TrooperGate Report: Palin Abused the Power of Her Office

TrooperGate report is out. Findings: Gov. Sarah Palin abused the power of her office.

The report by investigator Steve Branchflower found that Palin violated the state's executive branch ethics act, which says that "each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust."

The full report is here (pdf.) The vote to release it was unanimous. I'll update as I read it.

Pages 65 to 67, reproduced here, explain the finding that Palin abused the power of her office.

< Newseek: Palin May Cost McCain a Win in Florida | Excerpts From Bipartisan TrooperGate Report and Palin's Initial Pledge to Cooperate >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Bush/McCain abused my 401K. That's the (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by steviez314 on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 07:35:06 PM EST
    most important thing for the next 25 days.

    This thread is about Palin (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 07:37:24 PM EST
    Not the economy. Please stay on topic.

    Sorry. I actually skimmed the report, and (none / 0) (#3)
    by steviez314 on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 07:40:13 PM EST
    it just doesn't seem like it will move any dials anymore.  I'm not sure anything will, the election seems set in stone barring some Bush/Iran stuff.

    While I expect her to be like Cheney, (without the redeeming parts!), I also thankfully don't see her in our future anymore.


    Disagree. (none / 0) (#4)
    by Faust on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 07:41:10 PM EST
    It may not move the dials much, but it's one more nail in the coffin.

    It just occured to me: (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by steviez314 on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 07:43:12 PM EST
    If you can "abuse your power" without breaking the law, either you have too much power or the law sucks.

    There's always impeachment... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Fabian on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 07:53:07 PM EST
    Or ethics charges...

    The real questions are often "Who cares?" and "Do they care enough to take risks?".  

    Any time voluntary (as opposed to mandatory)  oversight rears its head in the legislative process, I cringe.  It means that no one may take any action at all, even if they have evidence of misdeeds.  Cowardice or cronyism are sometimes just the different means to the same end - looking the other way.


    Wasn't Sen. McCain slapped on the (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 07:45:50 PM EST
    wrist by the Senate re Keating Five?  

    like Palin (none / 0) (#59)
    by white n az on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 09:26:31 PM EST
    neither Murtha nor Jefferson have been convicted of anything that I am aware of.

    Consider that the Republican's got a lot of slack from the current administration which is I presume why some like Lewis in CA and Foley in FL have not been charged with anything.


    The people who signed the report (none / 0) (#67)
    by sallywally on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 09:43:24 PM EST
    and had it passed on to the public were mostly Repubs.

    It was only democrat driven (none / 0) (#71)
    by white n az on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 09:55:56 PM EST
    if you buy the crap that the McCain/Palin campaign is sellin'

    The Republican's control the investigating committee, both sections of their bi-cameral legislature and of course, you are ignoring the promise by Palin that she would cooperate with the investigation. The issue of partisanship has been driven by the McCain campaign as an intent to play a Get Out of Jail Free™ card.

    Both the House and the Senate have strengthened their ethics laws and it seems to me that it serves our interests better to push for further ethical oversight as opposed to using past lack of oversight as justification for unethical behavior.

    I guess I don't get the points you are trying to make since they are completely uninformed and I resent your 'glass houses and all that' comment since as far as I know, there are no ethics challenges against Biden or Obama


    Redeeming parts of Cheney??? (none / 0) (#8)
    by robrecht on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 07:50:16 PM EST
    Oops, left out the snark tag. (none / 0) (#9)
    by steviez314 on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 07:51:17 PM EST
    Snark tag not needed (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 09:01:53 PM EST
    as Cheney is synonymous.  We ought to spell it snarkey.

    She has lost authority to say she's a maverick... (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by magster on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 07:48:29 PM EST
    ...reformer.  She's no better than your stereotypical scuzzy pol.  Bad day for McCain.

    Now she's a maverick. . . (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 08:10:49 PM EST
    power of office abuser.

    Just like Cheney (none / 0) (#80)
    by coigue on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 10:29:26 PM EST
    which makes her seem much less Mavericky

    Cheney's a TRUE maverick! (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 10:31:17 PM EST
    I mean, come on!  The dude shot his own friend in the face.  How much maverickier can you get?

    I wonder if McNasty . . . (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Doc Rock on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 08:04:55 PM EST
    . . . and Cindy have mirrors in any of their many houses?

    Is the ethics act a code or a law? (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 09:00:42 PM EST
    There are differences.  An ethics code can be statutory, i.e., in state statutes, without being construed the same as a law.  Weird, but that's how I had it explained to me, and by a lawyer.  (That probably means I could walk half a block and find another lawyer who would explain it otherwise.:-)

    heh! (none / 0) (#37)
    by Faust on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 09:02:41 PM EST
    It is a law, as far as I can tell (none / 0) (#61)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 09:31:44 PM EST
    There are two docs to review.  One is statute and one appears to be regulations.  Scroll down after clicking on the link:


    Sorry tiny url would not convert this link.  


    Palin Just Cost McCain the Election (none / 0) (#11)
    by john horse on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 07:54:03 PM EST
    As far behind as McCain was, this report about Palin just cost McCain the election.  Its inconvievable that the American people would elect anyone who has been cited by a bipartisan legislative panel with abuse of power and violation of the public trust.  McCain now has zero chance of getting elected.  

    McCain picked Palin. (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by byteb on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 08:21:04 PM EST
    This report underscores the complete lack of judgment McCain demonstrated with his impulsive pick of Palin for VP.

    i used to say that there was no way (none / 0) (#12)
    by cpinva on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 08:04:51 PM EST
    the american people would vote for a guy who was an alcoholic, drug abuser, who used family connections to leapfrog 500 more qualifed candidates, securing a place in the texas air national guard, to avoid service in vietnam, then basically went awol, vs two guys who actually enlisted and went to vietnam.

    and yet, they did, twice.


    12-0 (none / 0) (#15)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 08:09:17 PM EST
    That pretty much sums it up. I skimmed the report, Branchflower has the Palins dead to rights. Even the Repubs couldn't find fault with it.

    yes, (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by JThomas on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 08:16:48 PM EST
    it is hard for McCain/Palin to say it was a Democratic plot with 10 Republicans voting to accept and release the findings.

    Hard to see how this will not hurt McCain with indy voters at least. The hardcore 25% that still love bush will stick with him but beyond that..it gets tougher for him.

    It feels like another turning point today with McCain defending Obama at his rally against the haters and now this report exposing Palin as an abuser of power. Both incidents will hurt the base's faith in the ticket. I hope so anyway. Time to chill out,America and just have a regular presidential campaign the rest of the way and then get behind the winner to fix our huge problems.


    ya (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 08:23:27 PM EST
    Yeah, this is an absolutely brutal day for McCain.  I would feel sorry for him if he had not brought it all on himself.

    He deserves to lose.


    I wonder if... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Michael429 on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 08:32:51 PM EST
    Politico will say McCain wins the day...probably..



    There should be a law... (none / 0) (#20)
    by stevea66 on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 08:23:47 PM EST
    stating that if you have been found guilty of a crime, even if there is no prosecution, you shouldn't be able to run for VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!

    Then, she would be removed and we'd have a shot at watching Joe Lieberman swoop in to help the lifeboat...sink.

    This is all like a bad, scary dream.  It would become a nightmare if this race becomes close again for some reason.

    As much as I want to sympathize with your point, (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by rdandrea on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 08:33:53 PM EST
    I can't.

    Nobody has been convicted of a crime.

    Whether they should be or not is a separate issue.


    Innocent until proven guilty (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 09:03:33 PM EST
    in my country.  Maybe you're not in the U.S.A.?

    I'd be quite shocked if Talk Left (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 08:29:59 PM EST
    backed your proposal.

    this report is more like an indictment. When (none / 0) (#26)
    by Christy1947 on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 08:39:49 PM EST
    the legislature returns next January or thereabouts, they will have to decide whether to take further action, censure, impeachment, whatever they do there, and that would be the trial.

    My guess is censure after the election. (none / 0) (#72)
    by hairspray on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 10:00:03 PM EST
    I think McCain lost when the stock market tanked. Nothing else short of nuclear war could bring the GOP back.  In a way I feel sorry for him and her actually.  I can't see how anyone can defend what the Republicans have done to this country since Ronald Reagan and particularly since GWB.  I think they got their marching orders from Rove to go as negative as possible and were given a script.  What could they possibly run on?

    there is no allegation that Palin (none / 0) (#49)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 09:17:29 PM EST
    engaged in criminal conduct. There certainly is no finding that she did. Please, let's not exaggerate. She's been found to be in violation of an ethics law, not a criminal law.

    And TalkLeft would never back a law that prevented persons convicted of a crime from running for office.

    An ethically challenged person is another matter. McCain's audacity in nominating Palin, then unknown to the general public outside of Alaska,  when she was under an ethics investigation, shows his abysmal judgment.


    Actually. . . (none / 0) (#54)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 09:20:56 PM EST
    the story that I read in the Times specifically said that the report concludes that Palin had unlawfully abused the power of her office.

    That's not a conviction, or even an indictment.  But I believe it's fair to characterize it as an "allegation" -- or even a finding.

    I find it unlikely that this will ever go to a court and even if it does it will be well after the election.  But, as it stands, there is a finding of unlawful behavior by Governor Palin, at least according to the Times.


    Who do you think... (none / 0) (#22)
    by stevea66 on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 08:31:26 PM EST
    would be the best replacement if she stepped down?  I mean, who would make for the best punching bag, if we needed to go down that road?

    Palin 2012?? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by WS on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 08:40:55 PM EST
    Palin 2012 on John McCain sign ... with Sarah Palin signing it... (scroll down on link)

    I think Sarah will have trouble in (none / 0) (#88)
    by hairspray on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 12:19:25 AM EST
    Alaska before she can go national.  Perhaps the Alaskans were pretty disgusted with the behavior of the cop and his rather weak "slap on the wrist" and may not care about the findings.  Without a strong Democratic opposition that may be the end of it.  OTOH she stepped on some pretty big Republcians in Alaska, so she may not have any friends come next election.

    She's Not Gonna Step Down. (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by Brillo on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 08:44:06 PM EST
    And if she does, McCain would be toast.  No pick he could possibly make would erase the damage of her leaving, much less also help him make up the 10ish point deficit he seems to have at the moment.  

    You said it. ;-) (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by themomcat on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 09:32:53 PM EST
    but it is too late to replace her even if she steps down on "her own". The damage is done to McCain's judgment.

    It is all about perception (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by themomcat on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 09:55:44 PM EST
    The Republicans have been in charge for the last 8 years with a majority in the Legislature for almost 6 of those years. Biden is a Democrat, he is perceived to be one of the "good guys". It has nothing to do with what Biden said about McCain vs Obama, It has to do with the public perception of the person at the top of the ticket.
    I had a conversation with a conservative colleague who was concerned with Palin and whether she would be "capable of taking over for McCain if he should die while in office". My colleague felt that if anything happened to Obama he would be comfortable with Biden as President. In general I don't think most voters care a wit about what you and I might be concerned about in a candidate.
    BTW, I am no longer a member of the Democratic Party. As far as supporting a candidate for President, I haven't found one yet.

    What happens to ballots? (none / 0) (#68)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 09:45:15 PM EST
    I mean, you can't change the (P) candidate at this point without causing a major hassle with ballots, right?

    Early voting and Absentee Ballots (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by themomcat on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 10:01:04 PM EST
    Ohio has early voting which, if I am correct, has already taken place or started. Absentee Ballots are already in the hands of voters, that I can confirm, I have mine. So, at his point, the slates area done deal. It would be chaos for the Republicans to try to replace Palin at this point

    You don't understand the persecution complex (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 09:04:23 PM EST
    of the right.  This feeds it.  It will energize the base.  (But that still won't be enough.)

    Cream's got it exactly right ... (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 09:13:14 PM EST
    and I'm surprised how few have seen it.  This will make Palin a bigger hero with the base.

    Don't fear their base. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 09:17:04 PM EST
    If they run a candidate who excites their base but turns off pretty much all independents, that's great.  The candidate you want to fear is the one who ignites the base and appeals to independents.

    We're never going to win 100% of the vote.  But 65% is okay, too.  We won't reach that number, of course, but we'll do just fine.  If Sarah Palin is really, really thrilling 35% of the population and no one else, we should all thank McCain for picking her.


    well (none / 0) (#48)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 09:17:24 PM EST
    What do dead-enders matter?  McCain needs more than the base.  They will turn out to stop Osama the jihadi regardless of anything Palin does.

    This won't play well with the middle.  


    Of course. The discussion here is not (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 09:22:34 PM EST
    whether the ticket will win.  It is whether she should heed these calls to step down. Like she's gonna listen to libruls about it.:-)

    And my response is that no such calls will come from the right.  She now is a martyr to the cause.  And fanatics love them their martyrs.


    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 09:36:29 PM EST
    McCain lost this race when Lehman Bros. folded.  That's not the issue here.

    She won't step down, because the base won't call for it.

    Also technically I don't think she can.  They can't get another candidate's name on the ballot.  And the VP must be approved by the convention delegates.


    You mean the 18% who still lkie Cheney? (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by coigue on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 10:32:22 PM EST
    she's not stepping down (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 09:18:12 PM EST
    and we don't want her to step down. We want her to run with McCain as he intended so they can lose.

    Talk about taking the wind out of (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 08:34:25 PM EST
    Dem. sails.  Don't leave, Gov.

    Who would take it under these circumstance? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Christy1947 on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 08:40:22 PM EST
    Bite your tongue! (none / 0) (#30)
    by indy in sc on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 08:41:39 PM EST
    I hope he keeps her.  She's a net negative right now.  If he takes this opportunity to replace running mates, we could be in trouble.

    I read somewhere (none / 0) (#34)
    by Natal on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 09:01:51 PM EST
    that a VP selection at this late date cannot be legally replaced. Someone here might be able to cite specifics if this is true.

    I think (none / 0) (#32)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 08:56:45 PM EST
    He would need a holy roller populist to replace her.  A base pick to placate the base.

    Bobby Jindal

    That sort of thing. Not that it will happen.


    The witholding of e-mails (none / 0) (#36)
    by white n az on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 09:02:23 PM EST
    is an interesting thing...

    • The AG will have to release them eventually, undoubtedly before the legislature is back in session.

    • The Alaskan courts ruled today that Palin must preserve her non-official mail accounts.

    • If Branchflower has been paid $100,000 to date, is he going to get a supplemental to go through the e-mails that they finally release?

    • Care to wager on the internal strife that the Palin administration will go through having to release those e-mails?

    I see not only a McCain/Palin loss in November but also an impeachment hearing in January, especially considering that she has made enemies in the Republican controlled legislature.

    I very much remember here in Arizona that a peripheral character, Evan Mecham was elected (Republican) and it was the Republicans who impeached him from office. They eat their own.

    Ev Mecham (none / 0) (#86)
    by white n az on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 11:14:08 PM EST
    is hardly the story here and I know that the NFL blamed his revoking the MLK holiday as the reason for not having a Super Bowl here but the Super Bowls are big money and excessively political and the owners of the Cardinals (Bill Bidwell & family) have done little to engender any NFL Commissioner love (or locally for that matter).

    I don't recall any criminal trial but the thing that was exasperating was that the impeachment came just 2 weeks before the recall vote and the Republican legislature was only too happy to impeach the Republican governor to be replaced by the Democratic Secy of State (yes, Mofford) and steal the votes away from the populace.


    We should do a local news review (none / 0) (#39)
    by nycstray on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 09:03:51 PM EST
    I'd like to see how many 11PM and Sat AM local newscasts cover it. We are sadly lacking on reporting with many issues (imported food safety anyone?!), that I have to wonder if this is on their radar. May get some play if the O camp brings it up, but I haven't heard anything on my local news about the goings on in Alaska regarding this.

    CNN Anderson Cooper 360 (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by themomcat on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 09:07:23 PM EST
    It is the main topic as of 10 PM. I won't watch KO, maybe someone else can report.

    and (none / 0) (#43)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 09:11:45 PM EST
    Almost mon-stop coverage for two hours on MSNBC.

    Neither CNN nor MSNBC ... (none / 0) (#46)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 09:15:43 PM EST
    are local newscasts.

    ya (none / 0) (#53)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 09:20:39 PM EST
    And this will be discussed on all the Sunday morning shows. It will probably be a story for a week as McCain tries to spin it and reporters ask more questions.

    This story isnt going to vanish.


    The Story Will Vanish... (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Brillo on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 10:02:15 PM EST
    Sometime Monday when the DOW drops another few hundred points.  Any other election and both the Ayers stuff and this would matter, but neither is  gonna make a difference this time.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#79)
    by nycstray on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 10:10:38 PM EST
    I'm seriously distracted by life at the moment, so I'm only listening to local news for the most part. I think this may be somewhat common. I need local weather report, sports and a basic recap of life in the big, bad world. Local news. Oh, yeah, the economy updates also. I actually am tuning out while busy, any report in the background that deals with the current economic crisis from the candidates. You can tell by how the story is framed  (as upcoming/next news) that neither has hit on an answer.

    I'll be missing my local late news as the game is still on, and miss the morning news because I have to get up, slam some coffee and go work the CSA. If I didn't see it here, I wonder if I would know about it?

    side note: creamed fresh spinach turned out great! {goes off to pack into freezer bags for the winter} Harvest season rocks!


    I doubt local newcasts would cover it at this (none / 0) (#74)
    by Faust on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 10:01:59 PM EST
    point. This will be hashed out in cable for a few days and will then bet attatched to the Palin narrative in some fashion, probably as some kind of constant addendum to the Maverick storyline.

    Bottom line of all this is about the Palin narrative. Narrative is the lifeblood of candidates when it comes to media coverage. They need generally positive narratives to keep up their favorables. This finding will damage the Palin narrative, and that damage will trickle down into the general consciousness.

    Watch her favorables decline a bit, and unfavorables to go up a bit. Watch McCain's judgement in picking her get hammered by some pundits.

    The end.


    Donald, did you find (none / 0) (#42)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 09:11:11 PM EST
    a copy of the report you can select and copy text from?

    I'm sending it through OCR (none / 0) (#55)
    by white n az on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 09:21:41 PM EST
    right now...if you want my output, I'll send it to your gmail or aol account

    please do send it (none / 0) (#78)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 10:08:28 PM EST
    gmail would be great.  Thanks.

    done (none / 0) (#83)
    by white n az on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 10:38:10 PM EST

    The McCain Campaign Response, (none / 0) (#45)
    by KeysDan on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 09:15:05 PM EST
    was reported on the Larry King Show.  The Report, so their story goes, essentially vindicates Governor Palin.  The bad part of the report is due to Obama supporters.  This singularly obtuse response only puts more nails in the McCain/Palin coffin.

    Romney? (none / 0) (#50)
    by Manuel on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 09:17:30 PM EST
    What if McCain and Palin took this opportunity to replace Palin (for the good of the ticket and the counry etc.) and replaced her with Romney.  That could shake up the race (particularly in MI) which is McCain's only hope.

    I wonder.  WOuld they have to do another VP debate?

    I think that being the governor (none / 0) (#84)
    by white n az on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 10:43:07 PM EST
    that at the very least, an impeachment discussion is on the table.

    Anyway, I think what would really drive this home is Wooten and I would bet that he's huddling with his attorneys right now to:

    • pursue action against his ex-wife and custody orders per the judge who was on record back in 2005 to get the Palin's to back off.

    • institute a lawsuit against Palin's personally for the abuse of governmental power against him and this would be a monster of a suit.

    • institute a lawsuit against the state of Alaska for failing to protect his rights as a citizen

    Wow...the ramifications of this are really a lot larger than just impeachment or some form of censure. I think that Palin has a lot of problems with the Republicans in Alaska and will have much to deal with after she loses in November.

    CNN experts say no law was violated (none / 0) (#85)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 11:04:17 PM EST
    although, as well we who remember the '90s know, abuse of power is not requisite for censure, impeachment, etc.

    If you are interested (none / 0) (#87)
    by CoralGables on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 12:01:39 AM EST
    in how the headlines read across the country:

    Inquiry Finds Palin Abused Powers - NY Times
    Alaska Probe Finds Palin Abused Executive Power - Washington Post
    Legislative panel: Palin abused authority - Miami Herald
    Sarah Palin investigation cites unlawful abuse of power - LA Times
    Panel: Palin misbehaved - USA Today
    Palin abused power, panel says - Atlanta Journal-Constitution
    Troopergate report: Palin abused power - Anchorage Daily News
    Probe: Palin abused power - MSNBC
    Panel: Palin 'Abused Her Power' -FOX News
    Palin abused power in firing, Alaska panel finds - CNN

    No matter how the GOP tries to spin it, it isn't a good headline anywhere

    Palin denies Troopergate (none / 0) (#89)
    by caesar on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 09:39:08 AM EST
    YES!!! The Republicans are being SWIFTBOATED!!
    I love it! How does it feel suckas!!?

    PALIN GETTING OFF EASY (none / 0) (#90)
    by stevea66 on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 10:39:54 AM EST
    She just said "it's about time we called him on it.," in reference to his stance on abortion.  If they softball this Troopergate thing, it'd be a mistake.  The facts are that she did abuse her power.  If the report is a bit wishy-washy on whether or not she broke a "law" or not, that doesn't.  She lied to us about it.  She lied repeatedly.  And she can't separate her personal life from her job, and frankly, the a VP, that's scary stuff.  Obama spokespeople need to rip on her about that.  One was just on MSNBC and stepped around the issue.  Mistake.  I hope they're not doing that because McCain had 20 seconds of 'Obama is a decent citizen...' crap.

    heh (none / 0) (#91)
    by connecticut yankee on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 01:08:41 PM EST
    As uaual the McCain camp strikes the wrong note.

    You cant say the report vindicated her and move on, its incredibly stupid.  They should claim partisanship, or simple disagreement with the results.

    To stand up and pretend they just exonerated her makes her look deranged and out of touch.

    I don't understand (none / 0) (#92)
    by patriotgames on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 07:19:35 PM EST
    Ninth paragraph down: "Palin's firing of Monegan was "a proper and lawful exercise" of the governor's authority." Am I missing something? How can Palin's actions be "proper and lawful", while being called an abuse of power?

    since you asked... (none / 0) (#93)
    by white n az on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 10:45:31 PM EST
    the interpretation used by the 'investigator' Branchflower was that the cabinet members serve at the pleasure of the governor and may be dismissed for any legal reason(s).

    Evidently, there is no clear statement linking his dismissal directly to his failure to get trooper Wooten fired/dismissed. In fact, Monegan's replacement did not get the trooper fired or dismissed either.

    If you really want to know the reason that Monegan was dismissed, it was because...

    Shortly before the annual celebration of Police Memorial Day on May 15, 2008, Commissioner Monegan had dropped off a color photograph at Governor Palin's Anchorage office with a request that she sign and present it at the ceremony. The photograph was of an Alaska State Trooper who was dressed in a formal uniform, saluting. He was standing in front of the police memorial located in front of the crime lab at AST headquarters in Anchorage, partially obscured by a flagpole. The picture to be signed by the Governor was to be used as a poster to be displayed in various Trooper Detachments around the state.

    Shortly after he returned to his office from dropping off the photograph, he received a call from Kris Perry, Governor Palin's Director of her Anchorage office who asked [according to Walt Monegan's testimony] "Why did you send a poster over here that has a picture of Mike Wooten on it?"28 Until that moment, Commissioner Monegan never realized it was indeed a photograph of Trooper Wooten. Governor Palin cancelled her appearance and sent Lieutenant Governor Parnell in her place.

    Quoted from the Branchflower report