Troopergate to be dismissed this friday

[Lucky... 0]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081009/ap_on_el_pr/palin_troopergate_1


....err, I mean decided by Friday..... yea, dismissed.

[headoverheels 334]

Well, she was found to have abused her power, but not to have violated any Alaskan laws. I read about 50 pages of the findings/testimony, etc., and it is interesting. Not a trait that I want in public office, although I would say nearly all elected officials are guilty of similar actions/inactions.

[billvon 3,111]

>Well, she was found to have abused her power, but not to have violated
>any Alaskan laws.

From the report itself:

"I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.11(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act."

News report on that:

Oct 10, 9:08 PM EDT

Alaska inquiry finding: Palin abused power

By MATT APUZZO

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) -- 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.

Investigator Stephen Branchflower, in a report by a bipartisan panel that investigated the matter, found Palin in violation of a state ethics law that prohibits public officials from using their office for personal gain.

The inquiry looked into her dismissal of Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan, who said he lost his job because he resisted pressure to fire a state trooper involved in a bitter divorce with the governor's sister. Palin says Monegan was fired as part of a legitimate budget dispute.

The report found that Palin let the family grudge influence her decision-making even if it was not the sole reason Monegan was dismissed. "I feel vindicated," Monegan said. "It sounds like they've validated my belief and opinions. And that tells me I'm not totally out in left field."

Branchflower said Palin violated a statute of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.

Palin and McCain's supporters had hoped the inquiry's finding would be delayed until after the presidential election to spare her any embarrassment and to put aside an enduring distraction as she campaigns as McCain's running mate in an uphill contest against Democrat Barack Obama.

But the panel of lawmakers voted to release the report, although not without dissension. There was no immediate vote on whether to endorse its findings.

"I think there are some problems in this report," said Republican state Sen. Gary Stevens, a member of the panel. "I would encourage people to be very cautious, to look at this with a jaundiced eye."

The nearly 300-page report does not recommend sanctions or a criminal investigation.

The investigation revealed that Palin's husband, Todd, has extraordinary access to the governor's office and her closest advisers. He used that access to try to get trooper Mike Wooten fired, the report found.

Branchflower faulted Sarah Palin for taking no action to stop that. He also noted there is evidence the governor herself participated in the effort.

[normiss 892]

To sum it up:
Politics 101.

[MikeForsythe 0]

So the panel voted to release the report but no vote was taken to endorse the findings? Then all we have is a single person’s report that contains both facts and opinions.

This panel was negligent in that a finding one way or the other should have been made before releasing the report. If the panel comes back in say a month and endorses the report nothing really changes, but if the panel comes back and does not endorse the report or only certain parts this could be disastrous which is very possible since you already have panel members on record and disagreeing with the report.

Also as I read it the statute states that there has to be a personal or financial gain, so what was the personal or financial gain?

Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!

[akarunway 1]

Quote

So the panel voted to release the report but no vote was taken to endorse the findings? Then all we have is a single person’s report that contains both facts and opinions.

This panel was negligent in that a finding one way or the other should have been made before releasing the report. If the panel comes back in say a month and endorses the report nothing really changes, but if the panel comes back and does not endorse the report or only certain parts this could be disastrous which is very possible since you already have panel members on record and disagreeing with the report.

Also as I read it the statute states that there has to be a personal or financial gain, so what was the personal or financial gain?

Personal gain? "The inquiry looked into her dismissal of Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan, who said he lost his job because he resisted pressure to fire a state trooper involved in a bitter divorce with the governor's sister." What part don't you understand?

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

So the panel voted to release the report but no vote was taken to endorse the findings? Then all we have is a single person’s report that contains both facts and opinions.

This panel was negligent in that a finding one way or the other should have been made before releasing the report. If the panel comes back in say a month and endorses the report nothing really changes, but if the panel comes back and does not endorse the report or only certain parts this could be disastrous which is very possible since you already have panel members on record and disagreeing with the report.

Also as I read it the statute states that there has to be a personal or financial gain, so what was the personal or financial gain?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personal gain? "The inquiry looked into her dismissal of Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan, who said he lost his job because he resisted pressure to fire a state trooper involved in a bitter divorce with the governor's sister." What part don't you understand?

Sounds VERY personal to me.

[ianmdrennan 2]

I find it amazing that the panel finds that she violated her position of power, only to have her supporters make excuses that she didn't do it for financial gain.

Lets be honest here folks, if it was Obama a lot of you would be crying out for blood.

Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[MikeForsythe 0]

Quote

Lets be honest here folks, if it was Obama a lot of you would be crying out for blood.

Except in Obama's case it would be so far down the list that is already there that we probably would not have time to get to it before the election.

Also, you might want to do your own research as the PANEL DID NOT find that she violated her position.

Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

Except in Obama's case it would be so far down the list that is already there that we probably would not have time to get to it before the election.

I find these kinds of statements amusing. They're a lot like McCains, for the most part, campaign of "I'm better cause I think the other guy sucks". I mean, really, if you've got a good platform the issues will speak for themselves.

Quote

also, you might want to do your own research as the PANEL DID NOT find that she violated her position.

Err, denial much? http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20081010/Palin.Troopergate/

First lines from the article: Panel found that she abused her power. Pretty hard to argue that she didn't at this stage

Now, there's definitely a question of whether any legal action can be taken as the ethics law sounds a bit ambiguous or, at least, only applicable to financial gain.
Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[lummy 4]

Quote

Also, you might want to do your own research as the PANEL DID NOT find that she violated her position.

How do you come to that conclusion? I read the report and it clearly stated that she violated Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.

it's on page 8

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[billvon 3,111]

Wow. Usually it takes at least half a dozen posts to get from "let's wait until the investigation is complete before we condemn anyone" to "let's ignore the results of the investigation because they don't agree with my biases."

[sfc 1]

Quote

Wow. Usually it takes at least half a dozen posts to get from "let's wait until the investigation is complete before we condemn anyone" to "let's ignore the results of the investigation because they don't agree with my biases."

Hopefully people will take this as a warning that, if elected, the mccain-palin administration will abuse power just like their buddies bush-cheney are, sticking a middle finger up to the legislative and judicial branches of government and doing what they please regardless of the law.
Nothing changes in politics except the names.

[MikeForsythe 0]

Quote

Err, denial much? http://www.comcast.net/...0/Palin.Troopergate/

No, but you might want to read your source:

"But the panel of lawmakers voted to release the report, although not without dissension. There was no immediate vote on whether to endorse its findings."

Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!

[Andy9o8 2]

Your team's imploding. End of story.

[kallend 2,146]

I guess that's the best you can do.

Palin - an extremist who abuses the powers granted to her to pursue a personal vendetta.

Just the kind of person to replace Bush and Cheney.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

umm...

"circumstances and events surrounding the termination of former PSC Walt Monegan and potential abuses of power and/or improper actions by members of the executive branch." - emphasis mine.

In other words, Monegan was the major thrust of the investigation, but any other apparent abuses of power are part of the scope.

And you don't need to take direct action to violate that statute; application of influence is more than adequate. That said, she did take direct action, in terms of conversations aimed quite clearly (from transcripts) at getting him fired.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Palin-Troopergate.html?hp

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/us/politics/11trooper.html?em

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/10/alaska_legislative_probe_finds.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSN1041450720081011

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6004368&page=1

AND HERE IS THE SPIN so you can spit it back to us endlessly:

Quote

Originally Posted by McCain Palin Campaign Statement
"Today's report shows that the Governor acted within her proper and lawful authority in the reassignment of Walt Monegan," said Palin spokeswoman Meg Stapelton. "The report also illustrates what we've known all along: this was a partisan led inquiry run by Obama supporters and the Palins were completely justified in their concern regarding Trooper Wooten given his violent and rogue behavior. Lacking evidence to support the original Monegan allegation, the Legislative Council seriously overreached, making a tortured argument to find fault without basis in law or fact. The Governor is looking forward to cooperating with the Personnel Board and continuing her conversation with the American people regarding the important issues facing the country."

I'll translate:
STUPID PARTISAN BIPARTISAN COMMITTEE! WITH ITS UNANIMOUS 12-0 DECISION TO RELEASE THE REPORT TODAY!
Here is the pdf for yourself if you want to read it:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20081010_TROOPER.pdf


FYI: According to 538, McCain has dropped a full percentage point on winning in the last three days. He now has a 9.1% chance of winning. Meanwhile:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/10/as_mccain_goes_negative_a_gop.html#more
The rats are jumping from the sinking ship.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[MikeForsythe 0]

It is a shame that you, billvon, kallend and andy9o8 exhausted all of that energy for nothing. Read my original response slowly and carefully. I never defended what she did and in fact I think she did use her position to try and get Wooton fired. I asked a question about the statute that the investigator used because I don’t see a “personal gain”.

Now if you had read what I wrote you would have seen that I was pissed at the panel for being spineless for not rendering a ruling on the report. As it is now there is nothing out there except a persons report. The panel should have endorsed/not endorsed or partially endorsed the submitted findings of the investigator. That would have probably given the report more credibility. Voting to just release the report is meaningless.

I also think it was a personal vendetta against Palin that cost the tax payers $100,000 to prove nothing more than what the personnel board will come with. That is in place and the proper venue to handle this issue.

Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!

[sfc 1]

Quote

Quote

Err, denial much? http://www.comcast.net/...0/Palin.Troopergate/

No, but you might want to read your source:

"But the panel of lawmakers voted to release the report, although not without dissension. There was no immediate vote on whether to endorse its findings."

They voted 12-0 to release it, sounds unanimous to me. You're squirming to find a way to spin a 12-0 vote against palin as dissension.
But you believe what you believe in the face of this, you are loyal to your party, I have to give you that.

[sfc 1]

Quote

It is a shame that you, billvon, kallend and andy9o8 exhausted all of that energy for nothing. Read my original response slowly and carefully. I never defended what she did and in fact I think she did use her position to try and get Wooton fired. I asked a question about the statute that the investigator used because I don’t see a “personal gain”.

If you think she did try to get him fired, why don't you see that as personal gain, its not financial but it is personal.
Why do you continue to support her, can you imagine the sorts of abuse of power that could occur if she was VP.
She has demonstrated that as a governer she is without principle operating on the edge of the law for her own personal agenda.

[Amazon 7]

Past performance is indicative of future actions.


All you need to do is look at the warning signs of Georgie boys actions... and its amazing that so many did not see what was going to happen to our country under his reign.

The personality flaws of the people you are supporting are very very disturbing.

Do you think all that anger might find an interesting vehicle in the Patriot act??

[MikeForsythe 0]

Quote

They voted 12-0 to release it, sounds unanimous to me. You're squirming to find a way to spin a 12-0 vote against palin as dissension.
But you believe what you believe in the face of this, you are loyal to your party, I have to give you that

Please feel free to add your name to the list in my previous post.

Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!

[MikeForsythe 0]

Quote

Past performance is indicative of future actions. The personality flaws of the people you are supporting are very very disturbing.

I couldn't agree more about Obama. Just look who he associates with and tell me what the patteren says: Nadhami Auchi, Tony Rezko, Rev. Wright, Farrakhan (who thinks Obama is the Messiah), William Ayers, Rashid Khalid and ACORN. There are more but that should keep you busy for a while.

Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!

[sfc 1]

Quote

Quote

They voted 12-0 to release it, sounds unanimous to me. You're squirming to find a way to spin a 12-0 vote against palin as dissension.
But you believe what you believe in the face of this, you are loyal to your party, I have to give you that

Please feel free to add your name to the list in my previous post.

You said you think she is guilty of abuse, but that the investigation was a waste of money. So you don' think we should investigate political abuses of power, or that you don't think we should investigate abuses of power of GOP VP candidates.
The investigation started before she was selected as mccain's running mate, mccain knew that and still selected her, he screwed up big time selecting her.
However you are loyal to your party regardless, props to you for that, shame the party does not deserve it.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Voting to just release the report is meaningless.

Not really. Full disclosure is a wonderful thing. It helps the people of Alaska understand who they have running things up there. I need to read a bit more to see what legal grounds they have for going after her. It's quite possible this could be used for a vote of no confidence and recall her placement with another vote. We've seen such a thing recently in California.

Just because she wasn't levied a hefty fine or hauled away in chains doesn't mean the process was a waste. It just means it requires mutliple steps in the process.

On a national level it shows the country who we could have running our office. Now, the investigation wasn't done for that reason but it does have that additional benefit. Because of this, the investigation had to come up with a way to handle the results that wouldn't look politically motivated. It's not how I would do it, but no one ever asks me.

I also see it as progress, holding out politicians to be accountable for their actions. We need them to be ethical and do what is best and play by the rules. It's good to see that the slimy side of politics can still be tracked down and put into the light of day.

But if you are ok with allowing our politicians to abuse our power and not have any investigation into it.....well, I won't agree with that.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....