Who is arguing that?
So you think that using her power as the Governor, and using the powers of the Governor’s office improperly, is not an abuse of that power?
Is your beef here really semantic? Dereliction of duty implies simple neglect. It seems to be the opinion of the panel that her pressure to fire Wooten was the abuse of power. Pressuring someone to be fired is not neglect, nor is it dereliction. She knew that she had the ability to fire Monegan and it was obvious Monegan knew that too.
Didn’t the report say Palin unlawfully used her office to get the guy fired? If it’s unlawful, it’s illegal. If it’s illegal she can be impeached.
One of the articles of Nixon’s impeachment was abuse of power. Article 2 Section 5, in fact.
If by “the guy” you mean Wooten, yes. If Monegan, no. If Marlo Thomas, adjust meds.
No, she and her husband used her office to attempt to get Wooten fired. Monegan would not do so. Monegan was then fired. Pressuring Monegan was unlawful; firing Monegan was not. What is done with this finding is not up to the investigator or this panel alone. The determination as to whether or not it is actionable is, I believe, up to entire Alaskan legislature which will take it up next session.
But if the pressure came from the actions of her husband, and not her, as had been offered earlier, then it seems the “improper action” seems to be the more logical charge. If she pressured him herself, then the abuse of power charge seems both logical and, based on the info we now have, merited.
[quote=“elucidator, post:124, topic:467397”]
If by “the guy” you mean Wooten, yes. If Monegan,
no.
Both.
Palin fired Monegan for personal gain - he wouldn’t fire Wooten. That’s a family matter, not gvernance. And that’s abuse of power. (I think.)
The Wooten thisng is also abuse, but more blatant.
Bolding mine.
Which seems to be the case:
So just because her husband pressured him too, Palin still pressured Monegan which is still unethical. She also gave her husband access to records and resources and people that he could otherwise not have had access to, for the purpose of pressuring Monegan to fire Wooten. Which is also unethical.
Todd Palin’s involvement does not negate the fact that Governor Palin acted unethically.
is hot.
Yeah sorry about that, I guess my fingers stopped typing when my brain wasn’t finished. And I wanted to give BarnOwl an opportunity to jump in.
I apologize, I wasn’t demeaning your post.
And as you may have guessed, I agree with it. The full version.
I’ll just assume then that the “is hot” part is directed towards me, and I thank you, sir, for your kind words. 
At any rate, they absolutely loved Sarah at the Flyers’ game last night.
Honest. :rolleyes:
What if Palin know through a constituant of a trooper that was reportably abusive etc. and her actions to get him fired met the thin blue line of Monegan? Would it then be an abuse of power to fire Monegan? In other words, if this exact same issue came up but did not involve family, would the Panel findings be the same?
Before I get flamed as a Palin supporter playing devil’s advocate, I do recognize the the abuse was alleged and that the department may have their own policy for investigation and punishment that while aboveboard may *appear *to be shielding their own.
I don’t believe so, because part of the unethical behavior involves some sort of personal gain from the action of firing Wooten. If it was just an anonymous constituent, she would have no personal interest in having him fired. Because he is the ex-husband of her sister, she pretty clearly had an interest in having him lose his job.
ETA: You’re confusing the part of her behavior that was unethical. The report does not say that she was behaving unethically by firing Monegan. She behaved unethically by pursuing the termination of Wooten.
As of yesterday, Palin stated to a reporter that she had been vindicated. In the next breath, she claimed that the investigation was partisan. Clearly she has not read the report, and is going from what a staffer has told her, while continuing to mindlessly parrot the party line. This is the sort of in-depth analysis of issues that we’ve been seeing for the past eight years.
So if the abusive trooper is a soon-to-be-ex brother-in-law, it is abuse of power, but the same scenerio with a stranger is not? I can’t buy that.
Here are two analogies:
- You manage a corporation-with shareholders, employees, etc–people trusting you to act in the best interests of the company. Let’s say you have a duty to do what’s right for the corporation.
One of your employees isn’t a great employee-do you fire him?
—we have no problem with it if he’s just some random person
what if he also happens to be your brother in law, and isn’t treating your sister all that well. Getting a divorce, etc, etc. Really bad guy. If he loses his job, he won’t be able to hire some high priced lawyer to get a better settlement in the divorce. Plus you just don’t like him.
—Even if he’s still a bad employee, this seems fuzzy. If you’re getting a great big benefit, and the company’s getting a little benefit, do we really trust you that this is in its best interests? Can you with a straight face say you can be dispassionate about how you feel about the company’s best interests?
–Now, what if we’re not sure if he’s a bad guy or not… There was a HR review process, which resolved that he wasn’t a great employee, but shouldn’t be fired.
----You decide you disagree, and order HR to fire him.
—now one would really ask if you’re really using your judgment in determining he’s a bad employee–or if you’re biased by your personal benefit in him being fired.
–Now imagine you’re a shareholder in the company. You’ve invested money in it, you don’t care whether or not the manager is happy about his brother-in-law at the end of the day. You care about whether the company is going to do better with or without the employee still at the firm. You probably worry that if the guy gets fired after HR says he shouldn’t be, he’ll sue the company–and lose them even more money.
—wouldn’t you feel the manager abused his power if his personal benefit affected whether he fired the guy or not? Wouldn’t you prefer a manager who let HR do its job?
- you’re buying a boat. You’re getting a really good deal on it—you know it’s actually worth twice as much as the other guy thinks it’s worth.
–Does it make a difference if you’re buying it from family, who trusts you, or from some random?
It makes a big difference who the trooper is.
Actually, on reflection (and missing the edit window): here’s a better #2.
- you’re selling a boat. You’re getting a really good deal on it—you know it’s actually worth half as much as the other guy thinks it’s worth.
–Does it make a difference if you’re selling it to family, who trusts you, or to some random?
–Does it say much about your character if you get a better-than-fair deal from some ordinary guy who’s done his homework, sees your ad in the paper, comes to look at the boat, and then makes an offer of $X? Maybe a true saint would say “are you sure”, but nobody would say you have an obligation to
How do you feel about someone who does that to their cousin, or their brother?
It makes a big difference who the trooper is.
I guess I just can’t understand why you and magellan01 and others can’t grasp that firing Monegan was legal but pressuring Monegan to fire Wooten for personal reasons was an abuse of power. (Nor do I understand why you seem to think it was just fine for Todd Palin, a private citizen, to be in the thick of this.) Nor do I understand why you do not get that the Palins’ statements were the moral and ethical equivalant of, “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?”
I can only assume that y’all are blinded by political partisanship.