, on 09/19/2008, -0/+3It is an interesting point, but I find it disheartening that you seem to accept that people in positions high enough in government can ignore the law.
- schroeder, on 09/18/2008, -4/+14Spousal privilege?
- Lazerz, on 09/18/2008, -11/+188I don't see how this move makes sense. If you are INNOCENT, you comply in full. If you are GUILTY, you avoid the issue at all costs!
- algaeturd, on 09/18/2008, -4/+36Amen, that's about the most accurate way to pose the whole situation. Got nothing to hide? Cooperate fully. Isn't that what we're TAUGHT as American citizens?
- inboxnews, on 09/18/2008, -12/+5Guilty before having a chance to prove innocent. That's what I learn here on digg everyday.
- breadfred, on 09/18/2008, -0/+3@inboxman: Exactly. Clear your name. That's what you would do, and, me too. But what if you do not want to defend yourself? What are we to think?
- sevvo, on 09/18/2008, -0/+2Ideally, we should all have that figured out in elementary school.
- TheToecutter, on 09/18/2008, -5/+47From her perspective it makes perfect sense, because she's guilty.
- inboxnews, on 09/18/2008, -34/+4This is a witch hunt spearheaded by Democrats -- plain and simple.
- erasedgod, on 09/18/2008, -1/+20Witch hunt or not, you don't ignore subpoenas because you don't agree with the people issuing them.
- swrostmore, on 09/18/2008, -0/+36The investigation was launched by a committee composed of 10 Republicans and 4 Democrats. They voted unanimously to investigate.
How can it possibly be "spearheaded by Democrats" when Republicans control the investigatory committee? - pdxdavid, on 09/19/2008, -0/+11Wasn't the investigation started before she was even named VP candidate? Just because she is the VP candidate doesn't mean that all legal proceedings involving her should stop. All they are doing now by ignoring subpoenas and not participating is admitting she is guilty. Anyone that listens to the actual story and sees that before she was against this trooper she was for him knows she is guilty. She wrote glowing reviews for him prior to trying to have him fired.
Funny thing is that they are saying that the Republican ticket is going to be change, but as you see again and again it is more of the same Bush cover-up and executive privilege BS.
- Balanced, on 09/18/2008, -1/+5Not quite. She shouldn't have anything to hide, but the US legal system is at least theoretically based around minimizing lawsuits-as-aggravation. It's the reason for court-appointed lawyers and 'innocent until proven guilty.'
She should still deal with them as they're legit, but she should be able to sue back if they were opened without just cause.
(She does seem awfully evasive, but without evidence (which there may be) she has a right to privacy.)- Strobe81, on 09/19/2008, -0/+0It's kinda sad really to see how much you've been dug down over this. I'm an Obama supporter to the end, but I cant help but think you've been dugg down simply because you didnt instantly respond with OBAMA O8 ***** THE REPUBLICANS
This is American law and legislature, yet the mob mentality here on digg is seemingly ignorant of any knowledge of the system whatsoever.
Sad, really. - swrostmore, on 09/19/2008, -0/+1Strobe81, you're really crying crocodile tears over the digg mob being ignorant of American law and legislature...when all anyone is saying here is that nobody should be able to ignore a legally issued and legally binding subpoena?
- rignopolis, on 09/19/2008, -0/+0A thoughtful answer on Digg? @Balanced, your way to smart to be hanging around these parts.
- Strobe81, on 09/19/2008, -0/+0It's kinda sad really to see how much you've been dug down over this. I'm an Obama supporter to the end, but I cant help but think you've been dugg down simply because you didnt instantly respond with OBAMA O8 ***** THE REPUBLICANS
- Naieve, on 09/18/2008, -3/+12I personally think she is guilty, I'm voting for Obama, but...
BREAKING NEWS: Sarah Palin speaking to police under Subpeona.....
They are politicians and even if they are totally innocent this could cost someone an election.
For the people who think this is only Republicans, remind us all why the FBI raided Democratic Rep. William Jeffersons office. Here's a hint, he ignored something....
Just because Republicans have corruption, doesn't mean the Democrats don't. Harry Reid I'm looking at you.- Caffeinate, on 09/18/2008, -0/+5I want all of the crooks rounded up regardless of what banner they are running under. That would likely render D.C. a ghost town, but that might not be such a bad thing. We could do with a lot fewer lobbyists too.
As for the FBI raiding William Jefferson's office, they were totally in the right, because that is what they are there for. They also need to show up at Palin's office door since she is ignoring a subpoena, as well. Round up Rove and the gang while they are at it. - kraant, on 09/19/2008, -0/+1"For the people who think this is only Republicans, remind us all why the FBI raided Democratic Rep. William Jeffersons office. Here's a hint, he ignored something...."
There seems to be a slight difference between what happened to Jefferson and what's happening with Palin here. - Naieve, on 09/19/2008, -0/+1Yeah, Jefferson had $90,000 dollars in his freezer.
I imagine the Democrats in Congress would love for the FBI to raid Palins home or office, but considering their response to what happened to Jefferson, its an impossibility.
I have to admit I was surprised by how the Congressional Democrats stood by Jefferson, he was literally caught red handed. Unless you think he was trying to preserve his bills by keeping them cold?
- Caffeinate, on 09/18/2008, -0/+5I want all of the crooks rounded up regardless of what banner they are running under. That would likely render D.C. a ghost town, but that might not be such a bad thing. We could do with a lot fewer lobbyists too.
- EntropyFan, on 09/18/2008, -6/+9So the Fourth Amendment needs to go? I mean, if your INNOCENT you wouldn't mind the cops searching you, your home, car, tapping your phone, whatever.
I like how this type of logic only works when used against Republicans.- swrostmore, on 09/18/2008, -3/+12Are you really arguing against the police being able to investigate people who are suspected of a crime?
- EntropyFan, on 09/18/2008, -0/+10swrostmore
No, but to say the only reason you challenge the police in an investigation is if you are guilty is ***** - magus_melchior, on 09/18/2008, -0/+4Well, maybe she's well within her rights to resist complying with the investigation. The problem is the Streisand Effect is going to blow this much bigger than if she had complied as originally intended.
People get suspicious when you act like you have something to hide, especially if there's already suspicion of foul play, if not probable cause. The court or legislature might not convict her, but the public and the media certainly will rake her over the coals for reneging on her word to cooperate. - TheLoneHoot, on 09/19/2008, -0/+4A reasonable person would expect reasonable treatment under the law for all people right? I mean we all have certain freedoms, right? Just like you wouldn't hold a person for 5 or 6 years without at least charging them with something right? I mean look at GITM--- ohhh. Um, never mind.
- algaeturd, on 09/18/2008, -4/+36Amen, that's about the most accurate way to pose the whole situation. Got nothing to hide? Cooperate fully. Isn't that what we're TAUGHT as American citizens?
- dedpoet777, on 09/18/2008, -15/+56laws do not apply to republicans. karl rove knows this. and he has a job on fox news now where everything is "fair and balanced"
they should make a new movie with steven segal as sarah palin called "still above the law" he just needs some of those glasses everyone is buzzing about.- Skooma714, on 09/19/2008, -0/+2Correction: Laws do not apply to the rich and powerful. It doesn't matter what party they pretend to be with every 4 years
- zacharytelschow, on 09/19/2008, -0/+2Addendum: Laws also do not apply to athletes (see Simpson, OJ) or celebrities (see Kelly, R).
- Skooma714, on 09/19/2008, -0/+1That falls under "powerful" :)
- Sepeteus, on 09/19/2008, -0/+2If you put glasses on a pig, it's still a pig.
- Skooma714, on 09/19/2008, -0/+2Correction: Laws do not apply to the rich and powerful. It doesn't matter what party they pretend to be with every 4 years
- Holosoth, on 09/18/2008, -27/+6These elections have had a history much alike to the history of the show, junkyard wars. At first, it involved cool *****. Now, it's all just regular ***** that means and accomplishes nothing.
- TheLoneHoot, on 09/19/2008, -0/+2Turn off the TV and go outside.
- moolaismyfriend, on 09/18/2008, -10/+29Now that's braining change into Washington. Ignoring the Judicial branch of government.
Ohh... wait...- edrodgers731, on 09/18/2008, -6/+3Ohh.. wait.. It's not the judicial branch she is ignoring.
It's the state legislators. The same ones that want to release some damaging information about Palin a couple of days before the election.
No, not now.. Later on when it will be more politically damaging.
Seems like some others are abusing their power as well.- swrostmore, on 09/18/2008, -0/+11Why would a committee composed of 10 Republicans and 4 Democrats want to damage Palin? They voted unanimously to investigate.
- edrodgers731, on 09/18/2008, -1/+4I guess you haven't heard how she made enemies in the Alaskan legislature.
Yet, the Alaskan people love her. - normlsparky, on 09/18/2008, -1/+7umm, i thought she claimed to be totally innocent of all charges. if so, what damaging information would there be to release? logic fail.
- benbfree, on 09/19/2008, -3/+1She made enemies on both sides of the aisle in Alaska because she really is for reform. That's why they all agreed to investigate her. However, when the democrat in charge of the investigation moves the release date of the results to a few days before the election and claims they'll make for an October Surprise for the McCain campaign, Sarah Palin and her staff have no obligation to participate. She even said they would participate if he was removed from the investigation. The investigators can say whatever they want when they release the results, since there will be no time for appeals before the election. This is clearly a partisan trick to sway the presidential elections.
- edrodgers731, on 09/18/2008, -6/+3Ohh.. wait.. It's not the judicial branch she is ignoring.
- GoneGreen, on 09/18/2008, -22/+11They think they are above the law... let's lynch em!
- OMRebel, on 09/18/2008, -14/+3"lynch" them? If that was said about Hussein Obama, this place would be pissing themselves and whining about it.
- revisrev, on 09/18/2008, -3/+5That would be because then it would have valid racial implications.
- OMRebel, on 09/18/2008, -6/+3@revisrev - why? I hold all men at the same level, and don't treat anyone differently based on the color their skin. Seems you've got some issues you need to deal with.
- GassyTurd, on 09/18/2008, -2/+4Yeah, good thing there has never been racism in America. There is absolutely no reason to think lynching a black man is different from lynching a white man.
/s - newsheatdotcom, on 09/18/2008, -1/+4Why do people refer to him as Hussein Obama? His first name is Barack. No one calls John McCain "Sidney McCain", or Joe Biden "Robinette Biden" or Sarah Palin "Heath Palin".
On a side note, I had no idea that Joe Biden's middle name was Robinette. - Gutterpunk, on 09/18/2008, -2/+2I'd call for his lynching too if he ignored the law...
- TheLoneHoot, on 09/19/2008, -0/+2@Gutterpunk
Better make sure you don't exceed the speed limit then.
- egoideal, on 09/19/2008, -0/+2Apparently sarcasm and joking around aren't allowed...
- OMRebel, on 09/18/2008, -14/+3"lynch" them? If that was said about Hussein Obama, this place would be pissing themselves and whining about it.
- mountainweb, on 09/18/2008, -82/+11Democrats in a hole and dig deeper. Nothing more than dirty politics by dirty people. Vote McCain.
- soot, on 09/18/2008, -2/+35Wait, what?
- treehugger87, on 09/18/2008, -1/+28Brainless comment.
- carterartist, on 09/18/2008, -1/+25yeah, because McCain is running a clean campaign... oh wait, that's right even Karl " i will lie and cheat the system as I run away from subpeonas " Rove said McCain's tactics are dirty and underhanded. right guy. got enough kool aid for the class?
- bonk2k, on 09/18/2008, -3/+15Yes because the democratic party issues subpoenas.
- erickssm, on 09/18/2008, -1/+17wow, wake up buddy. thanks for proving that Republicans dont pay attention to anything. they think they cant do any wrong and everything is justified. you, my friend, is what is wrong with this country!!!!
- enki25, on 09/18/2008, -1/+12You people are the ones having dirty gay sex in airport bathrooms. Disgusting.
- reenie217, on 09/18/2008, -3/+1hahaha you loser , see you when we confirm Barack to be our next leader to get us out of the MESS you all made. When that happens, the repubs are all done!
- GregIsLegend, on 09/19/2008, -0/+2Successful troll was oh so very successful
- TheLoneHoot, on 09/19/2008, -0/+2mmmmeh - not so much.
How successful is a troll when all he does is strengthen the resolve of those he taunts? He certainly didn't cause anyone to take his comment seriously in the least, nor did he cause anyone to doubt their loyalties. If anything trolling works against trolls - they rally those they oppose to condemn the comment/idea, and they have wasted time they could have used more constructively on their own "side" (Little Green Footballs), rallying their own troll legions.
- tayzlord, on 09/19/2008, -1/+2why are idiots allowed access to the internet?
- JavanSClark, on 09/19/2008, -0/+1How are you able to ignore reality? It seems like a useful skill.. you could make millions!!!
- blah247, on 09/18/2008, -40/+8She must of come from the Bill Clinton mold.
- Dereliction, on 09/18/2008, -3/+10Why, were you sucking her dick in the White House?
- gquaglia, on 09/18/2008, -8/+2He was an expert on the subject. Another inconvenient truth Donks like to ignore.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 09/18/2008, -2/+12Hey jerk off -- Clinton went to that kangaroo court -- or didn't you notice? He was exonerated, but not before they used an unrelated affair to try and smear him.
That's pretty low, criticizing him when he has the courage to face the courts. But that's kind of typical of NeoCons.- gmlongo, on 09/18/2008, -5/+0You call getting impeached exonerated?
- mbraynard, on 09/18/2008, -8/+1That was a *real* court with real jurisdiction and rights.
This is a legislative committee with no such rights. - Dumbledorito, on 09/18/2008, -0/+5@gmlongo: Just so you know, "impeached" doesn't mean "convicted." It's the equivalent for a citizen of being "indicted." All it says was there was enough evidence for prosecution to take place. Even the partisan hacks on the GOP didn't think there was enough "there" there for a conviction, so they dropped it.
"The more you know..." - VitriolAndAngst, on 09/19/2008, -0/+2In fact, the Starr Report -- if you bothered to read it, exonnerated Clinton on ALL COUNTS. Everything the Repugs charged him with -- found not only not guilty, but innocent.
After Starr's attempted putsch failed, his entire staff wrote a letter of apology to the Clintons. In retrospect, the people who lied us into war and stole our national pride and treasure, spent money to take out the Clintons -- so it's kind of par for the course that it was all a lie.
That isn't an endorsement of the Clintons -- just as getting planes destroyed and being captured isn't an endorsement of McCain. You have to vote for people based upon their record. But I sure admired Clinton's ability to shrug off the attempt to destroy him -- his balls are bigger than Congress, that is for sure.
- LanaGK, on 09/18/2008, -6/+52How about reneging on your promise to be transparent? Sounds like a republican.
On a much lighter note, National Talk Like A Pirate Day is tomorrow, 9/19! http://tinyurl.com/6rdogr- erasedgod, on 09/18/2008, -0/+5It's actually International Talk Like a Pirate Day.
- snafflepaffle, on 09/18/2008, -0/+5Damn. I'll be on the road and unable to talk to anyone like a pirate (well, my dog but I don't think she'll appreciate it.) YARRR!!!
- anubis2night, on 09/18/2008, -0/+1Dugg just for mentioning the day, arghhhh
- Jeremyz0r, on 09/19/2008, -0/+1Talk like a Hollywood Pirate Day?
- Draxius, on 09/19/2008, -0/+1Or maybe just sounds like a politician....quit being sheep.
- rignopolis, on 09/19/2008, -0/+0The sooner we get that idea into our heads the better. Democrats and Republicans both operate with a blind eye to corruption. The only time they ever do anything about it is after one of their own gets caught. Their protecting their own jobs and asses.
- drgooch, on 09/18/2008, -34/+3algaeturd = dumb ass
- GassyTurd, on 09/18/2008, -1/+2Wow, what brilliance you have shown. At least algaeturd doesn't have his head rammed up his own ass.
- drgooch, on 09/19/2008, -0/+1good one, loser
- GassyTurd, on 09/18/2008, -1/+2Wow, what brilliance you have shown. At least algaeturd doesn't have his head rammed up his own ass.
- compgeek, on 09/18/2008, -9/+80she's lucky the US martials didn't arrest her sorry ass. Nobody is above the law and that includes you Palin you ***** bitch
- GassyTurd, on 09/18/2008, -1/+8I think it is better to call her an ***** so the whiners don't scream "THAT'S SEXIST!"
- BlacklabelSAR, on 09/18/2008, -0/+3So if "bitch" is off limits, then "*****" and "prick" should be too as they serve the same purpose referring to men. I've never heard a woman referred to as an *****.
- zacharytelschow, on 09/19/2008, -0/+3Right, but you can't discriminate against a non-minority (or those seen as in power, in this case white people). Its completely acceptable for black people to refer to each other as the n word and to white people as crackers, but unacceptable for whites to use either term.
- TheLoneHoot, on 09/19/2008, -0/+4I'm surprised you've never heard a woman called an ***** before. I use ***** for both sexes all the time if they deserve it. I'd say she does.
- orlyfactor, on 09/19/2008, -0/+1Where's Nico Toscani when you need him?! He'd set her ass straight, and maybe break her arm in the process...
- GassyTurd, on 09/18/2008, -1/+8I think it is better to call her an ***** so the whiners don't scream "THAT'S SEXIST!"
- MrDoug, on 09/18/2008, -5/+37Honestly....did you expect any different?
- jarjarwang, on 09/18/2008, -6/+55She's not trying to ignore them; she's still adjusting to her new Hotmail account.
- normlsparky, on 09/18/2008, -2/+4i've heard that hotmail is much more secure. /s
- RickHavoc, on 09/18/2008, -8/+111If ignoring subpoenas isn't elitism I don't know what is.
- deleo, on 09/18/2008, -1/+2Sarah must have Karl Rove and Scooter Libby as campaign advisors. They love to throw away subpoenas.
- chicoer2001, on 09/18/2008, -5/+81Throw them in jail.
- drmobutu, on 09/18/2008, -0/+9Now.
- zacharytelschow, on 09/19/2008, -6/+1Guilty until proven innocent. Valid for politicians but not terrorists. Got it.
- hoobied, on 09/19/2008, -0/+5They are already guilty. Ignoring a subpoena is a federal crime. The only reason they haven't been arrested is contempt hearings require a full state legislature, which doesn't meet until January and they know it. Conveniently, this is past the election.
Want to try research before you open your mouth and waste our time?
- hoobied, on 09/19/2008, -0/+5They are already guilty. Ignoring a subpoena is a federal crime. The only reason they haven't been arrested is contempt hearings require a full state legislature, which doesn't meet until January and they know it. Conveniently, this is past the election.
- whorelock, on 09/18/2008, -6/+24It's easier for republicans to ignore the subpoenas and lie their asses off.
- budgetguitar, on 09/18/2008, -3/+83Rove and now Palin. I am urging every citizen of this country to ignore all subpoenas and court dates. You don't need to report to your local, state or federal court if you don't feel like it.
In trouble with the law? Not if you don't feel like being in trouble with the law. - BXRWXR, on 09/18/2008, -5/+44You think I did something improper and want to investigate me? Yeeeeaaaahhhhh, we're going to have to go ahead and decline to participate in that.
What a heinous group.- harleq01, on 09/19/2008, -0/+1rofl. Beat me to the punch on that. I would have said exactly what you said in the same way
- Cyrock, on 09/18/2008, -3/+14the law is always above the law or so they want to believe, from police to president.
- awesometastic1, on 09/18/2008, -21/+9the real question is why are the majority democrat's allowing this to happen?? oh that's right, because they look into the future and realize that if they let it happen, they can also ignore subpoenas by the precedent that is being set.
Oh Ron Paul, where-for-art-though Ron Paul?- Jtheletter, on 09/18/2008, -0/+4I'm all about Ron Paul for prez too but couldn't help myself with a quick nitpick.
'wherefore' is the correct word and it means 'why', not 'where'. Juliet was asking 'Damnit Romeo, *why* are you a Montague?'
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wherefor ...- TheLoneHoot, on 09/19/2008, -0/+1Thank you - and it's "thou", too. "Though" would read as "however", or "then again".
- akhomestead, on 09/18/2008, -1/+1I hate to say it but Clinton already did on the secrets sold to china. He was subpoenaed and ignored it. But your right, that's what the game now days, if the other side does it then I can do it. It's the biggest problem liberal ideals. They fail to think whatever power they give their favorite politician they also give to the one they hate, because he just might win the next election, or even steal it.
- Jtheletter, on 09/18/2008, -0/+4I'm all about Ron Paul for prez too but couldn't help myself with a quick nitpick.
- bicyclethief, on 09/18/2008, -3/+33Did they cite Executive Privilege too?
- species, on 09/18/2008, -0/+13actually, I think they did
- dcbebop, on 09/19/2008, -0/+2Didn't you know candidates are technically an extension of the 4th branch of government?
Ya me neither. Just think of what it's going to cost taxpayers to rewrite all the social studies textbooks. - allenwrench, on 09/19/2008, -0/+2Yes, she has cited executive privilege in refusing to hand over emails sent to her husband who is not a state employee. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...
- anshuman, on 09/18/2008, -4/+9Sir, You live in Amehrikah!!!!.
- TruthExposed, on 09/18/2008, -4/+20Sounds like the GOP wants more of Bush/Cheney.
- banderwocky, on 09/18/2008, -1/+58Are Americans required by law to obey Subpoenas?
- species, on 09/18/2008, -0/+35Yes, you can be found in contempt and thrown in jail for ignoring one.
- StarlessKnight, on 09/18/2008, -0/+6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpoena#Responding_t ...
1. Yes
2. Maybe
3. Only if you feel lucky, punk - mbraynard, on 09/18/2008, -8/+1No - not from legislative bodies. They are protected against them by the constitution - IE - habeas corpus.
Legislatures only use them to sound important. They are routinely ignored by members of both parties.
The proper venue for an investigation is the state or federal atty gen or district atty, and then a courtroom.- StarlessKnight, on 09/18/2008, -0/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress
...in modern times a person must refuse to comply with a subpoena issued by a Congressional committee or subcommittee - usually seeking to compel either testimony or documents - in order to be considered in "contempt of Congress."
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress# ...
* Congress being a legislative body. State legislature? Probably more of a State Constitution or Law. - anubis2night, on 09/18/2008, -0/+4"habeas corpus" is the name of a legal action, or writ, through which a person can seek relief from unlawful detention of himself or another person. The writ of habeas corpus has historically been an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action.
This is not the same thing. - mbraynard, on 09/19/2008, -0/+1anubis2nightanubis2night - Yes - arbitrary state action like a legislative investigation. Exactly.
- TheLoneHoot, on 09/19/2008, -0/+2@mbraynard
Habeas Corpus is what has been suspended by the Bush regime down in GITMO. Totally different issue. Now, if the cops decide to snatch her ass off the street and toss her in the pokey for a few years and never actually charge her with anything, then you should feel free to chime in on good ol' habeas corpus.
- StarlessKnight, on 09/18/2008, -0/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress
- Berkana, on 09/18/2008, -0/+12Subpoena literally means "under penalty" by its word roots; they are required to testify, or face a penalty. Normally ,citizens who ignore subpoenas get penalized. Palin and Rove should be no different.
- mbraynard, on 09/19/2008, -4/+1There cannot be a penalty because of habeus corpus. You can't have some legislative body throwing people in jail or fining them. That's what the criminal court system is for.
Funny how you leftards forget all this when it's a Republican rather than one of your criminals. - TheLoneHoot, on 09/19/2008, -1/+5((sigh))
mbraynard, PLEASE read up on the law. There CAN be a penalty for not submitting to a subpoena. THAT is something for which she can be fined or possibly jailed. However, IF she is fined or jailed, I'm sure she will be formally charged with contempt of court or contempt of congress or contempt of state or contempt of hockey moms or whatever. If she is jailed or fined without formal charge, then --THEN!!!-- you can complain about habeas corpus being suspended.
Now ***** completely off, you ignorant ass maggot.
- mbraynard, on 09/19/2008, -4/+1There cannot be a penalty because of habeus corpus. You can't have some legislative body throwing people in jail or fining them. That's what the criminal court system is for.
- Buzzpatrol, on 09/18/2008, -2/+1Eh? Was that a serious question?
- iPhrankie, on 09/19/2008, -0/+1I'm glad someone asked this because I was beginning to think that subpoenas were optional.
Not just "throw the subpoena in the trash optional' but somehow by law you're able to reject the subpoena.
- OMRebel, on 09/18/2008, -37/+12I remember when Digg used to be a pretty cool site to check out. Now that the leftists have taken over, every other article is some anti-Republican partisan crap. Palin is evil, McCain rapes baby kittens, etc...
I have news for you OhBammie worshipers - the guy is equally as useless. Until you partisan ***** realize just how foolish you are, flocking and dropping to your knees because someone has a D next to their name, then you're no better than those that you get a perpetual hard-on bashing on a consistent basis on this board.
Perhaps a better option for you liberals - get a damn job and stop spending so much time on the computer. Contribute to society instead of living off of that government check you college each month.- Jtheletter, on 09/18/2008, -2/+10So.... you're advocating that our elected leaders ignore subpoenas and are above the law?
It's a nice rant and all but it avoids the issue at hand. Where's the subpoena that Obama is ignoring?- OMRebel, on 09/18/2008, -11/+2I'm saying you're a fool if you believe that article after article on here constantly going after anyone with a R next to their name isn't done so out of bias. If you think someone having a D next to their name makes them somehow above everything that the liberals on here bitch about, then that would make you an even bigger fool.
There's a political witch hunt going on right now, with Palin in her sites. There's a reason that the Dems sent lawyers to Alaska as soon as they found out Palin was the nominee. What do you think they're doing there? Doing nothing but playing politics, and wasting tax payer dollars.
But go ahead, and keep on with your partisan attitude. You're not part of the solution, but instead, the main problem with the political system in the US today. - simeonart, on 09/18/2008, -2/+3Republicans sent lawyers to Alaska as soon as she was nominated too...
- SupaNeo, on 09/18/2008, -1/+7Yes, the Democratic party sent lawyers, that's how it works.
She was being investigated before she was even nominated, please check your facts. - Peekman, on 09/18/2008, -1/+1On day i will have a D and an R beside my name...... but I think i'll be cool and put it in front of my name instead of after it.
Then there will be no possible way that I can be biased.
- OMRebel, on 09/18/2008, -11/+2I'm saying you're a fool if you believe that article after article on here constantly going after anyone with a R next to their name isn't done so out of bias. If you think someone having a D next to their name makes them somehow above everything that the liberals on here bitch about, then that would make you an even bigger fool.
- jarjarwang, on 09/18/2008, -4/+1Sorry, but I spend way to much time on computer to ever have time to collage my government check.
- blix797, on 09/18/2008, -6/+4Obama is far from perfect, but you REALLY want to vote for McCain? Get a grip on things, McCain is far worse than Obama could ever be.
- stg3095, on 09/18/2008, -1/+3explain...
- nihilville, on 09/19/2008, -0/+1no citation needed.
- osko2052, on 09/19/2008, -0/+1Oh man you completely changed my mind. I am now voting for Obama. Yeah, right.
- stg3095, on 09/18/2008, -1/+3explain...
- ChiaGod, on 09/18/2008, -2/+2Hey, if you have an article along the lines of "McCain intelligently explains his plans for America" or "Obama did x borderline/completely illegal/unethical thing" then submit it. If it's accurate (and not inflammatory), I'll dig it up (and I'm sure plenty of others would).
People are needed on both sides to stay vigilant of the whole government (and keep it as honest as we can).- OMRebel, on 09/18/2008, -4/+2How about Obama intelligently explaining his plans? All I've heard is him repeat the words "Change" and "Hope", and bash the Republican party. He has yet to specify any real plan of his own. He's running off of a smear campaign, and hype about someone who has never had a single law that they've written passed. But I'm sure he's a great community organizer.
- Gonthim, on 09/18/2008, -0/+1Got one of those for McCain OMRebel? Because as far as I can tell they're both running campaigns on ***** and any plan they do have has to pass congress, which means it won't be implemented like they say anyway. Presidential campaigns are *****, they'll attack each other, and then the voters will pick the one they want to drink a beer with. Any plan they campaign on will be torn to shreds by lobbyists and congress and come out the other end covered with pork.
- nihilville, on 09/19/2008, -0/+2@ OMRebel
All I hear you do is bitch and whine about how liberal Digg is, smear Obama, and bash liberals.
Sounds like your just upset that there are people on Digg who don't buy into the same fallacies you've indoctrinated yourself with.
- StarlessKnight, on 09/18/2008, -2/+3The "Rebel" complaining about liberal partisans comes off as a partisan hack foaming at the mouth.
- IneedaSN, on 09/18/2008, -2/+1and where are you right now? your either at work on a computer or not at work at a computer either way your not contributing to the fast food chain where you work
- Dumbledorito, on 09/18/2008, -0/+1Ah, the old whine. Where were you when 9/11 and the Iraq war started? Most message boards on the 'net read like FreeRepublic until the adrenaline wore off and actual thinking about what happened started.
- TheLoneHoot, on 09/19/2008, -1/+1"Contribute to society instead of living off of that government check you college each month."
Are there more than 3 teeth in your head?
By the way, if I'm not mistaken I believe I've seen you copy and paste that a few times before... couldn't you at least try to be creative? - JavanSClark, on 09/19/2008, -1/+1I'm sorry, but why is it, that when you neo-cons go on a "search for truth" it's patriotism, and when dems try to find out the truth (it still has NEVER been confirmed that Obama or the DNC sent anyone. The author admitted such on Bill Mahr) it's a witch hunt? Why the double standard?
- eternal, on 09/19/2008, -0/+2Hey I'll admit that Obama has his faults, as would any candidate, but don't stereotype liberals as lazy, worthless members of society. I'm a liberal, I have a great job, and I pay my taxes just like everyone else.
- Jtheletter, on 09/18/2008, -2/+10So.... you're advocating that our elected leaders ignore subpoenas and are above the law?
- Yimyack, on 09/18/2008, -2/+41Isn't ignoring a subpoena punishable by jail?
No wait...don't tell me. If I don't know the answer I can tell the judge I was simply following the example left by Mr. Rove & Ms. Palin and thought I was SUPPOSED to ignore it. - TheTap, on 09/18/2008, -21/+8I used to like Digg but lately it's the Anti Palin or anti McCain forum.
I'm getting tired of the bashing. How about some technology news for a change.- acroyear2, on 09/18/2008, -0/+7You can block segments of the website. I for example don't see anything relating to sports.
- Yimyack, on 09/18/2008, -0/+5There's a lot of frustration being vented here - 8 years worth.
It will all be over November 4th - budgetguitar, on 09/18/2008, -1/+10McCain invented the Technology section. Click on that you short armed *****!
- TheLoneHoot, on 09/19/2008, -0/+2BLAAAAAAAAAAAAAM!
Dugg way the ***** up! I genuinely lol'ed at that! In fact I'll be sharing that with a couple of my coworkers tomorrow. Thanks!
- TheLoneHoot, on 09/19/2008, -0/+2BLAAAAAAAAAAAAAM!
- erickssm, on 09/18/2008, -0/+4guess what, Digg shows news! and guess what the news is in the weeks leading up to a presidential election? POLITICAL NEWS!!!! dont read it if you dont want to, thats your choice.
- dswinscoe, on 09/18/2008, -0/+3let the bashing continue! All the way up to November 4th, because we cannot allow 4 more years of dishonesty and criminal conduct, the likes of which we've been forced to endure these 8 long years during the Bush Executive-Legislative dynasty. Please note, though, most serious commenters on Digg don't seem to be anti-McCain or anti-Palin, they're simply anti-McCain/Palin/GOP '08! Or phrased more like a hopeful liberal: Probama!
Obama/Biden '08 ftw - AmazingSteve, on 09/19/2008, -0/+2You're tired of the bashing? Are you too stupid to figure out that what you are seeing here is public opinion or does the truth hurt so much that you NEED to keep "creating your own reality" as I believe Dumbya or Rummy put it once.
- TheLoneHoot, on 09/19/2008, -0/+1Don't like it? ***** leave. Or stay and fight. But don't just whine bitch.
- Nathan187, on 09/18/2008, -14/+5Who cares, she's hot? This is a popularity contest right and not about where this country is headed right?
- WriterinSac, on 09/18/2008, -3/+29And this is CHANGE???? Oh good, another morally-challenged Republican that thumbs her nose at our petty little laws and the Constitution.
OK, as Americans we get. Screw laws and do want you freakin' please. Start today, people, and show your love of American, Republican-style justice. - doublefelix, on 09/18/2008, -3/+30Put her ass in jail for contempt of court.
- magus_melchior, on 09/18/2008, -0/+3Contempt of legislature (it's not a courtroom, if memory serves). Either way, she should be punished.
- orlyfactor, on 09/19/2008, -0/+1Put her in jail for being ***** insane!
- rmkrmkrmk, on 09/18/2008, -3/+12can they throw her in a jail with a pitbull to see what the difference is?
- TheLoneHoot, on 09/19/2008, -0/+2I hope it's a deaf pitbull. I'd ***** gnaw my own head off somehow if I had to listen to that voice.
- hoobied, on 09/19/2008, -0/+1You, sir, are teh win.
- TheLoneHoot, on 09/19/2008, -0/+2I hope it's a deaf pitbull. I'd ***** gnaw my own head off somehow if I had to listen to that voice.
- acroyear2, on 09/18/2008, -11/+9As a neo-con, I'm glad to see McCain/Palin carrying out true American values such ignoring subpoenas. Corrupt, liberal, granola, constitutional laws won't stop American progress.
/tire gauges - bluezombie, on 09/18/2008, -7/+15She's not ignoring the subpoenas. She's challenging them.
RTFA.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want her in the VP office.
But the law allows the lawyers to dance a bit during the pregame show.
The longer she stalls, the worse it will be for GOP when it comes apart.- Croireavenir, on 09/18/2008, -3/+1Thank you. Everyone is trippin over this. Alaskan law says only the personnel committee can subpoena her. She already referred it to them, and by doing so is 100% complying with Alaskan law. Sheesh..
- algaeturd, on 09/18/2008, -0/+6Read the article again, SLICK. Her AIDES are ignoring the subpoenas. Even the description makes that clear.
- anubis2night, on 09/18/2008, -0/+2I'm glad someone else reads the damn articles. Every day people come on this site, they click up or down article and I'm starting to wonder if they even read em.
- enotswhat, on 09/18/2008, -0/+1so shouldn't her AIDES be arrested?
- acskippy, on 09/18/2008, -21/+1I guess nobody watches the news. On Larry King either last night or the night before, they discussed this issue of Palin ignoring the subpoena. She said she'd gladly cooperate, but without being forced to because the people running the investigation are corrupt. Why go into something if you already know you will lose because the people in charge will tamper and reword anything to make her look bad?
- Terasiel, on 09/18/2008, -0/+7Because it's the law. It's extremely anti-American to want to lead the country but not subject yourself to it's justice system.
- kolyana, on 09/18/2008, -1/+6People like you - the brain washed fools that got us into this mess and keep telling Bush and it's cronies "it's okay" - you make me speechless.
It's NOT okay. There is no excuse for this. You - YOU - are ruining this country, you fool - masonreloaded, on 09/18/2008, -0/+10The people in charge of the investigation are not "corrupt" - the head investigator IS a democrat, but is a widely respected man who was hired by a committee that is MAJORITY REPUBLICAN.
- zacharytelschow, on 09/19/2008, -1/+1Have you heard the things he's said regarding the "investigation?"
- budgetguitar, on 09/18/2008, -0/+6Whether you think the govt is corrupt or not is something you have to leave at home before you get in the car to drive to court. Palin's opinion/party loyalty has nothing to do with the fact that a court told her to get her ass to the courthouse.
- erasedgod, on 09/18/2008, -0/+7So next time I get a speeding ticket, I'll just ignore the summons since I'm certain the cops are biased against me. Honestly, I'd cooperate if I knew they didn't just want to make me pay a fine.
- smotpoker1, on 09/18/2008, -0/+2Slander if I ever heard it a con calling other corrupt who woulda thunk?
- Caffeinate, on 09/18/2008, -0/+310 Republicans and 4 Democrats ruled unanimously for the investigation. That doesn't sound partisan to me. In any case, if she managed to turn all 14 of them into enemies, it doesn't say a whole lot for her people skills and her ability to work with others.
- blix797, on 09/18/2008, -1/+22Enough of this "ignore subpoenas, they don't mean anything" crap. Time to make some ARRESTS! If you or I were subpoena'd and we said "no thanks, I'd rather not", we'd be in jail faster than Palin can contradict her sorry self.
- greenmacaw, on 09/18/2008, -0/+0Until the court systems issuing the subpoenas enforce the law by having those who ignore them arrested and held in contempt of court they will be ignored.
What is the secret service going to do when the Sherifs department shows up to legally arrest governor Palin for contempt of court, shoot a law enforcement officer in the line of duty? Thats a great way to start a civil war.
Until the judges grow balls and do more than issue subpoenas they know will be ignored those who abuse power will continue to abuse it.
The nut less Judges are just as much to blame.
- greenmacaw, on 09/18/2008, -0/+0Until the court systems issuing the subpoenas enforce the law by having those who ignore them arrested and held in contempt of court they will be ignored.
- kingUssop, on 09/18/2008, -2/+30She thinks she's royalty. Do not want.
- Buavesy, on 09/18/2008, -7/+2and so do the Kennedys.
- Caffeinate, on 09/18/2008, -0/+5Well, I certainly won't be voting for a Kennedy for VP this November!
- orlyfactor, on 09/19/2008, -0/+1I'm with caffeinate.
- Buavesy, on 09/18/2008, -7/+2and so do the Kennedys.
- RIB08, on 09/18/2008, -1/+14What's lamer - the fact that our government officials are corrupt and ignore subpoenas or the fact that those in charge of enforcing them don't have spines?
- Lythium, on 09/18/2008, -1/+4The latter, hands down. There will always be people willing to break the law; that's normal. But for any system to work there must also be people willing uphold that law even if it means a certain amount of unpleasantness.
- tgelston, on 09/19/2008, -0/+1I got a third (lamer) group- the ones in all the red states that are keeping these two close in the polls.
- Lythium, on 09/18/2008, -1/+4The latter, hands down. There will always be people willing to break the law; that's normal. But for any system to work there must also be people willing uphold that law even if it means a certain amount of unpleasantness.
- lead2thehead, on 09/18/2008, -10/+14The reason this isn't national news is because it's NOT a real subpoena. The Alaska Judiciary Committee are members of the legislative branch, NOT the judicial branch. They are NOT a court, they do NOT have the legal authority to hold a trial, and they do NOT have the authority to subpoena her. Only a member of the judicial branch... like... say... a JUDGE... can do that. If she ignored a real subpoena, she would have been arrested for it. It's called the separation of powers doctrine. Look it up.
- BasharTeg, on 09/18/2008, -2/+13Congressional powers of investigation are recognized at the federal level and at the state level in many states which model their separation of powers after the federal government. Congress doesn't have the power to hold a trial, but they do have the authority to investigate so that they can determine what laws need to be passed or adjusted to stop people from refuting the will and intent of congress's statues or when elected officials are acting outside of their authority. Their job is to investigate and get the information out. Then if criminal charges need to be filed they can refer the case to the attorney general, or in the case of an elected official, congress in many cases has the power of impeachment. You'll notice that an impeachment trial is handled by the legislative branch and they determine the verdict. That IS part of the separation of powers. I recommend you do more research before you tell other people to "look it up".
- pyronik, on 09/18/2008, -1/+1its not an impeachment
- lead2thehead, on 09/19/2008, -2/+0>> but they do have the authority to investigate
Sure... they can investigate all day long, but they can't subpoena anybody. Everyone testifies voluntarily.
>> Then if criminal charges need to be filed they can refer the case to the attorney general
Exactly... and he'll issue a REAL subpoena if he thinks there is a case. But there is, of course, ZERO chance of that happening since these claims of corruption are based purely on speculation. Sarah Palin isn't even going to waste her time showing up because she knows they don't have a legal leg to stand on.
>> You'll notice that an impeachment trial is handled by the legislative branch and they determine the verdict. That IS part of the separation of powers. I recommend you do more research before you tell other people to "look it up".
1) It's NOT an impeachment.
2) An impeachment is NOT a criminal trial.
3) Even if it were an impeachment trial, they STILL couldn't subpoena her. (Granted, it would be stupid not to go and defend herself, but she does have that option.)
So yeah... look it up. - Theving, on 09/19/2008, -0/+2I don't know about Alaska, but the US House and Senate and the Iowa legislature have the power of subpoena. No question about it. I would assume every state has it. If you refuse it you can be held in contempt of congress.
- lead2thehead, on 09/20/2008, -0/+0>> If you refuse it you can be held in contempt of congress.
No, you're confusing contempt of congress with contempt of court. They're not the same thing... not even close. All a legislator can do is recommend to the Attorney general that you be charged with contempt of congress. They can't hold you in contempt of anything because they lack the legal authority to convict you of a crime. You see... here in the USA, we have this thing called "due process", where by every person is constitutionally guaranteed the right to a trial by jury.
- Buzzpatrol, on 09/18/2008, -0/+3Oh, so it's ok then?
Dumbass- lead2thehead, on 09/19/2008, -0/+1YES and it's designed that way on purpose. Politicians MUST be free to do what they think is right without fear of their political opponents threatening them with big political show trials. That's the whole point of having three branches of government.
- BasharTeg, on 09/18/2008, -2/+13Congressional powers of investigation are recognized at the federal level and at the state level in many states which model their separation of powers after the federal government. Congress doesn't have the power to hold a trial, but they do have the authority to investigate so that they can determine what laws need to be passed or adjusted to stop people from refuting the will and intent of congress's statues or when elected officials are acting outside of their authority. Their job is to investigate and get the information out. Then if criminal charges need to be filed they can refer the case to the attorney general, or in the case of an elected official, congress in many cases has the power of impeachment. You'll notice that an impeachment trial is handled by the legislative branch and they determine the verdict. That IS part of the separation of powers. I recommend you do more research before you tell other people to "look it up".
- alragusa, on 09/18/2008, -13/+2Because a Democrat has NEVER ignored a subpoena.
/s- AmazingSteve, on 09/19/2008, -0/+2At least the last Democrat in the Whitehouse would testify UNDER OATH and UNDER TRANSCRIPTION unlike Junior and Deadeye Dick there to hold his little hand. You can have a seat too retard.
- eternal, on 09/19/2008, -0/+2If you have a news article that shows a Democrat abusing their power to ignore a subpoena, I would encourage you to submit it to digg. If someone is disobeying a law (and using their power to ignore it), they deserve to go to jail no matter what political party they belong to.
- Yimyack, on 09/18/2008, -3/+16Can they put lipstick on a jailbird?
- obamayomama, on 09/18/2008, -23/+2I figured the Dems would wait until Oct. to bust this out... seems they're getting a bit desperate already.
- swrostmore, on 09/18/2008, -0/+15The committee that issued the subpoenas is controlled by a Republican majority. I'm puzzled by the apparent irrelevance of your comment.
- obamayomama, on 09/18/2008, -11/+0The investigation is being headed by Sen. Hollis French, a Democrat who has endorsed Barack Obama for president. He's clearly partisan, and controls the subpoena list.
- swrostmore, on 09/18/2008, -0/+6Okay, but that doesn't change the fact that in order to get anything done, French needs Republican votes, and he's gotten them in bipartisan fashion throughout the entirety of the investigation.
- glxyjones, on 09/18/2008, -0/+6Don't be an idiot. It's a bipartisan council consisting of both Democrat and Republican members and it was voted on unanimously to order the subpoenas.
- simeonart, on 09/18/2008, -1/+6It's been going on since July when Palin agreed to cooperate, before the stalling began after her nomination... do a little research, just a little.
- obamayomama, on 09/18/2008, -7/+1I did, and since that time Palin has been selected as the Vice Presidential nominee, and the process has been politicized on a grand scale. Investigator Steven Branchflower admitted he had ceded control of his subpoena list to Sen. Hollis French during Alaska’s Joint Judiciary Committee September 12 hearing that was scheduled to approve subpoena requests.
- swrostmore, on 09/18/2008, -1/+6The only politicizing that is going on is the McCain campaign interfering with Alaskan state politics to stall the investigation.
- obamayomama, on 09/18/2008, -6/+1It should be stalled, since there's no proof of wrongdoing and it's turned into a political witch hunt. I think investigators' efforts would be better spent looking into Senator Obama and his staff's very close ties to the Freddie/Fannie criminals, especially considering Obama got the Lion’s share of Freddie/Fannie lobby money.
- swrostmore, on 09/18/2008, -1/+6There you go again - There was enough evidence of wrongdoing for a panel controlled 10 to 4 by Republicans to vote unanimously to investigate. The only thing that has changed since then is the bizarre partisan involvement of the McCain campaign in Alaskan state politics.
- obamayomama, on 09/18/2008, -6/+1Care to cite any real evidence? Even Monegan admitted that Palin never asked him to fire the trooper. As to Monegan's firing, the Commissioner of Public Safety is appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Alaska Senate to serve at the pleasure of the Governor. Just like the attorney generals of a state, they can be fired and hired at will, no reason given.
- swrostmore, on 09/18/2008, -1/+6Cite any evidence of what? It's not relevant whether you are personally convinced of the case against Palin - what is relevant is that, contrary to your (McCain's) claims of partisanship, the investigation has been demonstrably bipartisan since it's conception.
- obamayomama, on 09/18/2008, -7/+1Ahhh yes.... just as I suspected- you have none.
- nihilville, on 09/19/2008, -0/+5@ obamayomama
Since when did changing the subject constitute winning an argument? - swrostmore, on 09/19/2008, -0/+4@nihilville, that's just how modern Republican politics works. It's not about winning the argument, its about perpetrating the argument forever and never conceding any error. In a fight between progress and the status quo, as long as nothing is ever resolved, the status quo wins.
- obamayomama, on 09/19/2008, -2/+0@ nihilville: "Since when did changing the subject constitute winning an argument?"
Changing the subject? swrostmore said "There was enough evidence of wrongdoing for a panel controlled 10 to 4 by Republicans to vote unanimously to investigate." I asked him to cite any real evidence, since all I've seen is conjecture, and he couldn't or wouldn't provide it. And I'm sorry, but if the guy that has subpoena power, Hollis French, brags that he would produce an “October surprise” that would embarrass John McCain at a time that the investigation had barely begun and witnesses still hadn’t been deposed- well that's not exactly without partisanship is it? French later apologized, but the tenor of the probe had permanently shifted.
@swrostmore: "In a fight between progress and the status quo, as long as nothing is ever resolved, the status quo wins."
I hope not, because that would mean Obama/Biden would prevail, since they talk about change and yet have no record of it, and McCain has a record of both bucking his own party and reaching out and crossing party lines to get things done.
- UncommonSoap, on 09/19/2008, -1/+1Hey, bitchface, last time I checked its your camp running the lie campaign, not the other way around. Oh, and Obama is ahead in the polls. Desperate? I don't think so, your lame train is just getting derailed.
- swrostmore, on 09/18/2008, -0/+15The committee that issued the subpoenas is controlled by a Republican majority. I'm puzzled by the apparent irrelevance of your comment.
- Terasiel, on 09/18/2008, -1/+10Anyone else remember the thing about the law being the law regardless of political affiliation? I wasn't aware it was a "partisan issue" to listen to court orders.
- pyronik, on 09/18/2008, -3/+2not court orders
- Terasiel, on 09/18/2008, -0/+1Subpoena (Noun)
a legal document requiring a person to appear before a court of law at a specified time - pyronik, on 09/19/2008, -1/+1what "court of law" .. It's not the judicial branch
- Terasiel, on 09/19/2008, -0/+1A subpoena officially puts anyone in line to be placed before the judicial branch. Anything, anything you do that breaks a law is suppose to automatically be considered a judicial matter. If she's being subpoenaed, then it can lead to court.
- Terasiel, on 09/18/2008, -0/+1Subpoena (Noun)
- pyronik, on 09/18/2008, -3/+2not court orders
- jaymzdean, on 09/18/2008, -1/+2Cancel your cable yet?
- isage, on 09/18/2008, -4/+7Palin = Cheney:
http://digg.com/politics/If_McCain_Told_the_Truth_ ...- thegreatgazoo, on 09/19/2008, -0/+0Her husband is a registered Democrat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Palin
I would say Biden = Cheney. Pro RIAA, MPAA, voted for the war, and on and on and on.
But who's counting?
- thegreatgazoo, on 09/19/2008, -0/+0Her husband is a registered Democrat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Palin
- acroyear2, on 09/18/2008, -4/+3It's Opposite Day! Act like a neo-con!
McCain loves Ameerica! That's more important than economics. At least McCain and Palin aren't planning on selling this ***** to godless Kenya or Iran. Obama just wants to tax you like a marxist socialist and then he's going to kill you and sell your parts to socialist China. Thank god Bush gave us war, recession, and country style wisdom! You libs with yer education and PBS and iced tea and digg.com and I-hate-america, san fransisco (that's where the digg offices are) values. Real Americans bomb who da hell they want! We'll just bomb this economy back into shape. YOU'LL SEE! - ScienceMatters, on 09/18/2008, -10/+2Democrat Kwame Kilpatrick ASSAULTED someone trying to serve a subpoena while he was mayor of detroit. I am just throwing it out there...
- HappyScrappy, on 09/18/2008, -0/+5Two wrongs don't make a right. I wouldn't vote Kilpatrick to VP and I won't vote Palin either.
Honestly, you could have found a lot more dirt on (Democrat) Coleman Young, Mayor of Detroit. Or go more current and take Representative Charles Rangel (D) of NY.
Then again, you've got Senator (R) Ted Stevens of Alaska.
Just because there are other dirty politicians doesn't mean we should forgive this one.- ScienceMatters, on 09/18/2008, -0/+3Agreed. My point is that it is dangerous to attach an individual's actions to their group membership. And his case seemed relevant considering the subject of the article...
- HappyScrappy, on 09/18/2008, -0/+5Two wrongs don't make a right. I wouldn't vote Kilpatrick to VP and I won't vote Palin either.
- Aadain, on 09/18/2008, -1/+8My outrage on this is so high that I feel the need to hit something. If the political parties were reversed, and a Democratic were in the same position as Sarah Palin, I'd bet my life that all the right wing news organizations and pundits would be screaming bloody murder, 24x7, until either the election or they submitted to the subpoenas. But do the more left leaning news outlets do this? NO! Its a small news line item that gets buried several pages deep five seconds after its posted online. Where is the liberal outrage at the law being violated?! Why aren't people like Olberman screaming at the cameras every chance they get about the Lawless Republicans?? God I'm just so pissed off at this whole situation!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 150 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is