Palin abused power, probe finds

[Night]

BBC NEWS | Americas | Palin abused power, probe finds

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is guilty of abuse of power, according to a probe by the state legislature. The Republican vice-presidential candidate was accused of sacking a senior state official, Walter Monegan, in connection with a family feud. ...more in article.

Hopefully this is the final blow to the McCain Palin ticket!

[nerdvincent]

Wowowo with the cheap scandals. That's the republican's way of winning.
But since it is supported by facts, it may have some real impact, unlike those saying Obama has contacts with satanists and ETs.

[Diogenes]

The Republican vice-presidential candidate was accused of sacking a senior state official, Walter Monegan

Nasty little girl...shame on her

[Dieval]

Alaska panel finds Palin abused power in firing - Yahoo! News

Monegan's firing was lawful, the report found, but Palin let the family grudge influence her decision-making — even if it was not the sole reason Monegan was dismissed.

So.....she was influenced when she made a lawful firing....oh, the humanity!!

Under Alaska law, it is up to the state's Personnel Board — which is conducting its own investigation into the matter — to decide whether Palin violated state law and, if so, must refer it to the Senate president for disciplinary action. Violations also carry a possible fine of up to $5,000. .. After a court fight to block the report failed, the panel of lawmakers voted to release it — though not without dissension. The panel did not vote on whether to endorse its findings. "I think there are some problems in this report," said Republican state Sen. Gary Stevens, a member of the panel. "I would encourage people to be very cautious, to look at this with a jaundiced eye."

Don't hammer the nails in the coffin just yet...

[tinybear]

Nah, I think the McCain-Palin ticket's a goner. McCain is trailing as it is even without that report.

[Nono]

Quote by: Dieval Oh, the humanity!!

That's what you said about Monicagate, isn't it Dieval???

[barts]

It's unfortunate that a number of posters here find the abuse of official power to serve a politician's personal, private agenda acceptable. That being the case, they reject the fundamental notion of "a nation of laws, not of men", which is a founding premise of the United States and most democracies.

[Zinkovich]

Quote by: Dieval Alaska panel finds Palin abused power in firing - Yahoo! News So.....she was influenced when she made a lawful firing....oh, the humanity!!

You misunderstand the report. What the report means is that the reason for the pressure she put on employees to fire someone who was already disciplined was the violation, not the firing itself. In Palin's position, you can fire even on a whim if you want to; this is not wise without good cause, however, and could lead to great amounts of scandal or a lawsuit. So she acted through her husband and fellow officials instead, putting pressure on an investigation concerning a disciplinary action that was already carried out in the previous administration. Here's the report's explanation of the finding:

IV Explanation OfFindings EXPLANATION FOR FINDING NUMBER ONE Finding Number One October 10, 2008 Vol. One - Public Report For the reasons explained below, 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 "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." The Law applicable to the facts of the case In order to understand the rationale I have employed to arrive at my findings with respect to the conduct of Governor Sarah Palin, it is first necessary to consider the applicable laws, which in this case are embodied in the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Overview of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act Alaska Statute 39.52.010 - 39.52.965 codifies a body of well defined law known as the "Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act" that regulates the conduct of executive branch employees such as Governor Sarah Palin. It has no application to those who are not State ofAlaska employees such as Todd Palin. It is very similar to the laws that define and regulate conduct by legislative employees that is found in AS 24.60.010, 24.60.995, known as the Legislative Ethics Act. Standards governing conduct by judicial officers in Alaska are found in the Code of Judicial Conduct. The public policy underlying Alaska's Ethics Act In promulgating Alaska's Ethics Act, the legislature established a very high bar for executive branch employees. The "Declaration of policy" found in AS 39.52.010 states in part: (a) It is declared that (1) high moral and ethical standards among public officers in the executive branch are essential to assure the trust, respect, and confidence of the people of this state; (2) a code of ethics for the guidance of public officers will: (A) discourage those officers from acting upon personal or financial interests in the performance of their public responsibilities; (B) improve standards of public service; and (C) promote and strengthen the faith and confidence of the people of this state in their public officers; (3) holding public office or employment is a public trust and that as one safeguard of that trust, the people require public officers to adhere to a code of ethics; (4) a fair and open government requires that executive branch public officers conduct the public's business in a manner that preserves the integrity of the governmental process and avoids conflicts of interest; The Act makes clear that compliance with the code of ethics creates a burden on each executive branch employee that is personal in nature: (7) compliance with a code of ethics is an individual responsibility; thus all who serve the state have a solemn responsibility to avoid improper conduct and prevent improper behavior by colleagues and subordinates. Prohibition against unethical conduct by executive branch employees A key provision of this body of law is AS 39.52.110 which is captioned "Scope of code; prohibition of unethical conduct." It defines the kind of behavior by executive branch employees like Governor Palin that is prohibited. In the pertinent part it says: (a) 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. The terms "public officer," "benefit," "personal interest," and "official action" and related definitions as used in AS 39.52.110 (a) above are clearly defined in the Ethics Act as follows: 1. The term "public officer" means a person who is "a public employee." AS 39.52.960(21); 2. The term "public employee" "means a permanent, probationary, seasonal, temporary, provisional, or nonpermanent employee of an agency, whether in the classified, partially exempt, or exempt service." AS 39.52.960 (20); 3. The term "benefit" "means anything that is to a person's advantage or self-interest, or from which a person profits, regardless of the financial gain, including any dividend, pension, salary, acquisition, agreement to purchase, transfer ofmoney, deposit, loan or loan guarantee, promise to pay, grant, contract, lease, money, goods, service, privilege, exemption, patronage, advantage, advancement, or anything of value;" AS 39.52.960(3); 4. The term "gain" "includes actual or anticipated gain, benefit, profit, or compensation;" AS 39.52.960(10); 5. The term "personal interest" "means an interest held or involvement by a public officer, or the officer's immediate family member or parent, including membership, in any organization, whether fraternal, nonprofit, for profit, charitable, or political, from which, or as a result ofwhich, a person or organization receives a benefit;" AS 39.52.960(18); 6. The term "immediate family member" "means: (A) the spouse of the person; (B) another person cohabiting with the person m a conjugal relationship that is not a legal marriage; (C) a child, including a stepchild and an adoptive child, of the person; (D) a parent, sibling, grandparent, aunt, or uncle of the person; and (E) a parent or sibling of the person's spouse;" AS 39.52.960 (11). Finally, perhaps the most important term to the analysis of the facts of the present case is the term "official action." The definition of "official action' includes those situations where an executive branch employee such as Governor Palin fails to take corrective action required by the Ethics Act. Thus, the Ethics Act covers both acts of commission as well as omission. The term "official action" is defined in AS 39.52.960 (14), as follows: (14) "official action" means advice, participation, or assistance, including, for example, a recommendation, decision, approval, disapproval, vote, or other similar action, including inaction, by a public officer; The Ethics Act contains a provision that authorized the Attorney General to adopt Regulations under the Administrative Procedure Act necessary to interpret and implement the Ethics Act. There are two regulations that are relevant to this case. The first regulation is 9 Alaska Administrative Code 52.020 which is captioned "Improper motivation." It states "A public officer may not take or withhold official action on a matter if the action is based on an improper motivation." The second regulation is 9 Alaska Administrative Code 52.990(4), which defines the term "improper motivation" as follows: (4) "improper motivation" means a motivation not related to the best interests of the state, and includes giving primary consideration to a person's (A) kinship or relationship with a public officer; (B) financial association with a public officer; (C) potential for conferring a future benefit on a public officer; or (D) political affiliation

In pressuring the review of a complaint investigation concerning an officer that was already disciplined for the act, she was within her governmental rights. However, in doing it concerning an officer where personal motivation was a large concern, she had violated the act.

[m5lange1]

Does anyone really believe that any politician rises to the level of a presidential ticket without haveing a skelliton or two in their closet?

The problem is, at that level, there are a lot of peolple opening closet doors and frequently the bones fall out.

The rabid, blind fanatics only want to believe the crap about the other guy and convince themselves that anything uncovered about their own candidates is a conspiricy based falsehood.

I find the biggest mudslingers are the most incensed when any mud is thrown their way.

This investigatiion was begun by republicans and prior to her being selected as a VP candidate.

She got caught. Face it and move on. Calling this lies and cooked up charges is onloy going to fly with the her die hard suppporters anyway.
Especially from a woman whos input in this race has pretty much consiisted of slamming and smearing her opponent..

[Robert Marsh II]

I am undecided in regard to either campaign party nomination upon this ticket, however:

All this actually, is nothing more than fuel for the mindless 'parade for change' zombies, to white-wash a candidate whose hidden baggage and personal flaws are quite in-depth!

Senator Barack Obama has 'no' bipartisan precedented experience with the Republican GOP, therefore he will be impotent to deliver this 'change' you seek!!!

Wake-up and realise you have a 'brain' of your own, to make a rational decision, and not some Acorn program guide to the index of Obama chants!

He who is without sin, cast the first stone.

[Zinkovich]

Quote by: Robert Marsh II All this actually is nothing more than fuel for the mindless 'parade for change' zombies, to white-wash a candidate whose hidden baggage and personal flaws are quite in-depth!

This is a matter of professional ethics. To pretend that this report was some sort of Obamacentric dog and pony show is disrespectful to the governmental process, and devalues the need for such investigations.

Before this report, her "hidden baggage" concerning the firing of the commissioner and the review of the disciplinary actions taken upon Wooten was not in-depth. It was merely suspected. We had no sworn testimony, no direct filing of evidence, none of these things to give us perspective on the order and nature of the events that transpired concerning Wooten and Monegan.

Senator Barack Obama has 'no' bipartisan precedented experience with the Republican GOP, therefore he will be impotent to deliver this 'change' you seek!!!

I don't know where you get this. Obama has cosigned and written a few bipartisan bills; look for the Lugar-Obama and Coburn-Obama bills for two examples.

Wake-up and realise you have a 'brain' of your own, to make a rational decision, and not some Acorn program guide to the index of Obama chants!

How does this thread's issue directly concern the mindset of Obama supporters? If you want to lament the supposed mindlessness of Obama-supporting liberals, please go in a thread that actually pertains to such a thing and make your condescending comments over there.

[Robert Marsh II]

Any negative to Sarah Palin could be interpreted as a positive toward the Obama campaign. Everyone I know is acting this way.
In this context, my statement still stands!

There is no lament, only leveling the playing field for fairness to both.


GOP's Palin denies abuse of power finding - John McCain News - MSNBC.com



GOP: Don't believe the hype, Obama not ready - CNN.com

[Zinkovich]

Quote by: Robert Marsh II Any negative to Sarah Palin could be interpreted as a positive toward the Obama campaign. Everyone I know is acting this way. In this context, my statement still stands!

You said it was "nothing more than fuel" in your previous post. It's more than fuel for the Obama campaign, it's also something that lends us some perspective on how Palin did things as a governor, and also largely influences the debate on whether or not she always holds herself professionally in regards to areas where her professional and personal life intersect.

There is no lament, only leveling the playing field for fairness to both.

Going into a thread and ranting about how people who hold an opinion different from yours as "mindless" is not "leveling the playing field". It is, however, providing an off-topic red herring devoid of substance that distracts from the real issue present in this thread.

GOP's Palin denies abuse of power finding - John McCain News - MSNBC.com

So she denies fifty pages of sworn testimony from more than six people, not to mention a handful of recordings and documents that implicate that she had applied direct pressure concerning the disciplinary review of Wooten as contained within the report? Quite frankly, I don't find her denial very convincing.

GOP: Don't believe the hype, Obama not ready - CNN.com

Another red herring. If you want to discuss this with me or anyone else, you should post this in a different thread.

[m5lange1]

I am undecided in regard to either campaign party nomination upon this ticket, however:

I applaud your neutrality Mr. Marsh

Senator Barack Obama has 'no' bipartisan precedented experience with the Republican GOP, therefore he will be impotent to deliver this 'change' you seek!!! Wake-up and realise you have a 'brain' of your own, to make a rational decision, and not some Acorn program guide to the index of Obama chants!

Woops, looks as though you have finally made up your mind even as you typed.

He who is without sin, cast the first stone.

Or perhaps I was wrong. Is this a call for Sara Palin to put down her bucket of rocks?

There is no lament, only leveling the playing field for fairness to both

So does this mean you support the attacks on both Obama's character and Palin's characer or that you wish both sides would stop with the smears? In the intreset of levelling the playing field for farirness of course.

[Nono]

Quote by: m5 Does anyone really believe that any politician rises to the level of a presidential ticket without haveing a skelliton or two in their closet?

Yes. Why not?

She got caught. Face it and move on.

The Dems will be wise to let this one speak for itself.

The real issue here for me is this: In his first major decision as Republican candidate, John McCain failed to do his homework.

Caribou Barbie is in way over her head. Pathetic. And to boot she's abused her gubernatorial power.
This is the best the Republicans can cough up for a nation of 300 million?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Nono Caribou Barbie is in way over her head. Pathetic. And to boot she's abused her gubernatorial power. This is the best the Republicans can cough up for a nation of 300 million?

We've seen this before. Justice Clarence Thomas. The GOP will oppose affirmative action, equal pay, etc. etc., but when the opportunity arises, they'll cynically play affirmative action in order to "look" like the diverse, big tent they yearn to be but their intolerant, hide-bound policy positions make impossible.

When Justice Thurgood Marshall retired, George H.W.Bush was left with the awkward task of replacing a legendary liberal icon. What to do, what to do? So, in order to leave the Court looking as diverse as it had been, with at least one woman and one black Justice, they had to engage in the most cynical affirmative action by finding a suitably conservative BLACK nominee.

Alas, all they could come up with was the only nominee ever to receive a NOT QUALIFIED rating from the ABA. No wonder Thomas is bitter. He despises affirmative action for the taint it leaves upon it's recipients, yet here he is, a man desperately unqualified for his post, the greatest recipient of affirmative action ever, from the party that would rid the country of it for everyone else.

So it goes with Sarah the Barracuda. The Democratic party is set to shake up political history one way or the other, either with America's first black President or our first woman President. The fact of either one is enough to energize the nation.

So... what's the anti-diversity party to do? Hey, the Democrats tossed out their first woman ticket, let's pick a woman of our own. Who? Given the options, they cynically chose someone who fit the focus group check points... family values -- check, religious conservative -- check, attractive to both men and women -- check, check.

Actually qualified? Who cares.

.

[Robert Marsh II]

Read entire article, and don't cherry-pick:


Panel: Palin abused power in trooper case - CNN.com

Sarah Palin has not been convicted of any crime, nor of breaking any law! She has not been arrested or charged with a crime, and at this moment only accused of the abuse of power in her governor position! A further investigation is ongoing and incomplete, so only the Palin 'political' opposition would drool over this splinter of news.

If I abide by the conjecture of your previous statements, then 'any' political personality who has been accused of anything should immediately be removed from U.S. position of authority.

Or is it that, those not 'caught or accused' but still guilty of infringements, may retain office and go unpunished? How many in office right now are getting away with it, and does that make it alright?

I would at least wait until formal charges and convictions were applied before popping champagne bottles! Or is this just a democratic 'October Surprise'?

I was not present during these real-life events as they occured, and I fear neither were you, so all we have to go upon are the final legal proceedings, which may not be complete until after the elections.

Perhaps they will drop this issue all together!? With all this rock-throwing, who can tell, but I concede it's the nature of the political beast, and depending upon who is riding it!

I have another option: Not Vote, but if I do decide to vote, then in my opinion McCain will start a nuclear war, and if it's Obama he will accidentally with his lack of experience fall into one.

Sarah Palin is innocent until proven guilty by a jury of her peers, and protected by the statutes of the Constitution just as you and I are!

This is nothing more than political posturing and rock-throwing!!!

[ShadowFox]

Quote by: Robert Marsh II Read entire article, and don't cherry-pick: Panel: Palin abused power in trooper case - CNN.com Sarah Palin has not been convicted of any crime, nor of breaking any law! She has not been arrested or charged with a crime, and at this moment only accused of the abuse of power in her governor position! A further investigation is ongoing and incomplete, so only the Palin 'political' opposition would drool over this splinter of news. If I abide by the conjecture of your previous statements, then 'any' political personality who has been accused of anything should immediately be removed from U.S. position of authority. Or is it that, those not 'caught or accused' but still guilty of infringements, may retain office and go unpunished? How many in office right now are getting away with it, and does that make it alright? I would at least wait until formal charges and convictions were applied before popping champagne bottles! Or is this just a democratic 'October Surprise'? I was not present during these real-life events as they occured, and I fear neither were you, so all we have to go upon are the final legal proceedings, which may not be complete until after the elections. Perhaps they will drop this issue all together!? With all this rock-throwing, who can tell, but I concede it's the nature of the political beast, and depending who is riding it! I have another option: Not Vote, but if I do decide to vote, then in my opinion McCain will start a nuclear war, and if it's Obama he will accidentally with his lack of experience fall into one. Sarah Palin is innocent until proven guilty by a jury of her peers, and protected by the statutes of the Constitution just as you and I are! This is nothing more than political posturing and rock-throwing!!!

she may not be convicted, but probably will be charged.

The investigator's report states Palin's efforts to get Wooten fired broke a state ethics law that bars public officials from pursuing personal interest through official action.

That was from the article you posted.

[Zinkovich]

The lawyer's defense of Palin states that the ethics act only covers benefits of a financial value, yet the citation of the act in the report that I posted above contradicts his interpretation. To quote, yet again:

(a) 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. The terms "public officer," "benefit," "personal interest," and "official action" and related definitions as used in AS 39.52.110 (a) above are clearly defined in the Ethics Act as follows: 1. The term "public officer" means a person who is "a public employee." AS 39.52.960(21); 2. The term "public employee" "means a permanent, probationary, seasonal, temporary, provisional, or nonpermanent employee of an agency, whether in the classified, partially exempt, or exempt service." AS 39.52.960 (20); 3. The term "benefit" "means anything that is to a person's advantage or self-interest, or from which a person profits, regardless of the financial gain, including any dividend, pension, salary, acquisition, agreement to purchase, transfer of money, deposit, loan or loan guarantee, promise to pay, grant, contract, lease, money, goods, service, privilege, exemption, patronage, advantage, advancement, or anything of value;" AS 39.52.960(3); 4. The term "gain" "includes actual or anticipated gain, benefit, profit, or compensation;" AS 39.52.960(10); 5. The term "personal interest" "means an interest held or involvement by a public officer, or the officer's immediate family member or parent, including membership, in any organization, whether fraternal, nonprofit, for profit, charitable, or political, from which, or as a result of which, a person or organization receives a benefit;" AS 39.52.960(18); 6. The term "immediate family member" "means: (A) the spouse of the person; (B) another person cohabiting with the person m a conjugal relationship that is not a legal marriage; (C) a child, including a stepchild and an adoptive child, of the person; (D) a parent, sibling, grandparent, aunt, or uncle of the person; and (E) a parent or sibling of the person's spouse;" AS 39.52.960 (11)

Notice the "or"'s in there? The benefit in this case being, of course, a personal/"fraternal" one. Think about how much easier it will be for her sister when it comes to arguing for less custody on the part of her ex-husband in the courts when he's out of a job, not to mention the whole "spiteful revenge being fulfilled" aspect of it!

[Robert Marsh II]

I agree Sarah Palin may be officially charged, but I will repeat my stance:

I will not personally convict her, until a jury convicts her, that's the law! Innocent until 'proven' guilty by a jury of her peers.

If I accept anything less than this, then I could accuse Obama, McCain, any official, any citizen, or even you of a crime, and expect immediate justice through imprisonment, without hope of a fair trial, and due process of law!

My only point is to wait for justice under the statutes of the American legal system.