In our latest descent into the public record of Fred Walser, we look at the fact that Walser has displayed a pattern of not keeping confidences as part of his official capacity as a public servant.
He has on multiple occasions released information to department personnel -- both at the Washington State Patrol, and at the Sultan Police Department -- about investigations being done of them, and twice -- within about a year -- released information to the media that were prejudicial to criminal cases.
Any elected official must be able to keep confidences to do their job. Walser has shown on multiple occasions over many years, and leading up to the incident that resulted in his criminal conviction and one-year jail sentence this June, that he is sometimes either incapable or unwilling to do so.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at August 31, 2008 09:35 PM | Email ThisNote: Do this only if you want to start a war with a nation that is very little / no threat to the U.S. Just keep saying 9-11, 9-11, 9-11 until the mommies are all drowned out by your pro war media machine.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on September 1, 2008 07:28 AMWOW! You should be an investigative reporter. You found an incident in 1994, where some one was upset with Walser for gossiping.
I guess he is not allowed to be human. The man served 40 years in law enforcement -- because of that there are TONS of public records. Stop focusing on the petty. EVERY public official has documents showing people are upset with them. That is the nature of serving your community.
For example:
Val Stevens violated the law, and the public's trust when she evaded paying her taxes by supposedly living in her van.
Dino Rossi violated the public's trust when he was charged with a DUI.
OH . . . and Fred Walser failed to supply a copy of an e-mail to a deputy Sheriff when his SECRETARY was under investigation. and was charged with failing to supply information to a public servant.
The fact is, Walser has been working for this community getting 16mil for US2 as chair of the US2 safety coalition.
Stevens, couldn't get money for the deadly road when the republicans where in the majority in the state legislature.
Val has got to go. Lets focus on the issues, not character assassination.
Posted by: grant harper on September 1, 2008 08:44 AMI spotted a sad irony on your clumsy, and hateful blog.
the grief stricken picture of Walser you are using was taken when he discovered that his assistant was killed on US2 by a drunk driver.
Two issues he has been banging his head against the wall trying to be addressed.
That was before this election season, and before Val Stevens even talked about transportation.
Posted by: grant harper on September 1, 2008 08:53 AM
First, you are, as usual, lying about Val Stevens. You are a liar.
You see, I post facts, and provide evidence.
You post lies, for which you -- obviously -- have no evidence.
I won't even address your lies, because there's nothing to address.
Second, I already proved to EVERYONE that Walser did more than simply failing to provide information. He was engaged in an organized coverup. He knew exactly where the Clinko memo was all along, and he printed up a FAKE log the SAME DAY Clinko gave him the original log.
Even the Democrats on this site aren't buying your lies.
Third, you are also lying about Walser got ANY MONEY AT ALL for U.S. 2. He did not. What actually happened is that Haugen (your fellow Democrat) wanted to give basically nothing to U.S. 2, but millions to an Amtrak station in Stanwood. Val Stevens proposed to move that money from the Amtrak station in Haugen's district to U.S. 2. Haugen was shamed by Stevens into giving more money to U.S. 2. Walser had absolutely nothing to do with it.
Fourth, as a Walser supporter, surely you don't think his long history of dishonesty and violating rules and laws is an issue, but you are all alone in that belief.
Fifth, that picture was printed by the Monroe Monitor when he was charged with a crime. If you have a problem with it being associated with his wrongdoing, complain to them.
Finally, it's not surprising that the supporter of a convicted and serial liar would be lying about both Stevens and Walser.
Hadn't heard about either of these.
Posted by: BA on September 1, 2008 09:31 AMHowever, there's lots of information out there about the issues. The information I am providing -- documented evidence -- is being mostly ignored by the media, and the candidates.
So I'm picking up the slack.
I am serving a specific purpose: educating the public about the fact that Fred Walser has a long history of lying, covering up, ignoring the law, ignoring regulations, making fraudulent allegations against people who get in his way, trying to convince others to break the law, and damning morals and ethics to protect himself and his friends.
And I'm not done yet. There's more Walser lies and coverups yet to document.
You may call it "character assassination." But I ask myself three questions: is it true? does it directly relate to his ability to serve in office? and is it something that the public would want to know about before they vote?
The obvious answer to all three questions is yes. And this is why Fred Walser lost by 19 points in the primary -- Stevens got an even higher percentage of the vote than Kirk Pearson, who is so strong in the 39th that the Democrats didn't run an opponent against him -- because the evidence is getting out.
If only you and yours would affirmatively answer the same three questions when you spread your lies about Stevens. I mean, come on, Fred Walser actually sent out a lie about Val Stevens in the mail. We do not lie. We do not get personal. We do not talk about irrelevancies. We simply give facts that are relevant.
Posted by: pudge on September 1, 2008 09:37 AMAnd I already answered your question about Stevens.
Are you "Law-man 22"? Because he told the same lies about Val Stevens you're telling, just the other day, so obviously either you are him, or you are sharing talking points.
If you are him, perhaps you can account for the other lies he told about Stevens. While we're at it, maybe you can get "Republican at heart" to account for the lies about me, and their lies about themselves.
Again, it's no surprise that almost to an individual, Fred Walser's supporters are all telling lies. Buit it's still disheartening.
The Haugen money you are talking about was a separate piece of legislation. Separate from the 16 million Walser secured for US2 after working for over 11 years.
But this does highlight how ineffective Val is at getting resourced for the 39th. Val should have got some of that Haugen money stemming from the gas tax. Republican Schmitt out of the 44th got over 300 million to expand Highway 9 to 4 lanes by working across party lines for his district. Val refuses to do this.
The gas tax increases were tied to specific projects. On the 9 1/2 cent gas tax increase, voters essentially approved the projects in rejecting an initiative to repeal the tax. US 2 safety projects weren't in the mix then. The list included 532, and it'd be tough to take a project off the list that voters approved. The money from those gas tax increases has already been overspent.
It'd be interesting to take a look at the $2 billion now eye-balled for making US 2 a four lane freeway to Stevens Pass and see how many of those improvements are primarily safety related.
Now you have a bunch of completely partisan GOP activists (and the Senate GOP leadership) targeting Fred Walser because they want to beat him this fall. If Haugen (the current chair) and Walser are beat, the next Chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee will be from Spokane, not Skagit, Island and Snohomish counties.
Spokane is a long way from being concerned about US 2. It has its own big 2 lane road to fix that runs north/south. Walser now is targeted, but if elected much to the benefit of the people of the counties he serves because of his leadership position on transportation, and his tenacity in using it to deliver real things.
Who does val serve if it is not our district. Probably the major contributors to her campaign, including Phillip Morris, Walmart, Comcast, and Quest. She needs to be responsible to the people.
I don't care if Val Stevens is an axe murderer. Compared to a dirty cop, that's character.
As a famous democrat once said, (paraphrasing here) "I know Val Stevens. And neither you nor that scumbag you're shilling for are any Val Stevens."
Posted by: hinton on September 1, 2008 10:35 AMYou're lying. Walser did not secure that money for U.S. 2. It never happened.
And Val Stevens DID. She shamed Haugen into adding it to the transporation budget.
And why wasn't U.S. 2 on the gas tax? Because, according to Haugen herself, Haugen was punishing the voters of the 39th LD. Why would anyone in the 39th LD WANT her as the chair? Your jingoistic scaremongering about Spokane is stupid, since Haugen is already opposed to helping the 39th LD, and someone from Spokane wouldn't be looking to punish anyone.
And no, many of us attacking Walser are not completely partisan. We even have Democrats and non-partisans on our side, including many people from Sultan and Monroe, who simply know the fact that Walser lacks the integrity to serve in the Senate.
Now, please answer for your other lies. Are you willing to even try to back up your lies?
I am careful. Very careful. That's why none of Walser's supporters have been able to disclaim anything I've said, and instead they just throw out personal attacks.
And that's "Qwest," moron. $2500 to Gregoire. Does Qwest own her? Qwest has given $10G to the Harry Truman Fund, $5G to the state democrats, and they've maxed out to Hargrove, Kastama, Frasier, Sullivan, Hunter, Jacks, Rasmussen, Senate democrats, McDermott, Wallace, Hunt, Jarret and dozens of others on the left.
Comcast: $2800 to Gregoire. Does Comcast own her? Comcast also gave $13,500 to the state dems, $1,500 to the Truman Fund, and maxed out to Prentice, Chopp, Rockefeller, Morris the Wifebeater, Kessler, and other leftists. Do they own THEM?
WalMart has maxed out to Hurst, Takko, MM Haugen, Pettigrew, Clibburn, Fromhold, Kirby and other leftists. Does WalMart own THEM?
Careful, Harper. You don't have all that much room to talk. After all, if Stevens is only going to "serve" the major contributors to her campaign," doesn't that also hold true for all the democrats they've contributed to, not to mention the fact that most of your ilk, including that scumbag you're fronting for, are wholly own union and tribal subsidiaries.
So knock off your rank hypocrisy. It reeks... like you do.
Posted by: hinton on September 1, 2008 12:05 PMDid you obtain rights to the photo from the newspaper or photographer?
Typically when rights are granted or sold, there's a credit required.
Very easy now with the internet to take a photographer's work.
Posted by: BA on September 1, 2008 06:45 PMThe doctrine of "fair use" doesn't apply to what you did here. You should know that.
Stealing is stealing.
Posted by: BA on September 1, 2008 07:32 PMUm. It's fair use. Read up on copyright law. I do, in fact, know that it does, in fact, apply.
You see this every single day in politics: images from media sources used in campaigns and commercials. Happens literally all the time.
For example, see this new video from Barack Obama, which uses many unattributed videos, and without permission.
It's not stealing, it's perfectly legal and legitimate.
Nice try though.
I have on occasion hired photographers, purchased their work, and arranged for their fair compensation when their work is published in print and on the web.
What you have done, lifting a photo unattributed from someone else and using it is theft.
Playing fast and loose with others property and claiming you have a "right" to use it...where have we seen that behavior before?
You're wrong, you're lying, and you should be ashamed.
Posted by: BA on September 1, 2008 09:29 PMYou obviously don't know what Fair Use means, because none of what you say applies to Fair Use. If you knew what Fair Use was, you would be talking about the four legal factors of Fair Use, not whether someone else owns it, which is a given in Fair Use, nor attribution, which is irrelevant to Fair Use.
So excuse me for not caring what you think, since you have proven you don't know what you're talking about. And I don't care if you now go and look it up, because looking it up now won't magically make you an expert.
Posted by: pudge on September 1, 2008 09:37 PMYou didn't find grounds because there isn't any.
You stole property owned by someone else. You altered it without permission. You didn't even have the decency to give them credit.
Pathetic.
Posted by: BA on September 1, 2008 09:46 PMNo one who knows about Fair Use would say what you have. Good-bye.