Todd Palin and Levi Johnston should have taken care of this Troopergate long ago.
Sarah Palin ain't much of a redneck. Don't get me wrong: I got a lot of love for Sister Sarah, but I am a little disappointed with her and Todd regarding this Troopergate business.…
Article comments
26 - Glenn Contrarian
Cannonshop -
I posted above that my concern wasn't so much about Palin firing the safety commissioner, but about the Congressional subpoenas that were ignored by aides of Bush and Palin. Can you provide a single example of a Democratic president or governor allowing their staff to ignore a subpoena? Ever?
Even one?
FYI, whether the trooper should have been fired is SMALL potatoes compared to the fact that a governor or a president can order his/her aides to REFUSE the constitutionally-mandated subpoenas of Congress (U.S. or state).
Just one example, C-shop - that's all I ask.
27 - pablo
State legislatures are not called congress Glenn, they are called state legislatures. I do agree however with your argument.
28 - Lisa Solod Warren
You are kidding, Cannon, right. You CAN read, can't you? No one was protecting a bad cop. What we were protesting was an elected official using her power abusively.
And, Al, it's Ms. Lisa to you.
29 - Al Barger
Ms Lisa- Lots of people are protecting a bad cop, or he would long since have lost his job.
And this is a bogus excuse for claiming that she "abused power" on several grounds. One is that the abuse of power was that she fired someone else, who came up some time later with a claim that it was because of the Wooten business. So that's just bogus there.
Again, she wasn't trying THAT hard to get Wooten fired, or he wouldn't still be there. She's the governor. Sounds like she made a couple of phone calls, and let it drop. Citizen Todd was bitching to high heaven - as would seem to be any citizen's right.
But Sarah would have been completely reasonable to push hard to get this guy fired, as he is ultimately a subordinate working under her who is obviously a rogue - even leaving aside anything personal.
It's pretty bogus to claim that Gov Palin was acting to "benefit a personal or financial interest through official action." Getting rid of a cop who drinks on the job and engages in thuggery hardly constitutes some irrelevant personal interest. That's some political enemies reaching really, really hard past any point of reason. It's a public safety issue at some point.
The abuse and corruption is from the police who have clearly covered up for their own well past any reasonable point of professional solidarity. What exactly would you have to do to get fired from a trooper job if Wooten's behavior doesn't qualify?
30 - Lisa Solod Warren
Al, her husband made dozens of phone calls from her office.
If she wanted to fire Wooten, she should have filed a legitimate complaint. If Wooten has drinking on the job or doing something else on the job, then yes he should have been fired.
Anything he did at home doesn't count. If every man was fired for what he did at home, half the men in America would lose their jobs. Trust me, I was a domestic violence worker for 12 years.
The tasing incident was hearsay and was 3 years old before she reported it and was part of a nasty divorce hearing.
The firing of Wooten was up to his superior.
If Dude Palin wanted to administer redneck justice (otherwise known as vigilantism) he could have done so at any time but then he would have gotten his wife fired.
She abused her power pure and simple which is why the charges were brought and the abuse of power charge stood.
31 - Dan(Miller)
Perhaps an historical aside is warranted here in light of Comment #26. Presidents of the U.S. have relied on executive privilege for a long time to limit Congressional access to documents and testimony.
More recently, between 1946 and 1949, President Truman President Eisenhower invoked the privilege during the Army-McCarthy hearings. In United States v. Nixon, the Supreme Court affirmed the existence of the privilege, but held that in the circumstances there pertinent, it had been asserted with insufficient specificity.In 1998, President Clinton asserted the privilege to prevent aides from testifying before the Congress in connection with the Lewinsky scandal.
In Alaska, Sometimes the privilege is properly exercised, sometimes it is not. It is nothing new, and the propriety of its exercise is a matter to be determined by the Federal courts (in the case of exercise by the Federal executive) or by the appropriate State courts in the case of exercise by a State executive.
Dan(Miller)
32 - Franco
#13 " Dan(Miller)
What I was hoping might be picked up is that Governor Palin faced some rather high hurdles in trying to do something, and that perhaps the reasons why Trooper Wooten remains a State trooper are more worthy of analysis than somewhat partisan attacks on her (unsuccessful) efforts.
Dan, this post is a bit long, and it took bit of time to gather, but I think relivent to your question.
Wooten has been accused of telling McCann (Palin's sister) that Palin's father would "eat a f___ing lead bullet", a comment that Palin says she and her son overheard.
While Wooten denied the allegation, a trooper investigation concluded that he did. However this isn't a crime because the threat was not made directly to the father, but Wooten's actions were in violation of trooper policy, investigators found.
March 1, 2006 - Trooper Wooten was suspended bases on the 2006 internal investigation findings, and a ten day susspention was ordered againt Trooper Wooten. This produced such a union protest, the suspension was reduced to five days
That threat is not coming from some redneck backwoods bigot, it is not coming from some dude in a bar with too many beers in him, it is coming from a goverment State Trooper who is memmber of the Alaskan SWAT team. It is also highly revlevent that his has a record of recless driving, and some drinking problems. I have no idea if is steroid use are has been asserted by close family. But there not againt the law.
January 4, 2007 - Todd Palin met with Walt Monegan, the public safety commissioner (or top cop) for the state of Alaska, to look into additional information of Trooper Wooten’s ongoing negative behavior. At this meeting Mr. Palin gave commisssioner Monegan various records, including material from a private investigator hired by the Palin family. Mr. Palin asked Monegan to revisit the matter in light of this evidence.
Monegan agreed to do that. Following that meeting, Monegan later contacted Mr. Palin and told him that there was nothing he could do as the case was closed, and it was important to note that troopers operate under a union contract that restricts the circumstances under which a trooper can be suspended.
May 9, 2008 - Monegan's deputy Commissioner, Holloway, refused Palin's security chief, Bill Cockerell's request for one (1) trooper to be provided for several events Governor Palin was planning to attend (page 164-171 Branchflower report). The request was turned down because it would have incurred 3 hours of union overtime.
May 15, 2008 - Shortly before the annual celebration of Police Memorial, Commissioner Monegan dropped off a color photograph at Governor Palin's Anchorage office with a request that she sign and present it at the ceremony. The photograph was of an Alaska State Trooper who was dressed in a formal uniform, saluting. He was standing in front of the police memorial located in front of the crime lab at AST headquarters in Anchorage, partially obscured by a flagpole. The picture to be signed by the Governor was to be used as a poster to be displayed in various Trooper Detachments around the state.
Shortly after he returned to his office from dropping off the photograph, he received a call from Kris Perry, Governor Palin's Director of her Anchorage office who asked [according to Walt Monegan's testimony] "Why did you send a poster over here that has a picture of Mike Wooten on it?" Until that moment, Commissioner Monegan never realized it was indeed a photograph of Trooper Wooten.
How is that possable after the contacts that were made to Commissioner Walt Monegan over the threats and actions being made was a part of at least three dozen contacts over 19 months by the governor, her husband and seven administration officials. Kim Peterson, Mr. Monegan’s special assistant and a 31-year veteran of state government, who retired 10 days before Mr. Monegan’s firing, said she received about a dozen calls herself. “It was very clear that someone from the governor’s office wanted him watched,” she told the New York Times
On July 11, 2008, Palin's acting chief of staff Mike Nizich held a scheduled meeting with Monegan. Moregan thought he was going into the meeting to smooth over the ruffled feathers caused from when his deputy, Holloway, denied the Governor's chief of security, Cocerall, an extra trooper for security for the Governor at a specific public event
At this meeting, Mike Nizich informed Moregan that DPS whated to go in a new direction, and want to make changes in a reassignment for Moregan, and at this same meeting he was offered the Executive Director posistion of the State Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, which he turned down.
In a letter to DPS employees announcing his choosen dismissal, Monegan wrote that he was an "at-will employee" and knew his dismissal was "a possibility ever present," and that he had been advised that the governor wanted to take DPS in a "different direction”. In an interview the next day Monegan said that the dismissal had come "out of the blue" and that "if the governor was upset with me for one thing or another, it had never been communicated to me."
The term "at-will-employee" do not have the union’s protections and it is clear in his letter that he is making a point of it with the union employee’s of the DPS. But fact is, he was a Palin appointee, and she had the right to fire him.
Is MoneganIs an antaginist or just brean dead. Why would he on May 15, 2008 drop off color photographs at Governor Palin's Anchorage office of Trooper Wooten with a request that she sign and present it at the Police Memorial Commissioner ceremony, when all the way back in January Mr. Palin had had his meeting with Monegan about the onging problem that Palin family was asserting they were having with Wootem. Is he just a prick, or brain dead.
Palin said that she reassigned Commissioner Walt Monegan because of performance-related issues. It was Walt Monegan decision not to except the reassignment and he resigned. That is a true statement.
Monegan said that the Governor herself, her husband, and members of her staff as well as the state's Attorney General, had contacted him numerous times regarding Wooten. Add to this the picture signing request, how can he say it was “out of the blue”. If that is true, then he is brain dead. If it is not true, then he is a lier. Either way, I can see what Palin could see all of this as performance-related issues.
And most important off all, despite those contacts, the Branchflower report found no demand that Monegan fire Trooper Wooten nor did it find any pressure to fire the trooper at the time of Monegan's reassignment offer.
Obama's lawyers were looking for trouble in Alaska at the very moment when Monegan's union began pushing him to get loud with his version of what happened.
That his union had to push him into making his heavily politicized complaint WHILE OBAMA'S LAWYERS standing in the background, scanning Alaska for something that could be used to attack Palin, is too much coincidence to be believed.
Very reminiscent of the way he handled his opponents in Chicago.
Consider too that we haven't heard ANYTHING else about them other than the fact that they went up there on a skeleton search.
The union is about money, the more workers get the more they get, that's how it works, always has and always will.
With that fact in mine, have a look at this.
Palin has evedenced the following. Monegan was unable to fill trooper positions and handle alcohol abuse issues. She said he "did not turn out to be a team player on budgeting issues."
Palin said Monegan indicated to legislators that she wasn't proposing enough spending. Mike Nizich, Palin's acting chief of staff, said Monegan requested for spending from the legislators that had not been authorized by the governor. "The response he got was don't come to us and ask for more money when you cannot fill the 56 or 58 trooper positions that were vacant," Nizich said. "So he was making a pitch for additional funding when he couldn't even fill what he currently had available to him."
When Monegan was questioned publicly about this however, he declined further comment. He'd already started speaking with the special investigator who was hired by the Legislature to look into the firing.
Monegan was in a posision to be a pimp for the unions. Was he? Did the death threats from a State Trooper on the SWAT team, with a proven record of reckless driving and drinking problems fall throught the cracks of union power play............befor it got pick up by Obama's dirt finding team of 30 hatchet men.
Dan. this union issue could just be one thought on your question as to way
........other then what we all know is obvious.
33 - Dan(Miller)
Thanks, Franco
I think you hit the nail on the head, and I appreciate it.
Dan(Miller)
34 - Lisa Solod Warren
This investigation started WAY before she became a candidate for VP, Franco. What the hell do Obama's lawyers have to do with it? She was under investigation BEFORE she was ever chosen!
Now, who the hell is into conspiracy theories?
And Dan, you don't find it the least bit odd that Wooten is Palin's ex brother in law who is involved in a custody suit with her sister and an ugly divorce? And I have read some very different "facts" from the ones Franco cites, for sure.
Oh well.... you're a lawyer. Believe what suits you.
35 - Heloise
Moon do you know who Gore Vidal is? He is only one of the greatest living writers in America. His autobiography I've listed as singularly the best book I've ever read: Palimpsest. He's gay and he loved him some JFK. He said I, rather he had a great butt.
Please your comment is rather crass. I like you but you should not go there! It's like comparing a Bush speech with Abe Lincoln.
Anyway.
Heloise
36 - Dave Nalle
Gore Vidal, who writes rings around anybody on this site, has a good piece reprinted on Commondreams today.
Cover your eyes, Nalle.
Why? I agree he's a good writer. I don't have to agree with him politically to appreciate his writing.
We went to the same high school (many years apart). He used to take my mother to dances as a safe date back in the 40s.
I haven't seen much recent from him because of his spinal injury, but last I checked he was mostly campaigning against Prop 8 where I agree with him 100%.
Dave
37 - Cannonshop
Let's say you're a chief executive, and you hire a man to run your security department.
Let's say one of your security PEOPLE shows up for work drunk, makes threats against his family members, poaches on your company property, etc. etc. (Go through the list of Wooten's "Fun".)
Now, let's say you hired your security director to handle running the security department, and the jackhole causing all these problems manages to get out of disciplinary actions under his watch, then said department head presents you with a piece of advertising/recruiting material with said jackhole guard in dress uniform in front of a monument.
Do you keep this guy on the payroll? He's proven unable to discipline his subordinates or run his department at budget.
Palin Hired Moneghan, and she offered him a "same pay grade" job at a different department when he showed he wasn't up to running the department she hired him for-he resigned.
Wooten is what could be termed a "Test Case Example" of whether or not the man could run Dept. Public Safety- the Governor damn well knew Wooten was a scumbag who didn't deserve to wear the badge. In any union shop, if you've got a scumbag that bad, there's ways managers can use to get rid of them, even if it's reassignment to somewhere they'll WANT to quit,nitpicking time-cards, documenting minor violations or what have you.
Think of it another way, though, before you get all wound out about Sarah Palin's "abusing power":
If the GOVERNOR's husband making calls can't get serious action on a KNOWN bad cop, what chance does Jane Citizen have making calls about being abused by a cop? Does it really comfort anyone to think that it requires a court order to get a guy like this Disciplined, much less Fired?
She removed an ineffective manager, a manager she KNEW was being ineffective, and she was nice about it-she offered him a different, less critical job that HE refused, rather than just outright "Clean out your desk and turn in your logs, company car, and all those office supplies you pilfered, Your ass is unemployed for cause."
38 - bliffle
Much ado about nothing.
Thanks for the heads-up on the Gore Vidal article, though. Always a pleasure to read his writing.
39 - moon
Think nothing of it, bliffle.
Gore is in his 80s now and considerable less gone to seed than 99% of the folks posting on this site or anyplace else.
40 - pablo
[Comment deleted. Sorry, Pablo, but you were addressing the commenter 'Expressions', who has been violating the comments policy by using multiple screen names. I am deleting her comments until she learns to stick to one name, and unfortunately yours had to go too as it wouldn't have made sense on its own.
Dr Dreadful
Assistant Comments Editor]
41 - Franco
#18 " Glenn Contrarian
"I notice you said NOTHING about the ignored Congressional subpoenas by aides of Bush and Palin...nor did you provide a single example of a Democratic president or governor allowing their staff to ignore a subpoena.
Tell me some more about Republican respect for the law and the Constitution, please."
Well Glenn, since your such a partisan snot and begging for it, and saying please all at the same time............
First of all, there have been no Constitutional laws broken. While Congress does have investigative powers, and a power to issue subpoenas, and to find them in contempt, it has no power on its own to enforce its own subpoenas due to a small item referred to as the Constitution.
The consequences for ignoring congressional subpoenas that lack a direct court order of enforcement are none, zip, zero. Why? Because no law was broken.
The Constitution of the United States provides congress with the law procedures on congressional subpoenas and their enforcement.
This is a good thing. Because just as both houses are there to assure a balance of power within the government, there is a procedural balance of power between, congress who makes the laws, and the people of the United States who must obey them. And the balance of power between those who make the laws, and those who must obey them, is called the Courts. Because it is only the courts who can enforce them.
Glenn, thank your lucky stars that this exists. The fact that you apparently don’t is disturbing.
If a witness refuses to testify or produce papers in response to a committee subpoena, and the committee votes to report a resolution of contempt to the floor, the full House or Senate may vote in support of the contempt citation.
If either House votes for a contempt citation, the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House shall certify the facts to the appropriate U.S. Attorney, “whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.”
A grand jury is a group of people that are selected and sworn in by a court, just like jurors that are chosen to serve on a trial jury
Both branches are granted Contitutioal rights to seek that assistance from the courts, however the general message from federal judges is that an agreement hammered out between the two parties is better for all than a directive handed down by a court.
Glenn, that is the law and how it is practiced under the Constitution of the United States.
Congress has rights to the courts and so do those they subpoena and find in contempt. Each can therefor have proper opportunity to show just cause for their respective positions. Other wise our legislative branch would have full dictatorial powers and could take any person off the streets in the US and at gun point and force them to prison without due process. And that drectely violates the Constitution.
To put it simply, how ironic it would be if Congress, who themselves makes the laws could act on enforcing them all alone. If they have the right to make them and enforce them, what do we need to courts for Glenn?
That is why we have the balance of powers in our system. And thank your lucky stars it is there and protects you too.
Factual background on this subject in important to know as citizens because there has been much bad information and ignorance bandied about on this.
Congress knows these laws like the back of their hands, and they know all too well many American don’t, and they take advantage of this ignorance to exploit partisan politics and show boat it. Both parties do it, it’s the Democrats turn right now. And keep in mind, they never do it to their own party.
So if the Congress believes that it has a strong enough case against and individual for its investigation, it will proceed with those three steps listed above and the US Attorney will take it to court for Congress to get a ruling of enforcement of the subpoena.
One the other hand, if congress is not confident in its case, or if it is really mostly a political partisan witch hunt, it makes it much more difficult for the US Attorney to get a court order to enforce the subpoena. This keeps the legislator focused more on the true nature of law and less on partisan politics.
If we exercise our system correctly it works exceeding well. That is way we need a solid checks and balance system to go through has been set up to cut out all the crap. Because people in power are still only people and suffer all the same temptations of skirting of issue no differently that any of us. The system is set apart by law, and we must all pass through it in search of justice.
So when it is not sent to the courts you can bet it as too much partisan hack in it. There are legislature committees that can take advantage of most people like you who do not now these laws. They do it to excite the unknowing public for partisan reasons. There are also people of supposed respect who do the same thing for partisan politics
Case in point. At the Huffington Post, Arianna Huffington herself wrote and posted an opinion pieces in July titled; Karl Rove's Contempt for the Constitution and the Public's Right to Know
However, through a full reading of Arianna Huffington’s post, it ends up showing that it is in fact, Arianna Huffington showing contempt for the Constitution Laws, not Rove.
Now some of you are thinking, Oh, come on Franco, there is no way in hell that could be true, your just a partisan hack yourself. Well true, I have been that before and will again, but partisan or not, I have busted her cold on this one because I know this law and I know Arianna Huffington is taking direct and intental advantage of those that don’t. I defy anyone here on BC to prove otherwise.
This is not a case of I am right, you are wrong obsession. This is about law and justice. It’s not personal and is blind to partisanism.
Now that you know this law, I will let the law make its own case to support my assertion.
As you start reading Arianna Huffington opinion piece, you are colorfully bombarded by a ranting of dissenting words and adjectives against Rove to back up her assertion that he is showing contempt for the Constitution.
The more you read on the more you start to think that even Arianna Huffington herself is oblivious to the required Constitutional law channels congress subpoenas must go through as clearly outlined above.
But then just when you think that is the case, way at the end of her piece in one of the last paragraphs she finally slips in the three (3) Constitutional laws into her piece and sights the proper Constitutional law procedures on congressional subpoenas.
But, and this is a big but (not pun intended Ms Huffington) she never once identifies them as Constitutional rights or Constitutional laws, but burries this supreem rights of all of us in the shawdos of a partisan hack paragraph.
What utter disgrace to the Constitution and our legal system and individluarl rights under the law. Here is that one paragraph and had highlighted in bold are our supreem laws.
But that's not going to happen. Odds are the Committee will move to hold Rove in contempt. The matter will then be turned over to the Justice Department -- the same Justice Department Rove is accused of politicizing -- which will likely do the same thing it has done with Harriet Miers and Josh Bolton, i.e. nothing. The matter will then be tossed to the courts... and Rove will go on pontificating on Fox and advising John McCain. Pretty sweet set up.
There they are the Constitutional laws of our land for both individual rights and the procedural requirements of legislative committees.
Arianna Huffington can not claim that she dose not in fact now these very import Constitutional law procedures.
In her own words without all her ad hominem attacks, unfonded accustions she sights the law or our land -
Arianna, why are you not show casing the value and veture of this Constituinal laws and its importance to all of us?
Arianna, are this just not that important to you.
Arianna, do not our laws deservve respect and honor and shown that respect and honnor for for all us to see?
Arianna, why are you attacking a free man with rights under these laws, the same rights you and I have under them, and showing respect for them?
Arianna, no matter how much you don' like someone, don't we all have right to these Constitional laws, and our rights to their protection?
Arianna Huffington uses a total word count of (31 words) covering these supreme Constitutional laws. In contrast she use 879 words bury them in her ad hominem attacts and inuendos in an attempt to make Rove out to look like he is the one who shows contempt for them.
Arianna Huffington is the one who just took a shit in these suprem laws by keeping them in the dark shadows of her opinion piece. She knows they exist, why not bring attention to the fact they come from the Constitution and it is a wonderful thing and why it is.
I assert that in is in fact Arianna Huffington who has shown contempt for the Constitution and the Public’s right to Know.
I support my claim based on the evidence of her burring these supreme laws of our land using (31) words for them in and about a partisan hack paragraph of (879) words.
I mean you have to read the whole piece to believe it.
Karl Rove's Contempt for the Constitution and the Public's Right to Know
I rest my case
Rebuttal?
Second and last of all Glenn, now you know these laws, and that no laws have been broken based on your assertion. And as Dan(Miller) pointed out, Clintion sighted executive privledge, and in fact did it more times then even then Dan noted.
However, what is most important in all of this, is once the courts have ordered you to come to testify before the legislative committees and have placed you under oath, that is where the law can get broken. And an example of this is far more important then any other issue you have raised.
And as for a Democratic president or governor really breaking this law under direct testimony under subpoena and under oath, let me start by throwing this out to ya.
"I have never had sexual relations with that woman”
42 - Franco
2 hours ago
State board clears Palin in 'Troopergate' probe
43 - Jet
The future mother-in-law of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's daughter, Bristol, has been arrested on drug charges.
Sherry Johnston, mother of Levi Johnston, the future husband to Palin's daughter, was taken into custody Thursday. Alaska State Troopers arrested Johnston after an undercover narcotics investigation. Sherry Johnston faces six felony counts of misconduct involving a controlled substance.
Palin's daughter is due to give birth this weekend to Levi Johnston's child
44 - Al Barger
Jet- [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]. Why is it in any way whatsoever relevant that there's some drug charge against an inlaw of Palin? How exactly does this reflect on the governor?
You don't agree with Palin's politics, fine. But this petty personal hatin' on the family is ASSinine.
45 - Jet
If Obama's 2nd cousin twice removed got a parking ticket you'd be all over it [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]
46 - bliffle
Much ado about nothing.
The Gore Vidal article was excellent, though. Thanks again for the citation.
47 - Al Barger
NO Jet, I would not be bitching about minor points of some politicians family. When have you ever known me to do that.
No, this politics of personal destruction is largely a left wing phenomenon, at least at this point in history. If rightwingers were taking anything like your petty little attitude, there'd have been a lot of talk during the campaign about Obama's admitted history of drug use. Just how much blow did you do for how long? Did you ever deal, maybe just by an eight ball and split it down for a couple of buddies?
Nope, none of that. Don't care. But that would be at least arguably at least marginally relevant to who this guy is that we're making president.
Whereas the drug arrest of an inlaw is utterly and 100% irrelevant. [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]
48 - Jet
You can label me all you want Al, it just goes to show your ignorance and your arogance. I've shown you more respect than you've ever shown me.