Comments on: Whistleblower alleges pressure at State Investment Council; four members say it never happened http://newmexicoindependent.com/49323/whistleblower-alleges-pressure-at-state-investment-council-four-members-say-it-never-happened New Mexico news and politics Fri, 02 Sep 2011 18:15:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: N-Bone Dog Treats http://newmexicoindependent.com/49323/whistleblower-alleges-pressure-at-state-investment-council-four-members-say-it-never-happened#comment-28585 N-Bone Dog Treats Wed, 26 May 2010 22:57:50 +0000 http://newmexicoindependent.com/?p=49323#comment-28585 There is no law that prohibits telling the truth outside of court. They could tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, if they wanted to. I think There is no law that prohibits telling the truth outside of court. They could tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, if they wanted to. I think

]]> By: ched_macquigg http://newmexicoindependent.com/49323/whistleblower-alleges-pressure-at-state-investment-council-four-members-say-it-never-happened#comment-21694 ched_macquigg Wed, 10 Mar 2010 09:03:44 +0000 http://newmexicoindependent.com/?p=49323#comment-21694 Saying; “The statements made about Secretary Miller are grossly untrue and defamatory,” is different than saying Secretary Miller did not do anything wrong. One speaks the allegations, the other to the actual conduct.<br><br>Saying, “It would be inappropriate to comment further due to pending litigation.” is nonsense.<br><br>“It would be inappropriate to comment further due to pending litigation.” is a specious argument. <br><br>There is no law that prohibits telling the truth outside of court. They could tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, if they wanted to.<br><br>In fact they would, if the truth was exculpatory. They wouldn't be hiding it; they would be publishing it as widely as they could.<br><br>There is a fundamental ethic. It is truthtelling. Saying; “The statements made about Secretary Miller are grossly untrue and defamatory,” is different than saying Secretary Miller did not do anything wrong. One speaks the allegations, the other to the actual conduct.

Saying, “It would be inappropriate to comment further due to pending litigation.” is nonsense.

“It would be inappropriate to comment further due to pending litigation.” is a specious argument.

There is no law that prohibits telling the truth outside of court. They could tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, if they wanted to.

In fact they would, if the truth was exculpatory. They wouldn't be hiding it; they would be publishing it as widely as they could.

There is a fundamental ethic. It is truthtelling.

]]> By: ched_macquigg http://newmexicoindependent.com/49323/whistleblower-alleges-pressure-at-state-investment-council-four-members-say-it-never-happened#comment-19974 ched_macquigg Wed, 10 Mar 2010 03:03:44 +0000 http://newmexicoindependent.com/?p=49323#comment-19974 Saying; “The statements made about Secretary Miller are grossly untrue and defamatory,” is different than saying Secretary Miller did not do anything wrong. One speaks the allegations, the other to the actual conduct.<br><br>Saying, “It would be inappropriate to comment further due to pending litigation.” is nonsense.<br><br>“It would be inappropriate to comment further due to pending litigation.” is a specious argument. <br><br>There is no law that prohibits telling the truth outside of court. They could tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, if they wanted to.<br><br>In fact they would, if the truth was exculpatory. They wouldn't be hiding it; they would be publishing it as widely as they could.<br><br>There is a fundamental ethic. It is truthtelling. Saying; “The statements made about Secretary Miller are grossly untrue and defamatory,” is different than saying Secretary Miller did not do anything wrong. One speaks the allegations, the other to the actual conduct.

Saying, “It would be inappropriate to comment further due to pending litigation.” is nonsense.

“It would be inappropriate to comment further due to pending litigation.” is a specious argument.

There is no law that prohibits telling the truth outside of court. They could tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, if they wanted to.

In fact they would, if the truth was exculpatory. They wouldn't be hiding it; they would be publishing it as widely as they could.

There is a fundamental ethic. It is truthtelling.

]]>