Merck’s Performance Supplies business develops high-tech options for the automotive industry. What saddens me most is how snowed everybody really is. Do you truly suppose your candidate is being sincere? Do you actually suppose John McCain was responsible of the savings and loans failures? (he was found to have made “bad judgment”, but was originally slated to be dropped from the whole investigation; he was solely kept as a result of he was the one republican concerned). Do you really assume that Barack Obama hangs out with Invoice Ayers? (initially, do you really think he’s that stupid?; second of all, his affiliation is tangential)? Do you really assume Bill Clinton managed the economic system in the 90s? There was a republican congress for many of that period, you realize? Possibly Democrats and Republicans did it together. Maybe it’s the steadiness of power that helped.
What can be interesting is that if Clinton v. Jones would apply to Monegan’s go well with going forward after January 20, 2009. It’s clear that a sitting President of the United States has no immunity from civil legislation litigation towards him, for actions unrelated to his office (having occurred before he took office). This has by no means been determined as to a sitting VICE President, however. Certainly, the Supreme Court docket, particularly, did not tackle two vital Constitutional points not encompassed inside the questions introduced by the certiorari petition: (1) whether a claim corresponding to the (Vice) President’s claim of immunity may achieve a state tribunal, and (2) whether a court may compel the (Vice) President’s attendance at any specific time or place.
I believe most individuals aren’t reading the report correctly. What the report mentioned was that: PROCEDURALLY, there was nothing unlawful about how Palin asked Monegan for his resignation. Nevertheless, if there were unlawful reasons for doing so (even partly), Monegan has legal recourse to sue for illegal termination. And if there were illegal causes for the firing (because the report discovered) then the firing itself was unlawful (while the PROCESS of firing may have been the usual one).
Palin’s lawyer’s reply is way more honest that Governor Palin herself. Her lawyer no less than acknowledges that the report found she violated the ethics regulation. Then again, Gov. Palin herself has repeatedly claimed not just that the report is inaccurate or biased, but that the report says simply the opposite of what it really does say. Subsequently, she is a liar. Whether or not or not a non-monetary gain may be enough to constitute an ethics violation (because the attorney’s reponse argues it isn’t) is not even related to this discussion.
The report states that in firing Monegan, Palin broke no legislation. We agree on that. However in “knowingly allowing” her surrogates to use pressure on him for her own personal causes, she violated Alaska’s ethics legal guidelines. The report is clear on that. Your argument is nonsense. Palin is entitled to say she disagrees with the report’s conclusions, but she should not be allowed to blatantly misrepresent these conclusions and claim total vindication.