I cannot tell you how bored I am with Trooper’gate. And frankly, I’m glad at least one of the two investigations has had some nebulous and inconclusive conclusion.
I say “inconclusive conclusion” because, as Branchwater was quoted in the ADN today:
Branchflower writes that his investigation did not take into account late-arriving statements from several administration officials who, on the advice of Attorney General Talis Colberg, resisted subpoenas. They agreed to provide written statements this week, however, after a state judge upheld the subpoenas. Information from those statements was provided to the Legislative Council separately.
In fact, there were 10 witnesses not included in Branchwater’s investigation. Branchwater promises a separate report. Oh goodie.
I say nebulous since the only count from which they can extract a semblence of a scandalous headline is by Branchwater’s (legally erroneous) determination that Sarah Palin abused her power, in violation of the Executive Branch Ethics Act. How? By *not* telling her husband, Todd, to stop talking, or asking, about Trooper Wooten.
Huh? Okay… lemme ‘splain.
Personally, I’d rather just recant Theresa C’s comment from another thread, and quit there. Dang… the girl nailed it in 14 words!
Governor Palin abused her power because she didn’t put a leash on her spouse??
Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. But of course, to get away with such a short quip, and not be accused of “drinking the kool-aid”, or some other sophomoric hep expression, one has to show how Branchwater managed to turn something so absurd into a headline that screams “Palin Abused Power” in the Anchorage Daily News.
BTW.. here’s the two biggies for reading. I’ll get the hotlinks out of the way now. Go to the source material, and ignore the reporters behind the curtain…
… or try here if that server is busy.
From the beginning. Remember, this was all about supposedly Palin firing Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan because he refused to fire Trooper Mike Wooten… Palin’s ex brother in law. (gawd, I’m bored already…) So keep in mind, this is where it all started. Or refresh your memory by REVIEWING ALL TROOPER’GATE POSTS HERE
UPDATE: To those of you who have rightfully commented below that Monegan was not fired, but had quit after refusing reassignment to the ABC division… yes, I know that. I am, however, carrying on with the oft repeated ADN headlines… i.e. Subpoenas expected in Monegan firing case. Since the Alaskans call this a “firing”, and call the affair “Troopergate”, I stick with their language for consistency. End UPDATE
Note: These PDFs do not allow highlighting text for cut and paste.. thus the jpgs. Saves a boatload of typing
FROM PG 8
Okay… Count 1 is about whether Palin abused her power under the Executive Branch Ethics Law by she, or her administrative staff, pressuring Monegan and/or other government officials to fire Wooten. This is not to be confused with Count 2… which addresses whether the actual “firing” (or actually, offered reassignment) of Monegan was yet another abuse of power…
Confused already? Hey… hang in there. This cost Alaskan taxpayers $100K, plus more that we don’t know about yet. Might as well give this fodder it’s due, yes?
And frankly, we only have to address Count 1. So let’s clear out the other counts here in advance….
On Count 2: Branchflower found that Monegan’s reassignment/termination was “a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.” As for Wooten INRE this charge, he stated that altho “Monegan’s refusal to fire Trooper Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired”, Branchwater said it was “likely” a contributing factor.
For more of those reasons why Palin had a problem with Monegan, read Randy Ruaro’s affidavit.
Woof… strong language by Branchflower there. There was other reasons, but Wooten was “likely” a contributing factor to Monegan’s reassignment?? Shall we ask for the chair? Lethal injection now? zzzzzzzz
Count 3: Hey… this was the one most the Obamabots were hanging onto… did Palin or anyone in her administration violate Wooten’s medical records? Certainly the most serious of charges, IMHO.
So sorry to disappoint. Nope. Nothing improper. Apparently an ex-employee, Johanna Grasso did a “she said” routine – alleging Murleen Wilkers (owner of the Harbor Adjustment Service Co) mentioned the Governor’s or her office had called and asked Wooten’s claim be denied.
Only problem is, Wilkes’ testimony revealed she had frequent contact with the usual representative in the Governor’s office that she does on all claims. And she was not directed to do anything differently, or unusual with Wooten’s claim.
FROM PG 72
This lack of impropriety was confirmed by former Alaskan AG, Joe Cooper (who represented the State in the Wooten workman’s comp case), Cooper’s former supervisor, Chief Asst AG Gail Voigtlander, and Wooten’s own Anchorage attorney in his workman’s comp case, Chancy Croft.
…. so much for that charge.
The last Count 4 appears to have nothing to do with Palin herself, but with the AG’s office. Apparently, Branchwater’s a bit miffed about the delay in the AG’s office providing him with the emails and data he demanded… er, requested… for his witchhunt… er, investigation.
JUST WHAT WAS THAT ABUSE?
The evidence supports the conclusion that Governor Palin, at the least, engaged in “official action” by her inaction [emphasis added] 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].
Uh… which is it? “If not” her participation or “evidence of her active participation”??
She knowingly, as that term is defined in the above cited 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. That statute provides that:
“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”.
Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda, to wit: to get Trooper Michael Wooten fired. She had the authority and power to require Mr. Palin to cease contacting subordinates, but she failed to act.
Or, as Theresa C said, she didn’t keep Todd on a leash… :0)
The problem with Branchflower’s interpretation of the Ethics Law is his overly broad vision of “benefit” and “personal interest” in the statute…. not to mention his lack of regard for precedents that clarify vague legalese. What he constitutes as “abuse” fails to meet the standards required by the Ethics Act. However Branchflower references no precedents. He merely creates his own interpretation of what meets the level of scrutiny.
As Thomas Van Flein states in his five page response (linked above), the Ethics Law “addresses financial conflicts of interest”, as precedents have defined.
FROM RESPONSE PG 2
Other precedents have also clarified “only substantial and material conflicts” violate the ethics law, and distinguishes between minor and inconsequential conflicts of interest that do not. Certainly, not asking Todd Palin to stop asking officials about Wooten classifies as the latter. And since any perceived interest Sarah Palin had in Wooten played little or no (i.e. “likely contributed) role in Monegan’s reassignment/termination, Palin is exonerated.
FROM RESPONSE PG 3
Since Branchwater goes on for pages with multiple events about conversations Todd Palin had with officials in his report, it’s even more interesting that Branchwater finds the First Dude is not in violation of anything… and therefore he makes no finding as to Todd Palin’s conduct. This is because Todd Palin is not an employee of the executive branch.
Uh… but isn’t he supposedly the culprit doing the dastardly deeds, while Sarah is guilty of just not stopping him??
Branchwater doesn’t explain how the six events of the 18 that involved Todd Palin (after she took office) are, as he said, use [of] the Governor’s office and the resources of the Governor’s office, including access to state employees. Frankly, I’m not even sure how six conversations over two and a half years even gets classified as serious pressure. But breaking it down, five of those were phone conversations. One was a conversation with Glass in a government building. However Palin did not bring the subject of Wooten up… Glass did.
There was only one conversation with Walt Monegan in the Governor’s office in all these events. However, if you will remember, Todd Palin was ordered to speak with Monegan by Special Agent Bob Cockrell INRE threats to the first family. Where did that meeting take place? In, perhaps, the governor’s office? And does this single meeting constitute abuse of government resources?
And one more thing that had “access to state employees” charge … is Todd Palin not allowed to speak to elected and administrative officials? Are these officials not available to the public at large?
So why did Todd Palin keep pursuing Wooten?
OUTCOME OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST PEACE OFFICERS!
You’ll remember that the Palins filed a complaint against Trooper Wooten. The Administrative Investigation of that complaint ended March 1, 2006… over nine months prior to Palin taking the Governor’s office. Wooten appealed his meted out discipline with the help of the PSEA, his union. They settled the appeal on Sept 5th, 2006… reducing his 10 days suspension to 5 days. This is still four months before Palin takes office.
The problem here is the AST wouldn’t give the Palin’s any information as to whether the investigation had occurred, ended or if there was any discipline rendered. Alaskan State law prohibits feedback about status and outcome of any complaint against peace officers.
According to Frank Bailey’s affidavit on Aug 27th, 2008 with Thomas Van Flein, the Palins did not find out about Wooten’s complaint investigation, and the reduced suspension, until the summer of 2008… just shy of two years after the complaint was finalized in appeal, and three years after it was originally filed. They learned the results after Wooten’s personnel file was made public in the media.
Throughout that time, all they knew was that Trooper Wooten was still running around as an Alaskan State Trooper. His uninterrupted status lent the impression that nothing had been done. A five day sojourn (the suspension) could have been interpreted as a week’s vacation, for all they knew.
This is also confirmed via a 21 page legal analysis of the Branchwater report, available on the McCain campaign site. I am unaware of the author of this brief, and possibly a member of McCain’s legal team. It is, however, substantive to note that the Palins were unaware of any action on their complaint years ago.
Todd Palin was not aware of the Grimes Report until July 2008, after Monegan left the government. The DPS never informed the Palins that Wooten had been disciplined. All the Palins knew is that Trooper Wooten would repeatedly tell Ms. McCann that no one would ever punish him because he was a trooper, and that Trooper Wooten continued to be assigned to patrol the Palins’ neighborhood, even after he had threatened to kill Sarah Palin’s father.
After the expenditure of $100k of Alaskan taxpayers cash, Branchwater made two recommendations. One, to amend the request for medical and rehabilitation records by any government agency require a relationship be established between the request for the records, and the purpose for obtaining the records.
And second? That those who file complaints against peace officers to receive status and outcome of those complaints. As Branchwater himself said in his report, the Palins’ frustration was genuine, and their skepticism that an investigation or discipline had ever occured was warranted.
Gives a new perspective on all that talking Todd Palin was doing, eh?
FROM PG 80
So what about that impeachment Sen. Hollis French so readily bandied about in the press? Or at least one of the $5000 maximum fines for such serious crimes and misdemeanors as not reining in a hubby, attempting to find out what’s going on with the Trooper who threatened his family members?
Again, from today’s ADN:
The chairman of the Legislative Council, Sen. Kim Elton, D-Juneau, said he agreed with Branchflower’s findings but wasn’t ready to suggest there should be any consequences for the governor.
“We don’t charge people, we don’t try people as legislators,” Elton said. Any further action or disciplinary measures, he said, would be up to Palin’s executive branch, the attorney general or the state Personnel Board.
So here we are – $100,000 later – back to the Personnel Board investigation. Right where the dang thing belonged to begin with….
Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
Two thoughts.
First, IIRC, Monegan wasn’t fired, he quit. Palin was going to shift him out of the position he was currently in to a position he didn’t want to be moved and he chose not to accept the other position she offered. Or am I wrong with that understanding?
Second, if Palin “fired” Monegan for not firing Wooten, then it stands to reason that her litmus test for the next public safety director would be canning Wooten, right? So then why is Wooten still a trooper?
Excellent recap to this sorry mess, Mata, you gave us many hours of your time and effort on this, thank you for seeing it through to the end.
I also appreciate the jpg’s, pdf freezes the Vista(aaarrrggghhh) program on my computer, I miss out on pdf info.
Anyway, it looks like the investigation cost almost twice as much as the 100 grand figure.
“Alaska Sen. Hollis French, head of the Troopergate investigation, is spending $100,000 in public funds plus forcing the Department of Law to spend another $95,000 to investigate.”
This source also questions the wrongdoing on the part of agencies involved— editorial, worthy read:
My turn: Troopergate allegations expose new corruption
By Jim Crawford
http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/091008/opi_330605258.shtml
___________________________________________________________
You may have seen this blog in your travels, it’s obviously supportive of Gov. Palin, he includes part of the above editorial and a brief discussion, Troopergate might not be over yet:
http://www.palinfightscorruption.com/palin/Home/tabid/36/EntryID/19/Default.aspx
The agencies she is attempting to clean up wind up looking worse than anything she is accused of, but that’s not the way this will be spun.
baise l’amerique bande de fils de pute vous vous prener pour le centre du monde mais vous ete ke d grosse merde crever bande de salope
What a waste of time and taxpayer’s money.
Not an election year, and Gov. Palin wasn’t Sen. McCain’s running mate, there would have been an investigation.
Nico, do you kiss your mother with that mouth?
…
First, IIRC, Monegan wasn’t fired, he quit. Palin was going to shift him out of the position he was currently in to a position he didn’t want to be moved and he chose not to accept the other position she offered.
In fact this is what I read in the Alaska newspapers. .. Monegan was to be reassigned, he chose to quit. HE WAS NOT FIRED.
Just so I have this straight. Someone who has personal knowledge of wrongdoing by one of their employees ISN’T supposed to do anything about it? Man, if NeObama gets elected, I guess I’m going to have to rewrite my business’ policy manual.
This was a bogus investigation… the so called “independent” investigator turns out to be a long time collegue of the so called victim for over twenty years.
Also both Wooten and Moneghan were wife beaters. Stellar guys.
There were eight Republicans on the panel. So, we are supposed to believe these are Obama supporters? Keep spinning – maybe you don’t get dizzy but I sure do. Tired of crooked unethical politicians like Palin and McCain. Now I’m definitely voting for Obama. We need a fresh start.
Mary Beth and bill-tb. I am aware that Monegan quit after refusing to be reassigned. I actually updated the post above based on your comments to clarify.
I use the words “fired” and “firing” of Monegan because the history of the Anchorage Daily News has referred to this scandal as the “firing of Monegan” consistently.
See yet another ADN example here, “Palin’s lawyer: Monegan fired for ‘rogue mentality'”, and also check out the head cheerleader on this witch hunt, Andrew Halcro’s “Why Monegan Got Fired: Palin’s Abuse of Power”.
Just trying to stay consistent with the false charges, group. Nothing more. Just because *we* understand what went down, that doesn’t mean the media portray the events in the context of reality.
But I’m pleased you are all got your chops down on the facts. :0)
Now here’s an example of a partisan (who was mostly likely *never* going to vote McCain/Palin) clueless to the political maverick mentality….
ala he/she thinks that because Palin is GOP, and that there were GOP members in the Legislative Council, that they are supportive for partisan reasons.
Fact is, just like McCain “didn’t win Miss Congeniality this year again”, Palin’s made enemies of both parties of lawmakers for her budget and corruption reform. When you are discussing “mavericks”, there is no party line. That, Swayed, is why they are called “mavericks”.
Not a bright light bulb, eh? Nor are you well read on Palin’s relationship with the corruption in Alaska. As was said, the Alaskan landscape is littered with the bodies of those who crossed Palin on the corruption and budget reform issues… from oil execs to lawmakers of *both* parties.
“Tired of crooked unethical politicians like Palin and McCain. Now I’m definitely voting for Obama.” (Finally swayed)
Hahahahaha! I think you are making some projection here. It is Obama the Crooked unethical politician… get your facts right you dumb Bozo. And don’t think for a second that we believe you ever wanted to vote for McCain… lol
How telling that the angry conservatives here would attack a political moderate not with strong rebuttals but with insults and ridicule. Good to see your belief in political discourse is alive and well. I liked McCain very much, as a matter of fact, and was voting for him, pre-Palin. But no longer – his supporters sound increasingly like an angry lynch mob, kind of like you do, screaming insults instead of rationally making winning arguments. Good luck keepng other moderates on McCain’s team.
Finally Swayed,
Nice try, but I don’t believe you. You were always an Obama’s fan. Your comments has Obama’s fingerprints all over… lol
Do you think we’re idiots, or what? But do go and vote for Obama and get yourself a nice little communist country, that should suit you well.
Feeling “attacked” Swayed? A tad hypersensitive, aren’t you? Not to mention your comment
reveals your inability to comprehend my post above. You see, no where did I say the legislative council were Obama supporters.
My only mention of Obama was the faithful, salivating at the chance to use the headline, “abuse of power”, knowing full well they what they would not reveal on the talking head circuit. If you’ll notice via the sundry reports today, they decline to define what the “abuse” was, and whether it actually meets the Ethics Act definition of “material and substantial”, as precedents define.
I’m all about the findings… which are no surprise. Hollis French already promised the world a “guilty”. What I’m actually surprised is how much a stretch it took to get to the promised “guilty” count. And laughing my arse off that the original charge of Monegan’s job status was not guilty, (but perhaps “likely” in Branchwater’s opinion). And the medical records? The more serious violation charge? Nada… all proper legal channels.
Branchwater’s only charge of abuse… which has nothing to do with Monegan, as this started out to be… is on legal thin ice. That’s why there’s no legislative recommendations for impeachment or fines. In fact, all they’ve done is spend the money, then say they’ll defer to the Personnel Board investigation… which is the legal procedure for complaints of Ethics abuse. The only process Palin supported after French started running around, calling her guilty in the media.
But I see that sounds like a “lynch mob” to you… LOL You have a bizarre perspective, and obviously very thin skin.
“feeling swayed” does not have “a bizarre persepective,” or “a very thin skin” or anything else of its own; it has a puppet master and ventriloquist in David Astroturfer Axelrod.
Finally Swayed has made it’s decision. So let’s give it a big send off. Hope he finds comfort with the Code Pinkos, looks pretty in pink, and knows where to smear the fake blood. Also be sure to learn the chants that are yelled at our wounded warriors on picketing day. Then there’s always ANSWER, get your ghoulish t-shirt and face mask ready, not to worry, you will eventually fit right in. Peace.
Hey Finally Swayed…I’m sure you’re a concerned Christian Republican who’s distressed at how corrupt the Republican party is and now believe that the messiah, the lord Barack Obama the Most Merciful is the answer.
ORRRRR…. (and this is the option I’m banking on)
You’re a pathetic attempt at astroturfing.
Boy…Axelrod sure is dropping the ball these days for his minions to be so transparent!
Question — the report release on Friday has Branchwater’s opinion. But has the legislative council “signed off” or formally agreed with that opinion? Or is that still to come?
CB, per the first ADN hotlink in my post:
The vote was to make it public. I don’t know that they need to agree, confirm or deny an indy counsel investigation. They do not have the authority to sentence or fine… that’s up to the Personnel Board (which they tried to make *that* investigation optional in the media’s eyes), the AG’s office or the administration itself.
The indy counsel investigation is sort of a one way witch hunt. Unlike a trial, the “subject(s)” are not allowed to have their counsel present during testimony, they do not have their counsel counter the investigations findings in front of the legislators. So it’s rather like a “trial” with no representation.
Also, a trial is investigating/judging a crime or charge to find out the events and perps of that crime. An independent counsel is investigation of a person, and trying to find out what crimes or misdeeds they did. Thus the term, witch hunt. Think McCarthy era. Alaskans have a bad taste in their mouth from that era, and built in safe guards against such legislative witch hunts in their Constitution.
Nor is the indy counse equipped to do anything but recommend. And this particular indy counsel is an any attorney member of the Alaskan bar in the status of “active out of state”…. meaning he’s a SC attorney, vaguely practicing in Alaska under some bizarre co-op agreement. This indy counsel did not consider, nor cite precedents in order to justify his interpretation of the Branch Executive Ethics Act.
In other words, it’s just a show… and a bad one at that.
But, ya know, considering what they were striving for, they fell quite short of the evil doing’s they alleged Palin was doing.
Here is a video interviewing various members of the Legislative Committee that shows the report is just a conclusion of Branchwater and the committee members do not necessarily agree with it http://community.adn.com/mini_apps/vmix/player.php?ID=2270632
A paraphrase of Kim Elton (D) — This report is not a report the legislative council has issued. If you talk to each of the individual members of the legislative council, some agree with every element, some agree with some, and maybe there are some that don’t agree with any of it.
CB, I’m not sure if you are familiar with the Alaskan players in this off-broadway farce. And I thank you for the video link. Frankly, I avoided the feedback of the legislators, since I only care about the legal implications of this… as in just what was Branchwater using as his “guilty” precedent fodder and interpretation of the Ethics Law, and what was the response.
The rest? And mostly this crew… all lawmakers and their lip service. That and a dime won’t even get you a call on a public phone nowadays.
Kim Elton and Lyda Green – two of the tree interviewed – are all partisan lawmakers (albeit not necessarily DNC… but then when you’re a maverick, you make enemies of both sides…) are most certainly not fans of Palin.
Kim Elton, a Dem, is an official Obama supporter.
Lyda Green, tho a GOP member, doesn’t stand with Palin on more than most issues. She has elected not to run for re’election because most of her constituents agree with Palin, and not her.
The Green/Palin personality/issue difference battles run back almost to Palin’s assumption of office, and have crossed political and personal lines over this time.
This leaves Coghill.. one of the Senators in the lawsuit to halt the legislative council investigation as unConstitutional. In that lawsuit, the Superior court said let the investigation stand, and the Alaskan Supreme Court has not issued a formal opinion yet, but dismissed the lawsuit. That had to do with whether the legislative council was abusing it’s budgetary power, making decisions of the body outside their authority, and abusing Palin’s due process rights via Article I of the Alaskan Constitution.. which deals with due process specifically about legislative councils and their “investigations”.
However any judge is reticent to create a precedent that disallows a legislature to conduct investigations. It is a dicey subject.
As far as I’m concerned, this one is clear cut biased and wrong. But to create a precedent that disallows future investigations? Tough call….
Conclusion?
Senator French’s October Surprise was the equivalent of sneaking up behind Palin and yelling, “Boo”. A Halloween prank that costs Alaska at least $5000
@Rocky_B:
More in the neighborhood of $100,000 actually.
Ok, slogging thru the actual report, this quote sums up for me what was really going on:
“Shortly before the annual celebration of Police Memorial Day on May 15, 2008, Commissioner Monegan had dropped off a color photograph at Governor Palin’s Anchorage office with a request that she sign and present it at the ceremony. The photograph was of an Alaska State Trooper who was dressed in a formal uniform, saluting. He was standing in front of the police memorial located in front of the crime lab at AST headquarters in Anchorage, partially obscured by a flagpole. The picture to be signed by the Governor was to be used as a poster to be displayed in various Trooper Detachments around the state.”
“Shortly after he returned to his office from dropping off the photograph, he received a call from Kris Perry, Governor Palin’s Director of her Anchorage office who asked [according to Walt Monegan’s testimony] “Why did you send a poster over here that has a picture of Mike Wooten on it?” Until that moment, Commissioner Monegan never realized it was indeed a photograph of Trooper Wooten. Governor Palin cancelled her appearance and sent Lieutenant Governor Parnell in her place.”
So, someone at the Alaska State Troopers was trying to rub the Governor’s nose in the fact that Wooten was still a trooper and there was not a d*mn thing she could do about it. Probably not Monegan (he seems like a dolt). But this certainly backs up the Palin family’s contention that the troopers were laughing over the fact that Wooten got off with a slap on the wrist for serious infractions.
And, if you believe Missy’s links, it’s closer to $200K….
All for charges that, if all guilty, are $5000 per charge.
I love Congress… federal or state, they are all spoiled children with waaaaay too much money to spend.
The the coup d etah? It all comes back to what the ‘Personnel Board” wants to do after their investigation. OMG…. the brain power of the combined media on Trooper’gate couldn’t fuel a AAA rechargeable battery.
OK, here is my last post on this thing because I am starting to become borderline obsessed. What really angers me about the legislative council’s report is that the MSM gives the impression that the published report represents the opinion of the whole legislative council rather than just one person — Branchwater. The fact that the legislative council agreed to publish the findings apparently does not imply agreement with the findings as stated in the video linked above by none other then Kim Elton (D, Obama supporter, witch hunter). If that is the case, then the other members of the legislative council should clearly and publicly state that. The fact that they don’t seems pretty limp-wristed and cowardly to me. I though Alaskans were supposed to have more backbone than that?
Bingo, CB. It’s nothing but one man’s opinion, paid a hefty sum by the lawmakers hoping for more. Dang… it’s not even a good legal opinion for Alaskan law. But then, what can you expect from a SC attorney with *far* too many personal and family ties with Walt Monegan, eh?
Why would you expect “backbone” from the Alaskan lawmakers? They’re just politicians and chamber members… but of a state Congress instead of the fed. Should they magically be any less corrupt and self serving than our federal bozos?