[Gondring]

I still don't see it.

It's on page 8 of the report, with the evidence from pages 8-47, and the explanation on pages 48-68. You probably want to look at pages 8 and then 48-68.

He specifically quotes: "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."

[P-Marlowe]

The statute specifically authorizes the Governor and any other elected officer to petition or to seek redress from any public official on a personal matter (such as their concern about a trooper who has threatend to kill their family) just as if the petitioner is a member of the public at large.

She fired the idiot for reasons not related to the matter in which she was personally involved. There was no violation of this statute. There was simply the exercise of her rights as a citizen.

[lastchance]

Please tell me what the personal or financial benefits were that Governor Palin would have gained had Wooten been fired because she asked the status of the investigation and expressed her concerns over his fitness for his job?

All the explanation does is repeat accounts of the meetings and phone calls Palin made seeking information and expressing her objections to Wooten remaining a State Trooper.

I find it rather odd that actions she took before her election as Governor are being cited as reasons for finding her in violation of Alaska’s ethics’ law.

Not once does the report say (unless I missed it) that Governor Palin stood to benefit in anyway if Wooten was fired.