« Why McCain Is Still Able To Win | Main | Obama and ACORN »

Highlights of the Palin Inquiry in Alaska

The loons have already gone off screaming down the road, but it's important to know the facts of the panel press release. From the AP article:

Headline: Panel: Gov. Palin abused power, but firing was legal

"Monegan's firing was lawful, the report found, but Palin let the family grudge influence her decision-making"

Ok, what was that "grudge"? Moneghan had refused to take action against Trooper Wooten. So what did Wooten do that annoyed the Governor?

"Wooten had been in hot water before Palin became governor over allegations that he illegally shot a moose, drank beer in a patrol car and used a Taser on his stepson. The Palins said they feared for their family's safety after Wooten made threats against them."

So before Palin was even Governor, Wooten was abusing his stepson, and so the threats he made against the Governor's family would reasonably be taken seriously. Can't really see why the democrats think this is unreasonable, actually.
So, the panel found she over-stepped authority. The loons are screaming for her arrest and jail. What could happen to Palin?

"Branchflower said Palin violated a statute of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Lawmakers don't have the authority to sanction her for such a violation, and they gave no indication they would take any action against her. Under Alaska law, it is up to the state's Personnel Board -- which is conducting its own investigation into the matter -- to decide whether Palin violated state law and, if so, must refer it to the Senate president for disciplinary action. Violations also carry a possible fine of up to $5,000."

So, the worst she faces is a fine, and right now there is nothing to indicate the board is inclined to punish her at all.
So, the left trumped up a case, and when they finally got something that kind of, sort of helped them they went screaming exaggerations and some outright lies down the road. In other words, normal leftist behavior. But it sure reminds us of how much they fear Palin.

Update (Lorie
): I can't imagine that Democrats in Alaska are terribly eager to pursue any "punishment" because the people of Alaska know better than most in the rest of the country not only the details of Wooten's behavior, and the non-Wooten-related problems with Monegan, but they also know who wrote this report. They know it was written by Palin's partisan political opponents who are also Obama supporters who promised an October surprise. They know she ticked off a lot of people by shaking things up and has opponents looking for anything to bring her down. And besides, most of the people in Alaska probably would prefer that a state trooper who drank on the job, tasered a child, and made threats against an elderly man not be running up and down their roads with a badge and a gun. Call me crazy, but that seems a pretty safe bet to me.

The first I read about the report was the AP account. Here is the AP lede :

"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."

Then I went to the actual report and found the following:
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 Gov. Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as a commissioner of public safety. In spite of that, Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercie of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.

Doesn't quite live up to the hype, huh? Jules Crittenden has a good post on the report and the coverage.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/32186.

Comments (54)

I have to go with Dick Morr... (Below threshold)
Larry:

I have to go with Dick Morris on this one, mainly because it is what I have been saying all along.

Wooten should have been fired. He wasn't because of pressure from the Trooper's Union, which Monegan went along with for reasons of his own.

I do not find anywhere in this report the allegations of the Trooper who was in charge of Palin's security. I find this interesting because that trooper has been quoted in Alaska newspapers as having INSTRUCTED Todd Palin to contact Monegan.

It's a faux scandal for som... (Below threshold)

It's a faux scandal for some to latch onto and for a lot on the right to once again fall prey to Saul Alinsky. That is of course, if they think Palin shouldn't be there.

Funny how it came out on a Friday though.

So Sarah Palin and Todd Pal... (Below threshold)
Mike:

So Sarah Palin and Todd Palin put "undue pressure" upon various state officials to discipline or dismiss Mike Wooten?

Like this doesn't happen every freaking day in Chicago politics! And with real, actionable threats to boot.

I seem to recall a certain group of foaming-at-the-mouth political activists placing "undue pressure" on a Chicago radio host to cancel an appearance by Stanley Kurtz. Guess we should arrest the Chicago Obama campaign, eh?

I also seem to recall certain members of congress threatening to "investigate" ABC for abuse of their broadcast license if they did not pull "The Path To 9/11." So forget the Chicago Obama campaign -- let's arrest Senate Democrats instead.

In light of the fact that we may elect the Chicago Democratic Party Machine to the White House in just a few weeks, "Troopergate" seems awfully trivial.

And getting a $1M earmark f... (Below threshold)
ODA315:

And getting a $1M earmark for your wife's employer 60 days after her salary is more than doubled ISN'T abusing your power????

Since the Palins had certai... (Below threshold)
The Listkeeper:

Since the Palins had certain knowledge that Wooten was dirty, it was their RESPONSIBILITY to make all attempts to ensure that he no longer wears a badge. The Democrats, being so pro-corruption, won't see that.

Back in the beginning I sai... (Below threshold)

Back in the beginning I said I thought the panel would find a "little of both" at play, but that they would have to put more weight to one than the other. As far as I'm concerned they put more weight on the right part of the issue. Monegan shot himself in the foot by trying to make a case out of this. One can pretty much assume that he knew he was wrong, but didn't care as long as he could hurt someone else in the process.

Perhaps we can contrast the... (Below threshold)
a. moral:

Perhaps we can contrast the motives of Todd Palin as First Dude with that of Hillary Clinton as First Lady in Travelgate. It seems he tried to protect his family (and the citizens of Alaska)from an unstable state trooper who benefits from enormous protections afforded by civil service laws. Whereas, she tried to fire seven, non-partisan, long-term federal employees to direct business to her friends from Arkansas.

How do you charact... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

How do you characterize the choice of a VP who is in the middle of an ethics investigation?

Was it brave? Unnecessarily risky? . . .

There is one other thing th... (Below threshold)
MunDane:

There is one other thing that I was reading int he .pdf file and it bothered me. Branchflower seemed to be reading the statute as saying that because she, personally, got ANY benefit from this decision, it was wrong.

Which would mean as a Governor she couldn't, for example;
A) Lobby lawmakers for more funds for schools since her children attend public schools.
B) Ask for any expansion in Alask'a DFG quotas, since she hunts and fishes.
C) Sign a budget that had items in it about Alaska's DMV, since she drives a car and a snowmachine.
D) Propose or sponsor or lobby for any legislation for special education because of Trig
E) Even allocate money in the budget for Women's Health Services cause she has a set of tits!

Shoot...Beldar (aka Bill Dyer) says it so much better than I!

How do you charact... (Below threshold)
How do you characterize the choice of a VP who is in the middle of an ethics investigation?

Was it brave? Unnecessarily risky? . . .

8. Posted by Adrian Browne

I'd ask the left the same thing when it comes to their VP choice or even their #1. He gives $800,000 to ACORN and they're embroiled in election FRAUD weeks before we vote. Is that brave? Or risky?

"The loons have already ... (Below threshold)

"The loons have already gone off screaming down the road..."

LMAO! No question about that just by scanning some of the "The Wizbang Network" headlines in the sidebar.

This from Ed Morrissey at t... (Below threshold)
MPR:

This from Ed Morrissey at the HOT AIR blog

"The investigation started at the request of another Republican -- Sarah Palin. The allegations of a "partisan witch hunt" began when the legislative master of the investigation, Democratic state Senator Hollis French, started promising an "October Surprise" and embarrassment for John McCain before one witness had even been deposed. French further clouded the investigation by interfering with subpoenas, blocking one for a witness to a meeting in which all other attendees had been subpoenaed ... and that witness had run the meeting, and was also Palin's chief of staff. There is plenty of evidence that French wanted a partisan outcome and not justice."
My attorney would be laughing so hard at this he wouldn't be able speak.
Even "if" Sara were culpable in any way of overstepping her authority. I would much rather vote for her than someone who has never made an executive decision about anything. Obama plays it safe on everything, then second guesses and hind
sights those brave enough to make a decision. Obama is a whimp.

DJ,I have to disagre... (Below threshold)
Live@9:

DJ,
I have to disagree with one of your points. You claim the worst she faces is a fine. I say the worst she faces in the loss of her reformer credibility, which is worth way more to her than $5,000. She ran and won the election in Alaska as a reformer and bruised some Republican egos along the way. Now it's pay back time, remember despite all the spin this investigation would have never happen without Alaskan Republicans voting for and funding it. Republicans have the majority in Alaska and could have prevented this if they wanted to.
Have you seen her poll numbers in Alaska lately? You can no longer claim she's Americas most popular Governor.

So, the left trumped up ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

So, the left trumped up a case, and when they finally got something that kind of, sort of helped them they went screaming exaggerations and some outright lies down the road. In other words, normal leftist behavior.

No, the Republican-controlled legislature unanimously voted to investigate her, and she said she "welcomed" it.

So now you are screaming outright lies down the road. In other words, normal DJ behavior.

It speaks volumes to the et... (Below threshold)
The Listkeeper:

It speaks volumes to the ethical priorities of those who think Palin is any way in the wrong on this. That is to say, they have no ethics or principles.

Brain,That would b... (Below threshold)
MunDane:

Brain,

That would be quite a feat, since the Alaskan legislature is not in session.

Just so you know, a subcommittee voted to release part 1 of the report.

I see that the loons are do... (Below threshold)

I see that the loons are done screaming down the road, and are now screaming their way into this thread.

Beware of the torches and pitchforks, DJ. The "Truth Squad" is here to "convince" you of the error of your ways.

That would be quite a fe... (Below threshold)
Brian:

That would be quite a feat, since the Alaskan legislature is not in session.
Just so you know, a subcommittee voted to release part 1 of the report.

I said "investigate", not "release the investigation".

Brian:No,... (Below threshold)
Larry:

Brian:

No, the Republican-controlled legislature unanimously voted to investigate her, and she said she "welcomed" it.

You are absolutely correct Brian (snide remark: for a change).

Problem is, Hollis French started running his mouth BEFORE the investigation even started. French is an Obama supporter (here note partisan). So then the Republican who heads the Rules Committee started yelling about French's remarks. And he was right to do so.

Leave us go for the whole truth Brian instead of just the parts the justify your point of view.

Remember, this is part one.

I have said from the beginning that Wooten should have been fired. Alaska doesn't need that four time married clown tasering his step-kids. Did you watch the CNN interview? Watch it again and watch his face when he said he didn't threaten anyone. Listen to his voice.

That trooper is a bald faced liar. At least he admitted tasering his stepson. And for that alone should have been fired.

Now fast forward just a bit. Wooten gets with a guy who lost his race for Governor. That guy has an entitlement mentality based daddy's money. Monegan decides to see what he can do to whine and complain that his campaign to run his department without interference from Palin got him fired and explain it as Troopergate.

*I* would have fired Monegan. Wouldn't you?

I love how both this author... (Below threshold)
Jake:

I love how both this author (abused power, but it's OK because it wasn't technically "illegal") or the McCain (it's only an ethical violation if there is a financial gain) take such lengths to justify inappropriate action. Both groups will go to every length to connect Rezko to Obama and will then do everything they can to ignore and justify Palin issues just because it wasn't "illegal".

Why do we always have to be so VERY partisan about absolutely everything?

Why do w... (Below threshold)
Larry:


Why do we always have to be so VERY partisan about absolutely everything?

Ok Jake, I'll bite. Why are you?

Jake, it's only those on th... (Below threshold)
The Listkeeper:

Jake, it's only those on the left who see trying to get a dirty cop fired as somehow inappropriate. Those of us on the right see it as a moral obligation of the highest order.

Same old AP crap of one-sid... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

Same old AP crap of one-sidedness. Wooten had a history of erratic behavior. They mention the "questionable" act of using transportation to take the kids to school. Who cares about that? He was a child abuser, drank beer while on duty, and broke the law.

She abused power by getting rid of an "habitual problem" that had already gotten away with a series of illegal acts? Good grief! Anything for a scandal!

Those of us on the right... (Below threshold)
Parthenon:

Those of us on the right see it as a moral obligation of the highest order.

Yes, but the law doesn't give a fig for your morals. The only question at issue here - the absolute only one - is whether the Governor acted within her legally proscribed bounds. If you go and kill a murderer who was sitting in their house reading a book (and thus you did not act in self-defense), many would argue that that action is morally justifiable. But legally it is not.

I haven't read the whole report, nor am I all that familiar with Alaskan state law, so I'll decline to comment on that question and probably give the report its due once I've read it. One question I can answer, though, is whether this is a body blow to the GOP ticket at a moment when they need to cover a lot of ground in a brief period. I'd say the unequivocal answer to that is yes.

But who knows. Sen. McCain's come back from the dead before. I know I'm not sleeping on him.

Well, apaprently the troope... (Below threshold)
David:

Well, apaprently the troopegate story isn't having the desired effect because now AP is putting out a story about how Palin combined her religion with the state.

I think the fact that this "report" was put out on Friday night, it will have few legs beyond the weekend. By Monday morning people are going to be focusing on the stock market again.

Plus you have more and more reports about ACORN coming out. I think this will swamp the Plain story.

To me, this partisan hack demostrates that Palin is indeed an effective reformer. The enemies she has created in BOTH parties by cleaning up corruption in Alaska is attempting to defeat her any way they can.

If I were them I would actually hope McCain does win because if he doesn't and she comes back to Alaska, I would NOT want to be in their shoes. This woman takes no prisoners.

The legislature did not end... (Below threshold)
Terrye:

The legislature did not endorse this thing, nor vote on it, nor agree with it, nothing. It is just one man's opinion, Branchwater's.And French telegraphed his intentions by promising an October Surprise. The findings were contradictory and at best debatable.

The Personnel Board will deal with this, that is the proper way to handle it.

I think the whole thing is a farce.

"Have you seen her poll num... (Below threshold)
David:

"Have you seen her poll numbers in Alaska lately? You can no longer claim she's Americas most popular Governor."

============================================

Yes, they are down to the mid 70's now.

Wow. Freefall from 80%. LOL.

Jake - "or the McCain (... (Below threshold)
marc:

Jake - "or the McCain (it's only an ethical violation if there is a financial gain)"

Well gee jake what's the precedent (pdf file) in Alaska?

"[E]very prior reported Ethics Act violation involved financial motives and financial 'potential gain, or the avoidance of a potential loss.' ... Here, there is no accusation, no finding and no facts that money or financial gain to the governor was involved in the decision to replace Monegan."

parthenon - "The only q... (Below threshold)
marc:

parthenon - "The only question at issue here - the absolute only one - is whether the Governor acted within her legally proscribed bounds."

Apparently you don't read much.

What part of the report that reads, "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," .... DON'T you understand?

And BTW, she didn't fire anyone, Monahan was reassigned to another job, one he decided to quit from.

David,A drop of near... (Below threshold)
Live@9:

David,
A drop of nearly 20 points in one month and you think you have a winner on your hands? This after she gave each Alaskan a bigger cut of the oil wind fall profits tax. She can't even buy her way to better numbers. And yes this trooper gate scandal will effect her numbers in an adverse way. She will never be in the 70s again. The damage is done, fair or not.

http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/10/08/new-poll-numbers-for-alaska/

Palin favorability rating in Alaska:

Favorable: 63%

Unfavorable: 37%

Problem is, Hollis Frenc... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Problem is, Hollis French started running his mouth BEFORE the investigation even started. French is an Obama supporter (here note partisan). So then the Republican who heads the Rules Committee started yelling about French's remarks.

The events you're describing took place in September. The investigation began in July. Which, by the way, was BEFORE Palin was picked by McCain.

Leave us go for the whole truth Brian instead of just the parts the justify your point of view.

At least, unlike yours, my comments actually pertain to the truth.

The Personnel Board will... (Below threshold)
Brian:

The Personnel Board will deal with this, that is the proper way to handle it.

Two appeals courts disagreed with you.

Brian, there is a section i... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Brian, there is a section in the report for recomendations for legislative actions. Interestingly, nowhere in the report does it recommend any actions be taken against Palin.

Isn't it interesting? Normally, the left would go absolutely ballistic over Wooten, demanding that this guy get fired. Here they want Palin impeached and kicked out of office for wanting a dirty cop fired, but are okay with that same dirty cop keeping his job.

Here is the result of the Police investigation into Wooten. Interesting reading. Just what would it take for this guy to get fired?

This thing went to hell the... (Below threshold)
drjohn:

This thing went to hell the moment French promised an "October surprise" harmful to Palin.

Wooten has a LONG list of reprimands. Why he is still a trooper is a mystery. He's been divorced four times. Wonder why?

Where is the investigation into Wootne's lack of ethics?

Brian~At ... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

Brian~

At least, unlike yours, my comments actually pertain to the truth.

Sure, they do.

"Here, there is no accusation, no finding and no facts that money or financial gain to the governor was involved in the decision to replace Monegan," the lawyers said.

Any abuse of power, they said, was on the part of the Legislative Council members, not the Palins.

"Sen. French and Sen. Green may have abused their government power by using public money to pursue a personal vendetta against the governor..."

"Put bluntly, Branchflower completely misapplied the Ethics Act and has instead sought to create a headline to smear the governor," the lawyers wrote.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/11/palin.investigation/

Interestingly, nowhere i... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Interestingly, nowhere in the report does it recommend any actions be taken against Palin. Isn't it interesting?

Not really. I wouldn't expect it to. The politics have become too complicated.

Normally, the left would go absolutely ballistic over Wooten, demanding that this guy get fired.

What you or I, or the left or the right, demand is irrelevant.

Here they want Palin impeached and kicked out of office

Who does?

for wanting a dirty cop fired, but are okay with that same dirty cop keeping his job.

I shed no tears over Wooten. But how common is it for a governor to get involved in the employment decisions of an individual state trooper?

Here is the result of the Police investigation into Wooten. Interesting reading. Just what would it take for this guy to get fired?

Divorcing the governor's sister, apparently.

LaMedusa,Sure, ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

LaMedusa,

Sure, they do.

First of all, the quotes you posted have nothing to do with the false information I was correcting in the comment that you responded to. But regarding one of those quotes:

"Here, there is no accusation, no finding and no facts that money or financial gain to the governor was involved in the decision to replace Monegan," the lawyers said.

Red herring. There's no requirement that there be financial gain.

Sec. 39.52.120. Misuse of official position. (b) A public officer may not (4) take or withhold official action in order to affect a matter in which the public officer has a personal or financial interest;

And finally, are you really trying to dispute the facts by citing Todd Palin's lawyers complaining that the investigator was out to get her?

Are you kidding?

We could call this trooperg... (Below threshold)
retired military:

We could call this troopergate.

Oh wait that is taken by antoher governor who the left had no problem voting for.

brian - "But how common... (Below threshold)
marc:

brian - "But how common is it for a governor to get involved in the employment decisions of an individual state trooper?"

How common is it for a sitting governor to have family members threatened by an ex-brother-in-law and one who has a long record of plainly illegal and unprofessional behavior while having a job that entails public trust?

Furthermore, are you ignoring what has been on public record?

Of particular interest is Monehan's own statement:

"For the record, no one ever said fire Wooten. Not the governor. Not Todd. Not any of the other staff," Monegan said Friday from Portland. "What they said directly was more along the lines of 'This isn't a person that we would want to be representing our state troopers.'"

P.S. brian...ref your linke... (Below threshold)
marc:

P.S. brian...ref your linked citation. (Sec. 39.52.120.)

Did you read the preceding one?

AS 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. In addition, the legislature finds that, so long as it does not interfere with the full and faithful discharge of an officer's public duties and responsibilities, this chapter does not prevent an officer from following other independent pursuits. The legislature further recognizes that

(1) in a representative democracy, the representatives are drawn from society and, therefore, cannot and should not be without personal and financial interests in the decisions and policies of government;


(2) people who serve as public officers retain their rights to interests of a personal or financial nature; and


(3) standards of ethical conduct for members of the executive branch need to distinguish between those minor and inconsequential conflicts that are unavoidable in a free society, and those conflicts of interests that are substantial and material.


(b) Unethical conduct is prohibited, but there is no substantial impropriety if, as to a specific matter, a public officer's


(1) personal or financial interest in the matter is insignificant, or of a type that is possessed generally by the public or a large class of persons to which the public officer belongs; or


(2) action or influence would have insignificant or conjectural effect on the matter.


(c) The attorney general, designated supervisors, hearing officers, and the personnel board must be guided by this section when issuing opinions and reaching decisions.

So... brian, how do you classify her involvement?

Was it minor and inconsequential or substantial and material?

I shed no tears ov... (Below threshold)
Eric:
I shed no tears over Wooten. But how common is it for a governor to get involved in the employment decisions of an individual state trooper?

Probably pretty rare. But in this case the Governor has direct knowledge of the case and can't ignore it. A Governor also has a responsibility to to protect the state from a rogue cop. Not pursuing the case opens the Governor to charges of favoratism toward Wooten BECAUSE he was her brother in law.

Here is the result of the Police investigation into Wooten. Interesting reading. Just what would it take for this guy to get fired?

Divorcing the governor's sister, apparently.

An overly simplistic statement that completely ignores the facts that Wooten threatened the life of his father in law, tasered his stepson, drank while on duty, had a Domestic Violence Restraining Order to be filed against him and has a long history of official reprimands and suspensions for a "pattern of unacceptable and at times illegal activity". The investigating officer found that he continued to demonstrate and escalate unacceptable conduct despite repeated warnings, reprimands and suspensions. Your statement also ignores the fact that he is still a cop, and only received a 5 day suspension.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Lee Ward. Would you be comfortable having Wooten as a cop in your neighborhood?

Brian~Let's talk a... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

Brian~

Let's talk about cherry picking for a moment, then notice how the section you posted also, applies to the two Senators listed below:

"Sec. 39.52.120. Misuse of official position. (b) A public officer may not (4) take or withhold official action in order to affect a matter in which the public officer has a personal or financial interest;"


"Sen. French and Sen. Green may have abused their government power by using public money (taxpayers') to pursue a personal vendetta against the governor..."

Problem is, Hollis French started running his mouth BEFORE the investigation even started. French is an Obama supporter (here note partisan). So then the Republican who heads the Rules Committee started yelling about French's remarks.

Brian~

"The events you're describing took place in September.

The investigation began in July. Which, by the way, was BEFORE Palin was picked by McCain."

So, along with the section that you posted, the events that "took place in September" by Senators Hollis French and Green were what would be described as:

"Sec. 39.52.120. Misuse of official position.",

and led to:

"Put bluntly, Branchflower completely misapplied the Ethics Act and has instead sought to create a headline to smear the governor,"

Brian:Pro... (Below threshold)
Larry:

Brian:

Problem is, Hollis French started running his mouth BEFORE the investigation even started. French is an Obama supporter (here note partisan). So then the Republican who heads the Rules Committee started yelling about French's remarks.

The events you're describing took place in September. The investigation began in July. Which, by the way, was BEFORE Palin was picked by McCain.

Leave us go for the whole truth Brian instead of just the parts the justify your point of view.

At least, unlike yours, my comments actually pertain to the truth.

Actually they don't Brian. Look at the timeline and WHEN Branchflower STARTED his investigation with witness interviews.

Again, look at the timeline. Look at the timeline Brian.

Now Brian, leave us go to one other point.

In an Alaska paper interview, the trooper who has been in charge of security for like five or six governors, was quoted as saying that he told Todd to talk to Monegan.

I do not see that in the report.

What happened?

I do see that the abuse of power was COMPLAINING to Monegan, not "Firing" him, which she didn't do, fire that is. She moved him to another slot and he QUIT.

For me, it looks like a hatchet job.

Again Brian, note WHEN the investigation STARTED by interviewing witnesses and gathering materials, WHEN French started running his mouth, and the missing information versus the report conclusion point.

I don't expect to convince you since you are looking for anything you can to attack Palin.

Why don't you go back to accusing her of covering up her daughter's baby, born with down's syndrom, claiming the boy as her own, or some other such bunch of hysterical baloney.

Palin's 20% drop? That's n... (Below threshold)

Palin's 20% drop? That's not correct.

Live@9 is taking about something different than David. David is talking about Palin's favorability rating as Governor. Live@9 is talking about her favorability as VP.

They are different polls.

And let's face it, she's been under investigation - not indictment. (Brian's indignation notwithstanding.)

Brian's silence the past 12... (Below threshold)
epador:

Brian's silence the past 12 hrs looks like a tacit acknowledgment of being pwned, or meybe he'z jes waiting for more talking points in his e-mail.

Of particular interest i... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Of particular interest is Monehan's own statement:
"For the record, no one ever said fire Wooten. Not the governor. Not Todd. Not any of the other staff," Monegan said Friday

And mob henchmen don't say "give me money or I'll burn down your store." But you can figure out what "nice store you got here; shame if something happened to it" actually means.

Did you read the precedi... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Did you read the preceding one?
AS 39.52.110. Scope of Code.

Yes, and actually that's the one she was found guilty of violating.

But your highlights do not make your point, as you skip over the part that prohibits actions that lead to a personal benefit:

(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.

And then you counter that by citing later passages that allow for "independent pursuits" (is getting your brother-in-law fired an independent pursuit?) and stating that public workers are still allowed personal interests. No one challenges that. But the part you skip clearly prohibits them from taking action that benefits that interest.

A Governor also has a re... (Below threshold)
Brian:

A Governor also has a responsibility to to protect the state from a rogue cop.
...
An overly simplistic statement that completely ignores the facts that Wooten...

OK, then she should have no problem proudly announcing that she fired Monehan because she was protecting the state from a rogue cop. I await that statement.

Let's talk about cherry ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Let's talk about cherry picking for a moment, then notice how the section you posted also, applies to the two Senators listed below:

Fine, if someone really believes that (i.e., it's more than just a claim of indignation for a press conference) then let them file a complaint against the two Senators. I'd support that. It doesn't change the result of the Palin investigation, though.

Again, look at the timel... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Again, look at the timeline. Look at the timeline Brian.

Investigation started in July. Mouth running off in September. Look at the timeline, Larry.

Actually they don't Brian. Look at the timeline and WHEN Branchflower STARTED his investigation with witness interviews.
...
Again Brian, note WHEN the investigation STARTED by interviewing witnesses and gathering materials

You're redefining the "start of an investigation" as "the first witness interview". There's no point debating with someone who chooses to redefine the very meanings of simple words to suit his purpose.

I do not see that in the report.
What happened?

Perhaps it turned out to be bogus. If so, it only makes Branchflower look more thorough and credible.

Brian's silence the past... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Brian's silence the past 12 hrs looks like a tacit acknowledgment of being pwned, or meybe he'z jes waiting for more talking points in his e-mail.

Sorry to spoil your happy dance, but some of us actually have lives and can't be around to post on your schedule. Pwned? By those who can't read, or who can but lie about it? Puh-lease.

OK, then she shoul... (Below threshold)
Eric:
OK, then she should have no problem proudly announcing that she fired Monehan because she was protecting the state from a rogue cop. I await that statement.

She didn't fire Monegan because of Wooten. She fired Monegan because he was disloyal in following her priorities. Branchflower even admitted that Monegan worked solely at the pleasure of the Governor and she could fire him for any reason. Since she could fire him for any reason there would be no reason for her to lie about it.

By the way his name is Monegan not Monehan. If you can't get the basic facts of the case right and can't get the names right, maybe you should consider not commenting on the case.

Sorry to spoil you... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
Sorry to spoil your happy dance, but some of us actually have lives and can't be around to post on your schedule. Pwned? By those who can't read, or who can but lie about it? Puh-lease.

Awesome rebuttal. "Happy dance." lol. It's not like your inaccuracies are so seldom there would be a celebration, Brian. Just another lazy, dog-dangling Sunday...

I may not have read the rep... (Below threshold)

I may not have read the report carefully enough, but the events cited did not lead me to believe Mrs. Palin held a grudge.

One need not hold a grudge against an ex-brother-in-law to worry about his threats of violence against your family and his stated intention to abuse HIS police power against Palin family members.

Moreover, had the violence come to pass that Mr. Wooten is alleged to have threatened the injury would not just be to citizens of state of Alaska, but also to the reputation of the state police that Mr. Wooten represents.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy