Reading between the lines, I think you have already come to a conclusion D-Top.

You think so?

Of course, when considering political criminality, it is always convenient to overlook the contributions in that respect of the champions of Democrats and their candidate, currently; Teddy Kennedy and The Clintons. Furthermore, there are great sensitivities regarding the precise record of their said candidate.

As DTop politely suggests, there are two sides in every case.

Originally Posted by DTop

Some folks prefer to consider all sides before reaching, rather than jumping to a conclusion. Chew on all the facts before digesting the whole story.

It is. Everyone is allowed to defend themselves against all charges even in a court of law (in this country anyway).

Sure they're allowed too, as I said its just not very believable. I sat on a jury in 3 criminal cases, I didn't believe it from them either.

Oh please! Of course she's going to find HERSELF innocent.

Originally Posted by The Other Guy

Oh please! Of course she's going to find HERSELF innocent.

This is a natural thing but this does not make her version of the events incorrect.

However it does raise further questions in that if her version is correct why did she refuse to cooperate with the investigation, why was there a sizable attempt to have the investigation stopped by her supporters and why was there a need for her write a report on the matter when there was an "independent" investigation that was doing the same thing.

Anyone who says they have nothing to hide yet will not cooperate with the people who will find you innocent if you supposedly have nothing to hide is lying.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Sure they're allowed too, as I said its just not very believable. I sat on a jury in 3 criminal cases, I didn't believe it from them either.

I have been on 9 juries and I always reserved making a decision each time until all sides had their say and all evidence was presented.

Perhaps this link will help you make up your mind, DTop.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/...08/7662820.stm

Maybe you could also read this.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...makes-tro.html

Sarah and Todd don't come out smelling like roses do they, DTop!

But as you wisely said DTop.

"Some folks prefer to consider all sides before reaching, rather than jumping to a conclusion. Chew on all the facts before digesting the whole story".

Keep chewing DTop but I think the taste might be getting a little sour by now.

Well, I've still got time before I cast my vote. Chew, chew, and chew some more, I say. Sample all the ingredients before deciding if the meal is worth the price on the tab.

As I see it, despite what some in the media may have us think, this election is still very much up for grabs.

One of your sources says: "The investigator did conclude that Palin's firing of Monegan was within her power".

This from the other article: "However, the report said that the actual sacking of Mr Monegan was not beyond Mrs Palin's legal powers. ".

Thanks for the info though, very interesting. As I hope all Americans will, I will take it all into consideration before I walk into my local voting booth next month.