09-17-2008, 04:28 PM
Fillium,
Well said.
I agree the timing of the firing looks bad, and anytime you're dealing with a divorce it only look worse. The facts are slowly coming out now so maybe there is documentation to support the recent insubordination claims.
As for why the tasering incident wasn't reported for 2 years and was first brought to light in divorce procedures that seems fairly obvious to me. Either the wife didn't want to upset her husband by reporting the incident (if the guy is tasing children I hate to imagine the other abuses going on in that household), or she was using it as leverage in the divorce. Likely both.
Here's some interesting information about the case: http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TW...n_troo.asp
The McCain campaign released documents to show that Gov. Palin did not fire her political appointee, Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan, because he refused to fire state trooper Mike Wooten, Gov. Palin's former brother-in-law. An internal state trooper investigation found that Wooten had threatened that Palin's father would "eat a f---ing bullet." Palin had raised concerns to Monegan about the fact that Wooten was still carrying a gun and working for the state, but Palin's legal counsel contends that the decision to sack Monegan was not related to Wooten.
Rather, Palin's lawyer writes, the decision was "based on [Monegan's] refusal to execute her Administration's policy on fiscal and budget matters, a refusal that between late 2007 and the middle of 2008 blossomed into outright insubordination."
Ed Morrissey usefully outlines Monegan's record of insubordination:
* 12/9/07: Monegan holds a press conference with Hollis French to push his own budget plan.
* 1/29/08: Palin's staffers have to rework their procedures to keep Monegan from bypassing normal channels for budget requests.
* February 2008: Monegan publicly releases a letter he wrote to Palin supporting a project she vetoed.
* June 26, 2008: Monegan bypassed the governor's office entirely and contacted Alaska's Congressional delegation to gain funding for a project.
To the extent the Governor is alleged to have sought a non-financial personal benefit from an attempt to have Mr. Wooten dismissed, that benefit would have been a benefit shared generally with the public -- namely, the benefit of a trooper force free from rogue officers who have been found guilty of acts of violence and recklessness against the public. The Ethics Act specifically permits state officials to act in such circumstances, and thus even if the allegations were true -- which they assuredly are not -- there would be not probable cause to pursue the claim in this matter.
Well said.
I agree the timing of the firing looks bad, and anytime you're dealing with a divorce it only look worse. The facts are slowly coming out now so maybe there is documentation to support the recent insubordination claims.
As for why the tasering incident wasn't reported for 2 years and was first brought to light in divorce procedures that seems fairly obvious to me. Either the wife didn't want to upset her husband by reporting the incident (if the guy is tasing children I hate to imagine the other abuses going on in that household), or she was using it as leverage in the divorce. Likely both.
Here's some interesting information about the case: http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TW...n_troo.asp
The McCain campaign released documents to show that Gov. Palin did not fire her political appointee, Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan, because he refused to fire state trooper Mike Wooten, Gov. Palin's former brother-in-law. An internal state trooper investigation found that Wooten had threatened that Palin's father would "eat a f---ing bullet." Palin had raised concerns to Monegan about the fact that Wooten was still carrying a gun and working for the state, but Palin's legal counsel contends that the decision to sack Monegan was not related to Wooten.
Rather, Palin's lawyer writes, the decision was "based on [Monegan's] refusal to execute her Administration's policy on fiscal and budget matters, a refusal that between late 2007 and the middle of 2008 blossomed into outright insubordination."
Ed Morrissey usefully outlines Monegan's record of insubordination:
* 12/9/07: Monegan holds a press conference with Hollis French to push his own budget plan.
* 1/29/08: Palin's staffers have to rework their procedures to keep Monegan from bypassing normal channels for budget requests.
* February 2008: Monegan publicly releases a letter he wrote to Palin supporting a project she vetoed.
* June 26, 2008: Monegan bypassed the governor's office entirely and contacted Alaska's Congressional delegation to gain funding for a project.
To the extent the Governor is alleged to have sought a non-financial personal benefit from an attempt to have Mr. Wooten dismissed, that benefit would have been a benefit shared generally with the public -- namely, the benefit of a trooper force free from rogue officers who have been found guilty of acts of violence and recklessness against the public. The Ethics Act specifically permits state officials to act in such circumstances, and thus even if the allegations were true -- which they assuredly are not -- there would be not probable cause to pursue the claim in this matter.