?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Can someone show me a "Republican to English" dictionary?

I want to see where "violated Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act" translates to "cleared of any legal wrong-doing… any hint of any kind of unethical activity there."

Comments

( 17 comments — Leave a comment )
edgreen86
Oct. 14th, 2008 02:26 am (UTC)
I believe that comes from the same legal volume that Al Gore used during the use of White House phones to raise money for the DNC in 1997, when he said "My counsel tells me there is no controlling legal authority that says that is any violation of any law."

ysengrin
Oct. 14th, 2008 05:26 am (UTC)
... and a link to a transcript Al Gore's comments:

http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/03/03/gore.reaction/transcript.html

I'd slap both of 'em, but I'd slap Palin harder. Using your elected position to pursue a personal vendetta is still a serious character flaw.
edgreen86
Oct. 14th, 2008 12:21 pm (UTC)
As I've said in the past in my own LJ, I'm voting for General Zod - neither party has my vote this time around. Both parties are dicking us around while chasing after the big powers.

And yes, personal vendettas while using your elected position is a bad, bad thing.
chris_sawyer
Oct. 14th, 2008 01:56 pm (UTC)
But you can bet that all of the dittoheads will be voting for McCain.

So don't bitch if he wins.
bovil
Oct. 14th, 2008 06:59 am (UTC)
Gore is a schlemiel, but I still think the country would be in better shape if he had been president instead of W.
cmdrsuzdal
Oct. 14th, 2008 02:45 am (UTC)
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"
lisa_marli
Oct. 14th, 2008 06:49 am (UTC)
Would that be the same one that defines Palling Around as breathing the same air in the same space? And Radical Education Foundation as formed by the Conservative Annenbergs who just endorsed McCain? They have some wacky definitions over there.
kilah_hurtz
Oct. 14th, 2008 08:12 am (UTC)
Sorry, don't speak stupid.

You know what is funny is that they took the second finding of the report and tried to ignore the first, namely that she abused her power and behaved unethically.

The next little thing making its way in the Alaska courts is her clear violation of the states records act as shown by the hackers access to her email.
edgreen86
Oct. 14th, 2008 12:23 pm (UTC)
Interesting legal question, and I'm asking a someone who is not a lawyer (and has yet to play one on TV), can those emails be used in a court case? They were illegally obtained.

Not defining the woman, asking a legal question here.
kilah_hurtz
Oct. 14th, 2008 07:01 pm (UTC)
Actually they can,

"not long ago The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments on a similar case where a hacker turned over evidence that eventually lead to the conviction of some involved in child pornography. The basics of the case are the same, someone used illegal means to gain access to someones personal email account. The information obtained by those means lead to the conviction of the victims of the hack. The court claimed it was a 'loophole' in federal privacy law."


http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/tech-news/?p=178

The same way an officer who finds guns or drugs when investigating a break in can still use it.
edgreen86
Oct. 14th, 2008 07:13 pm (UTC)
Thank you for clearing that up for me. Although I should point out that if a police office finds evidence of a further or different crime during the investigation of another crime is still conducting a 'legal search'. You're final example is totally correct, but not with regards to the results of an illegal search.

But your citing the 11th Circuit Court does clear the question up.

And, by the way, I meant to type 'defending' not 'defining'. I'd barely try to defend her, much less define her.
holczer13
Oct. 14th, 2008 07:16 pm (UTC)
Isn't the big issue with the hackers that they(the hackers) obtained the evidence in an illegal way, but that they(the hackers) are NOT law enforcement or employees of the judiciary? And when they(the hackers) VOLUNTARILY turn in evidence, it is then considered evidence from a "reliable"(or unreliable) witness, rather than evidence the government obtained illegally?
edgreen86
Oct. 14th, 2008 08:01 pm (UTC)
Rules of evidence you would think are fairly clear cut. Not so. Many years ago, I was a cop in the Air Force, and had an arrest I made tossed out of court because I allowed the suspect to remove his jacket before I searched it.

And, there have been cases of 'fruit of the poisoned tree' (evidence gained illegally) being allowed in during the court case.

Its all magic/smoke and mirrors/bullshit.
chris_sawyer
Oct. 14th, 2008 01:57 pm (UTC)
It must be the same dictionary that says "The war is going well."
nohwhere_man
Oct. 14th, 2008 03:59 pm (UTC)
And "the fundamentals of the economy are strong".
lobolance
Oct. 14th, 2008 03:50 pm (UTC)
Yeah, I've had the feeling I was on drugs, or the universe has been slighlty skewed for the last few days, as I KNOW she was found guilty, and that actual *fact* has not been talked about on the radio/news. All I hear is the 'cleared of'. I honestly don't understand. Maybe I should write the news guy at kfog and see if he has an explanation....
rivetheretic
Oct. 14th, 2008 07:59 pm (UTC)
<neocon delusion>You are from the reality based community. You think that the truth can be found by observation. We make reality. It is a triumph of the will. You will be writing about the reality that we make.</neocon delusion>
( 17 comments — Leave a comment )