Althouse: "Well, I’m very very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing, any hint of any kind of unethical activity there."

October 13, 2008

"Well, I’m very very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing, any hint of any kind of unethical activity there."

Palintalk. Is that going to work?

104 comments:

MadisonMan said...: People will hear what they want to hear. When I hear a politician say they've been cleared of any legal wrongdoing, I focus on the word legal and wonder about the rest.; 10/13/08, 10:20 AM
Kirby Olson said...: Works for me.; 10/13/08, 10:21 AM
Kirby Olson said...: At least it works up until the second comma. The last phrase does feel like over-reaching. There is at least a "hint" of wrongdoing. She should have quit before she added that last phrase.

However, it still works for me.; 10/13/08, 10:23 AM
Invisible Man said...: liar
Noun
a person who tells lies.; 10/13/08, 10:24 AM
Simon said...: Well, the even much-criticized report finds (page 8) that "Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired" by Palin; it was only "likely a contributing factor," and the "firing" "was a propoer and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads." Can't imagine why she'd feel vindicated by that!

So: even a partisan hack job can't manage to pin her with wrongdoing. A genuinely evenhanded report won't find even that much wrongdoing.; 10/13/08, 10:26 AM
Triangle Man said...: It was a bush league move and something you expect to see in small-town politics. Can we predict from that that she would abuse the power of the Vice Presidency to punish her enemies and reward her friends? After all, in the end it's about trying to predict what the candidates will do once elected, not what they have done so far.; 10/13/08, 10:28 AM
Brian Doyle said...: Why would she start doing anything other than brazenly lying now?; 10/13/08, 10:30 AM
vet66 said...: This bias from the get go. An army of democratic sleuths invade Alaska, find a few disaffected folks of both parties then provide the inevitable "October surprise." The only thing they could come up with was that the trooper gate dismissal was reasonable but that her judgment was clouded by the family ties.

Get used to this kind of speech suppression, personal attacks on individuals and the first ammendment if it differs from the marxist democratic party line and any disagreement is labeled racist.

Welcome to the thugocracy of BHO and George Soros democrats.; 10/13/08, 10:30 AM
Harwood said...: MadisonMan said... People will hear what they want to hear.
---
Exactly -- as illustrated by these Obama supporters interviewed on the street.; 10/13/08, 10:31 AM
Simon said...: Re MM's first comment, I understand the distinction you're making but the report clears Palin of malum prohibitum, and there was never a serious case that the act was malum in se.; 10/13/08, 10:33 AM
Chris said...: It's going to work for the people who decided the moment her candidacy was announced that she was a poor, helpless victim of the mean liberal media's unwarranted hate campaign.; 10/13/08, 10:34 AM
Brian Doyle said...: It's almost too bad the GOP ticket is already getting stomped too badly for this to make a difference.; 10/13/08, 10:34 AM
Sprezzatura said...: It'll work, because who cares about this issue?

And bigger picture, who cares about all the other lies, manipulations, and affiliations?

As she explicitly told us herself; she's one of us. That overrides all.

Simon,

As I'm sure you know, the firing is one thing. The abuse of power is another thing. At least you're better than Palin at using nuance to conflate these two issues.

By the way, the most damning aspect of the report is the (further) revelation that Palin is not a good manager.; 10/13/08, 10:37 AM
Swifty Quick said...: So: even a partisan hack job can't manage to pin her with wrongdoing.

But can still manage to couch it in terms making it vaguely appear to be.; 10/13/08, 10:50 AM
PJ said...: Is there video of either of the exchanges in question? I'd like to see a little more context because, based on the "you got to read the report, sir" further down in the linked article, it sounds as though Palin may have been making the claim that the Branchflower report's finding of an abuse of power was not justified by the body of the report, which showed that she had done nothing that was either unlawful or unethical. I haven't read the report myself, but I have seen the same claim made by Beldar, among others. If Palin was making the claim that Branchflower had found that she had not acted unethically, well that's just plainly not true.; 10/13/08, 10:51 AM
Expat(ish) said...: Can we predict from that that she would abuse the power of the Vice Presidency to punish her enemies and reward her friends? - TriangleMan

LOL, dude, that was funny.

the most damning aspect of the report is the (further) revelation that Palin is not a good manager. - 1jpb

Exsqueeze me? I read the report (ugh) and didn't get that at all. I did get that there were a lot of ad hominem comments scattered through the report. If you drew that conclusion, well, I suspect you don't manage many people, and probably none at all through a filter of "influence" rather than control. Which is, of course, what any elected official holds over non-appointed gov't employees.

-XC; 10/13/08, 10:51 AM
Simon said...: 1jpb said...
"It'll work, because who cares about this issue?"

The Democrats have been beating the "troopergate" drum since Palin's name was announced.

"As I'm sure you know, the firing is one thing. The abuse of power is another thing."

This is just unbearably silly. The only abuse of power alleged was the firing (or reassignment, whatever one prefers to call it). If the firing was legal, there was no abuse of power.; 10/13/08, 11:00 AM
hombre said...: The details of the report clear her, the subjective "findings" by the unprofessional investigator do not.

http://thenextright.com/blogs/
elhombreprimero

I think the denial is Obamaesque, but the "any hint" bit takes it too far. If the media had given honest coverage to the Obama connection of Hollis French, the overseer of the investigation, it would have been easier for her to sell.

Nevertheless, we know that any attempt by her to offer an explanation for her conclusion would be censored or negatively spun by the media anyway. So why not just go for it?; 10/13/08, 11:02 AM
Brian Doyle said...: If the firing was legal, there was no abuse of power.

Just like the US Attorney firings, right Simon?

I don't care for stereotypes of lawyers (or lawyer wannabes) as amoral pricks but in Simon's case the shoe really fits.; 10/13/08, 11:03 AM
Salamandyr said...: This is an accusation that only works if the public doesn't pay any close attention to the subject of the scandal.

I think most people of good will would forgive the overreach when it involves the protection of one's family.; 10/13/08, 11:04 AM
dbp said...: Let me see if I can understand the liberal's arguement:

Gov Palin had a legal right to fire Walt Monegan for no reason at all. But since she actually had a good reason to do so, that makes the firing illegal or unethical or something?; 10/13/08, 11:06 AM
Simon said...: Doyle said...
"'If the firing was legal, there was no abuse of power.' Just like the US Attorney firings, right Simon?"

Yes, just like the US Attorney firings, Brian.; 10/13/08, 11:06 AM
Darcy said...: Excellent, Salamandyr. Exactly how I feel.

And lol, dbp.; 10/13/08, 11:08 AM
Invisible Man said...: Let's stop with the protection of the family nonsense. They had been divorced for 2 years for god's sake, she was the damn Governor, and he had already been punished. Your just spinning now.

You know, if Palin would have spent time trying to remove cop(s) with history's of abuse, I might give her a break. But the fact is that she didn't care one whit about the character of the police force, except for her hated ex-binlaw. Your excuses don't hold up.; 10/13/08, 11:09 AM
walter neff said...: You know, if the New York Times and Liberal Democrats would have spent time trying to defend cops with no history's of abuse who might have made a mistake, I might give them a break. But the fact is that they didn't care one whit about the character of the police force, except for their hatred of the entire police force and the demand that be fired and prosecuted every single time there is a dispute or a murky situation.; 10/13/08, 11:13 AM
Darcy said...: Invisible Man: There was a threat of killing a Palin family member. And tasering another. He may well have been "punished" as you see fit, but I can definitely see how the idea that he wasn't fit to be a cop might never go away.

But is that just me?; 10/13/08, 11:17 AM
goesh said...: she was cleared so nuance it in spiffy blogs if you want but it's fart in the wind on the street of the work-a-day world; 10/13/08, 11:18 AM
Brian Doyle said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/13/08, 11:28 AM
Donn said...: IM:
iar
Noun
a person who tells lies.

Perfect description of Joe Biden. Of course, that's just Joe being Joe.; 10/13/08, 11:28 AM
Anonymous said...: Works for me too.

But the left, who hate her for her place in culture rather than her record, will go on hating her. No surprise.; 10/13/08, 11:28 AM
Too many jims said...: Simon,

Would you agree that your defense of Palin (i.e. "She could fire Monegan for whatever reason. Therefore whatever reason she had for firing/reassigning him it was lawful. Because it was lawful it is not improper.") could have been used defend not only the legality but the propriety of the "Saturday Night Massacre"? (With the proviso that while Ruckleshaus and Richardson clearly had the authority to summarily fire Cox, Monegan most likely {here I am assuming that Alaska civil service laws pertaining to state troopers is similar to civil service laws I am familiar with} did not have the ability to summarily fire Wooten.); 10/13/08, 11:30 AM
mccullough said...: The taser incident should have led to the trooper's termination.

But the Palin family didn't bring up the taser incident until the divorce, casting some doubt on their good intentions here.

The Palins, however, say that the trooper threatened the Dad and the ex-wife. The trooper denies it. Pure credibility contest here. Someone's lying.

I'm actually impressed that Alaska investigated this. I'm from Illinois and no one yet has investigated Obama for getting Tony Rezko's help to buy his house in 2005 when Obama was a sitting U.S. Senator and when Obama knew Rezko was under federal investigation for corruption. Obama says it was a "boneheaded" move on his part but that he didn't do anything wrong. Do we believe him and why? Either way, why didn't the Senate Ethics committee investigate this?

Finally, the Palin report's findings were made by an investigator hired by a legislative committee. Those who think Palin did wrong are crediting the investigator.

The investigator handling the Keating 5 inquiry in 1990 made a report concluding that neither Sen. McCain nor Sen. Glenn did anything wrong and should be dropped from the investigation. The Senate Ethics committee rejected that conclusion and recommendation.

For those who take the Palin investigator's conclusion as gospel, do you believe Sen. McCain did nothing wrong because the investigator concluded this. Or do you think the Sen. Ethics committee was right to reject this conclusion and make its own finding about McCain (and Glenn).

At the end of the day, who has abused their power the most: McCain, Palin, or Obama, or is it about the same?; 10/13/08, 11:43 AM
Anonymous said...: I'm eagerly awaiting the investigation into Christoper Dodd's sweetheart mortgage from Countrywide. When's that report due out?; 10/13/08, 11:48 AM
Darcy said...: Michael_H: Ummm.... :); 10/13/08, 11:51 AM
CW said...: There may be grounds for an ethics investigation targeting the chairman of the ethics panel. Monegan's wife works in his office.

CW/chsw; 10/13/08, 11:52 AM
hombre said...: Doyle wrote: "'If the firing was legal, there was no abuse of power.' Just like the US Attorney firings, right Simon?"

Branchflower's "findings" claimed the "ethics violation" constituted an "abuse of power," but in the next section found that Palin was fully empowered to terminate Monegan.

The conduct constituting the so-called ethical violation did not include any exercise of power and Branchflower, a lawyer, knew that.

Evidently, the lawyers you consider to be "amoral pricks" are the ones who disagree with your opinions, but the ones who politicize investigations are okay. Right, Doyle?

(Correction to the link I posted previously: http://thenextright.com/elhombreprimero/troopergate-report-biased-and-unprofessional-but-good-enough-for-the-media); 10/13/08, 12:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Michael H:
"I'm eagerly awaiting the investigation into Christoper Dodd's sweetheart mortgage from Countrywide. When's that report due out?"

I eagerly await the Barney Frank investigation who had a 'sweetheart'
working for Fannie Mae making buying bundles of worthless Countryside morgages.

Our fondest dreams seem to dovetail.; 10/13/08, 12:03 PM
Sprezzatura said...: Expat,

I've managed folks as VP of a bank. But, I don't have firsthand experience with management in government.

IMHO, as I read this report I see that Palin's management sucked for two reasons:

First, her (and especially Todd's) pursuit their vendetta was overly intrusive in the workplace. It was a distraction that consumed too much time and energy. The records show that both of them were pushing this trooper thing. They should have just dropped it if the underlying circumstances didn't justify their requests.

Second, if they really felt that this trooper should be fired they proved that they sucked at achieving that goal. All their bluster was wasted capital. If you decide to take someone out, you'd better do it, IHMO.

[And, when you do have the power to fire someone, e.g. Monegan, you should think about the blowback, and you must have solid, unchanging explanations for the decision. Maybe this is different in government, but the HR and related lawyer folks that I know would have gone nuts if I made statements about a firing that were later shown to be not even remotely true, e.g. claiming that no pressure was put on Monegan to remove the trooper.]; 10/13/08, 12:05 PM
sonicfrog said...: I'm curious. I've googled around and haven't found a credible source for the "taser" incident or an official filed complaint about it.

I would think that if the trooper had tasered a ten year old kid, as reported, he would have been removed from duty immediately. And if not, do we really want as VP the chief executive from a state where this kind of torture is permitted i.e. Alaska-Ghraib!; 10/13/08, 12:07 PM
George M. Spencer said...: Ability to stand firm in dealing with oil companies.

Supports exploration to help create energy independence and lower oil prices.

Those would seem to be Palin's strengths. (And it they're the only things she speaks convincingly about, though her bafflegab resonates with middlesome minivan moms.)

McCain needs to finagle some issue to get people to focus on that.; 10/13/08, 12:22 PM
Unknown said...: It sure as hell works here! Why bother to ask the question?; 10/13/08, 12:24 PM
Freder Frederson said...: Re MM's first comment, I understand the distinction you're making but the report clears Palin of malum prohibitum, and there was never a serious case that the act was malum in se.

Of course, Simon is completely wrong. He obviously doesn't have the slightest clue about how modern civil service systems work. There are built in safeguards to prevent elected officials and political appointees from using their positions to retaliate against or take arbitrary action against civil servants.

To use your position to try and circumvent civil service procedures to settle a family squabble is unethical. Simon and Sarah Palin don't understand this. Maybe if either had gone to law school they could have figured it out.; 10/13/08, 12:29 PM
Freder Frederson said...: I would think that if the trooper had tasered a ten year old kid, as reported, he would have been removed from duty immediately.

My understanding of the taser incident is the kid actually asked to be tasered--he wanted to know what it felt like. And his dad obliged him using a training setting. Now of course, a non-boneheaded father would have told his son "no, this is not a toy and can be very dangerous." He was disciplined for that incident.

I don't think anyone is claiming that Palin's former brother-in-law isn't kind of an asshole.; 10/13/08, 12:35 PM
sonicfrog said...: PS. I found a published account describing the incident. The Palin's are making it sound like Wooten whipped out the taser and fired it at the boy in anger. This is not the case:

One day -- maybe a year or two before the investigation -- Wooten showed his stepson his Taser. He had just been to Taser instructor school. Wooten told Sgt. Wall that the boy was fascinated and pleaded to be tased.

"So we went in our living room and I had him get down on his knees so he wouldn't fall. And I taped the probes to him and turned the Taser on for like a second, turned it off. He thought that was the greatest thing in the world, wanted to do it again," Wooten told the investigator. The boy flinched but nothing more, he said. The boy was about 11 at the time.

In his interview with troopers, the stepson said it hurt for about a second, according to Wall's report. The boy said he wanted to be tased to show his cousin, Palin's daughter Bristol, that he wasn't a mama's boy. The probe left a welt on his arm, he said. His mother was upstairs yelling at them not to do it, the boy said.

As Bristol remembered it, the jolt knocked the boy backward, the trooper report says. She said she was afraid.

The probes are attached by thin wires to the Taser cartridge. In the field, an officer fires the probes into a suspect's skin or clothing and the suspect receives a jolt of electricity for five seconds, said Steve Tuttle, a spokesman for Taser International, which makes the devices. They are only incapacitated during that time. In demos, the probes might be taped to a person so that they don't accidentally strike an eye or injure the volunteer, he said. If the Taser is fired for just a second, it would feel like your funny bone was hit but the quick jolt wouldn't knock you over, Tuttle said.

This act was very reckless and foolish, but not the violent act we have been lead to believe. So given this info, should the Trooper have been fired for this?; 10/13/08, 12:38 PM
Brian Doyle said...: The thing that amazes me about wingnuts is that they'll justify anything if the accused party is a Republican. It also helps if the persecuters are Democrats, but that doesn't seem to be operative in this case (the body that authorized the investigation was mostly Republicans).

Seriously, do conservatives really believe that there's nothing wrong with government positions being doled out or terminated according to who is chummy (or not) with the mayor/president/whatever? Sure there's the narrow legal point that the mayor/president can hire or fire whoever they want but then there's the ethical/philosophical question of "Is cronyism the best form of representative democracy" and it's hard to believe that conservatives' answer seems to be "Yes."; 10/13/08, 12:39 PM
walter neff said...: "Sure there's the narrow legal point that the mayor/president can hire or fire whoever they want but then there's the ethical/philosophical question of "Is cronyism the best form of representative democracy" and it's hard to believe that conservatives' answer seems to be "Yes."

Thank God a Chicago politician would never do anything like that!; 10/13/08, 12:43 PM
former law student said...: Governor Palin had the right, apparently, to fire Commissioner Monegan for any reason or no reason at all.

Yet that does not clear her of all legal wrongdoing. She violated AS 39.52.110(a) of the Ethics Act. The case made that Palin abused her power as Governor to pursue a personal vendetta against Trooper Wooten appears on pages 48 to 68 of the report.; 10/13/08, 12:45 PM
Brian Doyle said...: Thank God a Chicago politician would never do anything like that!

LOL.

"Oh yeah? Well Obama's from Chicago!"; 10/13/08, 12:45 PM
MadisonMan said...: So given this info, should the Trooper have been fired for this?

Fired, no, but certainly reprimanded at the very least. Doing something because a teen pleads for you to do it is a very very bad idea. Who is the adult here?; 10/13/08, 12:49 PM
Freder Frederson said...: Apparently both Palin and Simon are illiterate (Simon must dictate his posts) or they must not know that when the very first conclusion of the report states Palin "abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.... Compliance with the code of ethics is not optional." that means the report founds she did something unethical.; 10/13/08, 12:55 PM
Brian Doyle said...: Simon, with his extensive legal training, knows better than any investigators whether Palin abused her power.; 10/13/08, 12:58 PM
Darcy said...: I don't think conservatives are saying that Sarah Palin's actions are admirable. I think most of the reaction is that this has been blown out of proportion for political reasons.

My opinion: It seems reasonable to believe that this trooper had done things that would make most people wonder why he was still a cop.

Sarah Palin's actions were not entirely admirable, nor were they shockingly corrupt or craven. They sound human to me.; 10/13/08, 1:00 PM
mccullough said...: Sonicfrog:

Yes he should have been fired.

Yes Palin and her family should not have kept pushing for the Trooper to be fired after he wasn't and the "abused power" finding seems appropriate.

Yes Palin was right to remove Monegan from his post because he was undermining her. Yes she would have removed him even without her vendetta against her brother-in-law.

Yes Obama should be investigated for the Tony Rezko land deal.

No, none of these people are perfect.; 10/13/08, 1:02 PM
Anonymous said...: "A son of Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden was paid an undisclosed amount of money as a consultant by MBNA, the largest employer in Delaware, during the years the senator supported legislation that was promoted by the credit card industry and opposed by consumer groups.

David Wade, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, said that "after working in the Clinton administration in the Department of Commerce on Internet privacy and online commerce issues, Hunter consulted for five years as an expert on these very same issues at a time of enormous expansion in online banking."

At the time Hunter Biden was receiving consulting payments from MBNA, he also was a Washington lobbyist at a firm he had co-founded.

"He was not a lobbyist for MBNA, and his work had absolutely nothing to do with the bankruptcy bill. Zero. Nothing," said Wade. "

Nothing to see here. Let's get back to the national import of firing a drunken highway trooper.; 10/13/08, 1:03 PM
Rich B said...: I was wondering if we will ever hear Obama say anything like the heading of this post. I guess not - any suggestion that he is not as pure as the snow is a smear, QED.; 10/13/08, 1:09 PM
Anonymous said...: We've got major corruption and malfeasance in the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc that has caused a global financial crisis but ,by all means, let us keep a sense of proportion and worry about staffing in the Alaska Highway Patrol.
Glad to see the Dem's know how to prioritize.; 10/13/08, 1:11 PM
Brian Doyle said...: I think most of the reaction is that this has been blown out of proportion for political reasons.

Ridiculous. This investigation was underway before there were any political considerations (outside of Alaska, anyway).

When the veepstakes was still ongoing, her name was floated but the common contra-case was that she's under investigation for petty political thuggery.

If McCain didn't want this mess he didn't have to take it.; 10/13/08, 1:11 PM
Darcy said...: Nothing to see here. Let's get back to the national import of firing a drunken highway trooper.

LOL.; 10/13/08, 1:13 PM
hombre said...: Freder wrote: "To use your position to try and circumvent civil service procedures to settle a family squabble is unethical. Simon and Sarah Palin don't understand this. Maybe if either had gone to law school they could have figured it out."

Oh please. If law schools still teach analytical thinking and ethics, graduates ought to be able to look at this report and "figure out" that: a) Todd Palin is a private citizen, entitled to complain as he chooses; b) Aside from an indiscriminate phone call by one Palin employee, subsequently suspended for same, 90% of the "evidence" of the "ethical violation" comes from one source, Monegan. c) The facts do not support only the conclusion that the result sought by the Palins, et al, constituted a "personal benefit" as required by the ethics statute.

Any lawyer ought also to recognize that if the Legislative Council had been a client of lawyers French and Branchflower, an up front declaration of their conflicts of interests and an offer to recuse would have been expected.

Give us a break Freder!; 10/13/08, 1:14 PM
Brian Doyle said...: We've got major corruption and malfeasance in the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc that has caused a global financial crisis but ,by all means, let us keep a sense of proportion and worry about staffing in the Alaska Highway Patrol.
Glad to see the Dem's know how to prioritize.

Wasn't it just a few weeks ago that wingnuts were talking about the awesome responsibilities that fall to the Governor of Alaska?; 10/13/08, 1:20 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: The finding number one of the Troopergate report clearly stated that Sarah Palin broke the law. She clearly abused her power, as the report found.

If a person can't understand what's wrong with that, it doesn't reflect well on their grasp of ethics.

In this comment highlighted by Ann, Palin is clearly lying. it may be Palin is ignorant of the report's contents and, therefore, more ignorant than lying. That is her only defense.

And here you can see Chris Wallace of FoxNews clearly state that Palin acted illegally.

This article also shows how Palin lied about the Troopergate scandal.

You can find the report here. Go to page 8 to see these findings. (The text cannot be copied out).

The last thing we need is a Vice President who abuses their authority and then lies about it to the American people.; 10/13/08, 1:23 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: From the report, Finding Number One, that Governor Sarah Palin broke the law:

For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 2952.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.

And, let's remember, the vote of the majority Republican committee supporting this report was UNANIMOUS.

Later in the same report it says the actual firing was not illegal. Many Palin backers use that to claim she did no wrong. They are addressing a separate issue from the abuse of power. The abuse of power came in the pressure put to bear by Palin staff and her husband to have a trooper fired over a personal dispute, not in the firing.

Of course, the dishonest tactic of pointing to the firing authority will continue.

And, i their defense of Palin, Republicans will continue to demonstrate their ignorance of basic ethics.; 10/13/08, 1:31 PM
Anonymous said...: For the background of the fine Alaskan police corps, I differ to this comment posted over at Volokh:

http://volokh.com/posts/1223827163.shtml#459594

Palin is correct though, the whole point of the investigation was to find if Monegan's dismissal was unethical. And she was completely cleared of that charge. She was also cleared of the charge that she broke the law when it came to interfering with Wooten's disability claims.

The claim that she stepped over the line applying pressure to get a particular trooper fired is subjective. Especially since Wooten was not fired nor was his advancement in the state police hindered. This is starting to sound like a bad sexual harassment case.

Are you really prepared to set the bar for "unethical" behavior so low?; 10/13/08, 1:35 PM
hombre said...: Doyle said: "Seriously, do conservatives really believe that there's nothing wrong with government positions being doled out or terminated according to who is chummy (or not) with the mayor/president/whatever?"

Are you kidding, Doyle?

Do Moonbats not notice the meteoric rise of "the One" through and with the approval of the Chicago Daley/Cook County machines, the most notorious, crony-ridden, patronage governments in the US?

Of course, he has been protesting and blowing the whistle right along. No? Oh, my mistake, he's been endorsing Daley and the boys and hiring their staff members for his campaign. Admirable liberal ethics, eh?

Alpha Liberal: Have the biased Branchflower findings been elevated to the level of divine, like your candidate, or are we permitted to draw our own conclusions from the facts in the report?; 10/13/08, 1:42 PM
Skyler said...: So she did nothing illegal and she did nothing unethical. So just what is the definition of "abuse of power?" Seems pretty vague to me. And seriously folks, if the best a partisan investigator can come up with is this, I'm impressed by the character of Sarah Palin.

And by the way, she doesn't cavort with communist terrorists, she doesn't claim her philosophical influences were communists, and she isn't part of one of the more corrupt political machines in the nation.; 10/13/08, 1:44 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: "elHombre" asks:

Alpha Liberal: Have the biased Branchflower findings been elevated to the level of divine, like your candidate, or are we permitted to draw our own conclusions from the facts in the report?

Well, not at all. What Palin and her backers are doing is entirely different, though. They are lying about the report.

See the quote Ann used in the thread and the links I so helpful provided above.

Saying the report cleared her of wrongdoing, did nothing illegal or nothing wrong at all is a flat out lie.; 10/13/08, 1:44 PM
Donn said...: AL,

Can you please spare us your (mock) outrage over Troopergate?; 10/13/08, 1:46 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Skyler:

So she did nothing illegal and she did nothing unethical.

Wrong.

On Illegal, from the report:
For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 2952.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.

You see, Skyler, violating a law is doing something illegal. You guys seem awfully thick on this concept.

To the unethical part, see the quote from the report, above. She broke a freakin' ethics law.

using public office for personal advantage or to pursue a personal vendetta, as done here, is unethical.

Republicans: ethically challenged. Really, you guys keep making yourselves look worse and worse in your defense of corruption.; 10/13/08, 1:49 PM
Christy said...: It's called the Spoils System. Back in the day when Dead White Men were included in the curriculum, students learned about this stuff. So much for the elite educated class.; 10/13/08, 1:54 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Donn, I'm very sincere about my outrage. After 8 years of egregious abuses from Dick Cheney, Palin makes it clear she would continue his practices.

And our country just cannot afford more Cheney tactics.

====================
that-xmas:
The claim that she stepped over the line applying pressure to get a particular trooper fired is subjective.

No, it's not. it's based on the factual record of numerous contacts from Todd Palin to Monegan demanding the firing, of other contacts from other Palin staff seeking the same.

They have "evidence" to establish a record to this end.

But, here in Wingnuttia, up is down and down is up. Words don't have real meaning, and laws don't apply to Republicans.

If he was alive, Lewis Carrol could probably sue the Republican Party for intellectual property theft. you guys make Alice in Wonderland read like a modern day documentary.; 10/13/08, 1:56 PM
Simon said...: Darcy said...
"I don't think conservatives are saying that Sarah Palin's actions are admirable."

While that's true as a general matter, I defended what she did in my post linked above, and will do so again here. Palin did absolutely nothing wrong. If someone who works in the executive branch of government is a bad apple, and the Governor discovers this, the governor should have the power and the ethical obligation to fire that person, either directly or indirectly by commanding intermediate officers to do so. (If said officers refuse or fail, they must be liable for severance, too, a fortiori.)

To be sure, this requires ethical norms and ethics laws (consuetudo voluntis ducit, lex nolentes trahit) to protect government employees from abuse of authority or personal vendetta. It should not matter, however, whether the Governor came by the relevant information through official channels or by any other route; what matters is whether the charge is accurate.

Ethics rules have to be balanced against other harms. The principle that they seek to implement is unobjectionable, but no rational person pursues a goal at all costs. To the extent that ethics rules conflict with what I've said above, those rules are over-inclusive (I think everyone would agree with this), and, in my own opinion, perhaps more controversially, maladaptive. As DBP implied above, it is incoherent to argue that "Palin had a legal right to fire Walt Monegan for no reason at all. But since she actually had a good reason to do so, that makes the firing illegal or unethical...."; 10/13/08, 1:57 PM
Unknown said...: Don't you think Camille Paglia should print a retraction at this point, Ann?

FREE CARLY; 10/13/08, 2:00 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Here's a concept for my Republican friends to think over:

When you defend the indefensible and keep repeating discredited arguments and assertions you make yourself less effective, weaker and foolish.

Comes a time to step back from blind support of your candidate. This is one of those times.; 10/13/08, 2:00 PM
Invisible Man said...: There was a threat of killing a Palin family member. And tasering another. He may well have been "punished" as you see fit, but I can definitely see how the idea that he wasn't fit to be a cop might never go away.

After all of these years of people complaining about abuses both on and off the job about the police, its kind of rich to talk about who is fit to be a cop. I can't speak for you personally, but I know that most of the Right wasn't up in arms over Sean Bell getting pumped full of lead, yet all of a sudden many are worried about the character of the police force.; 10/13/08, 2:02 PM
hombre said...: Former Law Student wrote: "She violated AS 39.52.110(a) of the Ethics Act."

ONE guy says that, conflicted Branchflower! Several news reports indicate that there is "no consensus" on the Legislative Council. Other lawyers, including me, disagree. Did you miss some classes?

Alpha Liberal: I'm sorry you can't read my lips! My question was: "[A]re we permitted to draw our own conclusions from the facts in the report?"

You are apparently unable to comprehend that thinking people are not required to agree with Branchflower's findings if the statements and facts in the report support a contrary conclusion. (See the first two paragraphs, above.)

I'm a little surprised that Ann Althouse did not point that out.

She probably realized that you Obots are much better with unwarranted conclusions than with facts. Branchflower's "finding" is not a part of the facts being investigated and may even have been outside the terms of his contract.

This is not a difficult concept!; 10/13/08, 2:11 PM
Trooper York said...: "When you defend the indefensible and keep repeating discredited arguments and assertions you make yourself less effective, weaker and foolish."

You are a comic genius.; 10/13/08, 2:20 PM
Skyler said...: Alpha, do not assume that I'm a republican. Not everyone who disagrees with the communist trend of the democrat party is a republican.

She broke no law. She did nothing unethical. Where's the problem?

The report by one man, a highly partisan man with an axe to grind, vaguely asserting an ethical law was broken at the same time saying that she had every right to fire Monegan is of no weight.

This is EXACTLY like the dismissal of Bush's political appointments. Much ado over nothing. Absolutely nothing. Everyone agrees that Palin had the right to fire Monegan for any reason at any time. That means there was nothing unethical, no matter how anyone wishes to spin it. That's in the report, though the sound bite conclusion states the opposite of what the law says.

I wish logic were to come in vogue in this nation.; 10/13/08, 2:29 PM
Syl said...: sonicfrog

I've googled around and haven't found a credible source for the "taser" incident or an official filed complaint about it.

CNN! CNN interviewed Wooten a couple weeks ago. He ADMITTED tasering the kid.; 10/13/08, 2:36 PM
Darcy said...: I wish logic were to come in vogue in this nation.

I'm wishing hard for that, too. :); 10/13/08, 2:43 PM
Brian Doyle said...: This is EXACTLY like the dismissal of Bush's political appointments.

Yes, in that they were both unethical.; 10/13/08, 2:45 PM
Too many jims said...: Simon said...
"If someone who works in the executive branch of government is a bad apple, and the Governor discovers this, the governor should have the power and the ethical obligation to fire that person, either directly or indirectly by commanding intermediate officers to do so."

Firstly, you assume (perhaps correctly, perhaps not) that the executive's assessment of who is a bad apple is correct. Secondly, and more importantly, you completely disregard the role of civil service laws and (for lack of a better way of putting it) due process. The way you make it sound, the executive makes a decision about who is a bad apple and that person gets fired. So much for the rule of law.; 10/13/08, 2:50 PM
former law student said...: Queen Sarah I: Wooten! Who is Wooten? Will no one rid me of this meddlesome trooper?

Other lawyers, including me, disagree.

Draft a response, counselor. Hopefully you can do better than Palin's lawyer, Thomas Van Flein, who put up but a feeble counterargument: "In order to violate the ethics law, there has to be some personal gain, usually financial. Mr. Branchflower has failed to identify any financial gain," he said.

Governor Palin's expected personal gain was revenge upon the man who cheated on her sister. The statute mentions personal gain as well as financial gain -- according to the canons of construction the two cannot be identical lest "personal gain" be needless surplusage.

It should not matter, however, whether the Governor came by the relevant information through official channels or by any other route; what matters is whether the charge is accurate.

The Governor had already brought her case against Wooten to the attention of his employer, the State Troopers. They disciplined him. She tried to use the power of her office to change the outcome, after the fact.

Now it could be that the State Troopers' disciplinary system is inadequate or otherwise defective. The proper action would be to investigate the State Troopers, not continue her vendetta against Wooten.

The claim that she stepped over the line applying pressure to get a particular trooper fired is subjective. Especially since Wooten was not fired nor was his advancement in the state police hindered. This is starting to sound like a bad sexual harassment case.

No penetration, no sexual harassment, is that your argument?

Todd Palin is a private citizen, entitled to complain as he chooses

Todd, the First Gentleman, making calls from the Governor's office, can no longer be considered a "private citizen."

Glad to see the Dem's know how to prioritize.

And Watergate was merely a "third rate burglary." Why the heck did Nixon step down, then? Oh, I remember: Nixon was a crook.

Perhaps I'm overfastidious, but I don't want a member of the Soprano family a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

Let's look at Rezko for a moment: A civil engineer and real estate developer, a friendly guy who liked to ingratiate himself with politicians, looked at a house that Obama was thinking of buying with the dough his Ayers-ghostwritten books were earning (has anyone audited the proceeds to see if Ayers got his fair share, I'm wondering.) The property consisted of two buildable lots, though only one had a house on it.

Rezko bought the vacant lot, and later sold 1/6 of it to Obama for a side yard. Period. End of story.; 10/13/08, 3:41 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm sticking with the abuse of power accusations being subjective.

The Alaska Daily News breakdown of the report and what's happened is pretty good.

http://www.adn.com/troopergate/story/552799.html

Yes, Branchflower collected a series of incidents. But each incident seems to be pretty weak. The worst was Todd Palin talking to Monegan directly shortly after Sarah was elected Governor.

http://www.twincities.com/shared/ci_10692701

Monegan himself opened the channel for Todd Palin to complain about Wooten directly. (See event 8).; 10/13/08, 3:45 PM
hombre said...: Doyle wrote: "'This is EXACTLY like the dismissal of Bush's political appointments.'

Yes, in that they were both unethical."

At worst, conflicted Branchflower found that Wooten's retention was only one of several reasons Palin chose to fire Monegan. All the other reasons had to do with her concerns about Monegan's performance.

Therefore, Branchflower did not find that the firing itself was unethical.

The concepts here seem difficult for you and you co-Obots. Is that because they take you past the Obama talking points?

Too many jims wrote: "[T]he executive makes a decision about who is a bad apple and that person gets fired. So much for the rule of law."

Except when the "rule of law" provides that it is the executive's responsibility to make that decision and do the firing, as it did in the Palin-Monegan relationship.

My God, the callowness is bringing me down.; 10/13/08, 3:51 PM
Darcy said...: My God, the callowness is bringing me down.

Please hang in there. You make far too much sense.; 10/13/08, 4:07 PM
hombre said...: former law student wrote: Draft a response, counselor.

I did draft a response. It took about twenty minutes and was posted on this site shortly after the report became public. I haven't seen the need to revisit its content. It is also at:
http://thenextright.com/elhombreprimero/troopergate-report-biased-and-unprofessional-but-good-enough-for-the-media

former law student wrote: "Governor Palin's expected personal gain was revenge upon the man who cheated on her sister. The statute mentions personal gain as well as financial gain ...."

Do you notice this "revenge" bit is an inference? There is no evidence to support it and it contravenes the Palin's statements to the witnesses that they were concerned about the DPS's reputation.

Additionally, Wooten is paying child support to Palin's sister and Wooten's firing would therefore be against the financial interest of a member of Palin's family.

Fisking the commenters here isn't quite the same as offering up a lawyerlike analysis of the strengths or weaknesses of Branchflower's report -- including the probable impact of his and French's conflicts. In the courtroom, Branchflower and Monegan get their asses kicked.

It seems you are better suited to be an Obot than to be a lawyer.; 10/13/08, 4:32 PM
mccullough said...: Former law student:

Shouldn't the Senate Ethics committee have investigated Obama for the Rezko land deal? Guys like Rezko don't do favors for nothing, and Obama knew this (and he knew Rezko was under federal investigation at the time as well).

I know you think it's no big deal, but wouldn't a report from an indepedent investigator be in order just so we all know.

If not, why? (Other than that Obama good Palin bad); 10/13/08, 4:35 PM
John Althouse Cohen said...: Well, the even much-criticized report finds (page 8) that "Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired" by Palin; it was only "likely a contributing factor," and the "firing" "was a propoer and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads." Can't imagine why she'd feel vindicated by that!

So: even a partisan hack job can't manage to pin her with wrongdoing. A genuinely evenhanded report won't find even that much wrongdoing.

Simon, you are misrepresenting the report by cherry-picking the part of the report that's about one specific thing she did that wasn't illegal, while ignoring the part that says she engaged in ongoing illegal behavior.

The report said that she broke the law and behaved unethically in the lead-up to the firing.

To say the report exonerated her of any wrongdoing is simply false. The report says what she did was unethical and illegal. Palin is lying, and Simon is (to say the least) distorting the truth.; 10/13/08, 4:35 PM
dick said...: I would now like the LLL dem commentators here to justify Travelgate. that was far more egregious than this was and included the siccing of the IRS on the employees who were fired. What really got me about that one was that the president said that the media had complained and the media said that they were totally satisfied with how the travel office had been working and nobody complained. Same principle, different party and definitely done for the aid of the family financially.; 10/13/08, 4:56 PM
James Williams said...: The Branchflower report is from a partisan Democrat, and should be treated with much scepticism, particularly with regard to the timing of release just before the election. This is particularly true given that the Democrats involved with the report know the outcome before the investigation started, and promised an "October Surprise." If, as many here say, Palin violated the law, then impeachment of Palin should follow shortly. If it doesn't, then this report is bogus.; 10/13/08, 5:12 PM
hombre said...: John Althouse Cohen: "The report says what she did was unethical and illegal. Palin is lying...."

Disappointing, John.

So the subjective findings of the author of the report have been elevated, like Obama, to the level of divine, while the contents and varying interpretations of the law are just so much drivel.

Speaking of cherry-picking ....

I don't agree with Simon that an attempt to base a legitimate defense of Palin can be mounted exclusively on the findings. I do agree that there is ample evidence that Elton, French and Branchflower are partisan hacks who set out to do a hatchet job on Palin (which is a separate issue that has been ignored by the advocacy media).

I do think Palin's "any hint" comment is a stretch. However, if her lawyer says "Branchflower is dead wrong on his interpretation of the ethics laws and we have the caselaw to prove it," she was, at least by Obama standards, entitled to say it.; 10/13/08, 5:25 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: "Seriously, do conservatives really believe that there's nothing wrong with government positions being doled out or terminated according to who is chummy (or not) with the mayor/president/whatever?

Doyle, I love your hypocrisy. I laughed so hard. Your pal Obama is a product of the Chicago Democratic Machine; a machine that thinks it is perfectly ethical, legal, and moral to dole out jobs, positions, and promotions according to who is chummy with the elected Democrat officials. Obama's political godfather and mentor is a man called EMil Jones, the epitome of political corruption. Of course there is Mayor Daley, his other pal and our soon to be indicted governor. So, it is perfectly OK for Obama and Democrats to abuse power; I love the progressive liberal hypocrisy. It is so funny it makes one puke.; 10/13/08, 5:26 PM
PJ said...: And, let's remember, the vote of the majority Republican committee supporting this report was UNANIMOUS.

Perhaps I missed something, but it was my understanding that the committee vote was just to make the report public, not to endorse, ratify, or otherwise support its findings. I hate to question the commenter's assertion since it's in ALL CAPS and everything, but can anyone clarify or provide a link?; 10/13/08, 6:04 PM
former law student said...: Guys like Rezko don't do favors for nothing

True, but I think his favors were to advance a personal interest rather than an immediate financial one. Having Illinois' movers and shakers think kindly of you could always come in handy. At a minimum, it shows that you're a player, that you have the ears of these people. Rezko once hosted a fundraiser for Bush at the Rosemont Horizon, so he was an equal opportunity suck-up. I'm going to say he was a networker on steroids.

Now did Rezko cross the line? Certainly. But did he want to or expect to cross the line with Obama? I don't think so. If we have a wide circle of acquaintance, we can distinguish our straight arrow friends from our crooked friends.

In my case, when I bought my first house, I had my "friend" the slumlord check it out. He pointed out a few electrical and plumbing defects, but pronounced it basically sound. I took advantage of his expertise, even though he was not the most ethical guy. We never did any business together; rather we were part of the same group of card players.

What did Obama get out of this?

1. He did not have to wait for a buyer for the corner lot to show up, which would have delayed his house purchase.

2. He knew exactly who would own the corner lot -- his old buddy.

3. He could be fairly certain the corner lot would not be developed, at least not right away, because Rezko already had a house.; 10/13/08, 6:24 PM
former law student said...: Do you notice this "revenge" bit is an inference? There is no evidence to support it and it contravenes the Palin's statements to the witnesses that they were concerned about the DPS's reputation.

Did you read the laundry list of Wooten's offenses Sarah's family presented to the state troopers during the breakup? The timing, source of the complaints, and nature of the offenses provides ample evidence to support an inference of revenge-seeking.

Some of them were up to two years old, showing that no one in the Palin circle cared much at the time they occurred, only when they could be used against Wooten. None came from outside Sarah's family and friends, showing that only immediate supporters of Sarah's sister had reason to complain of Wooten's behavior -- on or off the force. The most egregious allegation was Sarah's father's accusing Wooten of shooting a wolf from a snowmobile:

During questioning, the state troopers establish that Charles Heath had shot but only wounded the wolf in question. After the wolf took off, Wooten tracked it down via snowmobile, humanely dispatching it after he stopped and got off the snowmobile. Anyone opposed to animal suffering would think that Sarah's dad should have thanked Wooten, not trumped up a charge against him.

Wooten's firing would therefore be against the financial interest of a member of Palin's family.

Wooten's firing would have kept him from getting custody, satisfying a personal interest of a member of Palin's family. Can you see why a wronged woman would rather forgo child support than see her ex again?; 10/13/08, 6:38 PM
former law student said...: Fisking the commenters here isn't quite the same as offering up a lawyerlike analysis of the strengths or weaknesses of Branchflower's report -- including the probable impact of his and French's conflicts.

Dude, muttering "They're all in the tank for Obama" is hardly a lawyerlike analysis. When you write one, please let me know.; 10/13/08, 6:56 PM
John Althouse Cohen said...: So the subjective findings of the author of the report have been elevated...

It wasn't an "author," it was a legislative committee that did an investigation and unanimously arrived at those findings. Yes, I believe their findings. They did the hard work of figuring out what really happened. You and I, in contrast, have no real basis for knowing what happened. In order to get through life, you have to take a lot of things on the authority of the people who have actually investigated the facts. Is there some possibility that everyone on the committee got it wrong? Sure, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it.; 10/13/08, 7:15 PM
PJ said...: It wasn't an "author," it was a legislative committee that did an investigation and unanimously arrived at those findings.

Respectfully, JAC, I have been looking for confirmation of this and I can't find it. Most articles I have found are vague on the point, and the only one that purports to resolve it (examiner.com) says:

"the panel of lawmakers voted to release it - though not without dissension. The panel did not vote on whether to endorse its findings."

It appears that the panel authorized the Branchflower investigation, and then authorized publication of Branchflower's report, but did not adopt it as a committee report or endorse its conclusions. So the report is Branchflower's report to the committee, nothing more.

If you (or anyone else) knows of evidence to the contrary, I am willing to be convinced.; 10/13/08, 7:59 PM
John Althouse Cohen said...: Good point -- I stand corrected: the report that found that she violated the law and acted unethically as governor was actually by one person. As you said, it was just to a legislative committee. I remembered it wrong. I don't know if it's been adopted -- I'd have to look into that.; 10/13/08, 8:07 PM
hombre said...: Thank you for your correction, JAC.

In fact, the Legislative Council voted unanimously only to release the report the facts and findings of which were the work of one man, Steve Branchflower. Anchorage Daily News, ADN.com, 10/10/2008

At least three members of the Council have stated publicly that they don't agree with it. (ADN.com) Another has said there is "no consensus." (ABCNews.go.com)

Two have made it clear that they do agree, Lyda Green, longtime adversary of Palin's (ADN.com) and Kim Elton, Obama supporter, who said, "I believe that these findings may help people come to a conclusion on how they should vote [in the presidential election]." (CNN.com)

Elton is the Chair of the Council and I believe his comment speaks volumes about the altered intent of the investigation once Palin became the VP nominee.; 10/13/08, 8:52 PM
hombre said...: fls wrote: "The timing, source of the complaints, and nature of the offenses provides ample evidence to support an inference of revenge-seeking."

You're kidding, right?

In liberal families, do they report dad to the cops while trying for reconciliation? The source of the compaints was the family. Who else knew? The nature of the offenses was determined by the offender? Next!

fls wrote: "Wooten's firing would have kept him from getting custody, satisfying a personal interest of a member of Palin's family."

Quite the contrary, the domestic court judge in the final order in 2006 said he was concerned about the family's complaining against Wooten and would hold it against Palin's sister in any future custody proceedings. Otherwise, Wooten has since ended his fourth marriage, has a history of domestic violence and discipinary action as a cop. Not much chance of his making inroads on mom's custody with or without a job.

Even Branchflower wasn't willing to use this lame argument.

Please, take the last word. I've got a plane to catch.; 10/13/08, 9:23 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Simon sez:

Ethics rules have to be balanced against other harms.

I was thinking of this while doing doors for Obama-Biden. I've decided it's an alarmingly bad statement.

If we let pols "balance" ethics rules against other concerns, only about 1% of them will follow ethics rules. And things would be even worse than they are now.

Ethics aren't something you do when it's convenient. It's a RULE that you follow at all times.

And you sure as hell don't flout the rules because you think your BIL is an ass. Even when the relatives are creeps, you still don't get to use your public office for private purposes.; 10/13/08, 9:49 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Elsewhere, someone made the point that the Republicans are making two claims which cannot both be true:

1) The report is a partisan hatchet job.
2) The report clears Palin.

That's kind of funny, if insulting that they expect us to dumb enough to believe it.
====
There were more than a dozen attempts to pressure MOnegan to fire Wooten, including contacts from Palin (Monegan warned her off), Todd Palin, her chief of staff*, the Attorney General, Commissioner of the Department of Administration, policemen, the chief of staff to the speaker of the House of Representatives, and the deputy commissioner of public safety and much more.

Good for Branchflower and the bipartisan committee that supported release of the report.

* Monegan told him: “You don’t want Wooten to own your house, do you?” Love it!; 10/13/08, 10:05 PM
Too many jims said...: elHombre said...
Too many jims wrote: "[T]he executive makes a decision about who is a bad apple and that person gets fired. So much for the rule of law."

Except when the "rule of law" provides that it is the executive's responsibility to make that decision and do the firing, as it did in the Palin-Monegan relationship.

My God, the callowness is bringing me down.

If you go back and read Simon's post that I was referring to, I think it is clear the "bad apple" he is referring to is Wooten. From everything I have read Monegan served at the pleasure of the Gov. and, therefore, did not enjoy civil service protections. I doubt the same is true for Wooten.

So, yes, the Gov. can fire Monegan for whatever reason she wants. But I took Simon as saying that the executive should be able to fire any "bad apple" in the administration. This strikes me as contrary to the rule of law to the extent that state law outlines a process which must be followed to fire a bad apple.

Further, while I will concede (without knowing how Alaska may limit the authority of the Gov.) that the Gov. can fire Monegan for any reason, if (1)she fired Monegan for not firing Wooten and (2) Monegan did not have the authority to fire Wooten then (3) that reflects very poorly on her.; 10/14/08, 6:41 AM