The Alaska legislature's report on Gov. Palin's "Troopergate" scandal was released yesterday. According to the Anchorage Daily News, Palin "abused her power in pushing for the firing of an Alaska state trooper who was once married to her sister, or by failing to prevent her husband Todd from doing so." From the story:
ranchflower's report contains four findings. The first concludes that Palin violated the state's executive branch ethics act, which says 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." . . .
In the second finding, Branchflower says Monegan's refusal to fire Wooten was not the sole reason for his dismissal but that it was a "contributing factor." Still, he said, Palin's firing of Monegan was "a proper and lawful exercise" of the governor's authority.
The third finding says a workers compensation claim filed by Wooten was handled appropriately. Number four concludes that the attorney general's office failed to comply with Branchflower's Aug. 6 request for information about the case in the form of e-mails.
Branchflower writes that his investigation did not take into account late-arriving statements from several administration officials who, on the advice of Attorney General Talis Colberg, resisted subpoenas. They agreed to provide written statements this week, however, after a state judge upheld the subpoenas. Information from those statements was provided to the Legislative Council separately.
In a five-page response issued Friday night, Palin's attorney, Thomas Van Flein, accuses Branchflower and Democratic Sen. Hollis French, who oversaw the investigation, of using the probe in a partisan attempt to "smear the governor by innuendo."
I have not read the 263-page report. Bill Dyer (aka Beldar) has, and offers a critical take here.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Where are the Libertarians on Troopergate?
- "Troopergate" Report Released:
Because she is on the Republican ticket. I thought you would have figured the game out by now.
The report draws a distinction between the pressure placed upon Monegan to do something about Wooten and Monegan's firing. This is for two reasons:
1. Palin did not fire Monegan solely over his handling of Wooten.
2. Palin could legally fire Monegan without cause.
Putting 1 &2 together, Monegan's firing (or undesirable reassignment) was legally permissable.
But that isn't the end of the story. The report also claims that the state ethics law forbids acting in an offiial capacity for personal benefit broadly construed. The prosecutor is of the position that Palin's acts and omissions in pressuring Monegan to "do something about" Wooten amounted to a use of her official position for purely personal benefit.
So note that the prosecutor did not find that Palin's removal of Monegan violated the law. He did find that her pressuring of Monegan violated the law. While you can disagree with either finding, it doesn't seem to me that these are contradictory or even contrary.
How do you federalism guys, or any Alaskans here, feel about the fact that Todd Palin had the run of the governor's office, which has now been taken over by the McCain campaign. Palin's sympathy for the Alaska Independence group is clearly gone.
If Palin's contact with Monegan had really been considered improper, it would have been questioned way back in December 2006 and January-February 2007, when it occurred. It wasn't improper: Wooten threatened to kill someone, was caught drinking on the job, and tased a child. There would have been legitimate questions about her knowing such facts, yet doing nothing to safeguard public safety.
This abuse of process to harass a political candidate is despicable, as despicable as threatening the non-profit status of organizations that allow Palin to speak, and threatening to litigate against networks that air legitimate questions about public figures. We can expect a hell of a lot more of such legal abuse as of January.
I think Hillary used the same scenario as a plank in her platform of experience.
We, including Mr. Palin, have a constitutional right to address our government with grievances.
I have never been one to cry about fairness, so my nose wasn't out of joint because Hillary or Todd had more luck getting doors open than I ever will.
It is worth pointing out that Wooten, despite all of this, is still an Alaskan State Trooper. Presumably if Alaskans were so troubled by these accusations (some of which he admits, some of which he denies) so as to be worried about their safety, they would have raised some outcry about his still being on the force. As best I can tell, the only people who have complained vociferously about Wooten are connected to Palin. While much of this does not trouble me, to pretend like it was some sort of selfless act that any honorable public servant would undertake to protect the public is disingenuous. At heart, this is a tawdry family conflict brought about by a divorce. On a much smaller level, this happens every day all across America.
Beldar and Hugh Hewitt? Nonpartisan sources there.
You are indeed correct. That's doesn't (or shouldn't) diminish the assertions that Beldar made in regards to the report.
The firing was a proper and legal exercise of her power. BUT SOME OF HER OTHER ACTIONS (AND INACTION) WERE AN ABUSE OF POWER AND IN VIOLATION OF THE STATE ETHICS CODE. This is not contradictory at all. Anyone familiar with the law is quite used to such nuanced findings, which don't lend themselves to ten-second soundbites.
RPT and Truth In A - is your word choice (retaliation, lie, fully participated) a rhetorical exercise to inflate the accusation, or do you really not see that the actual findings do not match your narrative?
It's hard to take him at all seriously when his first paragraph is so blatantly untrue. The investigation began on August 1, with a three-month schedule which called for the report's release on October 31.
Palin's selection as McCain's VP pick was not announced until August 29.
Hard to believe that French "originally planned to time it for ... four days before the election" when no one at the time of the planning thought that Palin would be running for anything (even for re-election as governor, as she's only halfway through her term).
It's interesting how much the themes of the Palin ethics violation are similar to the issues raised by the firings of federal prosecutors by the Justice Department. Yes, supervisors have a right to fire people, but it should be done only for legitimate reasons.
In other words, trying to raise the standards is bad.
Yes, going after every bad Alaska State Trooper would be better (which may be happening, but this investigation didn't look at that question), but is that really a reason to keep Wooten around?
You do realize that you're defending a bad apple because of who he targetted....
He probably realizes. But he doesn't see the problem.
Palin's name was always among those of possible VP candidates as far back as May (perhaps even earlier).
As for those who contend that serious questions about Wooten were improper, again: He threatened to kill someone, got caught drinking on the job, and tased a child.
As for the poster who contends that police always police themselves, I honestly don't know how to respond to that level of naivete (or disingenuity).
Really?!? When a State Trooper drinks on the job, tasers his 11 year old stepson, and has made death threats against a member of the Palin's family, you're NOT allowed to protest to the state government that this lunatic is still on the State Troopers?!? It's in the PUBLIC'S interest to get this crazy guy out of the State Troopers.
And of course Gov. Palin had the authority to transfer Monegan (she didn't fire him--she transferred him and then he quit). Monegan was an at-will appointee on her cabinet. She could dump him for any reason.
Honestly, this is such a joke opinion. But again, it has no legal effect. It is--and was only ever intended to be--a political hack-job from Hollis (Obama supporter calling this an "October surprise") and Lyda Green (out for revenge after Sarah caused Green to lose her primary election).
Considered improper by who? Of the people complaining of it now, other than Monegan, did a single one of them know about the contact in December of 2006 or Jan-Feb. of 2007?
Anyone?
If not, what on Earth could possibly be your point?
Of course, IIRC, Wooten's actions took place at the latest, in 2005. Most of them took place in 2003.
Now--using your logic, if Palin and her family had really considered the actions in 2003 (which includes the tasering) improper conduct, they would have officially questioned it in 2003, no? Not 2005?
(2) 2 whole years pass without mention of the incident
(3) Trooper divorces governors relation
(4) Everyone decides that now is an appropriate time to bring it up
We are supposed to take it seriously? If anyone gave half a **** about the tasing, they would have said something around the time when it happened. Instead, it seems pretty transparent that they dredged it up years later out of spite.
Actually, Beldar's post is highly misleading. He quotes language from two different findings, which deal with two different sets of actions:
(1) The first finding covers the actions Palin and her staff took to get Wooten fired. Those were illegal.
(2) The second finding deals with the firing of Monegan. That was legal.
Two different sets of actions. Two different people. Two different conclusions.
This is only hard to understand if you deliberately ignore the actual report.
But the trooper had already been investigated and disciplined. He was suspended, and returned to his job.
Is it your contention that people should be punished twice?
If it's to settle a vendetta, yes.
WASILLA, Alaska (AP) -- The camera closes in on Sarah Palin speaking to young missionaries, vowing from the pulpit to do her part to implement God's will from the governor's office.
What she didn't tell worshippers gathered at the Wasilla Assembly of God church in her hometown was that her appearance that day came courtesy of Alaskan taxpayers, who picked up the $639.50 tab for her airplane tickets and per diem fees.
An Associated Press review of the Republican vice presidential candidate's record as mayor and governor reveals her use of elected office to promote religious causes, sometimes at taxpayer expense and in ways that blur the line between church and state.
Since she took state office in late 2006, the governor and her family have spent more than $13,000 in taxpayer funds to attend at least 10 religious events and meetings with Christian pastors, including Franklin Graham, the son of evangelical preacher Billy Graham, records show.
1) Did Walt Monegan have the authority to fire Wooten even though Wooten had already been disciplined, Monegan had found additional allegations against Wooten without merit and Wooten was covered by a union contract that governs the terms of his employment?
2) Is it proper for the Governor's staff to pressure Monegan to fire Wooten if Wooten believes that there's no grounds to fire Wooten and knowing that the state could be sued for wrongful termination of Wooten if he did so?
Once in the Governor's office they felt they had the power to take care of the problem.
WootenMonegan believes that there's no grounds to fire Wooten and knowing that the state could be sued for wrongful termination of Wooten if he did so?You are deceptively implying that "Palin's contact with Monegan" regarding Wooten occurred only in that timeframe, and ended after that timeframe. That's a gross distortion. The pressure on Monegan to fire Wooten started in 1/07 and continued to at least 5/08.
And this pressure was indeed "considered improper," and was "questioned," by Monegan, as soon as it started, and Monegan promptly tried to warn Palin that it was in her interest to stop.
Finally, Palin fired Monegan, and then the story broke open.
No one outside the family has ever heard Wooten threaten anyone. The allegation of a death threat against Heath (Palin's father) is highly questionable. After supposedly hearing the threat, Palin ran off to a meeting, instead of entering Molly's house to make sure she was OK. Palin waited a month before reporting the threat to Heath. No one mentioned the threat to police until two months later, on the same day that Molly filed for divorce.
Col. Grimes apparently didn't take this allegation seriously, because she didn't mention it at all in her letter suspending Wooten. Even though she went into a great deal of detail, and even mentioned a violation regarding his failure to use turn signals.
Wrong. He was not on duty. He was wearing civilian attire. He was using his patrol vehicle because he had the privilege of using it for personal transportation, in connection with his membership on the state SWAT team.
And the only witnesses to this event (that Wooten carried a beer into the car, before he drove about a mile to his house) are a couple who are very close with Heath. And they didn't report it at the time. The original investigation dismissed this allegation, but later Col. Grimes overruled that finding, and sustained the allegation.
He used demo procedures, because the kid asked for a demo. In a short demo like this, "it would feel like your funny bone was hit." The mom was upstairs and didn't bother coming downstairs to intervene, even though she knew what was happening. After the event, the kid went upstairs to tell his mom he was fine.
No one complained about this until until two years later, when a messy divorce was happening. That's when the Palins finally decided to report this event to the police. A police investigator asked Sarah Palin's daughter Bristol why they were finally reporting it two years later, after being silent for so long. She said "because of the divorce."
quix:
See above.
Except that Palin has admitted that after the complaints they raised in 2005, they never made another formal complaint. Instead, Todd ran around pressuring people. In other words, they tried to do it via the back door, because they knew they had no basis to go in via the front door.
Please consider the following two statements:
A) It was proper for us to try to get Wooten fired, so that's what we did.
B) We didn't try to get Wooten fired.
Do you realize that these two statements are mutually exclusive? Do you realize that Palin started out by saying B, very emphatically, numerous times? Do you realize that folks are switching her defense to A only now that proof has emerged that B was a lie?
This sounds an awful lot like they have absolutely no evidence. They're not even sure who did this alleged improper pressuring?
True, Obama and his people were not acting in any "official" capacity...yet. But as the Presumptive President Elect, his threats do carry some weight. If those letters came from Bob Barr's campaign, I'm sure everyone in the board rooms would have had a good guffaw over them. As someone remarked at the time: 'the lawyers who wrote those letters may be DoJ or FCC officials a couple of months from now'.
On 7/24/08, Power Line wrote about potential running mates for McCain. They mentioned Romney, Huckabee, Ridge, Jindal, Lieberman and Pawlenty. Palin was mentioned this many times: zero.
On 8/20/08, Power Line wrote about potential running mates for McCain. They mentioned Ridge, Crist and Pawlenty. Palin was mentioned this many times: zero.
On 3/17/08, Fred Barnes wrote about potential running mates for McCain. He mentioned Romney, Guiliani, Thompson, Ridge, Lieberman, Crist, Pawlenty, Sanford, and Barbour. Palin was mentioned this many times: zero.
On 6/13/08, Fred Barnes wrote about potential running mates for McCain. He mentioned Cantor, Portman and Ridge. Palin was mentioned this many times: zero.
On 8/19/08, Byron York wrote about potential running mates for McCain. He mentioned Lieberman, Ridge, Pawlenty, and Romney. Palin was mentioned this many times: zero.
I could show you a lot of other similar examples. Yes, there are folks who knew about Palin and liked the idea of her being picked. But the leading righty commentators were generally not members of that group.
You're suggesting that when the Alaska Legislative Council voted on 7/28 to set the original schedule, for the investigation to end on 10/31, that they were thinking about the election. That's obviously nonsense, even before you take into account the fact that the Council consists of 8 R and 4 D, and voted unanimously.
Todd Palin has every right to continue to be concerned about Trooper Wooten's continued interactions with his family. If I were in Todd's shoes, a quick, insufficient report from the State Troopers would not make me feel any safer about Wooten. To put it in legal terms, it's the difference between damages and an injunction. Yes, I would want to be cautious and protect my family from the lunatic with a badge.
So how on earth did the four democrat members of the leg. council strongarm the 8 Republican members of the council into voting for the release. If they wanted to bury this until November 5, 2008, they could have simply voted against release. And no one would be the wiser.
The fact is that at least 8 Republican legislators in Alaska looked at Branchflower's report and concluded that there was enough there there to warrant publishing it.
Miss Sarah two opportunities to fix this. At any time, she could have changed the tenor of her communications with Monegan to make her requests prospective: "Walt, Wooten is a disgrace to the troopers' uniform. I want you to make sure that no one like him is ever hired again." Or, she could have just fired him, confessed to a violation of the ethics rules, and been haled as a maverick for doing the right thing.
No one thinks that Wooten should be allowed to be a trooper. If you or I did what he did, without the shield of a badge, we'd be charged with assault with a deadly weapon (at a minimum--and consider the irony of that charge given how so many municipalities stress that the Taser is a nonlethal weapon). If she'd just fired him back in '07, there would have been some criticism, but ultimately, she would have strengthened her maverick brand.
Instead, she pressured Monegan to fire Wooten and then when he didn't (and when he failed to meet the other expectations she had for him), she fired him. Make no mistake, a transfer can be constructive discharge just as well as an outright termination. Even that may have been something she could have recovered from.
But it's never the screw up that kills a political career. It's the cover up. The way the Palin administration has acted since the end of August has been reminiscent of the worst aspects of the Bush administration. And that's why this will hurt her politically.
It's a shame, really. I think she had a bright future, but this (and I don't mean the report) has tarnished her reputation.
Oh, and Federal Dog? I remember reading about "Troopergate" several months before hearing that anyone had considered putting the Governor of Alaska on a national ticket.
--PtM
The report (and, more briefly, Hilzoy) explains how, regardless of Wooten's actions, Palin acted improperly in her efforts to get him fired.
Then the proper remedy is to go to court and seek a restraining order, not to use your state power to illegally pressure your underlings to fire him.
Wrong. Read the report.
Also, it's been known for weeks that Sarah Palin herself exerted pressure, and has lied about it. See here and here.
Todd Palin had a right to petition his government. I see no restrictions, including the word "formally" on that right in the text of the constitution.
Please show evidence that there were "continued interactions with his family."
And if it was proper for Todd to pressure Monegan to fire Wooten, please explain why Palin said "no pressure was ever put on anybody to fire anybody."
If you read the report, you'll notice that Todd mostly didn't talk about being genuinely afraid. Mostly he talked about his opinion that Wooten shouldn't be a trooper.
No restrictions, really?
What if the Palins "petitioned" their underlings to fire all black troopers?
Some people have actually said some very nice things about Wooten. Consider this:
For evidence of "continued interactions" read the report and read Todd Palin's report to Branchflower (which Branchflower ignored for this report).
And for more evidence about Todd being concerned for his family (and who wouldn't be?), again, read Todd's submission to Branchflower.
Is there a legal distinction between (personal, or in this case, family) benefit and prevention of harm?
It's interesting to note that a temporary restraining order (DVPO) was granted to Molly on 4/11/05, the day she filed for divorce. It was promptly dissolved a few weeks later when the judge found that Molly could present no evidence of violence. Molly had also told police that Wooten had never abused her.
Nevertheless, Palin et al have made many statements referencing this DVPO as proof of violence. And Todd Palin's sworn statement falsely states that the DVPO was extended to 2006. Sarah Palin has also issued a statement falsely claiming that "the Anchorage Superior Court [had found] that [Wooten] had engaged in serious, violent misconduct."
Palin repeatedly describes Wooten as violent and abusive even though there has never been any finding that he has ever been violent toward any person, outside of the Taser incident.
Lots of lies coming from this crowd, even under oath.
While sitting in the governor's office? Is that a right that other citizens have?
Anyway, please explain why Palin said this: "no pressure was ever put on anybody to fire anybody."
Seeing people cite their previous blog comments as though they were authoritative sources, and doing so without any hint of irony, is probably my favourite thing on these internets.
What on earth are you talking about? Todd being upset that Wooten attended a public picnic? That's absurd.
You made this claim:
There is no proof to support that claim. If you think there is, then tell us the page numbers, and quote the text.
I did. There's nothing in there related to idea of "Todd being concerned for his family," outside of the same claims that had been made in 2005.
Aside from the Taser incident, which the family ignored for two years, there was never any finding that Wooten ever inflicted "harm" on anyone.
There was no legitimate reason to be concerned about "harm." The Palins wanted Wooten out of a job because this would probably have led to him losing custody of his kids.
One of my 'favourite' things on these internets is running into people who are so ignorant and click-impaired that they seem to not realize that those other comments I pointed to contain links to primary sources that are indeed "authoritative."
I've already provided the links to "authoritative sources" in another comment. Pointing to that comment makes more sense than pasting in the same links again. Is this really too complicated for you to grasp?
Such hypocrites.
Face it, you don't care if your own are unethical or hypocritical. In fact, it should be in the definition of Republican.
I'll read the report this afternoon, but for now I can say this finding would concern me much more had Branchflower felt he had enough evidence to substitute "and" for "or".
Well, one of the two did. I'd say more, but I already feel bad enough for gatecrashing your thread...
And you could easily get by reading 22 pages: the findings on p. 8 and the explanation of the abuse of power finding on p. 48-68
And if reading 20 pages is too taxing, perhaps start at page54. Pages 48 to 53 tell you:
April 11, 2005 Palin's sister files for divorce.
same day Palin's father makes complaint against Wooten
march 1, 2006 Wooten received notice of Discipline
sept 5, 2006 appeal process completed
Nov 7,2006 Palin elected Governor
Jan 4, 2007 Todd Palin meets with Monegan- asks for review, wishes case reopened- Wooten got off too lightly
To this point although some eyebrows might be raised, Todd is arguably onside, just concerned process has been carried out properly. But once Monegan has reviewed, informed Palin that no new info, case closed, isn't everything after that improper pressure?
What happened to the concept of double jeopardy?
It's true that a lot of what's in the Branchflower report was known before. But he gives us helpful details that flesh out just how utterly obsessed Todd was.
It's also interesting to note the sworn testimony of two witnesses who point out that Palin has lied when she claimed she and her family never knew that Wooten had already been disciplined.
There was already evidence in this regard, but these two witnesses are helpful.
(Is there some kind of "firearm" that isn't "deadly?")
Todd tried to get Monegan to bring criminal charges against Wooten in connection with the moose incident, even though it had happened four years prior. Monegan pointed out the awkwardness of this: Sarah Palin's sister and father were accessories, so they would also need to be charged.
I think the Palin family is headed for a great future as the stars of their own reality show.
His hands are cleaner.
I see that you are repeating the same tired talking points that were debunked on the other thread.
I do see that you dropped "low powered training procedure" and switched to "demo mode." However, It's still a lie. There is no "demo mode" on a Taser. The current and power are the same.
And no, it doesn't "feel like your funny bone is being hit" despite what Tuttle says.
Since you are keen on videos, lets look at some more video.
Here is a lady that got hit by a 1 second burst of the CIVILIAN taser:
Reporter Hit by Taser
She didn't think it felt like "hitting her funny bone."
No, she said it felt like an "electric fence running through her body."
Here is another Marines Hit by Taser
None of them seemed to believe it felt like "hitting your funny bone."
Why do you feel it necessary to lie in order to advance "lord barry" the "messiah?" JBG you are exhibiting the late stages of Palin Derangement Syndrome, you might want to quit sipping on the Obama Kool Aide.
Your problem is that you're citing words that were written by a reporter (who is just being a bit sloppy), and treating them as if they were written by Branchflower. They weren't. Pay attention to what Branchflower said (p. 52):
(Emphasis added.) Now that you know what Branchflower actually said, presumably the finding does concern you "much more." Because he did indeed have enough evidence to use the word "and."
By the way, Palin's emails, published weeks ago, already proved that she herself applied pressure, and was lying when she denied doing so.
He might as well be one of these guys:
CLICK
Let's get these things right.
All hail the messiah
Obama, Obama
The path to the new socialist motherland
Our savior, our savior
Obama, Obama
The leader more famous than Lindsay Lohan
Bow down and praise the one
Give him your money and your guns
Give us a country
That makes your wife proud
Lord Barry heal the bitter ones
White and Clinging to faith and to guns
Hope for the change of the hope of the change!
If The One had been the one in this scandal, the report date would have been punted past the election date like Resko's conviction date was. And to the extent the media wouldn't be burying it, they'd be explaining it away as Yet Another Smear By The Right Wing Attack Machine.
If Palin is being thrown under the bus by so many Republicans, what does this say about her ability to bring bipartisan change in Washington?
Yes. AK law specifically bars state officials from using their position to advance personal interests. Thus, using the governor's office to pressure Monegan was wrong.
If prevention of harm were a real concern, the proper vehicle would be a restraining order or a formal complaint to Wooten's direct superiors.
The references I've seen to an "October Surprise" have it made by someone else. Do you have a link quoting Branchflower as saying this?
Even if he did say it, the R-majority decision to release the report hardly speaks well for the Governor.
Do any of you Palin supporters spend any time litigating in real courts? You can't complain about lack of evidence in a report when the parties did not cooperate in discovery, produce relevant documents and submit to depositions. If your client is innocent a very useful and effective strategy is often to be open and cooperative rather than obstructive. However, it does seem clear that the defense has been managed by the McCain campaign, consisting mostly of Bush veterans, who do not seem to know any way other than obstruction. A skilled defense lawyer would have handled this case much better for Palin than the East Coast carpetbaggers who took over the state government after her nomination.
The report is by Branchflower.
The "October surprise" comment was made by French.
Let's get these things right, indeed.
As for Palins' bogus troopergate scandal, what worries me the most is that she is so inept she could not wield power to nail Wooten. Any Daley or, ha, Obama, would have had Mr. Trooper fired without leaving a fingerprint, or maybe leaving just enough of a fingerprint so everyone knows, but can't prove, this is what happens if you cross him.
Palin was so incapable of wielding power, she couldn't dispose of a lowlife ex-brother-in-law. What the heck is she going to do when she is in DC, home of the big smile and long knives?
Sorry, my mistake. You're pointing out correctly that a comment I pointed to, here, doesn't contain any links. It just tells you exactly where to find them:
Are those instructions really not simple enough for you? That's hard to believe, but I guess you're telling us they are.
If you're in a position to show that your familiarity with the underlying facts is superior to mine, I'll gratefully shut up and listen. Because I'm always interested in learning something new. But I guess what you're really trying to say is that you have nothing even remotely resembling a substantive rebuttal to anything I've said.
And can anybody fill me in on the laws that allow private citizens to acquire personnel files on specific police officers? I could really use that kind of information for some blog posts I'm considering. Maybe I should call Todd Palin?
Frankly the level of stupidity amongst the anti-Palin crowd increases every day. If for no other reason I hope she does get elected so I can come back here to watch the ignorance *increase*.
Point to the "pressure."
@ MarkField
"The references I've seen to an "October Surprise" have it made by someone else. Do you have a link quoting Branchflower as saying this?"
Hollis said that. And when Branchflower was asked about his witness list he pointed at Hollis and said to talk to him.
"Even if he did say it, the R-majority decision to release the report hardly speaks well for the Governor."
Yeah! Because Palin being anti-establishment and putting Republicans in jail doesn't mean you cannot rely on said establishment Republicans for justification.
Dumbass.
@ MarkField
"If prevention of harm were a real concern, the proper vehicle would be a restraining order or a formal complaint to Wooten's direct superiors."
Yah mean like *Monhegan*?
We Cons can forgive other Cons for every sin, even being married to a Liberal or having a LisBi transgender daughter married to a Muslim, but we can not forget or forgive one that speaks evil of another just to cause injury to the GOP.
Which is why the American Civil War has become known as the "Fun War".
You're full of it. If you claim that you "debunked" something, be specific and tell us what it is.
The amount of energy that's conveyed from the device to the subject is directly proportional to the duration of the spark. It's possible to limit the duration of the spark (and that's what Wooten did). Why didn't you know that? Also, what the subject experiences will depend on where the clips are placed. Do you know where Wooten put the clips?
Obviously we should trust a random commenter on a blog instead of a named spokesman for Taser International.
Not exactly. This is what she actually said, with a big smile on her face:
Please explain why she's grinning.
I hear the sound of a lot of people laughing. I also see people with a big smile on their face right after being Tased. Are you sure this is the video you wanted us to see?
Where's your proof that I told a lie?
No, they endorsed revolution. The difference is this: secession claims to be a legal recourse, one permitted by the existing Constitutional system. Revolution, in contrast, is extra-legal, that is, outside the existing system.
I don't understand the point of your second sentence. But yeah, the attributions I've seen have Hollis making that statement.
As I understand it, Monegan was not Wooten's direct superior.
In addition to Beldar's review of the topic, Power Line has posted commentary as well, The "troopergate" report -- thin gruel.
That's what the liberal MSM wants you to believe.
Nick pointed out how you failed to "get these things right" when you claimed that Branchflower said something he didn't say.
Aside from that, please show your evidence that Branchflower "is hostile to Palin." For some odd reason, he was hired by the Legislative Council, which consists of 8 R and 4 D. And that same group appointed French. Those acts were unanimous. Also unanimous was their decision yesterday to release the report.
The Legislative Council represents the Legislature when the latter is not in session. The Council launched the investigation, approved Branchflower's contract, and just released his report to us. So you should explain in what sense "This is NOT THE STATE LEGISLATURE'S REPORT."
This is an interesting point. Palin has made both of the following claims:
A) Todd had Wooten's file because it was in the public domain.
B) Palin never knew that Wooten was disciplined in 2006.
Those claims are obviously contradictory. And the "public domain" thing is pretty remarkable, all by itself.
I guess you haven't read the report. But even before the report, we had this:
And this:
Please explain how that is not "pressure."
I guess you haven't read the report. But even before the report, we had this:
And this:
Please explain how that is not "pressure."
Poor Sarah. The Rs are out to get her and the Ds are out to get her. And there are even two courts that recently ruled against her. I guess this proves that she didn't do anything wrong, and she's really just a fearless reformer.
If Branchflower and the Legislative Council couldn't be trusted to do a fair investigation, you should explain why Palin repeatedly expressed her support for their investigation.
By the way, please name the Republicans that Palin put "in jail." There are this many names on that list: zero.
This business about Tibbles is one of the silliest arguments to come along in a long time. And that's saying a lot.
Yes, there was a decision to not subpoena Tibbles. Palin has referred to this decision as proof that French is manipulating the witness list. But it was Ramras' (R) idea to not subpoena Tibbles, not French's idea. Also, how could a decision to not subpoena Tibbles be viewed as a partisan act that is unfavorable to Palin? Tibbles is free to present himself to Branchflower, with or without a subpoena. Branchflower asked for the subpoena only because Tibbles has declined to cooperate. If Tibbles had testimony that was favorable to Palin, why would he be refusing to cooperate?
Trouble is, no Palin ever made a formal complaint to Monegan. Palin has admitted explicitly that they never filed any other formal complaint, subsequent to the complaints they filed in 2005.
In 2007 and 2008, they just applied pressure, because they knew they had no basis for a formal complaint.
This is like saying "I haven't read the court transcripts of OJ's trial, but here's OJ with a critical take on why it's all bullshit."
The attempts by Beldar and others here to mislead and spin the report's findings have been nothing short of pathetic. We apparently have a massive conspiracy to aid Obama that apparently formed before Obama even won the primary, much less before Sarah Palin got picked as the VP candidate. And we apparently have people who think that firing at will and abusing power are the same thing (we saw the same sort of ridiculous dodge in the US Attorney case).
The Coming Obama Thugocracy. Excerpt:
"Once upon a time, liberals prided themselves, with considerable reason, as the staunchest defenders of free speech. Union organizers in the 1930s and 1940s made the case that they should have access to employees to speak freely to them, and union leaders like George Meany and Walter Reuther were ardent defenders of the First Amendment."
[...]
"Obama supporters who found the campuses congenial and Obama himself, who has chosen to live all his adult life in university communities, seem to find it entirely natural to suppress speech that they don't like and seem utterly oblivious to claims that this violates the letter and spirit of the First Amendment. In this campaign, we have seen the coming of the Obama thugocracy, suppressing free speech, and we may see its flourishing in the four or eight years ahead."
Suppressing speech that runs contrary to Obamamanic enthusiasms - concomitantly heightening and emphasizing speech that either supports such enthusiasms or demonizes opposition to that worshipful approach to politics and the cult of personality that brand of politics is founded upon.
Event 1 - An inquiry as to how Wooten's conduct effects the public's view of the department. A public interest.
Event 2 - Can not be an ethics violation as Todd Palin is a private citizen.
Event 3 - Follow up on event 1, still a public interest matter. Note that in neither Events 1 or 3 is Palin actually governor of Alaska.
Event 4 - A private citizen again.
Event 5 - Todd Palin again.
Event 6 - She complains about the outcome but takes no action.
Event 7 - Palin rambles on in an email about how she didn't like the outcome. No request or implication of action of any kind.
Event 8 - Palin brings up the very name of Wooten and is immediately blown off.
Event 9 - Someone else asks him about it. Palin's name never comes up, and there's no real conversation.
Event 10 - Monegan gets called again. Again, no evidence Sarah Palin was involved.
Event 11 &Event 12 - Todd Palin again.
Event 13 - Same as Event 10, different person.
Event 14 - A Palin aid expresses their disappointment with the outcome. This is supposed to be a smoking gun?!
...ok, seriously, does any evidence appear at any point? I got up to Event 17 and there's still nothing that even vaguely implies there may have been an ethics violation.
This is an interesting point. It should be noted that Vogler, the founder and hero of AIP, was apparently interested in certain things that may not have been strictly legal. For some strange reason, he was killed "in a plastic-explosives sale gone bad."
It's caustically and tellingly ironic that you refer to "firing at will" and "attempts ... to mislead" in the same comment. The report itself indicates there was nothing remotely like a "firing at will" motivation.
Are you paying attention? The opening post already cited Dyer's nonsense. And multiple comments here have already shown it to be nonsense. Next time, try reading the thread before you post.
More laughs from hindrocket et al. Let's take a look at a few things they say:
Wrong. The report does find that. I already cited the relevant text, here. And we already knew "that Gov. Palin herself attempted to get Trooper Wooen fired," even pre-Branchflower. I proved that here.
Really? There was never any finding that he ever committed a violent act against any person, aside from the Taser incident. Molly told police he never abused her. The DVPO was dissolved because there was no evidence of violence. No one outside the family ever heard him threaten anyone. I've already cited multiple reasons why the alleged death threat against Heath is doubtful. So what's the "menace?"
Palin made a bunch of allegations about that, and the original Memorandum of Findings sustained this many: zero. Grimes decided to overturn that, with regard to one incident: carrying a beer can into his car. I've already described the reasons why this allegation is questionable.
Wooten has been arrested for drunk driving this many times: zero. That puts him ahead of Bush, Cheney, and Todd Palin.
Power Line is just flogging the same unsubstantiated allegations that Palin has been flogging since 4/11/05, the day that Molly filed for divorce.
This is supposedly an excuse for applying pressure to fire Wooten. But why did Palin repeatedly claim that no one ever applied pressure? The record shows that this denial was a lie.
Poor John McCain, ending his career so dishonorably.
Can we fix that?
The mephitic that is the MSM, or the mephitic that the MSM has allowed itself to become, is itself a cancer and is reflective of other social/political cancers as well.
I can only hope that you can show proof that Wooten is "hard drinking." You can't.
And I can only hope that you'll explain why the family waited two years to report the Taser incident. You won't. You also won't explain why Palin waited a month before telling her father about an alleged death threat against him.
You also won't explain why you're suggesting that Wooten threatened anyone's life, aside from Heath. In 2005, that wasn't even alleged (that there was ever a death threat against anyone aside from him). Molly admitted that the alleged threat to "bring down" Sarah was a threat "to make life difficult for Sarah," not a threat of violence. And no one other than Molly ever heard this threat.
That'll teach David Brooks . . . except that "mephitic" is an adjective.
No "implication?" Really? Imagine that C works for B, and B works for A. Imagine that A says the following to B:
Are you seriously claiming that there is no "implication" that A is attempting to influence B to take some action against C? Really?
To be over-kind, a gross mischaracterization. And I've read the entire thread, comparing it against the two cited reviews and comparing it a reading of some aspects of the report as a whole.
These hyper-leveraged arrogations and inferences of yours are merely more of the same, oft-repeated, jukeboxsneer bullshit.
RPT: I'm not complaining about lack of evidence, just observing that it seems to be lacking. As promised, I'll look into it. Chill.
Strunk and White were anticipating Michael B when they said this:
You're right, I'll revise as follows:
The mephitis that is the MSM, or the mephitis that the MSM has allowed itself to become, is itself a cancer and is reflective of other social/political cancers as well.
I notice you didn't argue against the substance of the charge however, the aptness of the term.
Actually, it IS. Can you stop saying it's NOT?
[...]
Please explain how that is not "pressure."
In order to do that you will first need to explain how that is pressure.
Perhaps you could point to an implicit threat or even something suggestive of a consequence should Monegan not fire Wooten? Oh wait, nothing in the email even suggests Wooten be fired, but rather she is asking Monegan to testify on behalf of a sentencing bill for cops who murder. Looks to me like she was simply reciting facts to argue a point.
It looks to me that if anyone has violated Alaskan ethics law it's Hollis French, for using state resources to cook up this joke of a "report" to further his personal political agenda.
As usual, you've managed to demonstrate this many examples of an incorrect statement on my part: zero.
By the way, "hyper-leveraged" is a great way to describe what Power Line et al do when they use a doubtful report about a single beer can as proof that Wooten "had quite a drinking problem." This is very typical of the GOP approach to evidence.
Boo.
And Pauldom, I likewise notice you didn't defend David Brooks' recent commentary, in the applicable thread. My own is , feel free to argue a pro or con. Or perhaps you'll want to stick with spelling errors.
I don't. He (she? shudder...) is too busy being against to be for any one. All attack, all the time.
It's like saying Dirty Harry was shilling for the SFPD or Torquemada for the Pope...
Are you seriously trying to argue this line of defense?
On August 13, Palin said specifically that her action was unrelated to Wooten. She said that Monegan was dismissed for not adequately filling state trooper vacancies and fighting alcohol abuse problems, and because he "did not turn out to be a team player on budgeting issues."[2] Palin acknowledged that "pressure could have been perceived to exist, although I have only now become aware of it."[4]
She suspended Frank Bailey, and apologized to Alaskans:
“Mr. Bailey was aware of my family’s personal concerns about Trooper Wooten. It appears that he, though, tried to apply some pressure on my behalf and this was without ever discussing it with me and I apologize to Alaskans for this distraction."[58][59]
"Mr. Bailey" is Frank Bailey, the Governor's director of boards and commissions.
Palin herself admitted that her staff exerted pressure to get Wooten dismissed although she denied knowledge of it happening or doing it herself. Or are you going to tell us know that Palin is lying about the pressure?
I did so, quite simply, here.
If I hired you recently, and I tell you that a staff member you just inherited is a rotten bastard, and that his previous managers have been "turn