Saturday, October 11, 2008

Palin Abuse of.....Power?

Doesn't this guy ever SLEEP?
Hell, no - he's got kids...

Okay - here’s the problem… (please bear with me)

Let’s start with our reference material, being the report & findings in question.

While I’m as happy as anyone else with the “within her rights to fire the insubordinate ass-bag” - part, there is, unfortunately, another part…

In the linked doc, go to page 8 to see “Finding 1″ - this is where the “abuse of power" part comes from....

Apparently, Alaskan statutes maintain 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.”

It also defines “benefit” as “anything that is to a person’s advantage or self-interest, regardless of financial gain”. (pg 49)

It further identifies “personal interest” to include “immediate family members” which, in turn, includes “siblings” (pg 50).

Finally, “Official Action” is defined as “…advice, participation, or assistance, including… a recommendation, decision, approval, disapproval, vote, or other similar action, including inaction, by a public officer.” (pg. 50)

Okay - so basically it boils down to this:

When Sarah & Todd kept asking where the investigation was going, RE: her sister’s complaints about the kid tasering, moose poaching, drunk driving, criminality-bragging state-trooper-ex-husband…

… and repeatedly asked why such an embarrassing asshat was allowed to continue to represent the agency and the state of Alaska….

…that was a breach of ethics - as those inquiries were “official actions” committed for the “benefit” of her “sibling”.

Todd’s inquiries apparently count against Sarah as well, since she didn’t stop him from making them, bringing us back to the “inaction” part noted above.

That is the purported “Abuse of Power”.

But wait…. what’s this?
Waaaayy down on page 79 - under the heading “The Second Recommendation”…

“The legislature should consider amending AS 39.25.080 to permit those who file complaints against peace officers to receive some feedback about the status and outcome of their complaint”


So… this all got started because the AK state police had apparently ‘circular filed’ all of the sister’s complaints - and there was no legislative requirement to give the complaintant any information - so Sarah and Todd had to try to run it down for themselves…

…just to keep the department from doing whatever-the-hell-they-wanted?

(page 58 references an account of Wooten[asshat] having been slapped with a Restraining Order for harrassing and intimidating his ex-wife….which was lifted, when his supervisors intervened - looks like "whatever-the-hell-they-wanted" was the order of the day…)

Well - there we are.


If pursuing a do-nothing police agency over a do-nothing investigation of an asshat-scumbag-embarrassment of an officer is “Ethically Wrong”…

I don’t wanna be right (and like her better knowing she feels the same way)

Like the man says:

- MuscleDaddy
[Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full post.]

They'd better have brought a really good cake, if this is all the "October Surpise" they can manage...


  1. Clearly, the Monnegan termination has nothing to do with Wooten, because the people who have filled Monngan's old job haven't fired Wooten either.

    There is no "there" there.

  2. I Love this part.

    Finding Number One

    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

    Finding Number Two

    I find that, although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety. In spite of that, Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.

    Not since "Jumbo Shrimp" have two ideas been more mutually exclusive.

  3. It's good to know that if, in the future, we want to end the career of a promising politician all we have to do is get a cop to threaten to kill his/her family.

    They'll complain, that will be unethical, career over!


We reserve the right to delete comments, but the failure to delete any particular comment should not be interpreted as an endorsement thereof.

In general, we expect comments to be relevant to the story, or to a prior comment that is relevant; and we expect some minimal level of civility. Defining that line is inherently subjective, so try to stay clear of insulting remarks. If you respond to a comment that is later deleted, we may take your response with it. Deleting your comment isn't a personal knock on you, so don't take it as such.

We allow a variety of ways for commenters to identify themselves; those who choose not to do so should take extra care. Absent any prior context in which they may be understood, ironic comments may be misinterpreted. Once you've earned a reputation for contributing to a conversation, we are likely to be more tolerant in those gray areas, as we'll understand where you're coming from.