Alaska panel finds Palin abused power

[Rogue Nine]

That is irrelevant, fact is he was a member of the Obama Campaign and a strong supporter of Senator Obama, because Governor Palin was now the VP nominee for John McCain, he had been given an incentive to try to come up with something embarassing regardless of whether or not it was true.

I'd like to believe that people have more integrity than that.

 

Because he had a vested interest, he and 2 other members of the investigation (whom are also in the Obama Campaign) should have recused themselves.

A personal vested interest, or an interest for the Alaskan people?

 

And discounting the handful of Democrats on the panel, how do you explain why the Republicans voted unanimously in their decision?

 

He wasn't just investigating he was also a member of the jury, it would be like having someone that hates your guts or stands to gain from you being convicted being on a jury in which you're being tried for a crime. It doesn't matter when in the case he suddenly stands to gain from a conviction, it just matters that it is before and during the case.

What jury?

[Nedak]

Godwin's law... You lose at tha intarwebz..

What..?

 

Also Clinton abused his power as governor of AK and as POTUS. Kennedy abused his power... Nixon actually pulled us out of Vietnam Johnson got us in... Research what happened to Clinton's friends...

I don't even like Clinton, I already know he's a piece of ****.

 

Um where the heck did McCain say he would raise taxes... The only one that has made that claim was Obama.

Obama would raise taxes for the RICH. Anybody making under 150k a year will have their taxes dropped...

 

 

in 2k Wasn't too keen on Gore...

Gee thanks, good thing we got Bush intead.

 

Han Sala, after that little rant, you say you're 'unbiased'? You keep using that word. I do not think you know what it means.

I prefer Obama over McCain, I've stated this many times. I am unbiased as in I don't have a natural bias. I give each candidate an equal chance to prove to me they can be president. I don't care what their party is, for christ sakes there shouldn't even be any parties, but that DOES make me naturally unbiased. Now, if you're going to say I favor Obama over McCain of course. I didn't in the beginning, but now I do because I believe Obama would actually help people.

[Darth333]

Uh, the fact he wasn't doing his job gives her the right to fire him, he wasn't even investigating the matter. Again though the report states that it was only a contributing factor why he was fired, not the main reason.

 

...

Uh she didn't fire the trooper, she fired the man that was supposed to look in on stuff like this, for not doing his job and at the very least conduct an investigation.

...

 

Again though, he was refusing to investigate the matter, which was his job just because it happened to be Governor Palin's sister that the trooper was abusing, doesn't mean that trooper gets immunity for his actions.

If I might suggest some reading material, here is the real report: http://download1.legis.state.ak.us/DOWNLOAD.pdf

 

It beats all the news reports out there...

 

From what I can see in there, whether or not Wooten deserved to be fired is irrelevant. This is a matter of conflict of interests and violation of public trust by a public officer (a State Governor).

 

At page 8 of the report you will see that one of the findings is that Palin was in conflict of interests when she acted:

Finding Number One

"For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violation Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alasks Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) provides

 

The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust."

 

 

Then starting at page 48 to page 64 of the report, the investigator describes the scope of the relevant section of the law and explains the evidence on which he has based the above finding.

 

The conclusion on the finding is contained at pages 65-68 of the report (Ive snipped a few sections to make it shorter):

 

 

[...] 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. That statute provides that:

 

'The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust.'

 

Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda, to wit: to get Trooper Michael Wooted fired. She had the authority and power to require Mr. Palin to cease contacting subordinates, but she failed to act.

 

Such impermissible and repeated contacts create conflicts of interest for subordinate employees who must choose to either please a superior or run the risk of facing that superior's displeasure and the possible consequences of such displeasure. This was one of hte very reasons the Ethics Act was promulgated by the Legislature. That such a conflict of interest arises in such circumstances was best summarized by John Bitney, who summed it up when he testified:

 

MR. BITNEY: I seem to recall that I said 'I'll check it out,' or 'let me see what I can do.' I mean, you know, that was, you know. My recollection of my own sense was, you know, 'here's a friend of and' if you will 'the Governor's husband', who's got into office who's got a problem, you know, and someone that seems to be a serious problem for him, from my perspective. You know, when the First Gentleman comes into your office and says you got a problem, you sort of feel compelled to look into it and see if something can be done.

 

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 getting Trooper Wooten fired in spit of the fact she knew he had been disciplined following the Administrative Investigation. She also knew that he had been permitted to keep his job, and that the disciplinary investigation was closed and could not be reopened. Yet she allowed the pressure from her husband, to try to get Trooper Wooten fired, to continue unabated over a several month-period of time.

 

Governor Palin has stated publicly that she and her family feared Trooper Wooten. Yet the evidence presented has been inconsistent with such claims of fear. The testimony from Trooper Wheeler, who was part of her security detail from the start, was that shortly after elected to office, she ordered a substantial reduction in manpoer in her personal protection detail in both Anchorage and Juneau, an act that is inconsistent with a desire to avoid harm from Trooper Wooten or others. Moreover, assumiung that Trooper Wooten was ever inclined to attack Governor Palin or a family member, logic dictates that getting him fired would accomplish nothing to eliminate the potential for harm to her or her family. On the contrary, it might just precipitate some retaliatory conduct on his part. Causing Wooten to loose his job would not have a de-escalated the situation, or provided her or her family with greater security.

 

Finally, it is noteworthy that in almist 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. His comments were always couched in terms that he was a bad Trooper, that he was not a good recruiting image for AST, that his discipline amounted to nothing more than a slap on the wrist, that nothing had happened to him following the administrative investigation, and so forth. According to interview notes form the Attorney General who interviewed former Chief of Staff Mike Tibbles, Mr. Palin even sought to obtain information about Trooper Wooten that was confidential by law ['Todd Palin asked for Wooten's file,' 'wanted Grimed report,' 'refudes to give it him']. The words selected by Mr. Palin, and his actions, give insight into his motivation and that of his wife, Governor Palin.

 

I conclude that such claims of fear were not bona fide and were offered to provide cover for the Palins' real motivation: to get Trooper Wooten fired for personal family related reasons."

[KinchyB]

Because he had a vested interest, he and 2 other members of the investigation (whom are also in the Obama Campaign) should have recused themselves.

 

Ahhh, understand now. Democrats who have a "conflict of interest" must recuse themselves from anything they may have a bias in, however, Republicans can do pretty much whatever they want...such as going after their sister's ex-husband's job and putting other members of their staff in a situation that is a conflict of interest in doing so... that's okay...?

 

Again, pot calling the kettle black. BAD POT!!!

 

Sometimes some people should just admit their own biases...sheesh.

 

Oh yeah...Here's some additional reading that may help with your posts...link

[Achilles]

Not sure if this belongs here or in it's own thread. It is an example of Palin abusing her power, but within a different context of the current conversation.

 

As governor, Palin at times bonds church and state

WASILLA, Alaska - The camera closes in on Sarah Palin speaking to young missionaries, vowing from the pulpit to do her part to implement God's will from the governor's office.

 

What she didn't tell worshippers gathered at the Wasilla Assembly of God church in her hometown was that her appearance that day came courtesy of Alaskan taxpayers, who picked up the $639.50 tab for her airplane tickets and per diem fees.

 

An Associated Press review of the Republican vice presidential candidate's record as mayor and governor reveals her use of elected office to promote religious causes, sometimes at taxpayer expense and in ways that blur the line between church and state.

The rest of the article can be found here

[Web Rider]

Well, to be honest she's pretty much said that's what she'd do in office in just about every interview she's been in. I hate how she qualifies everything she says with "if that's what the people want." Which people? Which wants are you hearing? In any case her imbuing religion into her office is hardly surprising considering even McCain has had to court rising evangelist figures to win the Republican base, Palin being one of them.

[Astor]

The head is a Democrat, and quite a few of the Republicans in question hate her for cutting off their oil kickbacks. (a lot of politicians in Alaska were corrupt and they hate her for calling them on it)

 

So the person who headed this investigation has a record for rooting out corruption? Sounds like the perfect person to head up an investigation questioning an ethics violation.

 

Seems to me that may have been the reason they were picked. (Although, then again, I may be wrong, not knowing enough about the investigation).

 

If in the UK you had a man trying to be PM via his party and this man had a pastor for twenty years whom in a sermon said, "G D England!" or "G D Queen Elizabeth!" wouldn't you be a little concerned?

 

Religion isn't a massive part of British Politics, thank the maker - our politicians have pretty much learnt that we're not interested in their religious beliefs. (I know this isn't directly related to your question, but I thought i'd mention it).

 

Also, most of the clergy here are quite staid and boring - so we don't tend to get many people prone to such statements serving the church.

[Litofsky]

Not sure if this belongs here or in it's own thread. It is an example of Palin abusing her power, but within a different context of the current conversation.

 

As governor, Palin at times bonds church and state

 

The rest of the article can be found here

 

I'll show this to my friends, and perhaps see if I can get them away from voting McCain/Palin. To me, this is yet another reason not to vote for Palin.

 

Nice find, Achilles.

[KinchyB]

I'll show this to my friends, and perhaps see if I can get them away from voting McCain/Palin. To me, this is yet another reason not to vote for Palin.

 

Also, this is not the first time Palin has abused her power to fire someone either...

 

link

 

Edit...

 

From the Wasilla paper...

 

link #2

[Achilles]

Yeah, I was kind of ambivalent about Palin until I read about that and wanting equal time for creationism in science class. Then "President Palin" became the scariest thought ever.

[Inyri]

Ugh, creationism is not science, it's theology. I have no problem with it being taught, but it needs to be taught in the right class.

[EnderWiggin]

Did she though [violate the ethics act]?

 

Yes, she really did.

 

_EW_

[KinchyB]

This is classic...

 

...and it's a quick read.

 

link

[Achilles]

Yeah, I had to do a double-take on that one as well.

[GarfieldJL]

I'd like to believe that people have more integrity than that.

 

Judging from the comments he made and the fact he was on the Obama Campaign, if he had integrity he should have resigned.

 

A personal vested interest, or an interest for the Alaskan people?

 

He had more of a personal interest, there were a few other members of the committee that also had a similar personal interest.

 

And discounting the handful of Democrats on the panel, how do you explain why the Republicans voted unanimously in their decision?

 

Because they had a seperate grudge with her, she is popular among the general populace, not among the politicians in government.

 

 

What jury?

 

The people that wrote the report.

 

Ahhh, understand now. Democrats who have a "conflict of interest" must recuse themselves from anything they may have a bias in, however, Republicans can do pretty much whatever they want...such as going after their sister's ex-husband's job and putting other members of their staff in a situation that is a conflict of interest in doing so... that's okay...?

 

Uh if the report is accurate which I've shown a legitimate reason to throw that in doubt. The guy that was supposed to do the investigating into incidents like this was fired for not doing his job and investigating the allegations. At the very least that state trooper should have been under investigation for some of these allegations. What was the guy that was supposed to investigate stuff like that doing? Cause he sure wasn't investigating the complaints which was part of his job description.

 

I could call that firing the guy based on gross negligence on his part.

 

Yeah, I was kind of ambivalent about Palin until I read about that and wanting equal time for creationism in science class. Then "President Palin" became the scariest thought ever.

 

If she ended up becoming President, that would have absolutely no chance of passing into law as you and I both know. The reason it would never happen is because of the legislative branch wouldn't allow her to do something like that in the first place. The would need to be a supermajority of people in both the House and Senate in order to push something like that thru to the President's desk and there isn't a chance of that happening.

[Achilles]

If she ended up becoming President, that would have absolutely no chance of passing into law as you and I both know.

Really? Why should I "know" that?

 

Ever heard of the Patriot Act? How about the Military Commissions Act? You think the Republican base wouldn't turn out in droves in for the mid-term election to put a Republican Congress back in action to get this passed if they thought it was on the table?

 

Dear sir, after the last 8 years, I know better than to assume that the checks and balances work unattended.

 

The reason it would never happen is because of the legislative branch wouldn't allow her to do something like that in the first place.

See above.

 

The would need to be a supermajority of people in both the House and Senate in order to push something like that thru to the President's desk and there isn't a chance of that happening.

There isn't? Why not? If you need help, see above.

[Rogue Nine]

Judging from the comments he made and the fact he was on the Obama Campaign, if he had integrity he should have resigned.

Yeah, okay.

 

He had more of a personal interest, there were a few other members of the committee that also had a similar personal interest.

Senator French said that he was excited about Obama's plans for Alaska. He didn't say he was excited because Obama was going to give him a promotion. I think this shows that he had Alaska's best interests at heart rather than his own.

 

 

Because they had a seperate grudge with her, she is popular among the general populace, not among the politicians in government.

Still waiting on you to source this for me, until then I'm going to have to believe you're making this up.

 

The people that wrote the report.

One person wrote the report, the independent investigator Branchflower. The panel that commissioned him was made up of legislators who do not exercise judicial powers since it is not assigned to them. Calling them a jury is erroneous.

 

 

I like how you've completely ignored everyone else's posts, particularly Darth333's, which are far more salient than my own with regards to this issue.

[KinchyB]

Uh if the report is accurate which I've shown a legitimate reason to throw that in doubt. The guy that was supposed to do the investigating into incidents like this was fired for not doing his job and investigating the allegations. At the very least that state trooper should have been under investigation for some of these allegations. What was the guy that was supposed to investigate stuff like that doing? Cause he sure wasn't investigating the complaints which was part of his job description.

 

 

100% completely and totally irrilevant. By the way, phenomenal job of avoiding the point of Palin avoiding a situation like this by having an independent third party evaluate the situation before she fired him. Now understand, we aren't saying he didn't deserve to be fired, and that she fired him illegally. Those things are 100% within her legal right and acceptable. The issue is how she and her staff violated an Ethics act in the process of her firing Monegan and Wooten.

[GarfieldJL]

The McCain camp is zeroing on political action taken by Alaskan Democrats Hollis French and Kim Elton against Republican Governor Palin. Both Democrats have endorsed Obama for president and are currently supporting his candidacy.

 

Last week, Alaskan Republicans asked Alaska’s Legislature’s Legislative Council, which appointed Hollis to lead the investigation, to replace Hollis with someone less partisan. Their request was denied by fellow Democrat and Obama-supporter Elton, who sits at the head of the Legislative Council.

 

In interviews, Hollis has suggested his investigation may culminate in an “October surprise,” perhaps Palin's impeachment as Governor, that could help the Democrats win the White House in November. ABC News quoted Hollis saying “If they had done their job they never would have picked her,” referring to the McCain campaign’s vetting process. “Now they may have to deal with an October surprise.”

 

http://townhall.com/blog/g/57ac8c6b-61a4-411d-bd23-7cc920340877

 

Rogue Nine, Senator French and a few others were in the tank for Obama in the first place, they also stood to gain from digging up something whether it be true or not.

[Inyri]

I assume it's also the democrats' fault that Palin tried to fire a librarian who refused to censor books? Do you agree with banning books as well?

[GarfieldJL]

I assume it's also the democrats' fault that Palin tried to fire a librarian who refused to censor books? Do you agree with banning books as well?

 

While I believe you've seen stories like that, I don't believe she actually did that (or we're not being given the full story as to what actually happened), because of her approval ratings in Alaska are extremely high.

 

 

Here's why I ask. The organization's report on Palin coverage, which was issued on September 8, convincingly establishes that Palin didn't cut funding for special-needs students, despite what CNN's Soledad O'Brien said; that she didn't endorse Pat Buchanan in 2000; that then-Mayor Palin didn't actually ban books from the Wasilla (AK) public library; and that, unlike her husband, she was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party.

http://thephoenix.com/BLOGS/dontquoteme/archive/2008/09/10/the-quot-sliming-quot-of-palin-did-factcheck-exaggerate.aspx

 

Some of this source I'm going to do some looking into, but it does show that parts of the accusations you're bringing up are simply untrue. And it does show there is more to the story than what the media is reporting.

[Inyri]

While I believe you've seen stories like that, I don't believe she actually did that (or we're not being given the full story as to what actually happened), because of her approval ratings in Alaska are extremely high.

Right, because the associated press (and the dozens of other news sources) is lying. Probably because Fox News hasn't reported on it yet, right?

 

Palin has acknowledged she twice raised the issue in 1996 of how books could be removed from the shelves, but said it was only a "rhetorical question" and that she did not ask for any books to be banned.

The same week that Palin raised the issue she fired Baker (then using her married name Emmons) as librarian, claiming she was not "loyal" to the new administration and had supported Palin's opponent in the election. She said the dismissal was not connected to questions of censorship, and that she had dismissed all city department heads and told them they could re-apply for their jobs.

Sounds fishy at best.

 

Source

[Rogue Nine]

http://townhall.com/blog/g/57ac8c6b-61a4-411d-bd23-7cc920340877

 

Rogue Nine, Senator French and a few others were in the tank for Obama in the first place, they also stood to gain from digging up something whether it be true or not.

Haha, please find a better source than that. The author does not cite any of her claims and the fact that she refers to Senator French as 'Hollis' is indicative of the low quality of the source.

 

And you still have not shown me how the other Republicans on the panel 'do not like Sarah Palin because of kickbacks' or whatever you said before. Nor have you addressed any of the other issues that people have since brought up in this thread. If you want to have any sort of credibility, you might want to quit cherry picking and answer everything that's been questioned here.

[mimartin]

Really? Why should I "know" that?

You shouldn't, first consider Bush's history with signing statements, now consider Palin with that power.

[GarfieldJL]

Right, because the associated press (and the dozens of other news sources) is lying. Probably because Fox News hasn't reported on it yet, right?

 

When it is a liberal news group or several liberal news groups especially given recent history, I'm inclined not to believe them at all. Considering the National Enquirer has been proven to have a higher standard when it comes to sources, and the fact of they are so in the tank on Obama they need air tanks cause they are too deep for the air hoses to reach.

 

Most News groups get their news straight off the AP without back checking, only Fox News to my knowledge tries to find a second source rather than just running with the AP source.