Excerpts From Bipartisan TrooperGate Report and Palin's Initial Pledge to Cooperate

The full TrooperGate report is here (pdf). Pages 65-67 with key findings on Gov. Sarah Palin are reproduced here (pdf).

Below are some key excerpts from the report, followed by several news articles showing that contrary to claims by Palin and the McCain campaign, the investigation was bipartisan from start to finish -- and Palin herself initially pledged to cooperate with the legislature. [More...]

  • “For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin Abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.” [Branchflower Report to the Alaska Legislative Council, Page 8]
  • “Compliance with the code of ethics is not optional....“The evidence supports the conclusion that Governor Palin, at the least, engaged in ‘official action’ by her inaction if not her active participation or assistance to her husband in attempting to get Trooper Wooten fired [and there is evidence of her active participation. [Branchflower Report to the Alaska Legislative Council, p 65-6]
  • She knowingly, as that term is defined in the above cited statutes, permitted Todd Palin to use the Governor’s office and the resources of the Governor’s office, including access to state employees, to continue to contact subordinate state employees in an effort to find some way to get Trooper Wooten fired. Her conduct violated AS 39.52.110(a) of the Ethics Act.” [Branchflower Report to the Alaska Legislative Council, p 65-6]
  • “Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda.” [Branchflower Report to the Alaska Legislative Council, p 66]
  • “In this case, Governor Palin has declined to provide an interview. An interview would have assisted everyone to better understand her motives and perhaps help explain why she was so apparently intent upon g Trooper Wooten fired in spite of the fact she knew he had been disciplined following the Administrative Investigation.” [Branchflower Report to the Alaska Legislative Council, p 66]
  • “Governor Palin has stated publically that she and her family feared Trooper Wooten. Yet the evidence presented has been inconsistent with such claims of fear.” [Branchflower Report to the Alaska Legislative Council, p 67]
  • “Finally, it is noteworthy that in almost every contact with subordinate employees, Mr. Palin’s comments were couched in terms of his desire to see Trooper Wooten fired for reasons that had nothing to do with fear.” [Branchflower Report to the Alaska Legislative Council, p 67]
  • “I conclude that such claims of fear were not bona fide and were offered to provide cover for the Palin’s real motivation: to get Trooper Wooten fired for personal family related reasons. [Branchflower Report to the Alaska Legislative Council, p 67]
  • “The Attorney’ General’s Office failed to substantially comply with my August 6, 2008 request to Governor Sarah Palin for information about the case in the form of emails.” [Branchflower Report to the Alaska Legislative Council, p 74]

The Investigation Was Bipartisan from Beginning to End

  • JULY 28: Joint Legislative Council of the Legislature Voted Unanimously to Appoint a Special Counsel to Investigate Palin Abuse of Power Claim. The Alaska State Legislature’s Legislative Council voted 12-0 to approve $100,000 for a special investigator to begin an investigation into claims Palin fired a former state official because he would not fire a state trooper who was involved in a bitter custody battle with Palin’s sister. [KTVA 11, 07/28/08]
  • Legislative Council Is a Bipartisan, Bicameral Panel. “The decision came from the Legislative Council, a bipartisan panel of state senators and representatives… The Legislative Council is a panel of lawmakers who tend to legislative business when lawmakers are not meeting in regular session.” [Anchorage Daily News, 7/29/08]
  • Independent Investigator, Not the Committee Will Conduct the Investigation. “The committee itself will not conduct the probe. Rather, it will hire an independent investigator to explore whether Palin, her family or members of her administration pressured Monegan to fire an Alaska state trooper involved in a rough divorce from Palin's sister.” [Anchorage Daily News, 7/29/08]
  • Palin Supporters AND Detractors Agreed the Investigation Was Needed. “Supporters as well as detractors of the Republican governor generally agreed the legislative investigation is needed into the circumstances leading up to Monegan's dismissal.” [Anchorage Daily News, 7/29/08]
  • Republican Senator Therriault, a Palin Ally, Hoped Investigator Could See If There’s Any Legitimacy to the Accusations Against Governor Palin. Republican Sen. Gene Therriault, a Palin ally, said, “Unfortunately, with partisan politics and talk shows and bloggers, there's probably just as much noise as substance.” He added, “Hopefully, what the investigator can do is sift through it and see if there's any legitimacy.” [Anchorage Daily News, 7/29/08]
  • Republican Senate President, Who Had Clashed With Palin, Said Investigation Was “Absolutely” Needed. Republican Senate President Lyda Green, from Wasilla, said the investigation is “absolutely” needed. “I'm hoping for a clean bill for everybody -- that everyone has acted honorably,” said Green. [Anchorage Daily News, 7/29/08]
  • Republicans Rep. Nancy Dahlstrom Said “For the Overall Good of Our State, We Just Need to Get to the Bottom of This.” Republican Rep. Nancy Dahlstrom said, “We've had a cloud over our body the last few years since the (federal) investigations have occurred. For the overall good of our state, we just need to get to the bottom of this.” [AP, 7/29/08]
  • Republican House Speaker John Harris Said If Laws Were Broken That Needs to Be Curbed and “It Needs to Be Done Quickly.” Republican House Speaker John Harris said, “If there were laws broken, or if somebody used abuse of power, that needs to be curbed. And it needs to be done quickly.’” [AP, 7/22/08]
  • SEPTEMBER 12: Two Democrats and One Republican Voted to Issue Subpoenas to Compel Palin Administration Officials and Todd Palin to Appear Before the Independent Investigation. “Alaska lawmakers voted Friday to subpoena the husband of Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice presidential candidate, in a move that transformed a messy state personnel issue into a national campaign controversy. The lawmakers acted at the request of Stephen Branchflower, who is in the midst of an investigation into the governor's dismissal of the state's director of public safety. Branchflower said he also wants to interview the governor, but omitted her from the 13-person list of subpoena targets he presented to the lawmakers overseeing his investigation… Two Democrats and one Republican voted for the subpoenas, rejecting attempts by the other two Republicans on the panel to delay them until after the November election. Sen. Charlie Huggins, a Republican from Palin's hometown of Wasilla, appeared in camouflage pants on a short break from moose hunting to cast his vote.” [AP, 9/12/08]
  • Republican Effort to Stop the Independent Investigation Was Shot Down By Republican Senator From Wasilla. “Republican efforts to delay the probe until after the Nov. 4 election were thwarted when GOP state Sen. Charlie Huggins, who represents Palin's hometown of Wasilla, sided with Democrats. ‘Let's just get the facts on the table,’ said Huggins, who appeared in camouflage pants to vote during a break from moose hunting.” [Anchorage Daily News, 9/12/08]
  • OCTOBER 10: Legislative Council Voted Unanimously to Release the Report. “The report by investigator Steve Branchflower was made public late this afternoon by a 12-0 vote of the Legislative Council, which authorized the investigation.” [Anchorage Daily News, 10/10/08]

Palin Welcomed the Investigation

  • JULY 19: Palin Said “We Would Never Prohibit, or Be Less Than Enthusiastic About Any Kind of Investigation.” On July 19, 2008, KTUU reported that Palin stated, “We would never prohibit, or be less than enthusiastic about any kind of investigation. Let’s deal in the facts, and you do that via investigation.” [KTUU, 7/19/2008]
  • JULY 21: Palin Herself Urged the Legislature to Hold Her Accountable. “I've said all along, 'Hold me accountable,'” Palin said. “I did not ask him to hire or fire anyone in the two years that we worked together. If it takes an investigation to prove that to Alaskans, then so be it, certainly.” [AP, 7/22/08]
  • JULY 29: Palin’s Spokeswoman Said She Would Answer Questions About Troopergate. On July 29, 2008, according to the Anchorage Daily News, “Sharon Leighow, the governor's spokeswoman, said Palin ‘doesn't see a need for a formal investigation,’ but is willing to answer questions. Leighow added, ‘The governor has said all along that she will fully cooperate with an investigation and her staff will cooperate as well.’” [Anchorage Daily News, 7/29/08]
  • JULY 31: Palin on the Investigation – “It’s Cool. I Want them to Ask Me the Questions.” Asked in an interview about the investigation, Palin said, “A couple of lawmakers who weren't happy with that decision certainly are looking at me as kind of a target right now and wanting to probe and find out why I did replace this Cabinet member. And it's cool. I want them to ask me the questions. I don't have anything to hide and didn't do anything wrong there. And it is a governor's prerogative, a right to fill that Cabinet with members whom she or he believes will do best for the people whom we are serving. So I look forward to any kind of investigation or questions being asked because got nothing to hide.’ [Kudlow & Company, 7/31/08]
  • AUGUST 13: Both Palin and AG Colberg Pledged to Cooperate With the Investigation. In a news conference, both Palin and AG Colberg pledged to cooperate with the investigation. Palin said, “As we have said all alone [sic] all along we will fully cooperate with the legislature’s investigation.” Colberg said, “Instead of saying we’re throwing up the barriers and we’re going to resist this from day one and we’re not going to cooperate, we’re going to provide what we’ve found.” [Palin Press Conference, 8/13/08; video available here]
< TrooperGate Report: Palin Abused the Power of Her Office | The Polls - 10/11 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Really, it was a Republican. . . (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 10:32:33 PM EST
    investigation.  10 to 4 on the controlling state Senate committee.

    Can you imagine what it would have been like if Democrats controlled the "bipartisan" committee by a similar weight?

    Sorry LarryInNYC (none / 0) (#6)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 10:46:27 PM EST
    I'm just parroting what you already said. Maybe I'll learn to read someday (actually, no, I gave up on reading because I'm in line to become a judge, and its a skill I'll never need nor use).

    Two to one majority of democrats in Alaska? What have you been smoking (please share with all).

    Going to be nice to watch McCain/Palin squirm on this hook.

    Odds on 60 seats in the senate, anyone?


    In the meantime (none / 0) (#14)
    by cal1942 on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 11:03:31 PM EST
    Odds on 60 seats in the senate, anyone?

    Indicted incumbent Alaska Senator Ted Stevens has drawn into the lead in his bid for re-election.  That poll was taken BEFORE the trial judge admonished the prosecution.

    The troopergate inquiry may have an effect on McCain/Palin, confirming before God and everyone that Sarah Palin is unfit, but, it won't affect any other race anywhere.

    My bet's on 4 pick-ups in the Senate with an outside shot at a couple of others.  Four seats  will enable us to tell Joe Lieberman to go pi$$ up a rope but Troopergate won't get us 60 seats.

    So I'll take that bet on 60 seats but I won't give odds, not after you offered.


    Wouldn't expect (none / 0) (#23)
    by CoralGables on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 11:20:26 PM EST
    Troopergate to have any effect on the Senate vote in Alaska. Should Stevens walk due to mess ups at his trial by the prosecutors I would almost expect a Stevens win.

    On the other hand, I'd be more than willing to bet that a 6 seat pickup is in the cards with Minnesota and North Carolina to go along with NH, VA, NM, and CO. Six looks like a lock right now. Oregon and Alaska snugly tucked into the toss up category with MS, GA, KY leaning GOP


    MN is too wild to call (none / 0) (#48)
    by Cream City on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 12:07:47 AM EST
    and there must be something in that wild rice there.  Polls there on the same day, yesterday, came out with margins of everything from Obama 18 pts ahead to Obama 1 pt ahead.

    I think the Minnesnowtans are having fun with pollsters.


    I never thought (none / 0) (#51)
    by CoralGables on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 12:13:55 AM EST
    I would see Franken as winning, but when that Coleman "suits" press conference took place the other day and was covered by TV stations...it just comes off as "guilty as hell". And to think, I came around to believing Franken would win due to Neiman Marcus suits and nothing to do with the issues.

    that press conference (none / 0) (#52)
    by white n az on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 12:16:36 AM EST
    was so damn funny and will finish Coleman's career.

    Now, what is with MN politicians? Whose buying Bachman's dresses?



    I saw (none / 0) (#53)
    by connecticut yankee on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 12:16:46 AM EST
    Chuck Todd reported earlier that Coleman announced he is pulling all of his negative ads.  The implication seemed to be that McCain's negative tack was hurting everyone.

    Though maybe he has other reasons.


    I haven't finished reading the entire report, (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by callmecassandra on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 10:42:23 PM EST
    but I came across this on my travels...

    Finding Two
    I find that, although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as a Commissioner of Public Safety. In spite of that, Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitution and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.

    I read in another post of yours that she broke the law. How? And I'm still trying to understand how it's an abuse of power when she can fire for almost any cause or no cause at all.  And since she's never claimed to fire Monegan for not firing Wooten, well...  

    Now, it's possible I'm missing something here, of course, perhaps I haven't gotten to the "but" yet...

    Obama's in the lead...so where is this desperation coming from? Why does it even exist?

    Tell me (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by Steve M on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 10:48:59 PM EST
    How did you manage to read Finding Two without noticing Finding One, the one which says she abused her power by violating the law?

    How did you manage to ignore Finding Two? (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by callmecassandra on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 11:01:53 PM EST
    How did you manage to not make a comment regarding Finding Two? How did you manage to reconcile Finding One with Finding Two in any logical fashion?

    If you can manage to answer at least one those questions directly, I'd appreciate it. I've already answered yours. See the 1st paragraph.


    Well gee (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Steve M on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 11:09:10 PM EST
    Maybe because Finding One and Finding Two talk about entirely different things.

    Finding One says Palin abused her power and broke the law by trying to get Trooper Wooten fired for personal reasons.

    Finding Two says Palin's firing of Walt Monegan was legal.


    To the non-legal mind. . . (none / 0) (#21)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 11:16:57 PM EST
    it is a little hard to grasp how the firing could be both legal and illegal at the same time.

    Because it's not (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by Steve M on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 11:19:20 PM EST
    Trooper Wooten and Walt Monegan are two different people.

    Perhaps. . . (none / 0) (#24)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 11:21:11 PM EST
    I should go to bed earlier.  Obviously, I'm not reading or thinking clearly.  Thanks for the correction.

    I understand (none / 0) (#68)
    by BrassTacks on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 01:36:50 AM EST
    It's terminally boring.  If the gun is smoking, it's a whiff that no one will notice.  

    Firing Monegan was legal. (none / 0) (#33)
    by callmecassandra on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 11:37:16 PM EST
    Not an abuse of power. However, wanting him to fire Wooten (for good reason, btw) is abuse of power? Against whom? Wooten or Monegan? Help me out here.

    Firing Wooten. . . (none / 0) (#34)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 11:40:04 PM EST
    was the apparently illegal action.  That was for personal interest and using her position for personal interest is, evidently, against the law.

    Pressing the termination of Wooten... (none / 0) (#44)
    by callmecassandra on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 11:55:39 PM EST
    and perhaps perusing his personnel file is apparently an illegal action. Funny that nothing much happened to him save a wrist slap. Was that a result of Gov. Palin's pressure? I don't recall that it was.

    Obtaining info. from Wooten's file, I can understand as being an abuse of power. Maybe. But wanting this man gone from the force - I don't see it.

    And there's something else. Where does a governor go when dealing with a situation like this? Are political officials, such as governors, prohibited from, shall we say "petitioning", the commissioner to terminate an abusive cop who may be threat to the family and others? And how could it not be "personal reasons" and genuine fear at once?

    Sorry for the barrage of questions. I tend to do that a lot.


    The answer to this question: (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Faust on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 12:51:32 AM EST
    Are political officials, such as governors, prohibited from, shall we say "petitioning", the commissioner to terminate an abusive cop who may be threat to the family and others?


    Yes, if they are petitioning due to reasons that stem from personal motivation. This is the whole point of finding 1.


    And this personal motivation (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by callmecassandra on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 01:57:50 AM EST
    involves an abusive police officer who threatened the lives of Alaska's "First Family".

    I could accept "personal motivations" if Wooten was merely a womanizer. But he's worse than that. From what I understand, he drank on the job, threatened to MURDER his father in law, abused his wife and tasered his step-son. And speaking of tasering, there have been countless posts and diaries here and elsewhere full of outrage at cops tasering adults - and we wanted these officers suspended, fired and prosecuted for police brutality. Wooten tasered a child. But because the child is the nephew of Gov. Palin, Wooten's abuse isn't a public threat but simply a family problem? Come on, man. Yeah, if someone threatens your life and the lives of your family, it will be personal.

    I don't like defending Gov. Palin. I shouldn't have to but this is effing ridiculous. Think about it. A police officer threatens a Governor (and family) and he's still employed? How is that possible? And the Gov. can't petition for his dismissal because she's the governor and the abusive cop was a brother-in-law at one time?

    I don't think I've seen anything like this. Again, a cop can threaten a United States Governor and the family of a Governor and yet, he's allowed to remain on the force while the Governor is condemned for pressuring his termination...I'm still trying to wrap my mind around that.


    Does this finding provide clarification (5.00 / 0) (#87)
    by KeysDan on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 09:33:42 AM EST
    along your lines of concern?  Finding: "I conclude claims of fear were not bona fide and were offered to provide cover for Palin's real motivation: to get Trooper Wooten fired for person family reasons."   Of course, Governor Palin could have testified, if she chose, to discuss these fears.

    What were these personal family reasons? (none / 0) (#100)
    by callmecassandra on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 09:32:40 PM EST
    Was it Wooten "The Cop" tasering Gov. Palin's nephew? Was it Wooten "The Cop" abusing Palin's sister? Was it Wooten "The Cop" threatening Palin's father?

    And how did the investigator make his conclusion? Was Gov. Palin caught socializing with Wooten? Was he invited to birthday parties, Thanksgiving dinner or New Year Eve's festivities?

    Seriously, from what we know of Wooten, would you want this cop anywhere near you and your family? If not, why not?


    The personal family reasons, (none / 0) (#104)
    by KeysDan on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 04:50:51 PM EST
    are apparently in dispute. While neither the Palin nor Wooten version of the dispute sounds like family values in action, the facts have not been stipulated, nor have any mitigating or explanatory circumstances been presented by all parties to the dispute.  What is known is that Wooten and his wife were involved in a messy divorce and child custody battle. Governor Palin's nephew is also, Wooten and his ex-wife's child. Charges and counter-charges are the stuff of which divorce cases, lawsuits, or even restraining orders are made so as to determine where the truth lies and what actions, if any, need to be taken.  We do know that Governor Palin, her husband and her staff entered into the fray with the force of her office, to fire Wooten, a classified employee.  In so doing, the Alaskan legislative commission found that she abused her power.  Palin's claims of fear, moreover, were determined to be a cover.

    Wooten (none / 0) (#89)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 10:05:34 AM EST
    A investigation was done into those claims and they were not substantiated. This was during a bitter and nasty divorce action. For the claims that were substantiated, Wooten got a five day suspension. Case closed. And all the allegations Todd Palin was bringing up had already been dealt with previously. There was nothing NEW. Monegan told Todd that. He could not legally terminate Wooten on old (and in many instances bogus) allegations for which Wooten had already been punished for. This was against union rules and could very well leave the state of Alaska open to a big fat lawsuit.

    Links, please. (none / 0) (#101)
    by callmecassandra on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 09:33:13 PM EST
    As governor she has a higher duty (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by denise k on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 01:00:04 AM EST
    than an individual citizen has and the report makes the point that that is the price you pay to hold a position of public trust.  

    To me this seems at bottom like a case of divorce insanity -- a condition that takes over people in particularly nasty divorces.  There was probably some infidelity or other cause that made Sarah's dad crazy and protective of his daughter which in turn brought Todd and Sarah into the fray.  This is pure conjecture, but I have seen it happen and it's the kind of implacable, irrational, venomous hatred that sometimes makes people do crazy things.

    But when you couple that venom with the power of the governor's office to get your vengeance it is way different than just plain folk acting out.  By using the power of the office or by tacitly allowing your husband to use that power, you breach the public trust.  Using the power of the State for personal vendetta is wrong whether it is Kenneth Starr or Todd Palin.  


    As I've said above, (4.75 / 4) (#71)
    by callmecassandra on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 02:19:51 AM EST
    this isn't merely a messy divorce. If it was infidelity or even emotional abuse, I could understand. But the man was abusive. (Palin's sister and nephew). The man made threats. (Palin's father). The man is a threat to the public as well. (Drinking on the job).

    There is not a chance in hell that any of you would be okay with this had Obama's family been involved in something similar. A Chicago cop remaining on the force after threatening Obama's family as Obama sat as State Senator, then U.S. Senator, then Presidential candidate? One way or the other, that cop would be terminated regardless of the "history" behind it. (Hell, ya'll can't take it when Obama's called a traitor by one in a sea of thousands). And I wouldn't hear a peep from ya'll unless it was to Obama's defense.

    This crap is political. Like everything else.

    The only thing that raises my eyebrow, only a little cause I don't know the entire story, is T. Palin getting ahold of confidential information.

    But pressuring the termination of an abusive cop? I completely understand that and I don't see how Palin's executive position excludes her from protection or petitioning action against threats.


    you have made your point (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 04:00:41 AM EST
    and we don't agree. Please move on.

    Except Wooten wasn't fired ... (none / 0) (#76)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 07:00:04 AM EST
    so I guess attempting to get others to fire Wooten was the illegal act.



    Not odd. (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 07:14:38 AM EST
    The illegality (if the findings are correct) of attempting to influence hiring and firing of public employees for personal reasons ought not to be affected by whether or not it was successful.

    In short ... (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 07:29:49 AM EST
    she abused power she didn't have.



    I prefer to look at it. . . (none / 0) (#95)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 12:21:28 PM EST
    as abusing power she did have, but bungling the attempt.  Poor Sarah Palin, she can't even get corruption right.

    Remember Nixon (none / 0) (#92)
    by MKS on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 11:23:07 AM EST
    Using the FBI and the CIA for personal political purposes?    Palin was doing a junior Nixon, a Nixon in training.....using her office for payback against a personal enemy.

    If Wooten had threatened her or her family (and Branchflower cites evidence to suggest it didn't happen), then the response would be to arrest Wooten and charge him; or to beef up your own security, not lessen it as she did.  Why would firing Wooten make her more safe?

    It sounds as if all the Palin complaints about Wooten involve alleged conduct occurring before Palin was governor and had already been investigated.....This was payback now that Palin was Governor and could (try to) weild power over Wooten.....


    I assume (3.00 / 2) (#66)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 01:19:16 AM EST
    that you also supported President Bush's decision to fire those DoJ lawyers?

    He didn't break the law either.  So everything was right as rain, correct?

    Then again, perhaps you don't oppose hostile workplace activities?  


    Did those DOJ lawyers taser children? (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by callmecassandra on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 02:36:54 AM EST
    Did any of them threaten Bush's family? (By threat, I mean murder not jail). Were these lawyers drinking on the job?

    Man, please. I am not about to give a damn about an abusive, reckless cop. Ain't happen'. And even if Wooten was terminated - and he wasn't - I still wouldn't care. Why should I? That answer your question?

    Then again, perhaps you don't oppose hostile workplace activities?

    Um no, I oppose getting beat downs from a cops. Or for you I suppose, I oppose police brutality, child abusers and wife batterers. How about you?

    Try to be more precise (not asking for perfection) with the principles next time if you insist on making comparisons.


    ha (5.00 / 0) (#83)
    by connecticut yankee on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 08:16:22 AM EST
    As the report says, Palin rarely referenced these actions and didnt seem afraid of Wooten.  Monegan says he was shocked to have Todd Palin pulling out all these photos of a poached moose for which wooten had already been reprimanded.

    The investigator made plain it plain the he didnt buy the Palin's story and that he thought it was a personal vendetta.

    This wasnt the first person they tried to fire. They also went after a legistlative staffer who had upset the Palin's.


    Funny... (none / 0) (#99)
    by callmecassandra on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 09:09:15 PM EST
    your argument is an antique. It was the same argument made by defense lawyers of stalkers, wife batterers and even rapists.

    So tell me, by what measurement did the investigator determine fear?


    you did not read (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 10:45:26 PM EST
    in another post of mine that she broke the law or committed a crime. A commenter wrote that.

    She did break the law (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 10:52:22 PM EST
    The ethics law Sec. 39.52.120. Misuse of official position. (a)"A public officer may not use, or attempt to use, an official position for personal gain,
    and may not intentionally secure or grant unwarranted benefits or treatment for any person"

    The question of course is what happens next. Like the toothless public records preservation act, it means as little as nothing and as much as impeachment if people get upset about it.

    No criminal penalties attached.

    Not true for her giving a benefit to a state contractor in furtherance of her scheme, however.


    Oh that's right. (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by callmecassandra on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 11:09:11 PM EST
    My bad.

    Care to comment on Finding Two? Or, do you mind updating your post with this finding? Did I miss that part?


    Typical prosecutor (none / 0) (#90)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 10:11:16 AM EST
    Branchflower was just being a typical prosecutor. Recent advances in science have allowed us to transcribe their thoughts during a DWI trial:

    "Mrs. Palin had a license to drive at the time she was arrested." (Damn it, I really could have enjoyed nailed her for driving without a license).

    "But she broke the law when she drank and then got in her car to drive home." (Yes, yes, just sitting in your car drunk is drunk driving. Do I have to tell those idiots on the jury that. No. Move along.)

    "The fact that she never made it home, but instead demolished Mr. McCains house of cards along the way, well, that's just proof she was driving drunk." (And attempted manslaughter. Why can't we charge her with that - oh, damn that men rea requirement!)

    Hope that answers your question, callmecassandra.


    The abuse (none / 0) (#8)
    by call me Ishmael on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 10:52:06 PM EST
    of power was not in the firing per se but in the continual pressure put on employees to fire or to give up confidential information I think.  Also there is a question of how Todd Palin had access to the documents that he had when he wasn't a governmental employee.  So I think that the investigation was arguing that it was a violation of the code of ethics even if she had the right to fire in the end.  Is that right Jeralyn?

    The investigation did not find (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 10:59:59 PM EST
    she did anything improper in firing Monegan.  It found only that she should have reined in her husband from agitating to get Trooper Wooten fired.

    According to her husband's statement to the investigators, she did tell him to knock it off, and he simply stopped telling her what he was doing.


    Except (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by CoralGables on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 11:05:51 PM EST
    as the report points out, (just finished reading it) Todd Palin worked, made phone calls, and held meetings in the Governor's office concerning Wooten so it would be very difficult for the Governor not to know what was going on. (or at least that was the conclusion of Branchflower)

    Branchflower gave himself (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 11:23:15 PM EST
    an enormous amount of permission to determine motivations involved here, which I think is pretty inappropriate.  For instance, he announces that the Palins' assertion of personal fear of Wooten is entirely bogus.  I don't think he can know that.

    Todd Palin himself said his wife told him to knock it off after a while, but that he continued and just didn't tell her what he was doing.  He has been apparently deeply involved in all aspects of her governing, which I think is totally inappropriate, but it's not clear to me how much she could have been aware of the details of his activities, given that they were so wide-ranging and constant in all sorts of areas.

    I don't doubt the Palins went over the line in trying to get this guy fired, but I wouldn't personally vote for more than a slap on the wrist, given the trooper's record.  IMHO, he should not be in any law enforcement job, and the Palins had reason to know that very vividly.


    you really need to read the report... (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by white n az on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 11:30:38 PM EST
    • they're calling the police chief in Wasilla and telling him not to hire Wooten.

    • Todd Palin sitting with restricted personnel records that even his wife shouldn't have access to.

    • Todd Palin is injecting himself into the mechanics of government with the full knowledge and blessing of Sarah Palin.

    • He KNOWS that Palin's assertion of fear of Wooten is bogus because they eschewed police protection which was customary for the Governor. The completely declined protection.

    • Whatever constitutes going over the line to get the guy fired is a subjective call that the Alaskan legislature will ultimately have to make.

    I want a piece of his legal action against the Palin's and the state of Alaska because he is going to get a big payday.

    There's almost nothing in (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 11:40:59 PM EST
    your list that's inconsistent with what I said.

    As for eschewing police protection-- give me a break.  If you didn't trust the top public safety guy and you were a known enemy of a guy on the force, would you trust that force to protect you?  I wouldn't, knowing how police tend to rally around and protect their own.

    Declining police protection under those circumstances is entirely a rational thing to do and proves zero.

    I'm far more horrified by the extent of Todd Palin's involvement in the governor's duties than I am by their attempt to get a bad guy off the force a little too enthusiastically.

    That's the real story here, IMHO.


    here's the point... (3.50 / 2) (#40)
    by white n az on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 11:48:19 PM EST
    The governor brings the powers of her office to bear on an individual out of a personal, vindictive, vengeful motivation. It's the worst scenario that anyone could ever imagine. It's abuse of power at its absolute worst.

    I suppose you can try to spin it any way you want but it doesn't diminish the fact that when trusted by the people to use the powers of government with their interests and only their interests at heart, she failed. Ultimately, there is only one answer...impeachment but I don't live in Alaska.


    Very silly (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 12:18:22 AM EST
    A guy who tasered his 11-year-old stepson isn't going to be bringing any lawsuits.

    And to me, anyway, it matters quite a lot whether the "personal, vindictive, vengeful" motivation has to do with an obviously out-of-control guy who has no business having police powers over the rest of us ordinary folks.  I've had personal experiences with one or two of those guys, and they should be rooted out of the police force, not protected by technicalities and union rules, as this guy appears to have been.

    If he'd been some innocuous mid-level bureaucrat, that would be different.

    I'll say it again.  I don't think the Palins didn't do wrong here in their zeal to get this guy off the police force, but it's not something I'd personally bring down the hatchet on them for.

    This is in no way the equivalent of, say, the Bush White House firing U.S. attorneys for failing to prosecute enough Democrats.

    I would be likely to support, however, legislation that was designed to keep unelected, unappointed spouses the hell out of the governor's business.


    Simplistic (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by andrys on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 06:33:03 AM EST
    Wooten had several infractions noted -- and a lead officer in authority said he had one chance left, to stay on the force and then no one saw the rest of the file.  The union was, as usual, needing to protect its officers no matter what the circumstances.

      The guy, if you read the history, is a 'peace officer' who was often out of control or had little respect for the rules of his job.

      However, if this decision works for you, for 'impeachment.' that is fascinating to me.  That is how Repubs felt about Bill Clinton, and we saw how easily this is done by opponents.

      An AP report summarizes:

    The legislative committee that released the report Friday recommends no criminal investigation and has no authority to sanction the governor, the Republican vice presidential nominee.

    "It is out of the Legislative Council's hands.  It goes to anyone's hands who got a copy or clicks the link on the Web," said Democratic state Sen. Kim Elton, the chairman of the committee that released the report.
     . . .
    Stephen Branchflower, a retired prosecutor hired to conduct the investigation, said Monegan's firing was lawful. But the pressure Palin and her husband put on him, he said, was not.

    Under Alaska law, it is up to the state's Personnel Board, not the Legislature, to decide whether Palin violated the ethics laws. If so, it must refer the matter to the Senate president for disciplinary action. Violations also carry a possible fine of up to $5,000.

    The previous governor hired the current trio on the Personnel Board.  And Palin's cooperating with that one.

    The manager of the investigation, Democratic Sen. Hollis French [ an active Obama supporter ], "who oversaw the investigation, contributed to that perception when he said the report could provide an "October surprise" for the McCain campaign." - From the same AP report.

      Well, Surprise.


    I'm playing Devil's Advocate ... (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 07:02:37 AM EST
    but this one is odd:

    He KNOWS that Palin's assertion of fear of Wooten is bogus because they eschewed police protection which was customary for the Governor. The completely declined protection.

    If you were afraid of a police officer wouldn't police protection be the last thing you'd want?


    The alleged threat (none / 0) (#94)
    by MKS on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 11:45:45 AM EST
    as I understand it was by Wooten against Palin's father well before Palin became Governor.....

    The allegation has apparently morphed over time into a direct threat against her....If Wooten had threatened her, then why was there no investigation of that?  Maybe because even Palin doesn't allege that....but her apologists do?


    Officer Wooten sd. he's movin' on. (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 11:32:15 PM EST
    He should (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 11:42:10 PM EST
    Got a cite for that, just curiously?

    I only hope he's "movin' on" to a job that doesn't give him police powers.


    Here: (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 11:46:19 PM EST

    Of course that was then (Sept. 5/08) and this is now.


    Thanks for the link (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 12:24:06 AM EST
    I saw that interview, and unfortunately, he's only "movin' on" in his own mind, not physically.

    I have zero tolerance for police misconduct.


    the dude just won the lottery (none / 0) (#41)
    by white n az on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 11:49:28 PM EST
    and I'm sure that many lawyers in Alaska are up to the task of collecting the easy money.

    You're mixing reports (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by CoralGables on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 11:51:01 PM EST

    Todd Palin himself said his wife told him to knock it off after a while, but that he continued and just didn't tell her what he was doing.

    You are adding what the McCain campaign released as part of the Branchflower report. If you haven't taken the hour or so it takes to breeze through it, you might want to read it completely before you say they didn't cross the line.


    Be nice if you (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 12:10:27 AM EST
    actually read what I said.  I did say they clearly crossed the line.

    true but... (1.00 / 1) (#57)
    by white n az on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 12:25:47 AM EST
    you have demonstrated a complete inability to keep your eye on the ball.

    You buy into the Palin notion that because of the things Wooten did, it somehow justifies their actions.

    Well let's see...

    I understand the kid that got tazed is autistic. I know parents of autistic kids that would try ANYTHING.

    The cow moose he 'illegally killed'. His wife had the permit, Palin's dad carted the moose home and butchered it. But somehow it's only Wootens crime.

    The 'drunk driving', report was from a party not equipped to make the judgment.

    The divorce judge said that the Palin's involvement (before being elected Governor) was entirely over the top and he would revisit his judgement if they didn't back off.


    And while we're on the subject (none / 0) (#60)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 12:33:32 AM EST
    don't you find it curious that McCain had to release that portion of Todd Palin's testimony and it appears nowhere in the official report?

    I think that in most law (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by white n az on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 01:01:11 AM EST
    little deference is given to self serving statements that cannot be determined to be truthful in any way.

    Which of course ignores the issue that whether or not Sarah may have said to him to back off, he operated solely through her office, with her permission and mantle. So his actions merely inure to her credit (or discredit as it were).


    It couldn't appear (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by CoralGables on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 01:11:28 AM EST
    The report was wrapped up by the time the McCain campaign stopped stalling and released Todd Palin's statement (NOTE: released to the press by the McCain campaign when the entire investigation was supposed to be private).

    If you read the report you will also find other people that were involved and their depositions weren't used because they stalled. Branchflower abided by what he was asked to do...have his report done by today.

    The Palin's intention was to not cooperate. Todd's statement and those of the others that fought the subpoenas at the Governor's request will be included down the road if the legislature wishes to revisit the matter.

    Again, the reason late info was not included and who will look into it was also written into his report.


    Perhaps the investigation might (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 11:11:44 PM EST
    better have focused on allegations of misuse of state property and/or gift of state funds?  

    I cannot even imagine what the (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 10:58:22 PM EST
    criminal defense attorneys here would have to say if such a report was released to the public re a client.  

    Well (none / 0) (#49)
    by Claw on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 12:10:01 AM EST
    We wouldn't like it.  Not one bit.  But she isn't under criminal investigation for Troopergate.  I have absolutely no idea how impeachment proceedings work in Alaska.
    On a side note, had a lawyer (especially criminal defense) been involved in something like this...well...I don't really even want to think about it.

    Not exactly sure what you mean... (none / 0) (#55)
    by nrglaw on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 12:21:30 AM EST
    Who's criminal defense attorney? And why would a criminal defense attorney have anything to say about a finding by the legislative branch pursuant its oversight authority?

    I think (none / 0) (#88)
    by Claw on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 09:36:59 AM EST
    The hypothetical is something like: "How would a criminal defense attny feel if a damning report was released." I think.  
    Short answer, we wouldn't like it.  Long answer, it would never happen because it would be so wildly unethical to release a report of this kind prior to trial or during the trial process.  It would get the DA or ADA disbarred (most likely.)
    I'll say it again: the release of the findings of a bi-partisan legislative investigation doesn't have anything to do with criminal proceedings.  This committee was supposed to look into Troopergate and they did so.  End of story.

    Do you know the sort of person (none / 0) (#102)
    by Cream City on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 03:20:34 AM EST
    upon whose thoughts you think you can pronounce?  Remember your rules.

    What (none / 0) (#103)
    by Claw on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 12:22:22 PM EST
    What in God's name are you talking about?  I'm not asking to be unkind...I seriously do not understand what you're talking about.  I'm talking about a hypothetical.  I qualified my statement with "I think."  Twice.  
    Does this have something to do with my support of John Lewis and his character?  My support of the dem ticket? Something else?  

    I saw (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 10:58:56 PM EST
    David Gergen pointed out that this strikes at the heart of the Palin narrative.   Not just anti-mavericky stuff but they are suggesting that Ayers damages Obama because "he wasnt forthcoming" but what does this say about her?

    She initially denied that there were any contacts. She clearly knew better.

    And so it drags up Ayers (none / 0) (#16)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 11:07:09 PM EST
    every time this is talked about -- that was the reason for the pre-emptive strike by the McCain campaign.

    The voters will either buy both or tune out both.


    na (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 11:56:14 PM EST
    No, I think you are completely wrong.

    This strikes at the heart of the Palin narrative.  Her numbers have been falling and this will likely add to that trend.

    Ayers is just a rubbish story pushed by morons.   There is nothing there.


    I agree (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by WS on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 07:11:22 AM EST
    Palin was supposed to be the reformer and the one taking on the corrupt Republican establishment.  But what happens when a bipartisan report found you engaged in the same exact behavior as those corrupt Republicans?  Hypocrisy, thy name is Palin.  

    I'm betting she runs in 2012 and her Republican primary opponents will use this against her.  Cue the never ending quotation of Reagan's 11th Amendment and the violation of it by Republicans.    


    EDIT (none / 0) (#84)
    by WS on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 08:34:14 AM EST
    11th Commandment.  

    Hope springs eternal, I guess. . . (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 07:22:21 AM EST
    but the attempt of the McCain camp to spin Obama's acquaintance with Ayers into something comparable to a finding that Palin was corruptly abusing her power of office just a few months ago doesn't seem to be flying, even with the assistance of grudge-holders against Obama on the left.

    maybe it's just me... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by white n az on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 11:25:13 PM EST
    but one of my greatest nightmares is becoming the target of a vindictive, vengeful, government employee (and there is little worse than a sitting governor) who is trying to bring the full weight of their administrative offices down on me.

    This is government completely out of control. I would like to buy a piece of the settlement that Wooten is going to get when he sues both the state of Alaska and Palin personally.

    We don't agree on this. (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 11:48:15 PM EST

    and you should know better (none / 0) (#70)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 01:57:52 AM EST
    than to try and change the subject from Palin to Ayers in a post about the Palin TrooperGate report. This subthread of comments has been deleted.

    Todd Palin (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by themomcat on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 11:50:49 PM EST
    Looking at the depth of Mr. Palin's involvement in this, I would be concerned about who is really the governor of Alaska and who is the real VP candidate? But that aside, is he at all answerable for any of HIS action? Did he break any laws?

    It doesn't appear (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by CoralGables on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 11:56:49 PM EST
    that he did, but if I were Mike Wooten I might look into a restraining order against Todd Palin. After awhile it starts to read like Todd Palin was a stalker.

    Although Todd Palin isn't found to have violated any laws, it's because he isn't a state employee. Sarah Palin was found in violation because she permitted her office to be used for actions that violated the ethics laws of the executive office.


    If we see less of Todd Palin (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by nrglaw on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 12:30:47 AM EST
    then we will know that the Branchflower report has had some impact on McCain's tactics. If not, we'll know that they aren't paying much attention to it.

    I just don't see a lot of real world impact from this. Her conduct is despicable, but there are a lot of things going on right now that are seriously competing for peoples' angst.

    Palin (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by lentinel on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 04:36:59 AM EST
    It just seems strange to me that the NYTimes, in writing about this today, did not mention that the trooper in question had tasered a 10 year old boy. He did so in spite of having received specific instructions about the dangers of doing so.

    The 10 year old was a member of the Palin family.
    I can understand why she would want the trooper off the force, way off the force.

    I won't argue whether she exceeded her authority in trying to get the guy sacked, but the fact that the Times left the tasering incident out of its story - several pages long - is kind of spooky to me.

    Not at all. (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 07:19:57 AM EST
    The conflict over the attempted firing of Dick Wooten involves a great deal of he said / they said.  For you to expect the Times to publish only a single exculpatory (to Palin) fact seems to me to indicate a desire to have the issue spun.

    The underlying issue of who is the more aggrieved party is completely separate from the Palins' improper attempts to use their power to corruptly remove him from office and then cover up their actions.


    Not at all (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by lentinel on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 09:11:45 AM EST
    I don't wish the issue spun.

    Corruption and cover-up are issues in and of themselves.

    But, it does make a difference to me that she was using means that might be determined to be illegal to have a trooper fired who had no business being on the force because he knowingly endangered the life of a 10 year old - as opposed to, say, enriching herself. As written, the story implies that she went after Wooten because of some kind of family feud.

    The legality of what she did will be determined by a court of law.
    For me, however, in evaluating her character, her motive for her actions has meaning. For the Times to leave this information out suggests to me that they do not want to allow people to have that option.


    The Taser Story (none / 0) (#91)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 10:15:12 AM EST
    Let's put this in perspective. The two families were together (Palin and Wooten). The ten year old kept goading his stepfather to taser him cos he wanted to show off to Bristol. Wooten put it on the lowest setting possible and it only lasted a couple of seconds. The kids laughed about it. No one thought it was a big deal. It only became a big deal when Wooten and Sarah's sister divorced (it's said that Wooten was caught cheating on Sarah's sister with his first wife). And don't forget, the divorce Judge had already admonished the Palin-Heath clan to stop filing bogus claims against Wooten and to stop badmouthing him to the their kids. He said it was tantamount to child abuse.

    The minute Palin is elected Governot, the harrassment against Wooten begins. It's also interesting to note that the only people filing claims against Wooten have been the Palin and Heath's.


    ya (none / 0) (#93)
    by connecticut yankee on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 11:30:02 AM EST
    The Palins take cheating seriously, they fired a staffer for it and Todd later contacted the man's next boss in the legislature and pressured him to fire him.

    Perspective (none / 0) (#97)
    by lentinel on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 03:05:53 PM EST
    To excuse Wooten's tasering of the 10 year old by blaming it on "goading" from the child is really off. Wooten was 39 years old - and he's going to ignore what he knows about tasering a child because he was "goaded"? Please.

    Even what you said about the taser being at the lowest setting, and laughing about it, is crazy. Supposing the taser had malfunctioned?
    This 39 year old adult trooper took a chance with a child's life.

    In Wooten's interview with CNN, even he didn't resort to saying he was "goaded" - as you suggest.

    "In 2006, state investigators found Wooten guilty of "a significant pattern of judgment failures," including using a Taser on this 10-year-old stepson in a training capacity and drinking beer while operating a state trooper vehicle. Wooten was suspended for 10 days as "a last chance to take
    corrective action."

    Speaking Thursday to CNN's Drew Griffin and Kathleen Johnston, Wooten gave his account of the Taser incident but denied ever drinking while driving.

    He said that he was a new Taser instructor, and his stepson was asking him about the equipment. "I didn't shoot him with live, you know, actual live cartridge," Wooten said. Instead, he said, he hooked his stepson up to a training aid "with little clips. And you know the Taser was activated for less than a second, which would be less than what you would get if you touched an electric fence... It was as safe as I could possibly make it."

    He said his stepson was on the living room floor surrounded by pillows, and that he "was bragging about it," and that the family laughed about it.

    Asked whether it was a dumb decision, Wooten told CNN, "absolutely."

    The 2006 report called the incident an example of "extremely poor judgment..."

    If it had been my child that this guy did this to, low setting, as safe as he could make it, and the rest of his stupidity, I would want him committed to an institution for the mentality unbalanced - and would want him as far from a position of authority as would be humanly possible.

    Why you see fit to excuse this guy, and shift blame to a 10 year old, is startling. Is it all because you don't like Palin?

    And how would you like to touch an electric fence?


    well (none / 0) (#98)
    by connecticut yankee on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 03:22:22 PM EST
    So why did Sarah Palin lie about her involvement?  She initially said this never happened. Clearly she's a liar.

    The investigator didnt believe the reasons offered for the crusade against Wooten. But if Palin believes it, why lie about her actions?


    BUT (none / 0) (#1)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 10:24:13 PM EST
    It's still not bipartisan! I mean, they released it, didn't they? Somebody was railroaded into it!

    Ten Republicans, Four Democrats (5.00 / 0) (#3)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 10:41:07 PM EST
    voted unanimously to start to investigate and again for subpoenas and again to release the findings.

    Actually, I would have to blame the majority.


    For a country (none / 0) (#85)
    by TruthMatters on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 08:43:44 AM EST
    that values the rule of law, and a party that is supposed to respect it so much.

    I find it ironic here that they try and defend it.

    as governor she promised not to abuse her power, for personal reasons,

    she abused it for personal reasons and now they are trying to find excuses to cover it.

    will they now allow Charlie Rangel to explain his situation or does their "love" for the rule of law return there?

    you can see the McCain supporters here, they are the ones who think Palin violating the Public trust (as she says we can't trust Obama) is no big deal, and she should be given a pass cause they like her.

    Rule of Law my a$$

    by stevea66 on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 01:47:30 PM EST
    She has a long history of this.  If you disagree with her, you're outta there.  Ah, the spirit of conservatism at its best.