He’s got a bright future as a special prosecutor in an Obama administration.
Do Acorns grow in Anchorage?
‘Nuff said. What a great summary of the situation.
Of course, to the MSM, Beldar’s post reads:
“BLAH BLAH BLAH Abuse of Power BLAH BLAH BLAH Violation of Ethics Laws BLAH BLAH BLAH...”
They see what they want to see and there’s almost no point getting indignant about it.
Sarah goes about her business tomorrow as scheduled. No worries.
Ping for later reading
And Sen. French and Mr. Branchflower will be happy to find that indeed, there are very few Americans who are going to try to dig a little deeper than the blaring wall-to-wall headlines.
Hello?
Why are the media outlets saying “the bipartisan Legislative Council, which commissioned the probe, unanimously adopted the 263-page public report,” if it was just the opinion of one guy?
“All of them are equally well explained by legitimate concerns that Wooten was a potential threat to the Palin family (having already made death threats against Gov. Palin’s father) and/or an embarrassment to the Alaska Department of Public Safety and the entire state law enforcement community.”
Getting rid of this trooper would benefit the state anyway, so this is perfectly in line with serving the public interest.
This report is an outrage. The investigation was a partisan witchhunt of the most egregious kind.
**Democratic state senator and staunch Barack Obama supporter Hollis French of Alaska**
Stopped reading right there.
I do not agree with Branchflower’s findings at all. For one the definitions which he so boldly declare are broadly define in the law are rather very specific. For example he claims that “the term personal interest as used in the Ethics Act means any interest held by the public officer or the public officer’s immediate family including a sibling....”
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.
Can this clown Branchflower be disbarred a la Nifong?