11 October 2008

The Politics Of Troopergate

Yes, there was a panel in Alaska investigating Sarah Palin's role in Troopergate: the alleged attempt to persuade Walt Monegan (Commissioner of Public Safety) to fire Palin's ex brother-in-law, Mike Wooten, a state trooper who tasered an 11-year-old, was accused by witnesses of drinking and driving while on duty, illegally killed a moose and threatened to murder the governor's father -- you might be wondering how this guy ever kept his job (though I doubt you're wondering why he's been divorced four times).

Yes, the investigation released a report on October 10th claiming that Monegan's firing was lawful, but Palin's people applied unethical pressure on Monegan to fire Wooten.

Yes, the investigation was directed by panel members who have motives reflecting Sylvester's request to babysit Tweety Bird.



And yes, that's the same Democratic Sen. Hollis French in the picture who oversaw the investigation and promised the report could provide an "October surprise" for the McCain campaign.

But I'm sure this report can be trusted.

H/T: American Princess

4 comments :

  1. M.A. said...

    The corruption and deceit is absolutely staggering.

  2. DB said...

    Wasn't the investigative panel mostly Republican...who voted unanimously on this report? Either way, I agree that the investigation was stupid and virtually anybody in the situation would have tried to fire the brother-in-law.

  3. Khaki Elephant said...

    The guy "managing" the investigation, Sen. Hollis French (D-Anchorage . . . and Obama slappy), called for an elevation to impeachment before the panel was set. The guy who wrote the report, Stephen Branchflower, was a former prosecutor who was a close colleague of French's back in the day.

    As for the unanimous decision. Look what they actually voted on. The governor acted within her authority. As for unethical behavior, since this is legally defined by financial, it's obvious Branchflower was pushing it as far as he could.

  4. DB said...

    The way I see it, regardless of what is in the report it was supported unanimously by the committee which was mostly Republican. They clearly found no reason for anything harsher than what they put in the report, and clearly found enough reason for the things they did put in the report. Had they felt the investigation was bias, someone would have dissented. Had they felt there was a partisan attempt to hurt Palin, someone would have dissented. The report was nothing more than a slap on the hand, but it did prove to me that she is no different than any other politician.