Today on Blogcritics
Home » Sarah Palin Ain’t Much of a Redneck

Sarah Palin Ain’t Much of a Redneck

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

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.

They've got this dick of a state trooper ex-brother-in-law screw-up named Mike Wooten. Frankly, you can just take one glance at this guy and intuit that he needs to be taken out behind the barn and knocked in the back of the head. Besides his looks, he's been known to drink in his police cruiser and break game laws that he is charged with enforcing.

Oh yeah, and this dickhead tasered his 10-year-old stepson (e.g. the governor's nephew) to "teach him a lesson." Plus, he's made threats of physical violence against the Heath family. This includes a death threat against his ex's father, that is to say, also the governor's father.

Mike Wooten - the trooper of Palin's so-called 'Troopergate'Some people seem to think that it was in some way inappropriate to want this Wooten fired from the force. Apparently this mostly means that Todd Palin bitched about how badly this guy needed fired to pretty much anybody who'd listen for a couple of years.

So now there's been these big hearings in Alaska, rushed through so they could get their digs in before the election. I know they cleared the governor of any actual wrongdoing. I missed some of the fine details. But apparently they called Todd Palin in again to ask him why this Wooten still had frickin' kneecaps? Least ways, that's what I would have been wanting to know.

But this Wooten doesn't just have kneecaps — he's still got his trooper job. Sarah Palin certainly didn't push the point with Wooten very hard. She's the f'ng governor of the f'ng state. She could get a trooper fired if she really applied herself, m'kay?

So why didn't she? He threatened to kill the governor's father. If I were the governor and we had a violent schmuckface like this threatening my father, I goddam guarantee you he would not have any job working for the state. Most likely they'd have to leave the state to escape my retribution. And I don't see how any reasonable person would consider that inappropriate.

Levi Johnston, son in law to Sarah PalinBy any rights, long ago Todd Palin and maybe this big, beefy, new, hockey-playing son-in-law Levi Johnston should have been waiting for the little bitch in some parking lot to talk sense into him with an aluminum baseball bat. He's got a good old fashioned Hank Jr attitude adjustment coming — at a minimum. Exactly what state authorities want to take the responsibility for prosecuting the governor's husband for beating down a bastard who threatened their family? Death threats against someone's father could cause somebody to go missing in these parts. A hard beatdown would seem like getting off easy. I'd expect Wooten to whisper sincerely at the end, "Thank you, sir, for your generosity."

Again, I dig the Palins, but they're a little derelict in their redneck family responsibility to fix the problem themselves. It's a small mark against the Palin brand name that this fool Wooten still has a job — and kneecaps.

Powered by

About Gadfly

  • Lisa Solod Warren

    Um, Al, I think it’s against the law to just take someone out it in the woods and beat the shit out of them.

    I’m just sayin’.

    Also, using the power of your office to put pressure on someone you hired to ask him to fire someone just because you don’t like him is also against the law, apparently. Palin was found to be in abuse of her power, although she likes to say she was cleared of all charges.

    Although Alaska is, perhaps, the last frontier, they still don’t allow frontier justice up there and still have to abide by the laws of the country to which they are still attached (witness Ted Stevens) so she should, perhaps, have figured out another way to get this man fired if indeed what he was guilty of were firing offenses.

    BTW,the tasering of her nephew happened 3 years before she reported it. So it couldn’t have bothered her THAT much:)

    Anyway, certainly an interesting piece of redneck “fiction,” which one doesn’t get to read much of these days.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Miss Lisa- “just because you don’t like him” is not even a vaguely valid description of this situation. Also, putting a beatdown on a schmuck who is threatening your family might be considered to be against the law (if they can prove it) – but it ain’t the same thing AT ALL as Ted Stevens taking bribes.

    In fact, despite being motivated by a gotcha desire to knock down the vice-presidential candidate, their commission said that she hadn’t broken any laws. They can say all kind of caveats that they don’t think she was acting very nice, but that’s just bullcrap chin music. She didn’t break the rules – though perhaps she should have, or at least stretched them a bit. I just know this schmuck shouldn’t still be on the payroll.

    This is one of the most bogus excuses for a “political scandal” that I’ve seen. She apparently made maybe a couple of calls complaining about the guy – which considering how much dumb stuff he was doing even besides with the Heath family would be perfectly reasonable.

    The state police work for the executive branch, ie the governor. If the governor has intimate knowledge of one that they don’t simply dislike, but is regularly doing illegal and unprofessional stuff, then I don’t see why they shouldn’t put out a word to drop the loser. Or perhaps you think it better to wait for Wooten to be out drinking in his police cruiser and hurt somebody, leaving the state liable.

    It’s pretty clear from the years of complaints (not just by the Heaths) that the cops have been covering for their own. I’d be thinking she should be looking to clean house up the line of the corrupt individuals who are covering up for this guy, and who knows what other rogues.

    And in what aspect is this story “fiction”? Best I can tell, everything here is true. I only listed a couple of the most clearly documented accusations against Wooten.

  • Leslie Bohn

    Al is completely incorrect. The Branchflower report says the governor violated AS 39.52.110(a) of the Ethics Act, a state LAW:

    …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 AS means “Alaska Statute.” “Violating a statute” means “breaking a law.”

  • Clavos

    Kneecapping isn’t enough. The mope needs a round in the testicles too.

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    Interesting how the conservatives are SO serious about following the law…’cept for when it applies to them.

    Perhaps the more telling act of Palin would be her aides’ – and her husband’s – refusal to comply with a CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA.

    As far as I’m concerned, that’s FAR worse than her actual firing of the state safety commissioner. That’s essentially saying, “I’m the governor and because of that, my family and friends are ABOVE THE LAW.”

    How many of Bush’s aides have ignored subpoenas?

    And how many Democratic governors or presidents have ignored congressional subpoenas?

    Ah, but I FORGET! It’s OKAY for Republicans to ignore Constitutional law, ’cause they’re REAL American patriots. But not those commie Dems….

  • Lee Richards

    Hell yeah, an eye for an eye has always worked so well before!

  • moon

    Sarah’s comments show that she has a few things in common with some posters on this forum:

    1. Intolerance
    2. Unbridled hostily
    3. Obsession with “getting Even”
    4. She IS a redneck (in red leather, paid for by campaign contributions)
    5. Shooting from the hip
    6. Jumping to conclusions
    7. Full of fascist propaganda

    The only thing I am unsure of is the skill level of the folks here at picking up dollar bills without using their hands.

    Somebody said that this is just an election, and he was right. None of you has any power to influence who will be the next president, but you are at each others’ throats anyway.

    I don’t get it. You weren’t all that concerned when all the shit that’s hitting the fan now was PREDICTED over a year ago by a number of folks–including this poster.

    Why the big panic to lock the barn when the horses have escaped already?

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Glenn, what the people you erroneously call ‘conservatives’ understand is that law is often inadequate to properly address issues of right and wrong. If you violate a bad law, sometimes it is the law which needs to be changed rather than punishing the transgressor.

    Dave

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Police brutality is apparently a significant problem all over the U.S. (and, I understand, in most parts of the world). Often, but not consistently, it adversely affects members of minority groups.

    There doesn’t seem to be much dispute about what Trooper Wooten did, only as to the manner with which his conduct was dealt. Is anyone else unhappy that Trooper Wooten is still a State police officer?

    According to Human Rights Watch (linked above),

    Police abuse remains one of the most serious and divisive human rights violations in the United States. The excessive use of force by police officers, including unjustified shootings, severe beatings, fatal chokings, and rough treatment, persists because overwhelming barriers to accountability make it possible for officers who commit human rights violations to escape due punishment and often to repeat their offenses…. Police or public officials greet each new report of brutality with denials or explain that the act was an aberration, while the administrative and criminal systems that should deter these abuses by holding officers accountable instead virtually guarantee them impunity.

    There is, apparently

    an official unwillingness to deal seriously with officers who commit abuses until high-profile cases expose long-standing negligence or tolerance of brutality.

    Perhaps there might be some useful focus on why it seems so difficult to get rid of rogue cops and whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. Perhaps Officer Wooten might be a starting point, since his situation seems to have been well ventilated and contentious matters of racial prejudice could be avoided.

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Dave, what you seem to be saying is that a bad law is any law which the people Glenn calls ‘conservatives’ fall foul of.

  • pablo

    Barger,

    Sarah Palin Ain’t Much of a Redneck, but you sure are, thank you for showing your true colors, you usually do. :)

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Dan, the problem with getting rid of ‘bad apple’ cops is a worldwide problem, not just an American one. The ‘look after our own’ mentality is deeply embedded at all levels of police hierarchy, and the consequences of violating the ‘code’ can be brutal, even for top brass.

    It’s partly the nature of the job and partly the quasi-military command structure of most police forces (having ranks such as ‘sergeant’, ‘lieutenant’ and ‘captain’ doesn’t help). Everyone watches one another’s backs. It tends to produce a very close-knit, inward-looking, ‘us versus them’ culture.

    But I’m sure, having been a lawyer, you know this very well.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Doc,

    Thanks for the clarification. I noted in Comment #9 that police brutality is a problem “all over the U.S. (and, I understand, in most parts of the world),” but perhaps I should have cited an additional study to highlight the international nature of the beast.

    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(Miller)

  • moon

    Bad cops, huh?

    I would put Mexico up against any country in the world for having crooked, brutal, corrupt cops.

    There’s a new scandal every day here–usually involving a whole bunch of cops, including the top ones.

    Now someone in the Senate or the Chamber of Deputies is callilng for ALL cops to be fired and new ones hired.

    Sigh.

    That’s only about the millionth time in the 15 plus years I have been here.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    First of all, Dan, ‘Trooper’ Wooten is by all accounts a Neanderthal nutbucket who would fulfill his rightful place in Alaskan society by being compelled to parade up and down the busiest street in Anchorage with no pants on, followed by a McCain/Palin campaign vehicle blaring out this classic tune over the loudspeaker.

    Under normal circumstances I think Palin would be quite justified in insisting that he got the boot. The problem is that Palin just happens to be the governor and Wooten just happens to be her ex-brother-in-law. Can we all say ‘conflict of interest’? After a count of three…

    I understand the instinct to do whatever is in one’s power to protect one’s family, but in the circumstances Palin should be have been more circumspect. (Apologies for the excessive number of circums in that sentence.) It would perhaps have been better if she had asked the lieutenant-governor (if such an office exists in Alaska) to pursue the matter. As it was, she committed if not a breach of ethics, then at the very least a serious error of judgment.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Moon, Mexican cops have an abysmal reputation and I’ve heard a million horror stories about them.

    I hope I never meet one.

  • moon

    Doc wrote:

    “Mexican cops have an abysmal reputation and I’ve heard a million horror stories about them.”

    All true, too. But the real bad numbers are the Top Cops. They get so much money from drug trafficking that they have a lot to protect, and will do anything to protect their ill-gotten gains. A few were just outed by one of the cartel capos a couple of days ago.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Dave –

    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.

  • Condor

    Let me tell you all something. If a federal law enforcement officer (LEO), or a military LEO ever tasered a 10 year old, whether it was for fun or not, would be immediatedly dismissed or hauled into a courts martial and probably stripped of rank and booted. Period.

    Drinking on duty or drinking while carrying a firearm is also a felony in CCW states.

    So there’s 2 instances why I still question this troops continued employment. I don’t care who he’s related to or anything else. He misused his taser, and he was drinking while fully armed and under the authority to use those weapons.

    ’nuff said

  • Cannonshop

    Having finally (I think) burned through all of my remaining emotional investment in this race (that is, reaching the point of “Acceptance of the inevitable”) I am still astounded at how many folks are so interested in protecting this Wooten guy.

    Apparently, Democrats LOVE their cops crooked, dangerous, and unstable. It’s very telling.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Cannonshop,

    Don’t give up. Please. The only things which are “inevitable” are death and taxes. Somehow, I don’t think that Senators Obama and Biden should count their chickens before they come home to roost.

    Dan(Miller)

  • moon

    This poster has not seen any dems calling to protect Wooten.

    What’s going on is Palin’s abuse of power is scary to a lot of folks–to me, for example, and I don’t even live in the US.

    SOmeone as patently mean-spirited as Palin, as ignorant of the world we live in and as belligerant would be like putting Bush in a tanga and having him do a table dance in the Pentagon while chanting, Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb (country of your choice goes here).

  • moon

    Gore Vidal, who writes rings around anybody on this site, has a good piece reprinted on Commondreams today.

    Cover your eyes, Nalle.

  • moon

    Sorry, it’s called JOhn McCain in the Echo Chamber.

  • pablo

    Moon,

    I am a big fan of Gore Vidal too.

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com 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.

  • pablo

    State legislatures are not called congress Glenn, they are called state legislatures. I do agree however with your argument.

  • 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.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log 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?

  • 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.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller 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.

    In 1796, President George Washington refused to comply with a request by the House of Representatives for documents which were relating to the negotiation of the then-recently adopted Jay Treaty with Great Britain. The Senate alone plays a role in the ratification of treaties, Washington reasoned, and therefore the House had no legitimate claim to the material. Therefore, Washington provided the documents to the Senate but not the House.

    More recently, between 1946 and 1949, President Truman

    issued a sweeping secrecy order blocking congressional efforts from FBI and other executive data on security problems. Security files were moved to the White House and Administration officials were banned from testifying before Congress on security related matters. Investigation of the State Department and other cases was stymied and the matter left unresolved.

    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,

    there is a limited “executive” or “deliberative process” privilege that protects communications between the governor and his or her aides about policy matters . . . .

    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)

  • 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.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Thanks, Franco

    I think you hit the nail on the head, and I appreciate it.

    Dan(Miller)

  • 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.

  • http://www.thepolitikos.com 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

  • http://www.republicofdave.com 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

  • 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.”

  • bliffle

    Much ado about nothing.

    Thanks for the heads-up on the Gore Vidal article, though. Always a pleasure to read his writing.

  • 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.

  • 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]

  • 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”

  • Franco
  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ 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

  • http://www.morethings.com/log 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.

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet

    If Obama’s 2nd cousin twice removed got a parking ticket you’d be all over it [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

  • bliffle

    Much ado about nothing.

    The Gore Vidal article was excellent, though. Thanks again for the citation.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log 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]

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ 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.