Panel: Palin abused power in trooper case

[Walter Cronkite]

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is under investigation for the firing of her public safety commissioner.

Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin abused her power as Alaska's governor and violated state ethics law by trying to get her ex-brother-in-law fired from the state police, a state investigator's report concluded Friday.

"Gov. Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda," the report states.

Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan's refusal to fire State Trooper Mike Wooten from the state police force was "likely a contributing factor" to Monegan's July dismissal, but Palin had the authority as governor to fire him, the report by former Anchorage prosecutor Stephen Branchflower states.

However, it states that her efforts to get Wooten fired broke a state ethics law that bars public officials from pursuing personal interest through official action.

Monegan has said he was fired in July after refusing pressure to sack Wooten, who had gone through an acrimonious divorce and custody battle with Palin's sister.

Palin and her husband, Todd, have consistently denied wrongdoing, describing Wooten as a "rogue trooper" who had threatened their family -- allegations Branchflower discounted.

"I conclude that such claims of fear were not bona fide and were offered to provide cover for the Palins' real motivation: to get Trooper Wooten fired for personal family reasons," Branchflower wrote.

The Branchflower report states Todd Palin used his wife's office and its resources to press for Wooten's removal, and the governor "failed to act" to stop it. But because Todd Palin is not a state employee, the report makes no finding regarding his conduct.

The bipartisan Legislative Council, which commissioned the investigation after Monegan was fired, unanimously adopted the 263-page public report after a marathon executive session Friday. About 1,000 more pages of documents compiled during the inquiry will remain confidential, the council's chairman, state Sen. Kim Elton, said.

A spokeswoman for the McCain-Palin campaign responded by calling the investigation "a partisan-led inquiry" run by supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, but hailing its finding that Monegan's firing broke no law.

"Gov. Palin was cleared of the allegation of an improper firing, which is what this investigation was approved to look into," campaign spokeswoman Meg Stapleton said.

She said the Legislature exceeded its mandate in finding an ethics violation. "Lacking evidence to support the original Monegan allegation, the Legislative Council seriously overreached, making a tortured argument to find fault without basis in law or fact," she said.

Rep. John Coghill, a Republican who criticized the handling of the investigation, said it was "well-done professionally."

But he said some of the conclusions were judgment calls by Branchflower, and recommended readers should view them with a "jaundiced eye."

Palin originally agreed to cooperate with the Legislative Council inquiry, and disclosed in August that her advisers had contacted Department of Public Safety officials nearly two dozen times regarding her ex-brother-in-law.

But once she became Sen. John McCain's running mate, her advisers began painting the investigation as a weapon of Democratic partisans.

Ahead of Friday's hearing, Palin supporters wearing clown costumes and carrying balloons denounced the probe as a "kangaroo court" and a "three-ring circus" led by supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

The state senator managing the probe, Sen. Hollis French, fueled those complaints with a September 2 interview in which he warned the inquiry could yield an "October Surprise" for the GOP. But Palin's lawyers already had begun pushing for the state Personnel Board to launch its own investigation, calling it the proper legal venue for the matter.

Source: CNN.com

[Modern Arts]

Mrs. Palin is saying she is innocent (no shit)

Her response was "You got to read the report."

And you, Mrs. Palin, got to start using verbs.

The lawyers representing Palin and her husband, Todd Palin, issued a three-page attack on the investigative report, including the contention that Ethics Act violations can only involve financial motives and financial "potential gain, or the avoidance of a potential loss."

And you, Palin's lawyers, got to start reading:

Article 02. CODE OF ETHICS
Sec. 39.52.110. Scope of code.
(a) The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust.

[Sodomy]

When is she going to address claims that for years she served as a secessionist cum dumptster?

[eponym]

Worst of all was the stupid e-mail heading "she's done."


Stupid everything. That article's written horribly.

A "state investigator?" Not an attorney general or anything...no, of course not. A "report" from a "state investigator" who reports to a congessional oversight committee (that happens to be split along party lines over the issue)...is that so hard to write?

Also, that article overlooks what any left-leaning, stupidly written "news piece" would: A quote from Palin herself on the issue

"There's nothing to hide. Commissioner Monegan has said, 'The governor never asked me to fire him, the governor's husband never asked me to fire him,' and we never did. I never pressured him to hire or fire anybody."

That's from her interview with Charles Gibson, who's an almost bigger ****** than you are.

Now, aside from the fact there's no fucking way in hell anything would or could be done before election day - with the protocol of any punitive action requiring extensive hearings, the subpoenaing of witnesses, filing of motions etc...fuck all that, beyond the fact it won't affect the election, let's look at exactly what she's acccused of doing.

Some guy was fucking with her sister. The guy probably got his job because of her. Anyway, Palin calls the guy's boss and says "fire this prick, he's a fucking asshole." Instead of doing what his boss, the Governor, tells him to do, this guy folds his arms and says "no." So Palin pink-slips his dumbass.

I fail to see what I'm supposed to be upset about.

So, no, she's not "over" as you put it, you moron. The only people that give a shit are people who already didn't like her; everyone else is thinking "Obama doesn't have balls like that."

Now go cut and paste another shitty written, clumsy attempt at a smear piece.

[Short Irish Guy]

Worst of all was the stupid e-mail heading "she's done."


Stupid everything. That article's written horribly.

A "state investigator?" Not an attorney general or anything...no, of course not. A "report" from a "state investigator" who reports to a congessional oversight committee (that happens to be split along party lines over the issue)...is that so hard to write?

Also, that article overlooks what any left-leaning, stupidly written "news piece" would: A quote from Palin herself on the issue

"There's nothing to hide. Commissioner Monegan has said, 'The governor never asked me to fire him, the governor's husband never asked me to fire him,' and we never did. I never pressured him to hire or fire anybody."

That's from her interview with Charles Gibson, who's an almost bigger ****** than you are.

Now, aside from the fact there's no fucking way in hell anything would or could be done before election day - with the protocol of any punitive action requiring extensive hearings, the subpoenaing of witnesses, filing of motions etc...fuck all that, beyond the fact it won't affect the election, let's look at exactly what she's acccused of doing.

Some guy was fucking with her sister. The guy probably got his job because of her. Anyway, Palin calls the guy's boss and says "fire this prick, he's a fucking asshole." Instead of doing what his boss, the Governor, tells him to do, this guy folds his arms and says "no." So Palin pink-slips his dumbass.

I fail to see what I'm supposed to be upset about.

So, no, she's not "over" as you put it, you moron. The only people that give a shit are people who already didn't like her; everyone else is thinking "Obama doesn't have balls like that."

Now go cut and paste another shitty written, clumsy attempt at a smear piece.

The "guy" got his job because he passed a civil service exam and was more than qualified under state guidelines for his hire. There's something called the Pendleton Act which you might want to read about.

She's done. She isn't running in 2012 and, if she does, she'll end up like Giuliani.

You fail to see what you're supposed to be upset about because you're a stupid child who doesn't understand this situation.

"Instead of doing what his boss, the Governor, tells him to do, this guy folds his arms and says "no." So Palin pink-slips his dumbass."

THAT IS ILLEGAL. Palin violated the law, stupid.

[Cheese]

Well, this is completely relevant since:

a) we currently have a Republican VP who thinks he's part of the Legislative Branch. Look where that has gotten us.

b.) Palin said she agreed with Cheney's belief that there is a "a lot of flexibility" in the Office of the VP and that she was “thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president.”

fools.

This is why the accusation of abuse of authority is VERY relevant.

[eponym]

Was Bill Clinton's abuse of power relevant? He didn't just ask a subordinate to fire someone, he asked a subordinate to bend over his desk so he could shove cigars in her vagina. Does that mean he shouldn't have been president?

If you were, say, the head of a company and some guy on your payroll was being creepy to YOUR sister, what would YOU do?

If it came out tomorrow that Obama was under federal investigation for making back-room deals with Tony Rezko, would you change your vote? Would you encourage others to change theirs?



Try and answer at least one of these questions...if you can.

[Cheese]

Ep,

It's time for some straight talk between us.

Bill Clinton indeed abused his position of authority by having sex (I'm going to go ahead and define what he did as having sex) with a subordinate. News of the scandal broke in 1998 and he was not up for reelection. Palin abused her position of authority prior to being announced as the next potential VP of our country. As stated earlier, Palin also stated that she was “...thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president.” Clinton had sexual relations with Lewinsky, though he never suggested anything that might lead anyone to believe that he thought it was appropriate (after the deposition he acknowledged it was wrong) NOR did he ever state anything with as grandiose implications similar to REinterpreting our constitution. I'm sure she does not even know the first thing about it other than the Cliff notes the campaign delivered her. These are obviously two very different situations...

I understand Palin was creeped out by someone on the payroll, however, did she go through the proper channels OR did she bypass them like the maverick she claims to be and abuse her power? If she was willing to abuse her power in that situation, what might she do if she feels that she has flexibility with the Constitution? Making this situation worse, she is not willing to take questions regarding her interpretation of this "flexibility" or any other questions from anyone except Sean Hannity!!! Why would anyone in their right mind want to take a chance with someone who would state this and also not be willing to take questions on it???? Lets not get into the discussion of her stating her beliefs on how god guided the future of Alasks.
Oh yeah, Palin and McCain had high powered attorneys try to stop the truth from coming out about her actions. Is this what we really want? Although she is too dumb to be a scum bag attorney to defend herself, she did everything she could, including hiring one to cover this up. Aren't these enough warning signs? Didn't she market herself as being different from other Washington politicians? How does violating a state ethics law and abusing her power qualify her from being the ethical maverick who is going to ride into Washington and shake things up?

In regards to your hypothetical -- if it came out that Obama was under federal investigation for making back-room deals with Tony Rezko I would be concerned. However, Palin was more than just under investigation, she was found to have "...violated state ethics law and abused her power in doing so." If it came out that Obama did indeed make backroom deals, than I would seriously consider weighing the pros/cons.

Was Bill Clinton's abuse of power relevant? He didn't just ask a subordinate to fire someone, he asked a subordinate to bend over his desk so he could shove cigars in her vagina. Does that mean he shouldn't have been president?

If you were, say, the head of a company and some guy on your payroll was being creepy to YOUR sister, what would YOU do?

If it came out tomorrow that Obama was under federal investigation for making back-room deals with Tony Rezko, would you change your vote? Would you encourage others to change theirs?



Try and answer at least one of these questions...if you can.

[eponym]

Wow!

Wasn't sure if this was the real Cheese or not...thought maybe McBain or one of the few goons he has frequenting this poor excuse for a forum had tracked me to Slush and mirrored your avatar.

Straight talk indeed...too drunk at the moment

TBC!

[Short Irish Guy]

Was Bill Clinton's abuse of power relevant?

Bill Clinton was never censured by Congress for abuse of power. Palin could face trial and/or impeachment for this. She's already been found to abuse her power.

[Short Irish Guy]

Conor Clarke ruined his weekend by reading the entire 263 page Troopergate report:


In support of its contention that Palin acted unethically, the report cites 18 separate events in which Palin, her husband Todd, or one of her employees put pressure on Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan to fire Trooper Michael Wooten, the ex-husband of Palin's sister. Of these my favorite is an occasion in fall of 2007 in which Wooten "was seen [by Todd Palin] dropping off one of his children at school" in his patrol car. Palin called Wooten's supervisor and complained in the hopes of getting him fired. Months later a top Palin aide saw Wooten "driving around the Good Shepherd Church early in the morning dropping off one of his kids in a marked patrol vehicle." The aide also called and complained. Both calls were made in the fervent hope that dropping children at school or church in one's work vehicle was a sackable offense. And on both occasions it was found that Trooper Wooten had obtained permission to drop off his kids.

[Summer Rain]

I find it hilarious that the GOP is still using the "politically motivated" talking point, after it's been explained over and over again the investigation started well before Palin was picked to be VP.

[eponym]

That last post is actually a good starting point for my Cheese rebuttal...

From the President of the United States down to a patrol car cop, anyone can be found guilty of abusing power - if they're scrutinized carefully enough.

A cop who accepts free coffee from Dunkin' Donuts, for example. There's a tacit understanding that police officer will give a higher degree of security - through virtue of his presence - to a place offering free coffee. And while a cop using taxpayer gas to transport his kids around town isn't quite the same as, say, Bill Clinton pardoning over 100 people shortly before leaving office (including a known cocaine trafficker), it can certainly be construed as an "abuse of power."

And again, nobody who didn't already dislike Palin gives two shits about "Troopergate." In fact, with the American economy quite literally in a tailspin, it seems more than slightly ridiculous for Democrats to be making so much noise about it. If Barney Frank were a Republican, I suspect they would be focusing the majority of their ire upon him.

So...let's say, for the sake of argument, that Americans are more interested in electing an administration that will fix the economy - that a second great depression, hypothetically, is higher on their list of priorities than the attempted firing of an Alaskan cop. Who is the better ticket? John McCain, who warned of a potential mortgage collapse in 2005, and Palin, who's been fighting for years to drill in her home-state, thus alleviating at least some of America's dependence on foreign oil? Or perhaps Obama, whose economic dogma mirrors that of Jimmy Carter and whose own brother currently survives on $1 per day? And then of course there's Biden, whose experience as senator of the country's second smallest state will no-doubt bring much to the table.

Troopergate...

[Cheese]

Ep,

Apparently we are going to need a LOT more straight talk.

I'm glad we can both agree that "...anyone can be found guilty of abusing power." However, I think you are still missing the point. Whether or not Clinton "abused his power" through the pardons he made or whether Bush "abused his power" by pardoning Libby does not matter within the context of my previous message. Neither of them were/are running for reelection. However, Palin was just found to have "abused power" and she is the running mate of one of the candidates running for the highest office of the land. In this case the American public has a choice.

Surprisingly, I do not think "Troopergate" has been a major issue for the Democrats. It is relevant when the Straight Talk Express keeps drawing absurd associations between Obama and terrorists, and Palin was described as an ethical Washington outsider who was going to clean things up. This is very relevant.


Warning of a potential mortgage collapse does not necessarily make one qualified to run our economy. In fact, by 2005 the housing market had already hits its pinnacle and was already on its ways down. This was widely discussed. Now if he would have warned of this collapse in 2003 that would have been impressive. Are you suggesting that since she had been "fighting for years to drill in her home-state" that makes her qualified to fix our economy? Are these really the strongest arguments you can make for how this ticket will be able to handle the mess brought on by the last eight years of an administration that had essentially the same exact economic policies that McCain is proposing???? And, what does Obama's brother have to do with anything? Try again...

[eponym]

I'll address the last part first:

What does Obama's brother living in third-world poverty have to do with his chances of bringing all of America back from massive economic crisis? Gee, I don't know. Perhaps it speaks to his character. Perhaps it's just an extremely bad omen.

As far as Palin being an "ethical Washington outsider," she indeed is. The accusations behind Troopergate involve, at worst, her making a professional decision based on personal motivations. This (still unproven claim) was not an attempt at lining her pockets; it was not a move to advance her power or ascend up the Washington ladder. Much like Bush was criticized for nominating Harriet Myers, people seem to forget that politicians, out of pure necessity, must hire people they can trust; a competant employee who recognizes chain-of-command and who isn't going to go crying to the press after breaking it.

Last year, when Bush fired all of those US attorneys, it was because they weren't team players. Everyone knows this. The people who didn't like Bush's team called it an "abuse of power," despite the fact it was Bush's prerogative to do so. Just like with Palin, anti-Republicans "said" the decision was due to "personal reasons," without any evidence to back their claims and, again, conveniently overlooking the fact that Bush, as President, had every right to do so.

And while you and many others seem so certain of what exactly goes on in the minds of Palin, Bush and Obama, the simple truth is that nobody can really know for sure what anybody else is thinking; especially people known only from TV. What we know of Palin, undoubtedly, is the following: She represents the possibility (for the first time since Ross Perot) of fulfilling a promise hinted at in the constitution...that the American government can and should be "by the people," and not at the hands of career politicians. Lest we forget that "people" are fallible - unlike lawyer politicians who merely have "incidents of fallibility" - Palin's vice-presidency would represent not only a vindication of the democratic process, but also a political transparency through virtue of her character.

Politicians are supposed to be custodians of office, not car salesmen capable of convincing us the piss running down our backs is rain. I'll take a Palin or a Bush, bereft of any talent in the fine-arts of bullshit, over two lawyers with oratory skills any day.

You're right about one thing Cheese: The American public does have a choice.