Panel Finds Palin Abused Power (Troopergate)

[Frank]

@Guinastasia

So basically, the kids could end up with their messed up shithead of a father, …

Why do you believe he’s a fucked up shithead?

[Guinastasia]

@Frank

Why do you believe he’s a fucked up shithead?

I meant, if the reports from the Palin family are true, that he is tasering said stepkid and the like, and threatening their grandfather.

[DSeid]

While I wouldn’t nominate this guy for Father of the Year, the Taser incident seems more like an indulging of the kid’s curiousity. The story goes that the kid was curious about what a Taser felt like so he put it on “test” mode (low voltage - can’t cause serious harm) and zapped the kid to show him. Bad choice, yeah, but not seriously malacious, or done in anger or to punish.

And we have no idea what the mother is like …

[Siam_Sam]

@DigitalC

This was from his interview on CNN: This was from his interview on CNN:
Quote:
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, that he “was bragging about it,” and that the family laughed about it.

I’m thinking Homer and Bart Simpson here.

[Guinastasia]

Good point. Either way, Palin pretty much screwed things up for the kids as well-so now when it comes time for their custody hearings, her actions are going to be factored in. That sucks.
If it was like an electric fence then, it doesn’t sound so bad-like the time my grandfather got one around his garden. Damn, that thing hurt. I was the first one to touch it-then went and got my cousins.

[DSeid]

What’s notable about this is not even the abuse of power … but the sloppy attempt to cover it up and deny it.

She really fits in well with the Bush-McCain mold: fire people not based on qualifications but based on how loyal you percieve them to be; hire people without vetting them first (the replacement for Monegan had to go after just two weeks due to sexual harrassment issues that Team Palin hadn’t bothered finding out about first); and do it all badly.

Yup, they fit on the same team just fine.

[Guinastasia]

Forget Bush-she sounds a lot like Nixon.

[magellan01]

@wmfellows

You know mate, this sort of thing is disappointing. In reading up on this I find your objection an almost copy paste of the party political people, but in reading the actual document, I am hard pressed as a Tory sort to see tortured reasoning.

It seems clear the woman let her offices (and was actively involved in enabling such, or alt. was stunningly incompetent and disinvolved in managing her smallish provincial offices) be used for furthering a family feud.

This is despicable behaviour that fundamentally undermines proper democracy. (pity its too common in local government here, but…) Calling the reports conclusions “tortured” - at least at my ordinary understanding of reasonable behaviour without getting into empty legalisms - seems touching the depths of empty party political behaviour. I have been looking in amazement at own party criticism of the current candidacy on the right, but with this I think I understand it. Like Labour in the 70s or the Tories c. early 90s, a side has become impossibly blinded to its own corrupt idiocy. Natural, and the partisans need to be whacked. Will happen, one hopes soon, in UK (after properly whacking Maggie at the end), and should happen there.

And really mate, you should read your note in utter shame, unless you’re one of those party political diehards (whatever formalities it is behaviour that counts).

Simple question: what specific act did she commit that was an abuse of power. Specifically, what did she DO that was an exercise of her power that was not within bounds?

[Knorf]

@magellan01

Simple question: what specific act did she commit that was an abuse of power. Specifically, what did she DO that was an exercise of her power that was not within bounds?

What’s so hard about reading the report? Or a decent news report on it, for that matter?

She violated AS 39.52.110(a) of the Ethics Act.

As Liberal already wrote:

@Liberal

The abuse was in was pressuring Monegan to fire Wooten for personal reasons. That’s something she wasn’t allowed to do, and she broke the law in doing it.

[Guinastasia]

@Knorf

What’s so hard about reading the report? Or a decent news report on it, for that matter?

It also seems that Todd “First Dude” Palin had a hand in it, per TIME.

[ladyfoxfyre]

@Knorf

What’s so hard about reading the report? Or a decent news report on it, for that matter?

She violated AS 39.52.110(a) of the Ethics Act.

You’re wasting your time. He’ll keep trying to simplify the question believing that it’s you that doesn’t understand the premise, rather than him not understanding and accepting the answer.

[leander]

@Knorf

What’s so hard about reading the report? Or a decent news report on it, for that matter?

She violated AS 39.52.110(a) of the Ethics Act.

As Liberal already wrote:

And to be even more precise:

Here is the pdf of the entire report: http://media.adn.com/smedia/2008/10/10/16/Branchflowerreport.source.prod_affiliate.7.pdf

See page 8, Section II, Findings, Finding Number One. It reads as follows:

**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. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) provides

“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.”**

[askeptic]

@wmfellows

, unless you’re one of those party political diehards…

@askeptic

You have not read many of magellan01 posts, have you?

@magellan01

Simple question: what specific act did she commit that was an abuse of power. Specifically, what did she DO that was an exercise of her power that was not within bounds?

See?

[Steve_MB]

@Knorf

What’s so hard about reading the report? Or a decent news report on it, for that matter?

She violated AS 39.52.110(a) of the Ethics Act.

As Liberal already wrote:

[QUOTE=Liberal]
The abuse was in was pressuring Monegan to fire Wooten for personal reasons. That’s something she wasn’t allowed to do, and she broke the law in doing it.

[/QUOTE]

Precisely. To clarify with an analogy, if the boss sexually harasses an at-will employee and then fires the employee for not putting out, the fact that the boss had the authority to fire that employee for any reason or for no reason does not in any way legitimize the act of sexual harassment.

[DSeid]

Of course the people at Time say it better than I did.

Did Governor Sarah Palin abuse the power of her office in trying to get her former brother-in-law, State Trooper Mike Wooten, fired? Yes.

Was the refusal to fire Mike Wooten the reason Palin fired Commissioner of Public Safety Walt Monegan? Not exclusively, and it was within her rights as the states’ chief executive to fire him for just about any reason, even without cause.

Those answers were expected, given that most of the best pieces of evidence have been part of the public record for months. The result is not a mortal wound to Palin, nor does it put her at much risk of being forced to leave the ticket her presence succeeded in energizing.

But the Branchflower report still makes for good reading, if only because it convincingly answers a question nobody had even thought to ask: Is the Palin administration shockingly amateurish? Yes, it is. Disturbingly so.

The 263 pages of the report show a co-ordinated application of pressure on Monegan so transparent and ham-handed that it was almost certain to end in public embarrassment for the governor. The only surprise is that Troopergate is national news, not just a sorry piece of political gristle to be chewed on by Alaska politicos over steaks at Anchorage’s Club Paris.

A harsh verdict? Consider the report’s findings. Not only did people at almost every level of the Palin administration engage in repeated inappropriate contact with Walt Monegan and other high-ranking officials at the Department of Public Safety, but Monegan and his peers constantly warned these Palin disciples that the contact was inappropriate and probably unlawful. Still, the emails and calls continued — in at least one instance on recorded state trooper phone lines…

[elucidator]

Well, now just a second there, gosh darn it! He says a lot about violating something called a “public trust”, but I don’t see anything there about public self abuse of power, or anything! And there’s all kinds of public trusts to be violated, maybe this one wasn’t such a big deal, doncha know?

Maybe that’s the way the public trusted her to act! Ever stop to think about* that*, Mr Liberal Lynch Mob? Huh? Maybe the people of Alaska wanted a Jerry Springer show in the State House, how would Juneau?
(Liberal made me say that. I didn’t want to, I was against it…)

[Algorithm]

@magellan01

Simple question: what specific act did she commit that was an abuse of power. Specifically, what did she DO that was an exercise of her power that was not within bounds?

The report specifically states that she needn’t have taken any specific action for it to be a violation of the ethics code; simply not acting while Todd abused state resources and pressured state employees to help get Wooten fired was sufficient. She failed to do her job in protecting the public trust.

From page 50 of the report:

Finally, perhaps the most important term to the analysis of facts of the present case is the term “official action.” The definition of "official action’ includes those situations where an executive branch employee such as Governor Palin fails to take corrective action required by the Ethics Act. Thus, the Ethics Act covers both acts of commission as well as omission. The term “official action” is defined in AS 39.52.960 (14), as follows:

(14) “official action” means advice, participation, or assistance, including, for example, a recommendation, decision, approval, disapproval, vote, or other similar action, including inaction, by a public officer;

[magellan01]

@Algorithm

The report specifically states that she needn’t have taken any specific action for it to be a violation of the ethics code; simply not acting while Todd abused state resources and pressured state employees to help get Wooten fired was sufficient. She failed to do her job in protecting the public trust.

From page 50 of the report:

Thanks you for the cite. But it still seems odd to me that her action, however improper, be classified as "abuse of power’. Dereliction of duty seems to describe it better. Or the “improper action” option which is actually mentioned in “Section I: Scope of the Investigation.” (Page 2) As it is, Finding Number One states that “…any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest…”. I don’t see how a non-act, the omission of action, qualifies as effort. But I see that the law stipulates it so.

To be clear, my argument is not that there was not improper behavior, there seems to be, through the “omissions” clause. But that that improper behavior seems to most logically fall under “improper action” which is an option to the “abuse of power” charge, as described in Section I: Scope of the investigation, page 2.

Now this might be a distinction without a difference, but to a layman like me, it seems that the phrase “…potential abuses of power and/or improper actions by members of the executive branch…” allows for a finding of guilt without the abuse of power label. that the “and/or” are there for a reason. I find it odd that it was not used. It seems odd that they would not charge her for “improper action”, when the findings logically fit with that, and instead charge her for abuse of power, which seems to be a stretch.

My apologies for not providing more of the actual text from the pdf, but for some reason I can’t copy/paste from it and I’m to tired to tax my poor typing skills.

[leander]

Start on page 48, Section IV, Explanation of Findings:

Pages 48-52 explains the applicable laws and defines the terms.

Pages 52-65 presents the evidence gathered via the testimony of the various players.

Pages 65-68 presents the conclusions reached. From that section (bolding and underlining mine):

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]. She knowingly, as that term is defined in the above 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.

[gonzomax]

The argument seems to be that if you can not send her to jail it is legal and therefore OK, Ethics and morality do not matter. She abused her power over and over. But there was no law that applied. This is Bush and Nixon logic. How well did that work out?
Give this bitch some more power and watch what she does.