Troopergate probe: Palin abused power but had the right to fire Monegan
posted at 9:55 pm on October 10, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Look at it this way: If the race was close right now, this would be a killer. As it is, it’s just one more shovel blow to the back of the skull.
Feel better?
Finding Number One
For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) provides
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.
Finding Number Two
I find that, although Walt Monegan’s refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety. In spite of that, Governor Palin’s firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.
Team Maverick’s statement:
Today’s report shows that the Governor acted within her proper and lawful authority in the reassignment of Walt Monegan. The report also illustrates what we’ve known all along: this was a partisan led inquiry run by Obama supporters and the Palins were completely justified in their concern regarding Trooper Wooten given his violent and rogue behavior. 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. The Governor is looking forward to cooperating with the Personnel Board and continuing her conversation with the American people regarding the important issues facing the country.
Here’s the PDF of the report. Don’t be daunted by the size; the crux of it’s only six pages long, spanning pp. 65-71. In a nutshell, she had legitimate and illegitimate reasons to fire him. The former means the termination itself was lawful, the latter means her compliance with the ethics statute wasn’t.
Political fallout? The base won’t care and left hates her already, so we’ll probably see a few more independents peel away and that’s it. This does give The One a handy reply, though, the next time she questions his character on the stump, and needless to say McCain’s rhetoric about cleaning up government will be highly nuanced indeed from now on. Should make for an entertaining topic during the next GOP primaries, too. For once, Hewitt’s immortal, much-mocked line from last winter is right on target. You know who really benefits from this? Mitt Romney.
Exit quotation: “Legislators, journalists and others were greeted at the elevator outside the meeting room by a group of McCain-Palin campaign volunteers who were dressed as clowns and who said, ‘Welcome to the kangaroo court.’”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Soooooo. Now that the report is issued, I’m sure this means the hordes of drive-by media are now en route to Chicago to start investigating OBobbles connections to Ayers, Rezko, the 800K to ACORN, his earmarks for friends and relatives, etc.
Right?
/sarc
91Veteran on October 10, 2008 at 11:42 PM
The only thing I can say, DrSteve, is that there are two intertwined but legally distinct issues in the report. a) Did Palin have the right to fire Monegan. Yes, absolutely. No question, and no reason needed. b) Did Palin abuse her office to get at Wooten? Yes. Absolutely. Unethical and illegal.
trailboss on October 10, 2008 at 11:42 PM
lowanslow:
I was referring to the Obama supporters and Democrats who were part of this little endeavor. And from what I hear, Palin had a lot of enemies in the Republican party too.
Perhaps it was her father’s security she was most interested in and maybe she honestly felt that she and her husband could deal with the threat themselves if need be.
As for inadequate punishment for troopers by pushing legislation, that is crazy. There is not supposed to be one sit of laws for cops and one for the rest of us. Why should anyone have to pursue legislation for that?
Tell me, if this Wooten character had finally carried out his threat and {as he put in front of witnesses} put a bullet in the old man’s head, would it have been okay to fire him then?
But then again, he is still on the job. I wonder if he is still under a restraining order and if he still has to turn in his weapon at the end of a shift?
Terrye on October 10, 2008 at 11:43 PM
Let’s look at the findings and remember, this is from a group that has no real power. But what I see here is telling (mind readers – emphasis added):
Finding Number Two
I find that, although Walt Monegan’s refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety. In spite of that, Governor Palin’s firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.
From the WSJ report:
The inquiry, approved by a legislative committee’s bipartisan vote, began The report by investigator Stephen Branchflower was released late today in Anchorage by the state legislative panel that commissioned it. The bi-partisan panel voted 12-0 to release the findings to the public. Legislators said they would have to consider later what, if anything, to do now.
bobsunshine on October 10, 2008 at 11:43 PM
May not have been Monegan’s concern. Should have been.
trailboss on October 10, 2008 at 11:44 PM
faraway on October 10, 2008 at 11:45 PM
trailboss:
Illegal? Unethical and illegal? And the man still has the job?
Terrye on October 10, 2008 at 11:45 PM
AllahPundit has made me so depressed I’m not even going to bother voting on November 4th.
Thanks AP for showing me what a futile waste of time a trip to the polls would have been.
Lincoln on October 10, 2008 at 11:46 PM
uh, referring to Palin. And it’s up to the legislature as to what to do next.
trailboss on October 10, 2008 at 11:47 PM
You’re making stuff up — it wasn’t unethical or illegal and no criminal charges will be laid nor disciplinary action recommended. Why is that that people like you find it just fine to badger a person, totally within her rights to fire, wanted to fire a completely unhinged trooper, but in order to score political points you ignore that major point entirely?
Go over to KOS — your nonsense is more welcome there.
Richard Romano on October 10, 2008 at 11:49 PM
I’m not sure that “absolutely” really describes “it was likely a contributing factor.”
Logically speaking, one can not come to an “absolute” decision based on “likely” evidence.
Which means, of course, that the “decision” is both illogical and inconsistent.
If it was “likely” a contributing factor, then the conclusion must also be “likely”.
If the conclusion is “absolute”, then the supporting evidence has to be “absolute.”
The conclusion is a muddled mess of psychic intuition, and yet the media will continue to blast the over-stated “conclusion.”
-sigh-
Religious_Zealot on October 10, 2008 at 11:49 PM
Oy. Some people will believe anything the media feeds them.
If you read a slightly later update to the APo article, it said there was Republican dissension to the report, but the article provided no detail of that dissension. Obviously not everybody had warm fuzzies over this.
As for being bipartisan, I guess that means some of the good ‘ol boy Republicans who hated Palin for how she governed joined the ‘Crats by attacking her. Republican Lyda Green has been pretty vicious in her attacks on Palin since this started.
As for Palin wanting to have the thug cop fired, as yourself. If some nutball with a badge, expected to uphold a high standard, shot a moose out of season, tasered a 10 year old and threatened a member of your family, I guess you would just ignore his continuing employment allowing him to carry a gun and enforce the law.
Put down the Kool-aid.
91Veteran on October 10, 2008 at 11:50 PM
Absolute disingenuous horseshit. To start with, this little endeavor ws started by 8 Republicans and 4 Democrats long before she picked as a running mate. Then you change it that it was her fathers safety she concerned about and you top it off with the restraining order horseshit. You do know Palin sister got the restraining order when Wooten was out of town, then as soon as he got back challenged it and the Judge rescinded it but not after chastising both Palin and her sister for trying to take away his livelihood?
lowandslow on October 10, 2008 at 11:53 PM
KOS wouldn’t like me anymore than you do, Mr. Romano. Taking a hard look at uncomfortable evidence against your personal political choice isn’t fun for either side. I take that hard look at Palin because she is the ‘One’ on this side of the aisle.
trailboss on October 10, 2008 at 11:53 PM
Regarding further complaints against Wooten for new infractions? That was the context of their conversation. Should Palin not have reported what he saw with his own eyes?
DrSteve on October 10, 2008 at 11:54 PM
trailboss:
I did not see anything about illegal there.
And by the way, having some crazy cop after members of your family is personal. And as for using proper channels, it seems to me that if the supervisor had been doing his job this Wooten would already have been fired.
I get the impression that threatening to use your service revolver to kill an old man, tasering a little boy, and beating your wife is perfectly legal unless someone makes an issue of it.
And the man was not fired. He still has his job. If Palin was ready to go to such lengths to get him fired, why does he still carry a gun and have a badge?
Terrye on October 10, 2008 at 11:54 PM
So the ‘Crats on the panel got what they wanted, a headline stating they had a bipartisan vote on the report about Palin abusing her power.
I guess the little detail that the vote was only about releasing the report was just too minor to include in other initial reports.
91Veteran on October 10, 2008 at 11:55 PM
I’ve never picked it up, which is why so many Palin-aid drinkers here don’t like me. I could really care less.
trailboss on October 10, 2008 at 11:55 PM
Anyone care to help me understand this:
How, exactly, did the firing of Wooten equate to “any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action”? (quoted material from the Ethics law)
The trooper should have been fired for several different reasons, it wasn’t just about the death threat to her father (and how, exactly, is that not important?).
I just simply don’t see the benefit that Gov. Palin got from all of this.
Religious_Zealot on October 10, 2008 at 11:56 PM
Oh no Dr. Steve. Democrats can speed read a 263-page document. Trailboss just skipped your part.
Let’s all just admit it. Whatever Governor Palin did, it did not constitue illegality. I can’t believe that anyone, with a straight face, can actually say that pressuring a subordinate to fire someone is somehow illegal or underhanded. That is laughable. Dirty politics is wrong, no matter which party it comes from.
As I’ve said before, I don’t care if Obama wins or loses. I think he might even be a good president. I guess you could say I’m sort of a “Geraldine Ferraro” Democrat. What I am sick of is people conveniently forgetting that this happens in both parties. After the abuse that this woman, Governor Palin, has endured in this campaign, I would have to say that I DO care about her getting reelected, just so the loopy liberal pundits in the media will end up with egg on their face. Nobody deserves the kind of abuse that she has endured, Republican or Democrat. Bill Clinton didn’t deserve to be impeached for a shoddy trial, and it’s starting to look like this “abuse of power” thing is just that. It reminds me of, as a previous poster stated, the U.S. attorney firings. Bush had every right to do so, but made the excuse that it was because they were incompentent, so the Democrats had a field day with it. It also reminds me of the whole Scooter Libby fiasco. He lied under oath, but the whole trial/deposition was the result of a political witchhunt. Richard Armitage was the one who revealed the name. No wonder our country is in such misery; all politicians do these days is is sling mud and perform witch hunts while our gasoline costs three dollars a gallon. This is apparently a problem at not only the federal level, but at the state level. People should demand better than this. If the worst you can come up with about Governor Palin is that she “abused her power” in pressuring Monegan (spelling?) to fire some lunatic ex brother-in-law who should have been fired in the first place, then you’re grasping at straws. McCain/Palin will probably lose anyway, so talking about Palin as if she’s some kind of Ma Ferguson knock-off ain’t gonna fly. Their fate is sealed.
NathanG on October 10, 2008 at 11:57 PM
How is this illegal? An ethics violation is not a crime. And the actual firing of Monegan is legal.
Terrye on October 10, 2008 at 11:57 PM
Remember, Palin only violated an ethics rule but broke no laws.
faraway on October 10, 2008 at 11:57 PM
thug cop fired, ask yourself. If some nutball
91Veteran on October 10, 2008 at 11:58 PM
You know what’s interesting. Branchflower critisizes the Palin’s for their actions in regards to Wooten, and “pressuring Monegan” with repeated talks about his behavior. And yet, later in the report, he empathizes with them and their frustrations over whether or not actions were being taken in the complaints against Wooten, specifically the threats against the First Family. Further he recommends laws get changed so that some information can be released to those who submit complaints against public employees–rather than being told the standard line of not being allowed to discuss an ongoing investigation.
Enoxo on October 10, 2008 at 11:59 PM
The “reasoning” in the article is worthy of a Ninth Circuit appeals case. ;)
Religious_Zealot on October 10, 2008 at 11:59 PM
Maybe we all should take notice of what Jules Crittenden just pointed out: that the AP rewrote its headline some time after.
But no matter: the first headline is what the MSM goes for. Even though she has done nothing wrong, and that’s what the report clearly states, the damage they wanted to inflict upon her is done.
How I hate (I really hate!) the Media. If there’s actually a revolution of sorts in the future, those MSM bastards would be my first target for a good tar-and-feathering.
newton on October 10, 2008 at 11:59 PM
It doesn’t. That’s why you are right, there is no there there – just a hack job at her.
All such employees work at her discretion. It’d be a silly reason, but she could fire people if she didn’t like their ties. Her choice. No ethics violation, no legal violation.
Spirit of 1776 on October 11, 2008 at 12:00 AM
Nathan:
I said that about the US Attorneys and yes it is all a big game with these people.
For years honest to God thievery was tolerated in Alaska. Real violations were overlooked when the right people got their palms greased. Palin comes along and all of a sudden these guys turn into sticklers for ethical standards.
Terrye on October 11, 2008 at 12:00 AM
Considering the illogical, inconsistent and muddle “reasoning” in the piece…
…I’m wondering if the reason it was released on Friday was to ensure the headline got picked up but not the explanations.
Religious_Zealot on October 11, 2008 at 12:01 AM
Palin report it again and again, and again and again. The state review board decided Wooten was not a threat, and should keep his job. Monegan could have fired Wooten, but it would have been without proper cause, and he would have been sued by the trooper’s union. He was caught in between his legal duty and personal pressures placed on him by the Palins.
trailboss on October 11, 2008 at 12:01 AM
Did Walt Monegan get to keep his State pension?
Texas Gal on October 11, 2008 at 12:01 AM
Phew… she merely has bad ethics. Nothing illegal though. Hoo-ray!
lexhamfox on October 11, 2008 at 12:01 AM
Obviously not too hard of a look since you pooched the difference between likely and absolute, as Religious_Zealot so clearly pointed out.
91Veteran on October 11, 2008 at 12:02 AM
The situation is dire, and has been since McCain decided to bottle up Palin and play by the Marquis of Queensbury rules.
That being said, I am happy that I have not had the opportunity to face a dire situation with Allahpundit in the foxhole with me.
Either the squad would die of depression or do themselves harm just to silence his negativity.
Hint – those of us who travel to other sites see all of the negative information. It might be nice to have this conservative site spend a little more time fighting and not surrendering…
…even if the situation be dire.
Where my visits were morning and evening, now I venture forth every couple days to check in – view the defeatist articles I have already seen – and disappear for another couple days.
maninthemiddle on October 11, 2008 at 12:02 AM
Event 8 to Event 9 is interesting. Monegan tells her he wants to keep her at arm’s length from there on out but can deal with her husband, and surprise surprise, from there on out hears from her husband and not from her: “That was the last time she directly questioned Commissioner Monegan about Trooper Wooten.”
DrSteve on October 11, 2008 at 12:03 AM
He was already retired from local law enforcement with a pension but I see no reason he wouldn’t receive benefits from the year and a half he served as Director of Public Safety.
lowandslow on October 11, 2008 at 12:04 AM
I work for the state of WA. There is almost no way to avoid violating some ethics law even if you’re on your best behavior. These things are major political traps waiting to happen.
I was at a new employee briefing at the state capitol and the ethics lady started her talk. She told us that we have to be extremely careful because anything you do can be used against you for political reasons. This was a room full of nonpartisan hires too. Imagine the landmines a new governor who upset the political apple cart faces.
That’s not to say this won’t hurt Palin. But don”t kid yourself, those of you bashing her. This was a trap, plain and simple.
hump1201 on October 11, 2008 at 12:05 AM
So why bother taking a “hard look” at anything? or bother to post your drivel here?
91Veteran on October 11, 2008 at 12:05 AM
Take a powder.
ronsfi on October 11, 2008 at 12:07 AM
So Monegan invited more discourse from Todd.
Hm.
Enoxo on October 11, 2008 at 12:09 AM
No, you’re mixing up things like “senate rules’ and actual statutory law. The US Senate’s ethics rules govern member conduct to the extent the Senate cares. The Alaska Ethics Act is statute, a law, and the Gov. is required to obey it. The report says Palin broke the law. What is the penalty? Good question. Apparently it is up to the Alaska legislature to determine.
trailboss on October 11, 2008 at 12:09 AM
trailboss:
Well someone should have been fired. So they decided that Wooten was not a threat. The fact that he had already scared off 4 wives, had been known to have brawls in bars etc gave them no pause.
That must be some Union those troopers have up there.
Terrye on October 11, 2008 at 12:12 AM
Look, in this narrow respect I agree with you. By whatever process was in place, Wooten was pretty much going to have to kill someone to lose his job. They shot their wad on the worst of the charges and the suspension was all he got. No double-jeopardy either. I am a big respecter of procedure especially in government settings, and like it or not that’s the procedure.
But you’re apparently still accepting the premise that the only possible reason Monegan could have been fired was his refusal to fire Wooten. Monegan’s actions regarding the budget request (and French, and the AK delegation meeting) were firing offenses. Do you not agree?
Now the Wooten stuff is more dramatic and evocative, to be sure, but that doesn’t mean that was the actual reason he was fired. Palin’s political enemies in both parties are big-game hunting here.
DrSteve on October 11, 2008 at 12:13 AM
trailboss:
I am not sure you know what you are talking about. If they are going to find her guilty of some kind of crime or something, she has to have the right to defend herself. I think you are off somewhere.
Terrye on October 11, 2008 at 12:13 AM
I’m not drinking the Palin kool-aid either. In fact, with all due respect to her, McCain could have picked a candidate with more federal gravitas. She just doesn’t know anything about federal politics. She should have stayed in Alaska. She knows her stuff on Alaska, or as far as I’m concerned, she wouldn’t be governor. I also think BOTH McCain and Obama should be talking about the issues from now until November 4th, not Tony Rezko, not William Ayers, and not the Keating Five. This is getting ridiculous. That’s why I say the candidates should run on the issues. The state of politics, especially at the federal level, would be so amusing if it weren’t so frustrating and depressing.
NathanG on October 11, 2008 at 12:14 AM
So kool-aiders like you have something to rail against. Keeps your blood pressure from dropping to nil.
trailboss on October 11, 2008 at 12:14 AM
Is “likely” the appropriate standard for violation of the Statute? I am asking because I really don’t know.
DrSteve on October 11, 2008 at 12:16 AM
Remember,…Fugiam ama ama, Fugiama!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVs3iwkAP0k
ronsfi on October 11, 2008 at 12:17 AM
The penalty will be the continued smearing of a good person by partisan hacks, and nitwits who refuse to see this for what it is.
The partisan hacks release a report on Friday in time for the news cycle, with a procedural vote to show it was bipartisan, yet alludes to abuse.
The smearing can then continue freely all weekend, and even if the attacks get refuted, the original smear is out there and will be the only thing the OBobble-bots will repeat.
91Veteran on October 11, 2008 at 12:18 AM
Terrye, this was a report, not a trial. Kind of ’should we have a trial, or is this all baloney?’ Anything of real interest hasn’t happened yet. As to whether the Alaska Ethics Act has criminal, financial, or purely administrative type consequences I can’t answer. And yes, I’m off somewhere on the trail…
trailboss on October 11, 2008 at 12:18 AM
Another interesting comment: Gov. Palin is supposedly is guilty of abuse of power simply for not doing more to stop her husband, a citizen, from contacting government employees about Wooten.
“She had the authority and power to require Mr. Palin to cease contacting subordinates, but failed to act.”
The ethic statute she is deemed to have violated does not pertain to citizens, such as Todd Palin.
I don’t see how they can make a claim she failed to control her husband. He didn’t use special Governorship resources to make these contacts; he used measures that any citizen in Alaska could use to seek restitution for grievances.
Enoxo on October 11, 2008 at 12:19 AM
Seriously, you seem to think you know a whole lot about this case. Are you a state legislator or something?
terryannonline on October 11, 2008 at 12:19 AM
And I was frankly unaware that a legislative body could declare a person in violation of a law.
DrSteve on October 11, 2008 at 12:19 AM
Good question, me neither. The fun is only beginning, unless the legislators decide not to act on the report. And if they do, how will they act? I dunno. Not an Alaskan.
trailboss on October 11, 2008 at 12:21 AM
Truly you would be better off to go back to the trail and boss your sheep around.
91Veteran on October 11, 2008 at 12:22 AM
Guys, I’m getting a bit angry and frustrated at all this. I’m this close to call for a major bar brawl around here. It is obvious that people don’t want to listen to reason, so here comes the beer-bottle-throwing!
Glenn Beck said that the political atmosphere this year reminds him of 1860. 1860.
I guess he is right.
newton on October 11, 2008 at 12:22 AM
I only know what I read. And though I am in government, I’m not a legislator. I have to work with them though, and that’s bad enough most of the time.
trailboss on October 11, 2008 at 12:24 AM
My sheep do their own thing, like their boss.
trailboss on October 11, 2008 at 12:25 AM
I saw this at Jules Crittenden’s:
UPDATE: AP rewrites the lede, adds a kicker. via Boston Herald.
ANCHORAGE, Alaska – Sarah Palin unlawfully abused her power as governor by trying to have her former brother-in-law fired as a state trooper, the chief investigator of an Alaska legislative panel concluded Friday. The politically charged inquiry imperiled her reputation as a reformer on John McCain’s Republican ticket.
Well, in fairness, it was the wild-eyed, exaggerated, in-the-tank reporting on that and other matters, such as the Bridge to Nowhere, that imperiled Palin’s reputation as a reformer. Any calm inquiry into any of it has been sufficient to swiftly set aside concerns about anything but the state of basic journalistic fairness in this country. OK, I’m a little concerned about the media hyperventilation. Someone’s going to pass out, if they haven’t already. But did anyone but Democratic Party hacks … I’m using the term broadly to include Obama’s intellectually dishonest media baggage handlers … really take that politically charged inquiry seriously?
The actual finding in the report linked above, by the way, is that she violated an Alaska statute that states any public official’s action that benefits a personal or financial interest is a violation of public trust with regard to the trooper.
Sounds like an ethics law you could use to indict a ham sandwich, though I didn’t notice any mention of penalties in the discussion of the law in the report. There’s also, of course, the question of whether a state trooper who is making threats and behaving erratically is more than just a personal interest.
The hacks’ finding regarding the commissioner’s firing is that while the trooper issue played a role, so did other factors actually cited by Palin, and it specifically states his firing was a “proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statuatory.” Any unlawfulness is indirect at best in that act, which may be why the AP has since modified its lede.
AP’s earlier, pre-release version of the Troopergate report story laudably includes this cautionary quote:
“I think there are some problems in this report,” Republican state Sen. Gary Stevens. “I would encourage people to be very cautious, to look at this with a jaundiced eye.
Much as I often find myself compelled to counsel people regarding AP stories.
* At google news you might still find link blurbs quoting the original lede, but click in and you get the new one.
Report: Gov. Palin abused power
Detroit Free Press, United States – 2 hours ago
ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin abused her power as Alaska’s governor in the firing of her public safety commissioner, …
Sounds like a vast left wing conspiracy to me.
Terrye on October 11, 2008 at 12:25 AM
Seriously… SERIOUSLY!!! No one answered me in the headline thread… WHAT COUNTRY SHOULD I MOVE TO?!?!?!
RightWinged on October 11, 2008 at 12:26 AM
Without a doubt this has to be one of the most pathetic whining statements I have heard since my kids left puberty behind. But if you want to suck your thumb every time there’s a criticism, go for it.
The fact of the matter is even if this report had exonerated her the media and these Dem slime balls would have found a way to make it look bad.
If Obama wins this election it will be solely due to the media…particularly the AP. They control the message and we can kid ourselves that the bloggers matter, but they don’t. The vast majority of voters don’t read these blogs, they rely on the MSM.
And for all the Liberals faults, and they are massive, they are able to band together and support their candidate. Until Conservatives and Repubs rediscover that, we weill lose.
Now I am going to uncork a bottle of wine, watch a DVD, and plan on showing up tomorrow to volunteer at campaign headquarters here in PA.
Oh, and there’s a new story out on more ACORN fraud in PA, in case anyone wants to add “one more shovel blow to the back of the skull” to the Dems and Obama…instead of giving up.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=14034
Deanna on October 11, 2008 at 12:26 AM
It is.
The MSM are not just in the tank for Obama: they’re in bed with him, too! They’re having nothing less than an orgy with him! An orgy!
newton on October 11, 2008 at 12:28 AM
I’d say TX… or Alaska. Remember, TX was once a republic!
newton on October 11, 2008 at 12:29 AM
You could move to states 51 through 57, just ask OBobble for directions.
91Veteran on October 11, 2008 at 12:30 AM
Off to bed, will check back tomorrow. A good night to all, and I do mean all.
DrSteve on October 11, 2008 at 12:30 AM
Seriously… SERIOUSLY!!! No one answered me in the headline thread… WHAT COUNTRY SHOULD I MOVE TO?!?!?!
RightWinged on October 11, 2008 at 12:26 AM
Trinidad and Tobago. Weather’s good. Only like 72 congress members plus a prez. Easy to get to know, and know where they live.
trailboss on October 11, 2008 at 12:31 AM
trailboss:
So, if the legislature decides that she should be put up against a wall and shot she is supposed to just go along with that?
I don’t know about that. The whole thing sounds like a crock to me.
Our financial system is in meltdown. We have tens of thousands of people gaming the voter registration system and legislators are supposed to punish Palin for this silly nonsense?
Terrye on October 11, 2008 at 12:31 AM
In all honesty, I don’t see anything coming out of this report. The state legislature isn’t even in session until January.
And then, if anything, it’ll be censure at most.
Enoxo on October 11, 2008 at 12:33 AM
I’d fire the damned trooper, too, if he were threatening my sister and acting like the total jerk that he is!
newton on October 11, 2008 at 12:33 AM
Why have political enemies, when you have your side saying “It’s over!” When it’s not over. If Republicans lose this elections it’s not going to be anyone else’s fault but our own. Conservatives listen to the media too often let them define us. We throw our own under the bus.
terryannonline on October 11, 2008 at 12:35 AM
Oh, don’t worry. Many Leftists would love to have all Republicans, down to the precint worker, lined against a wall and executed… or placed in some “re-education” camp in the Alaskan tundra… or drugged and then thrown from an airplane into the sea…
newton on October 11, 2008 at 12:35 AM
And here is something else from Beldar:
Democratic state senator and staunch Barack Obama supporter Hollis French of Alaska boasted in early September that he would provide an “October Surprise” which would upset the McCain-Palin campaign. Indeed, he originally planned to time it for October 31, four days before the election, for maximum impact, until other legislators forced him to abandon that particular strategy.
Today, however, in an episode of political theater that would make Josef Stalin blush, French gave it his very best shot: The investigator he hired and directed, Steve Branchflower, has labored mightily and given birth to a bloated and redundant 263-page report which boils down, for purposes of the ongoing presidential campaign, to two paragraphs that completely contradict one another. And the one of them that’s unfavorable ignores the most important — indeed conclusive — evidence on point, but goes on to provide Branchflower’s guess as to whether Gov. Palin has done anything improper.
Please understand this, if you take nothing else away from reading this post: The Branchflower Report is a series of guess and insupportable conclusions drawn by exactly one guy, and it hasn’t been approved or adopted or endorsed by so much as a single sub-committee of the Alaska Legislature, much less any kind of commission, court, jury, or other proper adjudicatory body. It contains no new bombshells in terms of factual revelations. Rather, it’s just Steve Branchflower’s opinion — after being hired and directed by one of Gov. Palin’s most vocal opponents and one of Alaska’s staunchest Obama supporters — that he thinks Gov. Palin had, at worst, mixed motives for an action that even Branchflower admits she unquestionably had both (a) the complete right to perform and (b) other very good reasons to perform.
Here are the two key “findings,” however (from page 8 of the .pdf file; boldface mine):
Finding Number One
For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) provides
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.”
Finding Number Two
I find that, although Walt Monegan’s refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety. In spite of that, Governor Palin’s firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.
Here’s a note to Mr. Branchflower, who clearly is verbose, but obviously none too keen a scholar of logic: Gov. Palin’s so-called “firing” of Monegan (it wasn’t a firing, it was a re-assignment to other government duties that he resigned rather than accept) can’t simultaneously be a violation of the Ethics Act and “a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority.” This, gentle readers, is a 263-page piece of political circus that actually explicitly refutes itself on its single most key page!
What’s more incredible is that Branchflower utterly ignores the public admission made by Walt Monegan himself that ought to have ended this entire inquiry (boldface mine):
Terrye on October 11, 2008 at 12:39 AM
terryannonline:
Bingo!!!!
Terrye on October 11, 2008 at 12:43 AM
Yes, it seems small in comparison to other events. I’m not sure what else the Alaska legislators have to focus on, though. Stevens is a federal case. The financial system is beyond them. Maybe the Palin evil deed is what they need to remain relevant.
trailboss on October 11, 2008 at 12:44 AM
Enoxo:
I wonder if anything will come of it at all. The legislature has not accepted or signed off on this. They might decide the whole thing is a farce.
Terrye on October 11, 2008 at 12:45 AM
B-I-N-G-O and bingo was his name-o.
trailboss on October 11, 2008 at 12:47 AM
trailboss:
I think I would wait until the legislature signs off on this before I wonder what they will do. This was not some sort of legal proceeding, it was a witch hunt. See my link above.
Terrye on October 11, 2008 at 12:47 AM
newton:
Last time I looked even politicians have a right to defend themselves in a fair and open court of law.
Terrye on October 11, 2008 at 12:49 AM
No, not a legal proceeding, a legal preceding. All about the present and future tense. It could very well be a witch hunt, but how are we to know? MSM? Bloggers? Only time will tell. I take the report with due respect, and I am inclined to believe it, but the final word has yet to be uttered.
trailboss on October 11, 2008 at 12:52 AM
You know something I’ve grown to like about President Bush is that he doesn’t care about media adulation or polls. If President Bush would have listened to polls or the media he wouldn’t have gone along with the surge. And for all the media hate towards him, he’s always stayed calm and collected. You’ve gotta respect that.
terryannonline on October 11, 2008 at 12:52 AM
This report will be terribly damaging to Palin’s efforts to get the code pinko wackos to vote for her. Everyone else will think she should have just used a Louisville Slugger on the SOB.
Limerick on October 11, 2008 at 12:53 AM
Trail boss, and others of your ilk:
Listen up. We knew this was political from the get-go, and it was a foregone conclusion that they were going for the October surprise. The Democrap chair even said so.
So just slither away, ya snake. Keep your belly low to the ground and watch out for the rat poop.
No real need to feed the trolls, apparently they’re already filled with scatum.
Tennman on October 11, 2008 at 12:54 AM
terryannonline:
I know what you mean. I think it takes a certain amount of courage to ignore the polls and the media and just do what you think is right.
Terrye on October 11, 2008 at 12:56 AM
Me and my ‘ilk’ are quite comfortable here. I for one think I’ll stay if only to piss off people like you who claim to ‘know’ anything without solid, verifiable evidence.
trailboss on October 11, 2008 at 12:59 AM
trailboss:
How are we to know???
I think you would have to be really naive or partisan to look at something like this, based on the flimsiest of conjecture coming out right before an election..with its findings contradictory at the very least and think it is anything but a political attack.
BTW, Wooten still has his job. It would be easier to make this claim if the man was still not out there doing pretty much whatever he damn well pleases.
Terrye on October 11, 2008 at 1:00 AM
But with this bunch of people being judges, jury and executioners? Nah, the AP speaks and makes the judgement final. She’s guilty before the court of the MSM and public opinion.
It doesn’t matter what the final court finding is. The media do their damage with their irresponsible headlines, and then she has to figure out a way to get her reputation back.
This wasn’t what the Founders intended.
newton on October 11, 2008 at 1:01 AM
Yawn.
Maxx on October 11, 2008 at 1:02 AM
WE’RE DOOOOOOOMED! DOOOOOOOOMED!
…but seriously, this report is meaningless. Whoopteediddleedoo.
R. Waher on October 11, 2008 at 1:03 AM
What, you mean people who can think? Witch hunts are inherently obvious. And so is your woebegone misenlightenment. Besides, who said you pissed me off? For that, you’d have to, like, matter.
Still want to play?
Tennman on October 11, 2008 at 1:04 AM
Look: jackasses like him are NOT worth our time. Don’t argue with him: he makes you look like an idiot, and he gets annoyed because you still think of him as a jackass.
We’re talking of a different species here…
newton on October 11, 2008 at 1:06 AM
From the above link, this is worth repeating:
Please understand this, if you take nothing else away from reading this post: The Branchflower Report is a series of guess and insupportable conclusions drawn by exactly one guy, and it hasn’t been approved or adopted or endorsed by so much as a single sub-committee of the Alaska Legislature, much less any kind of commission, court, jury, or other proper adjudicatory body. It contains no new bombshells in terms of factual revelations. Rather, it’s just Steve Branchflower’s opinion — after being hired and directed by one of Gov. Palin’s most vocal opponents and one of Alaska’s staunchest Obama supporters — that he thinks Gov. Palin had, at worst, mixed motives for an action that even Branchflower admits she unquestionably had both (a) the complete right to perform and (b) other very good reasons to perform.
Terrye on October 11, 2008 at 1:07 AM
I know. But sometimes I get the strongest urges to poke a stick at a skunk, even though I know what’s going to come streaming out of his most-used orifice.
Heh.
Tennman on October 11, 2008 at 1:09 AM
And they very well may not sign off on this report for the simple fact that Branchflower contradicts himself in multiple places throughout the report–especially in the two main factors he finds.
I like the part where he chastizes the Palins for repeatedly looking into the investigation of Wooten, prior to her being elected as Governor, and uses them as evidence of them having a vendetta against Wooten and a sign that she abused her power.
And then several dozen pages later, he empathizes that they HAD to keep inquiring about the investigation of Wooten, because the law is badly written to deny complatent’s their right to know if their complaints are being taken seriously, and recommends the law be changed to allow some information to be released.
Enoxo on October 11, 2008 at 1:11 AM
I am not sure what this will mean in the long run. I think that Palin can make a strong case for herself here and since it is election time I think a lot of people will think this is just more persecution of the woman.
Terrye on October 11, 2008 at 1:12 AM
You were certainly pretty “absolute” in a previous comment, based on the “solid, verifiable evidence” of “likely”.
91Veteran on October 11, 2008 at 1:14 AM
http://media.adn.com/smedia/2008/10/10/19/349-Response_to_Branchflower_Report_10-10-08.source.prod_affiliate.7.pdf
Here’s a response by the Governor’s attorney.
Enoxo on October 11, 2008 at 1:14 AM
Enoxo:
I got the impression the whole report is like that. That might be why it was released on Friday evening, they just wanted a headline. It won’t help, but I am not sure it will hurt either. This is something that was well known to begin with.
Terrye on October 11, 2008 at 1:15 AM
I understand your view, Terrye, but you are putting 2 and 2 together and getting 9. It may be as you say. It may not be as you say. Right now it is nothing but conjecture and pre-determining the outcome to dismiss it on those grounds you raise. Even if the genesis of the report is political, or it is politically propitious to release it now, I don’t know; but regardless of the intent of the Alaska or other pols, the only meaningful question to me is: Is the substance of the report supported by evidence, and do the conclusions follow from the evidence?
If the latter two are reasonable to assume, this report is damaging to Palin, and it should be, regardless of her party affiliation. It calls into question her judgment and propriety. If it turns out to be true, and we didn’t know about it prior to the election because it was withheld, of what service is that to the country? If it turns out to be false, then Palin is exonerated, though perhaps damaged. Then the pols who pushed it should be shot. (figuratively, of course) Doesn’t seem altogether fair either way.
trailboss on October 11, 2008 at 1:18 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »