Posted on 10/10/2008 5:36:35 PM PDT by DocT111
Edited on 10/10/2008 5:40:03 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- A state legislative panel has concluded that Sarah Palin abused her power in the firing of the state's public safety commissioner.
The findings were released after lawmakers emerged Friday from a private session in Anchorage where they spent more than six hours discussing a politically charged ethics report into the firing by Gov. Palin.
(Excerpt) Read more at elections.foxnews.com ...
If only she could have done that!
If you find 2 out of 10 white democrats who are not going to vote for Obama then Obama is not going to win Pennsylvania. Please do your own poll.
LOL......what a crock......she needs to talk to the American people, without couric and her cohorts distorting the news. NO Sunday shows.......her fans are in church, not sitting in front of the TV on Sunday mornings.
So why is the firing relevant to whether she violated the ethics law when you point out that it wasn't the firing that triggered the finding of an ethics-law violation?
BTW, what is your background in the law?!
In the law? Fairly constant, occasionally outside of it but not on anything serious.
And you?
Thanks I was basing my statement on the press release about the investigation which only mentioned Monehan.
Get on my comments if you will, but this is not a positive.
I have been posting on FR since 2000. I am one of the biggest republican supporters out there. Check my post history if you will.
But we cannot continue to act like everything is just fine.
I have read hundreds of polls and internals. I know the current polls are skewed and Obama is not up 10 points. But I do think he is solidly up. All the polls cannot be wrong folks. Not a single poll has McCain ahead or even tied. Yes we try to compare to a similar poll in 2000 showing Gore up 10 at the same time. But those poll margins only lasted a couple of days. And there were other polls at the same time that showed Bush up. That is not the case today.
McCain is getting the blame for the economy. Which burns me up because it is clear the Dems and Obama/Acorn/Ayers were the main reason for it. Those of us here know the facts, but 90% of Americans think the repubs caused it.
McCain won’t go after Obama except through some ads. Tells supports Obama is a decent guy. Blows 2 debates because he wants to be non-partisan.
When you have supporters at your rallies standing up and telling you to get with it, that is a problem.
We love Sarah. This is partisan, and unfair. She did nothing wrong. But what are Americans going to read when they get up Saturday morning? “She acted unlawfully”. To the average American, that means she broke a law.
Folks this campaign is on life support right now. It is going to take the hand of God to bring it back.
I just don’t think McCain has the stomach to do what needs to be done.
Actually, no.
Yep.McCain won’t fight back. Palin is screwed on Troopergate. The media is in the tank for 0bama.
The end is near, so let’s just sit back, crack open a cold one, and embrace the anarchy to come!
Peace-out!
“Yep.McCain won’t fight back. Palin is screwed on Troopergate. The media is in the tank for 0bama.
The end is near, so let’s just sit back, crack open a cold one, and embrace the anarchy to come!
Peace-out!”
HMMMM...read this...what if something is brewing....wouldn’t it make sense how McCain mentioned that wy would be take advice from a corrupt Chicago politician....and then he goes from that to more subtle approach....you think there really might be an indictment coming down. Hope so...and it would make sense why he is acting as he is....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2102821/posts?page=1
You're right.
That's addressed on page 65.
We have to protect Sarah ... She is our next best hope and the Commies are attacking her without cause (NO LAWS BROKEN)
You’re welcome.
It’s sad that it’s so difficult to get the badge off a dirty cop.
The panel found that she broke a law.
See pages 65-67 for a summary (the conclusion for that finding) of what led to...
For all the above reasons, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power as Governor in that her conduct violated AS 39.52.1 10(a) of the Ethics Act.
No...I mean "Recommendations For Action By The Legislature" starting on Page 78.
Apparently, some thought he overused his connection to her to continue to pursue the brother-in-law.
Yes, that was part of it.
Now, (1) Was Todd Palin elected to anything?,
That was addressed on page 68:
Todd Palin is not an employee of the executive branch, so his conduct is not a violation of AS 39.52.0 10 - 39.52.965. Given the terms of the contract, I make no finding as to Mr. Palin's conduct.(2) What if she did tell him, and Todd told Sarah to take a hike?
From page 66:
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.Basically, as I understand it all... Todd Palin and others put on pressure to take action against Trooper Wooten, but because Wooten had already been sentenced to a slap-on-the-wrist 5-day suspension, Monegan and the State Police were powerless to take any more action against him. But despite repeatedly pointing that out, they kept getting pushed to fire Wooten because he was a disgrace to the badge. But the union wouldn't have allowed that, and Wooten would have sued, etc.
Such impermissible and repeated contacts create conflicts of interests for subordinate employees who must choose to either please a superior or run the risk of facing that superior's displeasure and the possible consequences of such displeasure. This was one of the very reasons the Ethics Act was promulgated by the Legislature. That such a conflict of interest arises in such circumstances was best summarized by John Bitney,who summed it up when he testified:MR. BITNEY: I seem to recall that I said "I'll check it out," or "let me see what I can do." I mean, you know, that was, you know. My recollection of my own sense was, you know, "here's a friend and" if you will "the Governor's husband", who's got into office who's got a problem, you know, and someone that seems to be a serious problem for him, from my perspective. You know, when the First Gentleman comes into your office and says you got a problem, you sort of feel compelled to look into it and see if something can be done.
So to me, the real scandal here is that (1) dirty cops are not held accountable, and (2) victims can't find out the status of investigations based on their accusations, leaving them to wonder if the cop is still out on the street with a badge and a gun and a belly full of anger.
However the actual definition reads a bit differently and does not use the term any to modify interest, but is quite specific as to what type of personal interest is the intended focus of the act “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, person or organization receives a benefit”
Regarding the term “benefit” the report states “ the term benefit is broadly defined and includes anything that is to the person's advantage or personal self interest” again the actual law does not say this rather it says “ ...benefit means anything that is to a person's advantage or self-interest, or from which a person profits, regardless of financial gain, including any dividend, pension, salary, acquisition, agreement to purchase, transfer of money, deposit, loan or loan guarantee, promise to pay....”
Now though it would seem the use of the word anything in the law means any and all regardless of subject the following clause shows it does not. The use of the term anything is modified by the referral to “advantage and self interest” We have already seen that self (personal) interest is defined by law as pertaining to “... an interest held or involvement by a public official....in any organization... from which or as a result the person or organization receives a benefit”
The word advantage is not defined but the word gain is, which since it does appear in the definitions I will assume is synonymous for advantage. The law states “ ...gain includes actual or anticipated gain, benefit, profit, or compensation”
The laws intent is obviously to make sure the Governor or her immediate family does not use their office for financial or personal advantage. The Governor or her sister can not for example tell a person seeking a State contract to make sure their brother is hired as
project foreman if they want to have their bid accepted. The Governor or her spouse can not tell the local power elite “ If you let us join I will lobby the legislature to give $$$$$ to your organization.”
Was it advisable for Todd Palin to be permitted to use the Governor's office to let people know he and Palin thought Wooten should be fired? No it was not. But it does not fall within the scope of the definition under the Ethics Law for being a violation. There was nothing to be gained, there was no personal self interest advanced, there was no benefit to be had. If Wooten had been fired that would have been the end result of those efforts.
It is disingenuous for Branchflower to give a broad definition when by law the definition is specific. Indeed his application of the law is so broad I can not help but wonder who else will be caught up in his net. What about Palin’s father did he violate the Ethics Act by filing a complaint against Wooten? The way Branchflower argues I think he could very well find in favor of that assertion.
The investigation was commissioned in July by Alaska’s Legislative Council composed of 10 Republican lawmakers and four Democrats.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE4998X420081011
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.