Written on Saturday, October 11th, 2008 at 7:12am by Alan Bedenko | 8 Comments

Is It Mavericky to Abuse Your Power?

That’s going to be the question over the next 20 or so days. The bipartisan Alaska Legislative Council voted 12-0 to release the report on the investigation into Sarah Palin’s arm-twisting to get a state trooper fired, and her husband Todd’s assistance therewith. I wonder how pleased McCain is with his Veep vetting right now. I wonder whether he now wishes he had selected someone who isn’t a female replica of George W. Bush, right down to the class and cultural warfare McCain once eschewed. The report contains four findings:

The first concludes that Palin violated the state’s executive branch ethics act, which says 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.”

Specifically, the report finds that Palin should have – and didn’t – reign in her husband Todd’s inappropriate efforts to use Palin’s office to contact other troopers to get trooper Mike Wooten – who was divorcing from Palin’s sister – fired. The report concluded that Sarah Palin used her power to advance a personal vendetta. That’s not change we can believe in.

“Compliance with the code of ethics is not optional. It is an individual responsibility imposed by law, and any effort to benefit a personal interest through official action is a violation of that trust. … The term ‘benefit’ is very broadly defined, and includes anything that is to the person’s advantage or personal self-interest.”

So, firstly we have an ethics violation and violation of the public trust.

In the second finding, Branchflower says Monegan’s refusal to fire Wooten was not the sole reason for his dismissal but that it was a “contributing factor.” Still, he said, Palin’s firing of Monegan was “a proper and lawful exercise” of the governor’s authority.

The third finding says a workers compensation claim filed by Wooten was handled appropriately. Number four concludes that the attorney general’s office failed to comply with Branchflower’s Aug. 6 request for information about the case in the form of e-mails.

Recall that the McCain campaign intervened to quash subpoenas and attempt to kill this investigation out in Alaska with its own high-falutin’ brown-shoe Washington lawyers. It didn’t work. The subpoenas were upheld, and the investigation went forward.

Tagged with: , , , , ,

8 Comments

  1. Jim Ostrowski says:
    October 11, 2008 at 12:23 pm

    She failed to “require” her husband to stop petitioning his government for a redress of grievances.

    What?

    One lawyer’s opinion and obviously not a First Amendment lawyer.

  2. Jim Ostrowski says:
    October 11, 2008 at 12:30 pm

    Yeah, I checked his resume, no First Amendment background.

    This whole proceeding was very dubious as jurisdiction over ethics lies elsewhere. There were no appearances by the Palins and presumably no briefs submitted. The State Senate has impeachment power. This was a joint committee.

    Bogus.

    Full disclosure. I am not voting for McCain/Palin but I do like some of Palin’s domestic policy views. Her foreign policy views suck.

  3. The Humanist says:
    October 11, 2008 at 3:13 pm

    “no appearances by the Palins”? WTF? Did you think the Palins were beating on the doors of the investigators, demanding to be heard but the big bad committee wouldn’t let poor Sarah and Todd be heard?

    LOL.

    The Palins ran from this investigation like Jack Davis from a voter meet-and-greet. They and the McCain campaign moved heaven and earth to stymie, roadblock and hold up this investigation and they failed. They refused subpeonas, instructed their staffs to clam up and tried publically and privately to derail the investigation.

    Now we know why. The Gov and her thug husband are crooks.

    BTW, which of Palin’s domestic policies do you agree with? Making rape victims pay for their post-assault medical exams? Banning books from public libraries that Jeebus doesn’t agree with? Appointing John Birch Society maniacs to public offices?

  4. Jim Ostrowski says:
    October 12, 2008 at 12:36 pm

    Sorry, that was a legal analysis, obviously over your head.

    And keep me telling me what I am for. I need some good laughs these days.

    You have a lot of hate in you for a “humanist.”

  5. The Humanist says:
    October 12, 2008 at 2:17 pm

    @ Jim – and you have an awful lot of sympathy for criminal Republicans in you for a “libertarian”

  6. WNYPMH says:
    October 12, 2008 at 9:11 pm

    Good article on Stupidgate:

    http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1849399,00.html

    Two excellent parts to the article:

    1. Palin is guilty on two counts. One, abusing her power. Two, running the Alaskan Amatuer Hour. Sounds like if it weren’t for Monegan, Todd would have gotten her in even more trouble. Hilarious, considering Todd was trying to manhandle Monegan into doing something that he knew was unethical.

    Is it ethical for the first dude to insert himself in personnel issues?

    2. The best part is on page two where we find that the straw that brook the walrus’ back was when Monegan brought a photo for the Gov to sign for a Trooper’s memorial and it was a photo of Whooten. Hysterical.

  7. Jim Ostrowski says:
    October 12, 2008 at 10:23 pm

    My main interest in this was to expose on another blog how the media lied about the release of the report.

    The report is the personal opinion of a man with no legal authority to make any pronouncements on state ethics.

    No one has alleged that a crime was committed and certainly there is no criminal complaint filed.

    My background as a lawyer helps me to see through the BS the media sends out on stories involving the law. The Buffalo News has screwed up stories about my own cases for Pete’s sake. Makes you wonder what else the media screws up. (The whole bailout story.)

    Let me also add that this investigator is a prosecutor with no background in employment law that I am aware of. I previously noted his lack of a 1st Amend. background.

    But prattle on and don’t let the facts get in the way of your opinions.

 

You need to log in to vote

The blog owner requires users to be logged in to be able to vote for this post.

Alternatively, if you do not have an account yet you can create one here.

Powered by Vote It Up