Alaska panel finds Palin abused power in firing

Saturday 11th October, 11:01 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Latest 15 of 116 Total Comments Show All

buttamimi at 07:08 AM JST - 12th October

The choice of Palin as Vice Presidential candidate says a lot about John McCain's judgement. I just cannot understand why he did not pick someone with more international or financial experience. Why on earth did he pick this woman from nowhere? Was it just to give his campaign a cheap thrill and appeal to all the hockey moms out there?
yabits at 08:12 AM JST - 12th October

goodDonkey and others: The question to ask is whether Governor Palin put Alaska first or she put her own petty, personal grievances first. And representatives from Alaska just provided us with the answer to that one.
Nippon5 at 08:12 AM JST - 12th October

Gooddonkey in one word your WRONG

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1849399,00.html the following two bolded statements are from the above article in time.

**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. **

So please show me the supreme courts rush to have this heard... ohh whats that yea they wont because the law in Alaska is simple, the states chief executive can dismiss (fire) any of her appointed officers for any reason whats so ever, this includes if he was green, loved satan, original came from Mars, Ate too loud, Looked like a monkey, or was a donkey..

Once again donkey your just wrong.. The investigation found her within her rights to fire him and she didnt break any law in doing that, what laws she broke was when she allowed other to use her office to attempt to get her ex brother in law fired, thats two different men, not the same guy. Two different issues , please multi task here for a minute, she fired her appointed officer(this is legal no matter what), and she was abusive and broke ethic laws on trying to get her ex brother in law fired, two different things here, two different men....

Thanks for the legal advice, but that only applies to an employee and not a state appointed office.. So once again your wrong..

Please keep trying maybe you will be able to rewrite the Alaskan law and get it changed so you can be right.

Im sorry you cant grasp this, its really a simple thing... Its like Obama knew Ayers... thats one thing... Ayers is a terroist(former or otherwise).. but together those two things doesnt make Obama a terrorist... Is that easy for you to understand?
JoeBigs at 09:16 AM JST - 12th October

Monegan is a bitter jerk that lost his job. Next?

He was fired because he would not fire someone that a Governor did like like. Yep real jerk for thinking of his State rather than his Governor.....

Now if Alaska was a petty Dictatorship maybe she could have just had both him and Wooten shot. Maybe with the help of her Anti-American friends (the AIP) she may one day have that. Would that not be great, a place where all the neo-cons could call home.
coulrophobic at 10:48 AM JST - 12th October

No scandal. No abuse of power. No October Surprise.

"For the record, no one ever said fire Wooten. Not the governor. Not Todd. Not any of the other staff,"

Monegan said Friday from Portland.

"What they said directly was more along the lines of 'This isn't a person that we would want to be representing our state troopers.'"

source:Anchorage Daily News

http://www.adn.com/news/politics/story/510080.html
Taka313 at 11:11 AM JST - 12th October

self-fearing one,

Back at'cha.

After Palin’s election, her new public safety commissioner, Monegan, said he was summoned to the governor’s office to meet Todd Palin, who said Wooten’s punishment had been merely a “slap on the wrist.” Monegan said he understood the Palins wanted Wooten fired. “I had this kind of ominous feeling that I may not be long for this job if I didn’t somehow respond accordingly,” Monegan told the investigator.
Sarge at 11:19 AM JST - 12th October

buttamimi - McCain chose Palin because she's a true conservative, and he needed to shore up his shaky conservative support. Also, he wants to make history by having the first woman at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
YangYong at 01:00 PM JST - 12th October

She's unethical. She's been found with her pants down. Case closed. Let the slaughter continue. Sarge, money where your arrogance is, a million yen on the republican ticket not becoming President / VP elect this November 2008.
ProfessorJ at 01:25 PM JST - 12th October

Sarge, money where your arrogance is, a million yen on the republican ticket not becoming President / VP elect this November 2008.

I wouldn't worry about it. Just be satisfied that your candidates of choice will be the ones in power and you can enjoy what you see and hear from them in the next four years at least. Conversely, feel pity for those in the minority who will have to suck up their candidate telling war stories in the retirement home or dealing with a whole lot of local issues back up in their insignificant northern border patrol.
goodDonkey at 06:31 PM JST - 12th October

Let's see I said "found Palin in violation of a state ethics law." Please quote me where I said criminal law. You can't make me say that she did something illegal; I just never said that. You are committing a common fallacy. It is called the Straw Man argument. The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

I did use a bad argument device when I implied linkage. I said, "They were investigating the firing of Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan. If violating a state ethics law is not improper then what is?"

Nippon5 said:

Thanks for the legal advice, but that only applies to an employee and not a state appointed office.. So once again your wrong..

You made that up. A state appointed office is an employee. So tell us whether you think a state appointed office can fire a person for race, color, religion, sex or national origin - since you did not include those in your example. No state law can supersede the U.S. Constituion and that is the example I used as an exception.

Now the current argument being made by the conservatives is that the statement forbidding personal gain is in the scope section of the act. I had no knowledge of where the statement I originally quoted was from. I would not venture to speculate a position on this matter. Great legal minds from many different constituencies are pondering that question. I would be surprised if it ever gets resolved. Maybe there is already a precedent in case law I have no idea.

I have read Chapter 39.52. ALASKA EXECUTIVE BRANCH ETHICS ACT which is the statute covering the matter. You said, "Please keep trying maybe you will be able to rewrite the Alaskan law and get it changed so you can be right." You are the one trying to rewrite the law. Read it and show us where appointed offices are not considered employees.

You try to condescend to me by saying things like, "please multi task here for a minute" "Im [I'm] sorry you cant grasp this, its really a simple thing." I multitask just fine I graduated with honors and my graduate work entailed a lot of multitasking. Perhaps if you would stop playing the cop in this matter by attempting intimidation you would have seen I was very careful not to say she did anything illegal. Cops are not lawyers and should not try to pass themselves off as such. When I said I had a lot of education I was referring to my graduate level work not an undergraduate degree. You spoke of your education, I guess going to school for a CL degree can make on appriciate the law more.." which also appeared to be rather condescending in my opinion. I also had law classes at the graduate level; and as a matter of fact besides the attorney professors I had an LLD who also had a couple of PhD's. I don't claim to know the law because I had these classes. I do not have a law degree but passing a criminal justice degree off as a law degree is disingenuous (not that I'm saying you are). I certainly believe I have been as accurate as you have. I made one error in linkage.

Here is how you handled your usage of the word "wrong" in reference to the issue of Palin's alleged improprieties:

The report stated multiple times that she wasnt [wasn't] found doing anything wrong in firing Walter Monegan.

She was wrong in her decision to allow people to use her position as a lever to gain a personal objective.

With that said (and I know you will try to spin it again because you cant just say yea the article says she has the right to fire at will) she was wrong for trying to bypass the rules, and it seems the investigation has decided to add a passage that allows victims who file against a law enforcment [enforcement] office can get updates, on what to do when it comes to using the office to obtain information or actions for a personal gain..

She was wrong in her decision to allow people to use her position as a lever to gain a personal objective.

I never said Palin didnt [didn't] do anything ethically wrong. Actually I posted multiple times she was both wrong in morals,values,and ethics.

In multiple post I have said she did wrong and what she did was not ethical... and I quote from my first post "What she was found abusive in was not stopping others from using her office in the pursuit of getting her Ex-Brother in law fired, or given jail time." "She was wrong in her decision to allow people to use her position as a lever to gain a personal objective."

If you can repeatedly emphasize your meaning of the word "wrong" I think I can take an indulgence to explain my use of the word improper.

I never said you did not admonish her for her behavior. You intervened when I correctly said that HelterSkelter was using a red herring to deflect the issue of her role in the ordeal. You questioned my use of the word improper. In a response I have now admitted that I said "They were investigating the firing of Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan. If violating a state ethics law is not improper then what is?" That is the only error I made besides jokes if you want to nail me for those. I said "I want to see Sarah Palin taken away in handcuffs." Or you could nail me on "Palin masks won't have to pick out a dress to wear; they can just wear a striped uniform."

I did say she improperly fired him but you insist that I am wrong for saying that. Here is the definition.

–adjective 1. not proper; not strictly belonging, applicable, correct, etc.; erroneous: He drew improper conclusions from the scant evidence. 2. not in accordance with propriety of behavior, manners, etc.: improper conduct at a funeral. 3. unsuitable or inappropriate, as for the purpose or occasion: improper attire for a formal dance. 4. abnormal or irregular: improper functioning of the speech mechanism.

I saw in the finding a long time ago that his firing was described as "proper." I disagree with the finding. You can argue with me all you want but Palin's attorney disagreed with the findings and you have not taken him to task yet.
coulrophobic at 06:54 PM JST - 12th October

As with the rapidly forgotten "Plame affair" the donkeys have labored long and hard and brought forth a mouse, which though dead, the media will obediently flog til the next manufactured scandal can be drummed up.

All with no consequence.
Nippon5 at 07:31 PM JST - 12th October

GoodDonkey.. I am was going off your first comment.... and I quote "Avoiding the issue again. Palin fired Mr Monegan improperly."

"Palin's attorney disagreed with the findings and you have not taken him to task yet."

Im waiting for him to post on here so I can tell him a bit about it, but I wouldnt hold your breath he will show up here.

I never changed my argument, my argument is simple she has the right to remove him at any time for any reason.. so it is not posible to be Improper in the firing.

You changed your statement after that a few times so I have no idea what you really meant.

also your statue you post doesnt apply to the firing of her appointed officer who according to Alaska the state this is in... He serves at her pleasure.....

the statue you are looking for was this one not the one you posted..
AS 39.05.030. Service at Governor's Pleasure. Each principal executive officer serves at the pleasure of the governor.

and Alaska State Constitution Article III - The Executive SECTION 25. DEPARTMENT HEADS. The head of each principal department shall be a single executive unless otherwise provided by law. He shall be appointed by the governor, subject to confirmation by a majority of the members of the legislature in joint session, and shall serve at the pleasure of the governor, except as otherwise provided in this article with respect to the secretary of state. The heads of all principal departments shall be citizens of the United States.

You made a lot of jokes and tried to push your point any way you can.

You even changed your argument to make it sound better.

You seem to think throwing around an education (over the internet) is a way to prove a point.It doesnt impress me, I spent along time getting multiple degrees and so did my wife, both of use have earned our right to be where we are, and I also spent allot of time behind the wheel enforcing the laws that I had to learn to do my job then.

With all that said I find it funny that you spend all this time on the internet trying to push a political view stating the other side is always lying and cheating and spinning the truth, and here you are trying the same tactics to prove a point you yourself know was wrong...

Guy I have no problem with you and didnt do anything other then point out your statment wasnt correct or factual.

Then you started on a mission to attempt to prove a point anyway you could including getting rude and trying to make others feel less then you, and I stress trying.

With that type of response to a simple correction you show your self no different then those who yell hate messages and threats about a candidate..

Im done on this topic and wont check it again, but if your ego needs to be strocked then by all means pump them arms up and type until your fingers bleed.
SezWho2 at 11:36 PM JST - 12th October

Nippon5,

No, I saw the line about Good_Donkey. I just couldn't recognize your post as being addressed to him. Formatting matters. Go back and look at it again and try to look at it as others might see it.

A. If you are now saying that Palin did something morally, ethically or value-basedly wrong, fine. The report says also that she did something legally wrong.

B. We agree that the report says that Palin did nothing improper or illegal in firing Monegan.

C. I agree that we have all been misled by the media and that it is better to read an actual report. I think it is also better to say "read the summary of the report on page 8" than to say "go and read the [263-page] report". Unless you yourself have read all the report, the latter statement gives a false impression.

D. I don't for a minute think that Palin would not still be in trouble over this if she hadn't thrown any rocks. However, I think it would have been a lot easier for her to defend herself.

E. I can't speak for people. If you have a specific question about something I have done, I will more easily be able to answer.

F. Again, if you point to something specific I might be able to tell you why I have written as I have. Otherwise, I can't respond to this comment other than saying that it's good you have said she was wrong. According to the report, she also acted illegally--jail time or no.

G. I don't think I disagreed with you when you say that it is a twist of the report that Palin improperly fired Monegan. So, I'm not sure what your point is. My point was that Palin was within her legal rights to do so, but not necessarily her moral rights.

H. I know that the law is not judged on morals. I think I took quite a few pains in my last post to separate legality, ethics and morals. The moral issue involved here, however, is one of how her will was truly derived. The law does not concern itself with that and we can be thankful that it does not. However, people concern themselves with this.

I. I'm sorry. I don't what a CL degree is. And I don't know how the blaming crimes of on one's beliefs pertains to this. Did Palin do this? Who else has committed a crime here?
WilliB at 12:58 PM JST - 17th October

While the press is turning over every pebble in Alaska to find some dirt on Palin, it is totally disinterested in Obamas friends and connections.

We hear anything about the vote-stealing ACORN, which he promises a voice in policy shaping? Nope. Rashid Khalidi (A Hyde Park neighbor of Obama and the co-founder of the Arab American Action Network, which calls the establishment of Israel a "catastrophe", Khalidi is a former spokesman for the PLO, served on the Woods Foundation with Barack Obama, and has raised funds for him)?? The authoring of his books by Bill Ayers, who still supports the revolution? Nope, nix, nada.
ImperiumMundi at 03:14 PM JST - 4th November

governor palin has been cleared of any wrongdoing.

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Reuters) - Alaska Gov. and Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin was cleared on Monday of wrongdoing in an abuse-of-power investigation into the firing of the state's public safety commissioner.

The Alaska Personnel Board report, issued on the eve of the U.S. presidential election, ran contrary to findings from a legislative inquiry that concluded in October that Palin had abused the power of her office by pressuring subordinates to fire a state trooper involved in a feud with her family.