They can spin it anyway they like, the bottom-line is that an elected official who just happens to be Governor of a state in the USA, and the #1 law enforcement official in her state, has been found to have abused the power of her office.
That is an impeachable offense.
If he was “actually threatening her family,” there are legal avenues she could pursue to address the situation. She could have chosen a totally legal response.
Instead, she chose poorly.
To this point, the only proof of that is that he was suspended for five days. Unless, of course, you believe every word that comes from one side of a heated divorce. The judge didn’t seem to.
Then why didn’t she avail herself of the legal remedies the rest of us are limited to when we are faced with the same threats?
Originally Posted by The Report, page 5
So the report interviewed everyone except (1) the person who is under investigation, and (2) the sister & ex-spouse who was presumably the target of the threatening behavior and the beneficiary of the firing.
The investigator’s zeal is underwhelming.
Thanks for providing this without any spin! I wouldn’t say “all accounts” but perhaps by Palin’s spin, er, account.
Whatever he may or may not have done, the Palin family was admonished for making the kind of charges you are leveling here:
I’m sure that you never heard that before, given your interest in presenting the straight, serious info without any spin.
Didn’t she also reduce the size her security detail after taking office? That doesn’t sound like the actions of someone who think’s her familiy is in danger.:dubious: And then there’s the matter off allowing her husband to interfere in state business.
What do you think “was requested” and “has not done so” and “was requested” and “declined” mean? Seriously, what do you intend that quote to show?
I think she did cooperate witha separate investigation that was done by a panel she chose herself. But I may be wrong on that.
The odds of Palin quitting or being asked to quit are less than zero. This board always underestimates the amount of pride politicians have.
Where’s my cookie? This has got to be worth at least a cookie (and don’t try and promise me cake).
From the Fox News home page:
Anyone who was paying attention knew that she fired the guy who wouldn’t fire her BIL. So everyone who was going to change their vote has probably already done so. If the facts are true, and she did not testify before the committee to disprove them, it looks venal, but not illegal.
What is interesting is all the Republicans who are deserting the party nominees. They are distancing themselves for McPalin faster than political rats abandoning a ship of state. McPalin is going down hard in November.
Oh, and Minnesota is going to prove that a Democratic clown can be a better Senator than a Republican.
No she did not. BTW, does the law permit elected officials to appoint special prosecutors to investigate them when they are accused of violating the law?
Palin Refuses to Cooperate with Ethics Probe. What a Surprise.
Palin will reportedly assist the ‘Troopergate’ probe she requested.
Sorry, by for the most prominent quoted text is in “Abused Her Power” in the headline. No cookie for you.
Michael Wooten may be all that, but the investigation is into Gov. Palin’s firing of Walt Monegan. Saying “this guy” is bad tends to obscure the issue.
From the New York Times account, I get that the Alaska legislature concluded:
So, Palin abused power, but the abuse was not illegal. I expect the legislature to now move to clarify what the governor can and can’t do legally, so that incidents like these don’t recur in the future.
As i understand it, she did something illegal, pressuring for the firing of Wooten for personal reasons (biolating alaskan law), firing Monegan was not illegal since the Alaskan governor can fire “at will” employees for any reason.
Wait. It seems that that they’re saying that she “abused her power” by NOT stopping her husband from getting involved. And that the actions she did take were, in fact, legal.
Can someone abuse their power by NOT exercising their power? Seems like that if there were wrongdoing in this regard, it would be something like dereliction of duty, not abuse of power. Isn’t that right?
The version I read said
What resources of the governor’s office do you think it’s perfectly acceptable for a non-official to use?
I haven’t seen exactly what resources he did use — did he use her phone, did he get access to employee records and home phone numbers of officers, did he simply use her computer to send out emails, did he send letters using the official letterhead? — but imagine, if you will, that President Clinton had allowed somebody access to the resources of the White House for personal gain. Would that be hunky-dory?
To me, the question is did the person just NOT act when someone else was doing something wrong, or did he instruct the person to do the illegal act? If it’s the latter, then it seems to be a clear abuse of power. But if it’s the former, it can’t be abuse of power because there was no “act” to be judged as abusive. As I said, a dereliction of duty type charge possibly, but not an abuse of power, as it does not apply.
In this case, I don’t see what act she committed that could be judged to be abusive. Evidently she wasn’t pro-active enough in stopping the act of another, her husband.
I get the idea that that they found she did not do anything wrong, but didn’t want to give her a complete bill of health. So they resorted to painfully tortured reasoning to link her and the charge of abuse of power through her husband.
I agree – the hope, I suppose, is that the “undecideds” who are starting to shift towards Obama will see this as further good reason to vote for him.
I would have to see exactly how he used the resources of the office to be the judge of that. If their report — remember, this was voted 12-0 on a bipartisan board, so this isn’t a Democrat’s hack job — says there was abuse of power, then I can live with that. Given that it’s 300 pages long I expect we’ll get more specific details trickling out over the weekend.