Cops Sat on Sherry Johnston's Search Warrant Due to Palin

There are new details the the drug case of Sherry Johnston, the mother of future Palin son-in-law Levi Johnston, who was arrested on oxycontin-related charges last week.

The police busted a couple of her associates, turned them into snitches, wired them, and taped her allegedly engaging in oxycontin transactions:

She allegedly sold OxyContin tablets to the informants on three occasions this fall, the affidavit states. Police said two of the meetings were recorded by a hidden camera and a microphone.

The affidavit that has now been released says they sat on the search warrant due to Sarah Palin's candidacy and secret service protection:

Authorities say the case against Sherry Johnston began in the second week of September, when drug investigators intercepted a package containing 179 OxyContin pills. That led to the arrest of the suspects, who agreed to be informants. [More...]

The trooper's affidavit indicates that Sarah Palin's candidacy factored into the investigation, with state officials delaying execution of a search warrant until this month, when Johnston was "no longer under the protection or surveillance of the Secret Service."

Of course, Johnston wasn't under Secret Service protection. The only time they would have been around her was when she was with Gov. Palin, and it doesn't seem they hung around together much, if ever.

The Anchorage Daily News reports:

An affidavit, prepared by the Alaska State Troopers, says Johnston repeatedly sold OxyContin using text messages to direct customers to department store parking lots where they paid and she delivered. But in one message, according to the affidavit, Johnston complained that unusual media and other public attention was cramping her business:

"Hey, my phones are tapped and reporters and god knows who else is always following me and the family so no privacy," Johnston wrote in a text message to a customer.

So, was the delay to preserve any chance McCain/Palin had of winning Alaska and other Republican states? Or was it just to avoid embarrassment to McCain/Palin?

The last sale she made was Nov. 26, well after the election. Why did they wait until Dec. 22 to obtain the warrant? I also wonder she'll challenge the warrant on staleness grounds: What probable cause did they have to believe evidence of criminal conduct would be found in the home in late December?

The affidavit, dated Dec. 22, details how troopers used two informants to collect evidence that Johnston sold OxyContin on Oct. 11, Oct. 22 and Nov. 26. The informants had been arrested themselves on a drug charge and agreed to help trap Johnston.

Trooper-supervised buys were set up by cell phone text messages and took place in Target and Fred Meyer parking lots. On each occasion, troopers charge, she got $800 for 10 pills.

The troopers now admit the secret service portion of their affidavit was incorrect. Does anyone else think the troopers were trying to protect the Palins? And how dumb is Ms. Johnston to sell oxycontin after Palin's nomination and at a time she thinks her phone is tapped? No wonder they call oxycontin "hillbilly heroin." Regardless, I hope Ms. Johnston beats the warrant. I wonder whether she will fight it or take the easy way out and give up her suppliers in exchange for a walk.

< Friday Open Thread | 70% Of American Christians Do Not Believe Non-Christians Will Go To Hell; One American Does Not Care >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    heh (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 03:24:17 PM EST
    Can anyone tell me why the arrest of the mother of the boy who supposedly will marry the daughter of the Governor of Alaska and losing candidate for the position of Vice President is of any particular interest?

    This smacks of the various fake attacks against Palin during the election and brings disdain on everyone.

    Glad to help (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 03:52:32 PM EST
    Obviously you have forgotten how Palin was selected by the GOP to lecture us unwashed, amoral, atheistic hippies on how she was going to help McCain clean up Washington because she had the kind of values Americans need to emulate, "small-town values" [sic] like those of the place where she was mayor, Wasilla, Alaska.

    No, really, she went on for weeks like that.  You don't remember?  Whatever.

    Anyway, here's why it is of interest.  Who doesn't like seeing the evidence of their blatant lies and hypocrisy presented to insufferable fools, and to the other fools who admire them?


    Ummm, your reasoning 'might' fly if (5.00 / 7) (#14)
    by nycstray on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 04:10:36 PM EST
    it had been one of Palin's immediate family. But how does it make her a hypocrite? She has no control over what this woman does. I feel for Levi and the rest of his family. Hard enough when your mother is involved in drugs (ask my niece), but to have people revel in it for such petty reasons . . . and to trash another family by association?

    Guilt by association (4.50 / 6) (#34)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 05:50:07 PM EST
    now where have we sent that before???

    Nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 04:13:28 PM EST
    I repeat. Why does the arrest of the mother of the boy who supposedly will marry the daughter of the governor who is the losing candidate for Vice President fascinate the Left?

    What happens if her dry cleaners have a wreck. Should her insurance company cancel her car insurance?

    You claim that she lectured you on "values?" So what?

    How does the actions of Sherry Johnson have to do with that? Did she ever claim, or did you believe that small towns are free of problems?

    Did her "lectures" work on you? Did they work on Sherry Johnston? I say again, that is a meaningless comment. Did you snort when JFK lectured us to ask not what the country could do for us, but what we could do for the country? Did you sneer when Obama lectured us on change? (BTW - Check his cabinet and other appointees.)

    If we follow your complaint to its logical conclusion, no politician, preacher, et al, can ever urge us to be better.


    Jim, stop ignoring (none / 0) (#16)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 04:16:33 PM EST
    the topic of the post: the police said they refrained from getting a search warrant because of Palin's secret service detail. Not only does that make no sense, they now admit it was false.

    It's newsworthy and on topic for this site. You've made your point, now please stop trying to dominate the conversation with your disagreement.


    My reply to Repack (1.00 / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 06:48:51 PM EST
    was above your response..

    Nested comments have advantages, and disadvantages.


    That's Right (none / 0) (#38)
    by kaleidescope on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 06:28:34 PM EST
    The real focus of Jeralyn's post (and what the real story is) is that Alaska law enforcement delayed (and possibly compromised) bringing a case against someone because they believed that to bring the case in a timely fashion would be embarrassing to Republicans.

    I personally don't case if a consenting adult wants to sit in the bathtub all day content to drool in Oxycontin-induced euphoria.  I used to be pro-drug; now I just think they should be legalized.  I hope Ms. Johnson beats the rap.  Drugs are o.k. by me.  

    Corrupting the State's monopoly on legitimate violence in order to serve the ends of a particular political campaign -- that's way worse than drugs.


    Palin was palling around with drug dealers (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 11:18:02 PM EST
    It sounds as if the mom-in-law to be was cramped by Palin's Secret Service detail....Must have been good friends palling around together....

    Except this is real (none / 0) (#8)
    by rdandrea on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 03:34:13 PM EST

    Maybe... (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Anne on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 03:54:09 PM EST
    it wasn't so much about protecting the Palins, but about knowing the media firestorm that would follow might make it harder to conduct drug investigations in general.  Or maybe it was about not wanting the media to be looking at the investigators.

    Other than that, I just think it's pretty sad that Levi Johnston's mother appears to be involved in selling drugs; between the pregnancy, a possible marriage, his mother caught dealing drugs, and all of it playing out in the media, it's no wonder Levi's taken off for the wilds of Alaska.

    Guilt by association??? (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by wurman on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 06:23:41 PM EST
    A few years ago, my daughter's fiance's mother was snitched, searched, caught with Rx drugs, busted, & bonded out.

    My daughter's car was searched, my home was searched, my vehicles were searched, & my ex-wife's home & vehicles were searched.

    All of us were multiple interviewed.

    The chain of suspicions made sense to me.  Still does.  My daughter was a logical possibility for some degree of involvement.  I had been in the almost-an-in-law's house twice for dinner.

    In my opinion the daughter of Caribou Barbie Palin has some potential for involvement in the situation.

    My Daughter Dearest dumped the dude (actually for other more important reasons) somewhat after his mommy got 5 years--the cell phone, 2 pagers, & the 9mm had a lot to do with the sentencing.

    They are Side Dishes (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by squeaky on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 06:57:03 PM EST
    The fear factor generated by the McCain/Palin campaign was that Obama is a secret black muslim terrorist, bred in another country and schooled in a Madrass.

    Ayers, is clearly secondary in this game of Obama 'palling around with terrorists.'

    Hillbilly Heroin. (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by Lysis on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 08:25:37 PM EST
    That's the kind of class-bashing, elitist slur that infuriated me during the primaries and led me to this site, where I thought people were treated more respectfully, regardless of their social class or place of upbringing.

    I stopped reading TalkLeft after Palin was nominated because of this tripe.  I really hoped it was safe to read again after Obama won.

    I really wish more people could adopt the heart of the Clinton approach: that no matter how easy it is to score quick points in the short-term, you lose in the long-term by talking down to/about people rather than trying to understand them and speak to their needs.

    Interesting question (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 08:52:01 PM EST
    Ignore the Palin connection, which tends to inflame passions here, including mine. The question, I think, is should the authorities delay action in a criminal matter because it may have an effect on an election? Voter fraud cases are one area where action is not supposed to be taken near to an election because of fears it will suppress legitimate votes. Is this situation similar?  Should the conduct of an unrelated person be allowed to besmirch a candidate unfairly?  Since so many people believe that accused equals guilty, maybe extra care should be taken when dealing with allegations against politicians or those close to them in the run-up to an election. I don't know what I think about this; it seems a hard question. I mean who decides what the effect might be and whether it warrants delay?

    WTF?! (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by nycstray on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 12:12:34 AM EST
    I never realized his Dad was an issue with Palin.

    I think it's obvious to most I was referring to her talking about his Chicago Pals.

    Yes (2.00 / 1) (#67)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 12:53:29 AM EST
    My point was (and I'm sure you got it), Obama chose his associations knowingly in Chicago. We have no knowledge (that I know of) of Palin's knowledge of Levi's mother re: drug dealing.

    She only had to mention Rezko and Ayers and the fans fill in the rest, kinda like Rocky Horror show.

    None of the fans calling him a terrorist were framing it in terms of domestic terrorists. Ayers was equated to a mid east terrorist and Rezco happens to be Syrian. . muslim father.. madrass... no birth certificate..


     Obama is muslim terrorist.  

    Obama he did not get to chose his father. He was slammed because if his father.  


    Actually that was my reply to what MB said (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by nycstray on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 01:21:59 AM EST
    but in reply to what you just said, I never got too deep into the extreme BS on either side. I always thought when the Palin/Ayers BS was being thrown around, it was anti- American (not patriotic, American against Americans) I never connected it to Muslim etc and Rezco being Syrian, is not something I actively knew/remembered/thought about. So leave me out of that BS because that is not what the discussion was.

    Again. I am speaking about the associations of Obama having KNOWN histories in Chicago (and in some cases nationwide).  Did Palin know her possible future family member was mixed up in drug dealing? We have no info (to my knowledge) that she did. Doesn't seem like it was well known in Alaska either or else it seems like the rabid press would have latched on to it.

    That is all. Nothing more, nothing less and I would appreciate you leaving all your other BS out of it and trying to make what I said into some other BS. It's really quite simple.


    But (none / 0) (#77)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 12:32:42 PM EST
    This is not a abstract phenomena. The question on the table is a comparison between Palin and Obama, and the topic is Palin's drug dealing relatives.

    Not sure why you would want to suggest or imply that there should be one standard for the analysis of mudslinging due to guilt by association for Palin a different one for Obama.

    I assume your point is that no one should throw mud at someone for associating with people that they had no choice being connected to because they were born with the association but it is ok to throw mud at someone for the people they chose to associate with.

    You personally may have drawn the line at trashing Obama only for people he chose to associate with in Chicago (Ayers and Rezko) but Palin did not. Her campaign to make people fear Obama as a terrorist ran much deeper and certainly included his father whether she uttered the words or not.

    The power of the line 'palling around with terrorists' (note the plural) gets its force and power only because of the spin that Obama's father was Muslim and that Obama grew up muslim and studied in a school that trained terrorists aka a madrass.

    You may have standards where guilt by association and the ensuing mudslinging is fine as long as the set is limited to chosen associates, but Palin has a different standard. She did not limit her mudslinging as you imply you have.

    It is beyond hypocritical for anyone to defend Palin having mud thrown on her for her family's ills while making believe that Obama's muck was well deserved because it only came from his own ill chosen associations.

    Besides correct me if I am wrong, you never drew the line where Obama's family was off limits, did you?  Nor do I ever remember you defending Obama because mud was thrown at him because of associations he had which he did not choose.


    ". . . Palin's drug dealing relatives" (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by nycstray on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 02:40:11 PM EST
    First off, are they related?

    Listen, you are making this much more than it is. Guilt by association, how can Palin be "guilty" of associating with a drug dealer if she didn't know the woman was dealing drugs? Obama is "guilty" of hanging with Rezko etc because he was aware of their backgrounds. That was all I was trying to point out. This isn't about trashing Obama at all (though I think he was a "bonehead" in some of his relationships for a guy who wanted to be president). It's about claiming Palin is guilty by association. I don't give a damn about what she said and all the different crap that went along with it. In fact, I think it's obvious I haven't put as much thought into it as you have. If it turns out she knew what the woman was doing and didn't have a problem with it, then slam away. But right now it seems folks are comparing her association as a way to "get back at her" for what she said about Obama. To me it isn't the same because we don't know she had any prior knowledge, where Obama appears to have some prior knowledge of his associations. Can you get that at all?

    Drawing the line with Obama's family? I'm confused? I wasn't aware there were any issues with the family. I have criticized a couple of things MO has said on the campaign trail, but I think that's fair. I actually prefer her to Obama, lol!~ I do agree with Obama that families are off limits. You can't hold a person accountable for someone else's actions unless the person participates, enables, etc. Obama can't be held accountable for his associations actions, but he can be for his judgment in whether to associate with them or not (since their histories were known). He seems to have had good judgment in his dealings with Blago, not so much with Rezko, imo. It's really just that simple for me. I'm not really defending Palin, I'm defending/arguing the thought process of guilt by association and when it applies. It's about when you have the knowledge and what you chose to do with it vs not having the knowledge at all. (courtesy of my mother  ;) )


    The "Hillbilly" comment is apt (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by BernieO on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 08:55:10 AM EST
    While I don't like the implication that real Americans only come from small towns and rural ares, people who do come from those places are too often treated like fools by the media. Jimmy Carter was derisively referred to as a "Peanut Farmer" and Clinton is still called "Bubba" by many in the media - hardly a compliment. It drove Washington insiders crazy that Americans had elevated a hick from Arkansas to the presidency. This was the source for so much of the disdain he was shown. Bush was largely given a pass, since he came from an upper-class eastern family.

    If drugs were going to hurt McCain (4.50 / 2) (#4)
    by MoveThatBus on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 03:01:19 PM EST
    So, was the delay to preserve any chance McCain/Palin had of winning Alaska and other Republican states? Or was it just to avoid embarrassment to McCain/Palin?

    Wouldn't that have been from Cindy's past addiction?

    I continue to be astounded by how this could possibly, possibly be connected to the Palin family. Whatever Ms. Johnston did is a reflection on no one but her.

    I think it does reflect on Palin (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 05:21:36 PM EST
    Not in an actual sense, mind you.  Think of how she portrayed Alaska and Wasilla as so wholesome.  Think of her religious fervor; her beautiful family; her clean and pure outdoor lifestyle.

    Now juxapose the fact that Wasilla is the meth capital of Alaska and that Palin's daughter's future mother-in-law is an alleged drug dealer and not small time either.  

    Do I think this actually reflects badly on Palin?  No.  However, I am sure the press and most members of the public would have eaten this up.  


    Think of Palin's McCarthyite tendencies (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 05:43:10 PM EST
    According to Palin's yardstick, who you associate with, no matter how briefly or tenuously is a reflection upon you. Its odious.

    In this case, it is also karma.


    Did Palin know of her drug dealing? (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by nycstray on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 06:13:59 PM EST
    I think there is a bit of a difference when you are aware of a person's dealings vs unaware. Obama chose his associations with some knowledge of their actions. We don't know what Palin knew about this woman, or even if she even was friendly with her etc. I've never heard this woman mentioned until she was busted, did you? Seems Levi was always sans family, wasn't he?

    Do you seriously think Obama (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 07:30:26 PM EST
    is a weather underground sympathizer, because Obama served on a corporate board with Ayers?

    One of my neighbors was disbarred for embezzlement from his firms' trust account. I served on the board of directors of local not for profit corporation. Does that make me an embezzler? My ex died of complications from being a coke and meth abuser. Does that mean I am a coke and meth addict? One of my law school acquaintences ended up as a state supreme court justice. Does that make me a justice?

    The logic or what passes for it, is astounding. When you "indict" someone solely because of their associations, you are behaving like Joe McCarthy. I don't care whether you are Sarah Palin talking about "paling around with terrorists" or  a semi-respectable talk left poster going after Obama and Ayers or Wright. Without evidence of something more, its McCarthyism.


    meant to say (none / 0) (#49)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 07:31:06 PM EST
    I served on a corporate board with that neighbor.

    I wasn't "going after Obama" (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by nycstray on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 12:21:17 AM EST
    The most I can say is I think Obama showed poor judgment in some of his friendships/dealings (for someone who wants to advance to President!). Rezko at the top of the list. Or perhaps his church. Can't remember, who held his first fundraiser? If I really cared, I would know.

    My point was (and I'm sure you got it), Obama chose his associations knowingly in Chicago. We have no knowledge (that I know of) of Palin's knowledge of Levi's mother re: drug dealing.

    Feel free to say I'm behaving like Joe McCarthy. I think it shows you are being just a tad dishonest.


    And what "more" do you have? (none / 0) (#73)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 07:54:30 AM EST
    who is a tad dishonest?

    What on earth are you talking about? (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by nycstray on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 02:41:19 PM EST
    re-read the thread (none / 0) (#81)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 04:50:28 PM EST
    I think Obama showed poor judgment in some of his friendships/dealings

    Without evidence of something more, its McCarthyism

    Do you have any more, or just more innuendo?


    Um, did Obama "deal" with Rezko? (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by nycstray on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 05:17:57 PM EST
    That's not an innuendo, that's a fact. A boneheaded one according to Obama.

    But it's not really about Obama. It's about the difference between what he knew and what Palin knew/knows. There is no innuendo in saying I think someone showed poor judgment in a situation. Especially when only referring to the known, not unknown. Twisting what I'm saying doesn't change what I actually said. I happen to think Obama lacks insight in certain situations,  but I don't think it makes him "guilty" of wrong doing (like Palin seems to or implied, or whatever), just poor judgment. I can't say Palin shows poor judgment in regards to her relationship with this apparent drug dealer because I don't know what her relationship is or what she knows/knew. Saying I think someone shows poor judgment is nothing more or less than my opinion. I am not the one applying guilt by association here . . . I am only pointing out I think there is a difference in situations based on what is known/unknown.


    Boneheaded Quote (none / 0) (#85)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 05:42:06 PM EST
    Obama knew was that Rezko was under Federal investigation, no more no less. He admitted that getting help buying his house from someone under investigation while harboring Presidential ambitions was a mistake in retrospect.  That is the full context of the quote by Obama.

    THe McCarthyism comes in when you speculate that he not only knew all about Rezko's criminal behavior but was involved with it.


    I don't recall speculating Obama was involved (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by nycstray on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 06:19:08 PM EST
    in Rezko's wrong doings. I was speaking about what he said was the bonehead move. I honestly don't/didn't pay enough attention to all the ins and outs of Rezko and his actions to comment on them or speculate that Obama could be involved. I just am not that into it/him (Rezko). Heck, I couldn't even tell you what he's been found guilty of off the top of my head.

    All I was trying to do was show the difference between "guilt by association" when looking at the 2 people/situations. Known vs unknown. Nothing more, nothing less. (and Palin assigned the guilt, not me)

    As much as you would like to peg me otherwise, I don't want Obama to fail (especially at the hands of the media and their imagination). We can't afford for him to fail. I think he'll do an ok job. I don't agree with him on everything and am skeptical about him on some issues, so I hope he exceeds beyond my expectations.

    Anyways, I done with this since you can't seem to see the simplicity of what I was saying and keep trying to make more out of it. There is no there, there.  ;)


    nycstray (none / 0) (#80)
    by Politalkix on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 03:22:49 PM EST
    Now let us hear what you have to say about HRC's "judgement" given what is revealed in this Washington Post [article] given how you are going after Obama through "guilt by association".

    let me make this REAL CLEAR (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by nycstray on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 04:56:41 PM EST
    I am not going after Obama. I am saying that I don't see how you can compare Palin's association with this woman as a "drug dealer" as the same as her guilting Obama by his associations with certain people. Obama had associations with certain people of known questionable histories, as Palin liked to point out. We do not know that Palin knew about this woman's drug dealing or the extent of her associations with her. Therefore, how can you imply guilt by association?

    It is really that simple. What is so freakin' hard to understand? This is not about Obama. This is about applying guilt by association with known vs unknown information and/or interactions.


    tenuous and meangingless (2.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 05:13:59 PM EST
    There is no distinction in McCarthyite guilt by association allegations between voluntary and involountary association. That is a tenuous and meangingless distinction you try to make. Guilt by association without evidence of something in addition to mere association is innuendo and character assissination. It is odious.

    That was my original point.

    BTW how do you square this guilt by association smear

    I think Obama showed poor judgment in some of his friendships/dealings

    with this

    I am not going after Obama

    and you charged me with dishonesty??


    Saying that I think he showed poor judgment (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by nycstray on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 06:42:52 PM EST
    is an opinion. I think he's showing poor judgment with Warren also. That's not going after him. It's my opinion of situations/actions that I'm not pleased with (Warren). I haven't accused or found him guilty of anything. I've formed an opinion based on what I know right now, an that opinion could be subject to change based on future knowledge. Palin is the one who said he was hanging with terrorists and applying guilt by association. My opinion is, you can't apply guilt by association with Levi's mother as we don't know if Palin was aware of the situation. Obama was aware of the histories of some of his associations and that's how Palin was applying the guilt by association. I'm not applying guilt by association to Palin or Obama. I actually think you have to do something to be guilty ;) Showing poor judgment is not the same as guilty of wrong doing in my world. I can't say Palin showed poor judgment in her association with Levi's mother as I don't know that she did or didn't. I can say I think Obama has shown poor judgment in situations based on what is known AND IT IS JUST MY OPINION. You are perfectly free to think Obama showed stellar judgment.

    Saying I think someone showed poor judgment is not a smear, btw. Let me ask you, if I'm watching a football game and I think the coach made a bad call and say so, am I smearing the coach or voicing an opinion? Am I "going after" the coach? According to your logic, one can't have a negative opinion of a situation, right?


    Context is everything (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 08:48:32 AM EST
    Bit of a difference don't you think between criticsizing the judgment of a coach for a bad call and criticising the judgment of someone who happened to live in the same neighborhood and served on non-profit corporate board with Ayers?

    Again, I find myself in a similar situation - in my neigbhorhood one of my neighbors was disbarred for embezzling from the firm's trust account. I happen to find myself serving on a local non-profit corporate board with my neighbor. Bad judgment on my part, according to you. Luck of the draw is the truth of the matter.

    Is everyone who served on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago guilty of poor judgment?

    Under your theory, I suppose I should resign, and sell my home at a loss to avoid having those with a casual knowledge of the facts who are prone to being judgmental from making a bad judgment call.

    I don't  want to criticisze Sarah Palin for her bad luck in her daughter's choices. I do think it ironic judgmental moralists find this as an excuse to attack her. I would have more sympathy for her had she not played this game. [She played the game using Ayers, not Rezko, hence I limit this to Ayers]. Accordingly, I don't see a whole lot of difference between Palin and Johnston and Obama and Ayers. Like most people, including Palin and Obama, I know a few saints and a few sinners. I don't live up to the saints, and my sins don't match the worst of the sinners I know. You will judge me as you wish, I am too old to care.


    There you go again (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by nycstray on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 07:23:48 PM EST
    Under your theory, I suppose I should resign, and sell my home at a loss to avoid having those with a casual knowledge of the facts who are prone to being judgmental from making a bad judgment call.

    You weren't aware of your neighbor's actions right? And you aren't actively seeking his friendship/political connections or trying to work out a housing deal with him, are you? So where's your bad judgment? You should really try and read what I'm saying properly and quit being so quick to assign "according to you" to me.

    If you'll notice, I kept most of my references to Rezko, I didn't pay much attention to the Ayers relationship, but I was under the impression it was more than "just a guy in the neighborhood and we happened to be on the same board". Obama is pretty good at initially just blowing things off (same with Rezko "I just did a few hours of work"). Some situations like yours are happenstance and no judgment on your part was used. It wasn't necessary. Once the situation was known, then your judgment and actions come into play, imo. If you started to actively seek him out for financial dealings or to handle your family's Trust, I might just consider you to have poor judgment  ;)


    Gee Ronnie Pay Attention! (3.50 / 2) (#93)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 09:31:10 PM EST
    All things considered, I wouldn't appropriate phrases from  a guy with well documented "memory" problems.

    Palin was talking about Ayers, not Rezko. I was pointing out the irony of her use of  guilt by association, i.e. connecting Obama to AYERS not REZKO and then becoming a bit player in her daughter's mother in law to be's brush with the law.  You are very busy ignoring  this.

    As for this contention

    I was under the impression it was more than "just a guy in the neighborhood and we happened to be on the same board".

    I believe you are misinformed. The basic facts are:

    1.  they lived in the same neigborhood (as do I and the embezzler)
    2. they served on a non-profit board together (as did I and the embezzler)
    3. Alice Palmer took Obama to some sort of get together (fundraiser?) at Ayers home and introduced him to her circle as her preferred successor. Obama actually kicked off his campaign later at a Ramada Inn.
    4. Ayers gave Obama a donation of $200.00.

    That's it.

     Ayers was never found guilty of any crime (and therefore presumed innocent), but we will stipulate 30 years ago or so,  he was a member of the Weather Underground, a group which could be characterized in Palin's words as a domestic terrorist organization.

    Where you end up with all of this is Obama is guilty of something because he knows Ayers and Ayers is "a bad guy". It could be simply bad judgment as you calculatingly put it, but nobody seriously  thinks that is what  Palin was alluding to, when she called Ayers a domestic terrorist who was a "pal" of Obama's. Except the known facts are they were not close pals.

    In the end this is not seriously different than Palin and Johnston. I don't think you would argue because  Johnston is a "bad person" and is associated with Palin, that Palin is a "bad person". You rightly reject the argument, because there is no proof that Palin had anything to do with Johnston's side business, regardless of their relationship - whether it is close, distant, voluntary or involuntary.  There being no evidence that Ayers has done any illegal acts since  his Weather Underground days and no evidence connecting the 8 year old Obama to the Weather Underground during their heyday, I would think reasonable people would reject the guilt by assoication argument regarding Obama and Ayers as well. Obviously you don't. I guess you are just not a reasonable person.

    You may be a little slicker than Palin with your "I was under the impression it was more than 'just a guy in the neighborhood and we happened to be on the same board'" stichk passing on lashon hara under the guise of having a hazy recollection, but you are no better.


    Hypothetical: if you were running (none / 0) (#90)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 12:22:18 PM EST
    bor public office, would you, with knowledge of your neighbor's past, permit your neighbor to host the kick-off event of your campaign at his home?  If so, would you and the neighbor continuously omit that fact when discussing your relationship?

    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 02:41:18 PM EST
    A better phrasing would be would I allow my onetime mentor, Alice Palmer, introduce me to her circle as her preferred successor in the home. Also Obama's campagin kick off event was in the Ramada inn sometime after Palmer's introduction.

    That is a good question. I honestly don't know the answer to it. I am not overly fond of my neighbor and vice versa, but he is involved in local politics. Its not well known that he was disbarred. The circumstances of the disbarrment are not well known and I haven't gone out of my way to publish it.  I know about it by accident. This is somewhat comparable to Ayers, who like Mr. X, has tried to redeem himself by involvoing himself in various local causes. Moreover Ayers has never been adjudicated guilty and has by all accounts kept a clean nose between his weather underground days and the Palmer introduction.

    So if I had a political mentor who said, I am taking you to X's to introduce you to my circle of friends who will raise money for you, would I do it? I don't know. I wouldn't be comfortable and probably would avoid Mr. X thereafter like the plague.

    Which fact are we talking about omitting? The disbarrment or the fact my political mentor took me to the fundraiser? Or both? If I had submitted to this rite of passage, would I refer to the disbarrment or the fundraiser? No. Should I? Is it relevant, if I don't socialize with Mr. X nor seek his endorsement? I don't think so. Has Mr. X been put in charge of somebody else's bank account - no; actually he wisely refused the position of treasurer on the non-profit board. Again, after the rite of passage, I would avoid Mr. X thereafter like the plague.

    Again the links between Ayers and Obama are not that strong. Probably less to it, than Mr. X and I (we know each other well enough to dislike each other).

    Where you end up with all of this is Obama is guilty of something because he knows Ayers and Ayers is a bad guy. It could be simply bad judgment, but nobody seriously  thinks that is all  Palin was alluding to, when she called Ayers a domestic terrorist who was a pal (friend?) of Obama's. Except the known facts are they were not close pals.

    In the end this is not seriously different than Palin and Johnston. I don't think you would argue because  Johnston is a "bad person" and is associated with Palin, that she is a "bad person". You rightly reject the argument, because there is no proof that Palin had anything to do with Johnston's side business, regardless of their relationship - whether it is close, distant, voluntary or involuntary.  There being no evidence that Ayers has done any illegal acts since  his Weather Underground days and no evidence connecting the 8 year old Obama to the Weather Underground, I would think reasonable people would reject the argument.

    Question: Am I the only one who sees irony in Palin's probable political discomfort in her relationship with Johnston and Palin's McCartyite tactics?  


    According to Chicago Sun-Times, (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 10:26:04 PM EST
    Ayers and Dohrn hosted a political event on behalf of Obama in their home.  link

    Mpte:  Linked article states neither Ayers nor Dohrn were ever convicted.  Actually, Dohrn was convicted.

    Yes, Palin statements re Ayers/Obama relationship were over the top.

    Yes, also, Ayers and Obama are less than forthright when they do not include the political event discussed in the Sun-Times link in their description of their relationship.  

    Yes, given Obama knew Ayers was a key figure in the Weatherundgerground and that Dohrn was convicted of crimes stemming from her work on behalf of that group, Obama's judgment was not the best in letting Ayers and Dohrn host a campaign event on Obama's behalf in their home.  Doesn't make Obama a "terrorist" of course.


    Facts from link are the same (none / 0) (#96)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 07:45:33 AM EST
    When Obama was organizing his first race for the state legislature, the incumbent lawmaker he hoped to replace introduced him to her supporters and urged them to back Obama. One introductory event took place at the home of Ayers and Dohrn, according to published reports.

    Appears to be the Alice Palmer meeting I described. Assuming that neither one has ever discussed this event, their failure to discuss it proves... what?  

    Has Bernandine Dohrn been convicted of anything since she served her time for the Weather Underground crimes? Has she served her time and been a law abiding citizen since?  Where exactly does this get us?

    Is Obama's judgment as described any worse than McCain's in attending a fundraiser at the home of a radical from the same time period?  A radical who plotted to fire bomb a building in Washington DC. A radical who committed burglaries in support of his radical agenda.  A radical, who even after he served his time, advocated killing law enforcement officers, and instructed his followers to do so in a specfically described manner.   Ayers and  Dohrn ended their radical days, one served time. Arguably McCain's fundraising pal is still a radical advocating violence- at least until the 1990's.  

    Where does all of this get us?

    "The past is never dead; it's not even past."
    - Gavin Stevens to Temple Drake Stevens, Requiem for a Nun, Act I Scene iii


    Probably doesn't get "us" much (none / 0) (#97)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 11:50:08 AM EST
    of anywhere, as you don't think Ayers and Obama omitting the campaign event at the Ayers/Dohrn home is significant when Ayers and Obama repeatedly characterize their relationship.  I think it is a significant, purposeful omission.  

    I agree (none / 0) (#98)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 12:37:19 PM EST
    that neither Ayers nor Obama spend much time, if any at all, discussing the Alice Palmer event. I agree that is purposeful. I am not sure it is signicant.

    A good friend of mine who has hosted (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 12:39:45 PM EST
    political events in her home says it matters not at all.  (This one's for you, Molly!)

    Molly, I think you have gone out of your way (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by Anne on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 09:50:30 PM EST
    to frame nycstray's opinions about Obama's choices as being a guilt-by-association smear, when in fact, they are anything but.

    That Obama chose to associate himself with Ayers and Dohrn and Wright and Rezko does not make Obama guilty of anything any of those people may have done or said; it doesn't even prove that he is of like mind; it could just mean he was using them for his own interests.  Even if that's all it was, it does - like it or not - say something about his judgment, which was nycstray's point.  

    And, like it or not, people are known by the company they keep, and I fail to see how Obama, as a public figure, should be held to a different standard where his judgment is concerned.

    There was nothing dishonest in nycstray's comments, but there does seem to be a whole lot of denial about and understanding of what it means to "go after" someone, and drawing a line from a rational and credible opinion to a McCarthy-ite tactic seems pretty dishonest to me.

    Kind of brings to mind the question of who is really making a guilt-by-association charge, doesn't it?


    Good point. Cindy stole hers (none / 0) (#5)
    by oldpro on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 03:20:05 PM EST
    as I recall.

    The Palin connection(s)?  Easy.  They're all from Alaska, they're all in the newspapers, and they have children who might (or might not) get married...to each other...and they will, one way or another, share a grandchild.

    Must be a slow news day.


    Troopers (none / 0) (#59)
    by sleepingdogs on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 09:23:02 PM EST
    I would think there would have been more reason for the troopers to NOT wish to protect Palin.  Remember troopergate when she was supposed to have gone after one of their own.  I would think that would have the opposite effect of the troopers protecting her.  Also, wasn't the troopergate verdict sort of rushed to make it look like she was at first guilty of wrongdoing before the election but then it came out afterward that she was not guilty?  Maybe my memory isn't so good.  Maybe MTB will remember?

    Something tells me (4.00 / 1) (#1)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 02:42:23 PM EST
    this marriage maybe placed on indefinite hold.

    Levi already moved to the hinterland (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 02:44:52 PM EST
    In a union job (none / 0) (#23)
    by scribe on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 05:03:57 PM EST
    with benefits, too, no doubt.

    Those Alaska oil-field jobs are pretty much all unionized, aren't they.


    Wow, Oxy is expensive! (4.00 / 1) (#3)
    by nycstray on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 02:56:26 PM EST
    Sounds like she went to the same school on wire tapping as Blago did, lol!~

    Surely that's a misprint. Maybe 100 pills? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Teresa on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 04:38:05 PM EST
    I know some people who sold them every now and then and they got about $10 per pill if they've told me the truth (long story).

    Maybe they are more plentiful in TN than in Alaska. $80 a pill??


    I do know that some scripts are pretty $$$ (none / 0) (#20)
    by nycstray on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 04:50:33 PM EST
    but you would think on the street they should be less? I should ask my friend downstairs. She just had open heart surgery and had a script for Oxy. When my cat had cancer, I gave him a human med that was over 40 a dose (equaled 2 or 3 for him, iirc). It was based on weight, so I was having a hissy fit about the price since I knew children (and adults) with certain cancers etc needed the drug.

    They do say things cost more up there . . .


    I guess it depends on the strength. I just (none / 0) (#22)
    by Teresa on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 05:03:35 PM EST
    looked up prices and the super strong ones are over $20 each with a prescription. I must be thinking of a different pain pill for $10 or less on the street.

    In trying to figure out why we (4.00 / 1) (#6)
    by oldpro on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 03:21:53 PM EST
    care about this, I suddenly happened on the title of this blog.  Right.  "The polics of crime."


    why? (none / 0) (#9)
    by nyjets on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 03:49:37 PM EST
    "Regardless, I hope Ms. Johnston beats the warrant. I wonder whether she will fight it or take the easy way out and give up her suppliers in exchange for a walk."

    Why do you hope she beats the warrent? Espically if she is guilty, which in all honestly it sounds like she is.

    Because this is a (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 04:01:22 PM EST
    criminal defense site. Read our about page. And I oppose the war on drugs. And oppose the use of snitches who get a break in their own case to rat people out. It is morally bankrupting our criminal justice system.

    This is a perfect example of the politics of crime -- stating in an affidavit that a search warrant is being delayed due to the closeness of the accused to a political candidate. And the allegation about the secret service was false, to boot.


    Reply (none / 0) (#18)
    by nyjets on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 04:32:27 PM EST
    "And I oppose the war on drugs."
    But drug use is against the law. If use deal in drugs, you are breaking the law.

    Also, the "snitches" in this case bought drugs from the woman. In this case, her actions speak louder than anything that the "snitchs" may have said.
    WIthout snitches, most crimes would go unsolved. There use needs to be regulated, but certainly not abandoned.

    FInally, it seems to me that warrent getting squashed would be for a minor point and does not change the fact that the woman is guilty. That bothers me more than if the police waited until after the election.


    was there a trial already? (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by cpinva on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 05:04:01 PM EST
    and does not change the fact that the woman is guilty.

    did i miss something?


    this is a criminal defense site (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by txpublicdefender on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 05:07:32 PM EST
    We don't support people getting busted for felonies under any circumstances just because the powers that be have decided that something is against the law.  Many at this site oppose the war on drugs as counterproductive and far too costly.  Saying "but drug use is against the law" misses the point.

    Also, if the warrant is quashed, it would be for a constitutional violation such as staleness.  That is not a "minor point," and, at this site, we care about things like the constitutional protections against unreasonable searches, even when they are used in defense of people who are "factually guilty."  


    The "little thing" you speak of (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 05:10:13 PM EST
    is the Fourth Amendment.  LOL  Not so little.

    Snitches lie all the time; they are the scum of the earth and even prosecutors abhor them personally.  They take the place of real police investigation and are simply unreliable for the most part.

    Nice that you already know the woman is guilty.  Does that mean we need no trial??  Hey, let's just hang her.


    Lying cops is "a minor point?" (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 11:03:24 PM EST
    I haven't followed this too closely... (none / 0) (#17)
    by EL seattle on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 04:26:06 PM EST
    ... but a lot of what I read before seemed to be drawing a connmection between the nature (felony level) of her her arrest and meth lab operations.  

    Is oxycontin used in the creation of meth?  I'm not quite up to speed on what chemicals are used to make what drugs anymore.

    Also, did she manufacture the package of 179 pills?  

    I didn't see much in the story about who she got the package from, or whether there are any doctors or pharmacists in Alkaska that have ever been involved in this sort of abuse of the drug.

    no (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by txpublicdefender on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 05:09:36 PM EST
    Early speculation was that it was a meth lab bust.  That was based on the fact that she was charged under a statute that prohibits "manufacture and delivery," and that Wasila was apparently known to have a big meth problem.  Many of us pointed out that such speculation was just that, since the statute encompasses both delivery and manufacture, and drugs of all sorts.

    As it turns out, she was dealing--not manufacturing--oxycontin, with no connection to meth whatsoever.


    Also, Wasilla is known as the meth capital of (none / 0) (#29)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 05:11:27 PM EST
    Alaska.  Can you believe that?? Little Wasilla.

    Hardly unique. (none / 0) (#53)
    by Fabian on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 08:20:14 PM EST
    Due to its highly addictive nature, meth is widespread, rural, urban, suburban.

    Oxycontin (none / 0) (#50)
    by JamesTX on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 08:10:38 PM EST
    Oxycontin is a trade name for preparation containing a common opioid narcotic named oxycodone. It is essentially equivalent to other narcotic analgesics such as morphine, except for minor variations in strength of effect, time it stays in the system, etc. Overall, it is most simply thought of as equivalent to morphine as far as effect (and has almost the same chemical structure).  It is made from raw material obtained from the opium poppy,  just like heroin and morphine.

    The Oxycontin product is actually not just the drug, but also the pill structure itself. It is made by a company named Purdue Pharma. The product, originally patented by Purdue, amounts to the drug oxycodone packaged in a time-released tablet which slowly dissolves in the digestive system to deliver the drug over an extended period of time.

    Since oxycodone has been around for decades and all patent rights have long expired, Purdue made this product and patented it based on the time-release pill. Eventually, Purdue was busted and fined by the Feds, who won a judgment lifting some 600 million dollars to be paid directly into the drug war coffers. No Purdue execs ever faced any serious charges. The Feds essentially just lifted the money. The courts in the meantime had a little conflict about whether the patent was even valid. When the money belonged to Purdue, the decision seemed to be it was not. When the Feds got the money, the patent seemed to look a lot more valid.

    Most pharmaceutical companies stay away from opioids  because  they can't be patented. Purdue tried to bypass that problem with the time-released pill patent, but they clearly lost the battle. On the whole, the pharmaceutical industry fears opioids and most probably want them illegal because they are very effective for killing pain, and might cut into the market for more profitable, patentable drugs.

    The actual value of all these drugs is very low, as they are easily made from the poppy. Any market value they have is due to patents or contraband laws.


    I'd need to read the affidavit (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 06:40:04 PM EST
    to make any informed judgment on whether the information serving as the basis for the judge issuing the search warrant was "stale."  

    How long has oxycontin been called (none / 0) (#47)
    by ding7777 on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 07:19:55 PM EST
     "hillbilly heroin"?

    Did you ever infer that Rush Limbaugh used  "hillbilly heroin"  for sending his housekeeper to a Denny's parking for the buy??

    Well over ten years. (none / 0) (#51)
    by Fabian on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 08:17:21 PM EST
    It is a curse because people often didn't know what they were taking.  Opiates are central nervous system suppressants.  Mix them with alcohol and you can get a fatal overdose.  Plus the whole addictive narcotics problem.  

    (Got a friend who is hoping the cops catch a neighbor who apparently is the prime suspect behind a rash of B&Es, probably to support his habit.  When you have multiple B&Es happen while your family at home asleep....)


    please... (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by JamesTX on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 08:55:04 PM EST
    It is a curse because people often didn't know what they were taking.

    I find it hard to believe that people who were legally taking the drug didn't know what it was. Doctors usually make it quite clear what they are prescribing when they prescribe narcotics. For those taking it illegally, how can the drug or the manufacturers be held responsible for what others do?

     Opiates are central nervous system suppressants.

    Depressants. Central nervous system depressants. Suppression was a term used by Freud, and it means something quite different.

    Mix them with alcohol and you can get a fatal overdose.

    The same is true for mixing tylenol with alcohol, and a great many other common drugs that are not demonized by reference to this danger.

    Plus the whole addictive narcotics problem.  

    Alcohol? Nicotine? Many, many things in life are addictive, but they are usually not called "curses".

    (Got a friend who is hoping the cops catch a neighbor who apparently is the prime suspect behind a rash of B&Es, probably to support his habit.  When you have multiple B&Es happen while your family at home asleep....)

    Sounds like you are really in the know about enforcement. I'm impressed. Let's wait until they bust your neighbor and confirm that he is, in fact, breaking into homes while people are asleep because of oxycontin. That "while your family at home asleep" part really adds some nice fear value. It really sends people running in panic from this little chemical. But I suspect this is more about the person than the drug -- if there is a drug, and if your neighbor is in fact doing B&Es, and if your theory is correct.


    Couple of things... (none / 0) (#61)
    by Anne on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 11:13:30 PM EST
    One, my husband was prescribed Oxycontin at least 10 years or more ago, for a problem he was having with bone spurs in his cervical vertebra that were causing excruciating pain from his neck to the tips of his fingers on one side.  This was a couple years before Oxy became such a problem - all he knew was they packed a wallop and he had to stop taking them after a couple days because he couldn't function.

    Two, a lot of people who are prescribed drugs these days - any drug - get the generic version in accordance with their insurance coverage, so would have no idea they were taking oxycontin, which is a brand name.

    Three, there was a local sportscaster in my area who was arrested for stealing his neighbor's cancer drugs, a couple years after he ran into trouble forging prescriptions - so don't be quite so quick to dismiss anyone's anecdotal evidence about homes being broken into to get access to drugs.

    Four, you would be surprised to know that doctors aren't always the ones who have the firmest grasp on the drugs they are prescribing - that would be the pharmacists.

    Five, a lot of people with no intention of getting hooked on narcotics get headed down that road with nothing more sinister than a doctor's prescription.  Sure, the drugs serve a purpose and sometimes they work, but even doctors don't know why one person can take a drug for a limited period of time and never have a problem, while others' problems are only beginning with a prescription for 2 weeks' worth of pain medication.

    And until they figure that out, I don't think drugs like oxycontin should be as easy to get as tylenol.


    Yeah, his son (none / 0) (#72)
    by Fabian on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 04:03:04 AM EST
    is currently keeping a weapon in his room.  I prefer the police catch him for B&E than get tangled up in other charges.

    Since 2001 (none / 0) (#52)
    by squeaky on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 08:17:49 PM EST
    Earliest Citation:
    "Proven Effective in Low Back Pain," reads the medical journal ad, showing a carpenter reaching for his lumbar area. Doan's pills? Bayer aspirin? Tylenol? The ad is for OxyContin, a potentially lethal, highly abused painkiller, one a local pharmaceutical representative calls "hillbilly heroin" for its recreational popularity among rural Appalachians.
    --Greg Stone, "This painkiller can kill," The Sunday Gazette Mail, March 25, 2001,



    You are right. (none / 0) (#58)
    by robert72 on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 08:55:39 PM EST
    You just don't get it. Whatever Sarah Palin's ideas are on a variety of topics, the lady is competent. Very, very competent. Being competent is rare, especially in political circles, and if a woman is competent it is looked at as a liability by SOME people. The people of Alaska seem to like honesty and competence.

    Seems to me Johnston's only crime... (none / 0) (#75)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 09:05:31 AM EST
    was having the audacity to try and compete with CVS, Walgreens, and Rite-Aid.  Oh, and the AMA too.

    Another soon to be politcal prisoner....very sad.  Two families thrown into tyrannical turmoil, meanwhile all Johnston's customers in Alaska have already found another connect, guaranteed.  Talk about a tyrannical waste of time and money.

    I think it's silly to complain (none / 0) (#76)
    by ChrisO on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 09:42:32 AM EST
    about people discussing this because Sherry Johnston's relationship to Sarah Palin is somewhat distant. We've just come off an historic, contentious election, and anything involving the principles is going to be news. All of these "why ate we even talking about this" posts are just willfully ignoring reality, IMO. If Chelsea Clinton was engaged to a guy whose mother was busted for drugs, there would be even more of a firestorm.

    That said, it doesn't seem to me to have any connection to Palin's principles, campaign statements, etc. I thought she was being divisive an idiotic with her claims about the "real" America, but I don't think any wrongdoing in a small town immediately makes her a hypocrite. And she certainly isn't accountable for Sherry Johnston's actions.

    As for the delay in the warrant, I'm sure if I was a criminal defense attorney I would be a little more exercised about it. But it doesn't seem that the delay was that egregious from a time frame aspect. The fact that it was held until after the election, even if it was to avoid embarrassment for Palin, means little to me. I guess I'm jaded, but I assume the state police will handle a case differently if the Governor's extended family is involved, VP candidate or not. Not saying that makes it right, but I think it's tilting at windmills to rail against it.