As I have read more about this case, the biggest complaint seems to be that Governor Palin's husband made half a dozen calls lobbying for the removal of the trooper in question. Well would you not do the same for your sister if she was being harassed by a loose canon wearing a badge? Talk about a very dangerous person... I frankly fail to see where there is an ethics violation there, other than MAYBE Governor Palin giving him access to phone numbers and such. Maybe... Fuk it, Ian, I would have done the same - and more.
I'm curious how different people interpret that. I sense that I am being asked to believe:
1. Man, these are some crazy, out-of-control people! This trooper probably wasn't dangerous at all, yet they just kept on attacking him for the benefit of the sister. Just another divorce case gone bad but this time with some incredibly tenacious family members in the fray.
It's just a little hard for me to identify with that explanation, and I konw I'd say the same if we were talking about somebody I disagreed with politically. It's not that I think it's beyond the pale for family members to get involved. Far from it, but in that context I find their motives evil and their tenacity quite extraordinary, really creme-de-la-creme stuff. The Mafia is more forgiving.
But what about:
2. The Palins had first-hand knowledge of what an unstable, dangerous person this trooper was. Unfortunately, they couldn't prove it, but they didn't walk away from the problem until they had exhausted every possible solution.
With option 2 here I don't need to assume that they're extraordinary. I can see myself doing the same, although I have to admit, I'd have given up banging my head on the wall long before they did.
1-Anyone whom ripped Bill Clinton apart of the "abuse" of his office in getting some action is free to blast Palin.
Anyone whom defended Clinton needs to shut up--or simply accept that there rampant bais makes them untrustworthy on this topic.
2-Anyone whom belives that "partisanship" is a bad thing needs to take a hard look at just whom pushed the investigation----all Democracts--including a couple of people that have donated money to Obamas camp.
Ask yourself what you would honestly be saying if Republican supports were investigating Bidan.
3- I thin this cuts both ways---just out of college I worked with the owners nephew on several projects----and no matter how many times we were told to "treat him just like everybody else" nobody did so.
You simply don't treat a connected person like you do everybody else---we all knew it and we all knew that you'd have to be an idiot to rip him up for making mistakes like you would someone else.
Wonder how much hay the trooper made out of being the Gov brother in law.
My guess is plenty----I'm sure would be just a little more "fair" where he was involved......be hard not to--its just human nature.
My guess is that having lived by his connections, he now fell by them.
4- If Palin really abused her power she should be punished---just like EVERYBODY that does so....and I'm cool with that.....as long as its really everybody and not just ones politcial rivals.
I just thought of something ironic in connection with item 1. Forget the Lewinsky thing. As governor of Arkansas, Bill allegedly had state troopers ferry his mistresses to see him. Say what you want about the man, but he's got panache.
I think all the punishment the committee anticipates is the report itself. We're told that this case is unlikely to generate even a censure from the legislature.
"I'm shocked at your reaction, Ian. It makes me believe you live in an insular world."
No, you're not. Quote the outrageous stuff I said. There wasn't any. I'm simply reporting the findings.
"For your edification, the vast majority of us in "the real world" work at the pleasure of our private employer or the shareholder. There is no such thing as job security. For each and every job I got hired for, I signed a document at the outset indicating such. I could have my job terminated without cause at any point. And it happened to me twice after corporate takeovers. That's how the acquirer achieves economies of scale after the merger. If you don't happen to be working or living in the new home office, you'd best hope that you bought lots of stock and your resume is tidy. In both cases for me, I got a new job before the end of my severance pay period and was able to "double dip." That's how the good guys survive. In my case, I got a better job each time I got the nudge."
Guess what Bill? Irrelevant. No one has said she didn't have the legal right to fire the guy, including myself. The ethics violation is about the pressure to fire someone she had a personal issue with. Read the things I cited.
"But it speaks to the whining we're hearing from you, Ian. Protected classes have their advocates; unprotected classes get raided. One way or another, someone has to be the one to go. And sometimes that leads to a rather odd kind of discrimination. Oh well... I'm not going to cry over it. But we unprotected types will speak up without shame and with no fear of being intimidated by those pulling protected class cards."
Quote my whining comments, Bill, and I'll explain them.
"As I have read more about this case, the biggest complaint seems to be that Governor Palin's husband made half a dozen calls lobbying for the removal of the trooper in question. Well would you not do the same for your sister if she was being harassed by a loose canon wearing a badge? Talk about a very dangerous person... I frankly fail to see where there is an ethics violation there, other than MAYBE Governor Palin giving him access to phone numbers and such. Maybe... Fuk it, Ian, I would have done the same - and more."
In a little departure from the main issue, let us consider how firing a loose cannon makes her sister safer. She is being stalked, or so you make it seem--so you fire the guy? How does that change stalking behavior, other than giving him more free time? Why not... restraining order, measures on those lines?
"Ethics schmethics; the right thing happened. No more Blue Curtain, Ian. Dangerous cops have to go. If you are part of the obstructionist process keeping bad seeds in our law enforcement community, then I sure as heck want to see you fired. All those years as a teenager that I put up with being stopped and harassed by police just because I had long hair, or because I sported an "Impeach Nixon" bumper sticker... I did nothing wrong, but a certain sector of law enforcement saw fit to abuse THEIR power. What's up with that, Ian? And what's up with you defending such rogue cops? Why are you throwing ethics violation accusations at the people with the cahones to get rid of these cops and those who protect them? I'm not feeling it, Ian."
Bill, you're completely off target. I didn't defend a rogue cop with a microjoule of effort. Totally untrue. I am simply reporting the finding of a bipartisan committee, and you're making it as if I want rogue out of control cops to run free? Nonsense and shame on you. You're acting as if Palin's only option was to do what she did--they could have filed complaints, they could have passed the matter on to someone without a conflict of interest they could trust. I'm also not saying this is the end of the world. It IS some egg on her face, or you wouldn't be peeved, but if she sat down and told the public that this guy was a real threat and she knew that because of her first hand interactions with him and getting the public safe was more important than how that was accomplished--I and many others would probably say, "huh, this woman gets things done!" Instead, she says she was totally cleared of ethics charges without detailing or defending her actions, and hops into a car that speeds away. Either they think this woman can't talk her way out of a wet paper bag or she presents herself in a manner which doesn't inspire trust--and as you've pointed out, presentation matters.
"You want to talk about an appearance of impropriety? How about the timing of the release of the report? This was supposed to have been released AFTER the election. But it didn't happen that way, did it? This non-violation violation got reported just in time for us all collectively to gasp and change our minds on election day."
The bipartisan committee made the decision to release it, unanimously. If this is relevant, it should not be sheltered until it is "too late." If it is not, the American people can decide. Right now the tone McCain - Palin has set is that crowds are saying Obama is a terrorist, bringing Obama monkey dolls along, calling him an Arab, having a pastor say that the Christian God is aligned against your opponent, etc. The issues, anyone? If that is appropriate political discourse the American public certainly has the right to weigh the finding that a candidate was found to have violated an ethics statute before they vote for her.
Bill Glasheen wrote:As I have read more about this case, the biggest complaint seems to be that Governor Palin's husband made half a dozen calls lobbying for the removal of the trooper in question. Well would you not do the same for your sister if she was being harassed by a loose canon wearing a badge? Talk about a very dangerous person... I frankly fail to see where there is an ethics violation there, other than MAYBE Governor Palin giving him access to phone numbers and such. Maybe... Fuk it, Ian, I would have done the same - and more.
In a little departure from the main issue, let us consider how firing a loose cannon makes her sister safer. She is being stalked, or so you make it seem--so you fire the guy? How does that change stalking behavior, other than giving him more free time? Why not... restraining order, measures on those lines?
First... Law enforcement officers must walk the talk on and off the job. If you don't understand why you'd want a misbehaving LEO not to have a badge, then I can't help you with your logic. (FWIW, more amazement on my part WRT your line of questions.)
For what it's worth, I had a criminal background check before I got hired in my last job. And I'm just a scientist.
Second... Please read DeBecker's The Gift of Fear. That'll let you know how good restraining orders are. DeBecker provides protection services for the rich and the famous.
IJ wrote:
You're acting as if Palin's only option was to do what she did--they could have filed complaints, they could have passed the matter on to someone without a conflict of interest they could trust.
According to the report linked to a few posts back, they filed something like 12 complaints. As for passing the matter on to someone without a conflict of interest, I think that's more or less what Monegan was supposed to do, only, rightly or wrongly, he wasn't inclined to do anything at all.
Anyway, I've thought about it in context, and the whole thing just doesn't bother me. If you were looking for another reason to dislike Palin, then you got it, but that doesn't change anything. I do believe it will have a negative effect, though. For one thing, a person who doesn't already hate her might not feel the same way as I do about what happened here. For another, some people who would have felt the same as I do about it may instead respond to the sound byte without bothering to find out what it was all about.
Well it matters a lot to me and to the whole world who will be the next president of the USA but even so
I don't have any reason to like or dislike Palin. I just following the campaign and the events from interest.
As I see
Palin has a lot to loose,so she has a great interest to present the story in a different way as probable it happend.
According to me Palin's statement is more than questionable.
She says that Monegan has never been dismissed, but he was changed of position because its
service became restructured. She also told that Monegan made himself dirtiy in budgeting and
political affairs .He also went twice to Washington without her permission. Palin offered him a position
in the Council that patrols on alcoholic drinks, but that Monegan has refused.
If Monegan had some records of dirty business why did she offered an other job to him?
She also claims that Wooten is a dangerous man.
Quastion is, since how long is he dangerous?
Was he dangerous why he was married with Palin's sister or he changed after or during divorce?
Did they do anything to stop him or cure him?
Did he stop assaulting them after he was fired? If well why? He had much more reason to hate them than before?
There are many questions to be answered.
If Palin wants to earn people's trust she need to undergo the investigation.
She doesn't feel she has done anything wrong. She told several times,that she has nothing to hide.
So it is the moment to prove that the law is to ensures "The right of the people",
as a means to ensure that citizens must enjoy equal protection within the judicial arena.
The sixth amendment says:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial,
by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have
been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted
with the witnesses against him; to
have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
Both party has the right to get justice.
An investigation will clear off confusions.
"First... Law enforcement officers must walk the talk on and off the job. If you don't understand why you'd want a misbehaving LEO not to have a badge, then I can't help you with your logic. (FWIW, more amazement on my part WRT your line of questions.)"
I'm not saying I would want a misbehaving LEO to have a badge. I'm saying that if I were out to protect myself or my sister, my efforts wouldn't be focused on getting him fired. IF I had to get him fired by pressuring others, then I think it would be quite helpful to be able to say,
"No this wasn't a grudge thing at all. I saw an unfortunate side of this trooper because he harrassed my relative. Things got so bad I had to help her get a restraining order, arm her, set up video cameras at her house, make sure someone was always with her, etc. Going through all that, I realized, "this man is a danger to the public." That's when I decided I had to get him off the service no matter what it took, because the public safety is my first priority. I tried doing A and B to encourage his superiors to handle the issue because my sister's relationship with him made the matter awkward. But when nothing happened I had to ask M, and when M wouldn't do it, I knew he wasn't fit for the position, so I fired him, and brought in Mr or Ms. X to get this handled.
See that response? Quite appropriate. Feather in her cap. People are going to understand that logic and respect it and disregard the ethics review as politics. But what did she say instead? Basically:
"I fired M because of a budget dispute (false, in part, but hey, she had the right). And I was cleared of all wrong doing (false). And now I've said ten words so I've got to go."
THAT response? Not ideal. Doesn't inspire me. Makes me wonder what she's hiding. Conviction you do and did the right thing, and presentation matter.
"Second... Please read DeBecker's The Gift of Fear . That'll let you know how good restraining orders are. DeBecker provides protection services for the rich and the famous."
Missing the point. I know they're not great. Are you willing to acknowledge that the data on FIRING someone to protect your relatives from them is equally weak?
Look, I posted some links. I think she could have handled this better. I think her attitude combined with her other tactics give me a bitter taste--if she can slam Obama for crimes a reformed radical committed while he was a kid because he served on a board with him with some republicans, if she can twist that into supporting terrorism and hating America and let the crowd chant that he IS a terrorist? Then she can take the full heat for her little ethics violation. Boo hoo.
By itself, I don't think its a big deal, and the reason why some people are misreading my posts (as if they mean I want bad troopers running around, that they should be protected, and other nonsense) is just because I refuse to agree with the replies that this is a total nonissue. It's not a nonissue. It's a minor issue. For a candidate with other issues.
tigereye wrote:
So it is the moment to prove that the law is to ensures "The right of the people",
as a means to ensure that citizens must enjoy equal protection within the judicial arena.
The sixth amendment says:
In all criminal prosecutions, [snip]
Here is the statute the committee found that she violated.
Sec. 39.52.110. Scope of code.
(a) The legislature reaffirms that 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.
In addition, the legislature finds that, so long as it does not interfere with the full and faithful
discharge of an officer's public duties and responsibilities, this chapter does not prevent an
officer from following other independent pursuits. The legislature further recognizes that
(1) in a representative democracy, the representatives are drawn from society and,
therefore, cannot and should not be without personal and financial interests in the decisions and
policies of government;
(2) people who serve as public officers retain their rights to interests of a personal or
financial nature; and
(3) standards of ethical conduct for members of the executive branch need to distinguish
between those minor and inconsequential conflicts that are unavoidable in a free society, and
those conflicts of interests that are substantial and material.
Since you have raised the specter of criminal prosecution, I think it's fair to ask you what specific Alaskan or federal criminal statutes you have in mind that she may have violated. Certainly there must be suspicion of some particular criminal act under federal or state law before a criminal investigation would be appropriate. Probable cause is prerequisite. You can't just go fishing.
tigereye wrote:
So it is the moment to prove that the law is to ensures "The right of the people",
as a means to ensure that citizens must enjoy equal protection within the judicial arena.
The sixth amendment says:
In all criminal prosecutions, [snip]
Since you have raised the specter of criminal prosecution, I think it's fair to ask you what specific Alaskan or federal criminal statutes you have in mind that she may have violated. Certainly there must be suspicion of some particular criminal act under federal or state law before a criminal investigation would be appropriate. Probable cause is prerequisite. You can't just go fishing.
mhosea wrote:
Anyway, I've thought about it in context, and the whole thing just doesn't bother me. If you were looking for another reason to dislike Palin, then you got it, but that doesn't change anything.
That sums it up pretty nicely.
Anyone notice the myriad passes that Obama gets on his ill-advised associations, his legal vendettas against banks not giving enough "junk" loans (that ultimately trashed the world economies), etc.?
I'll say it again. To start with, I don't have anything for or against Palin from the outset. I'd a lot rather have seen Romney as the Republican VP candidate, but that's water under the bridge. That being said, this makes me like Palin more. We need leaders with the cahones to act when dealing with bad people. I wish I had more people like Sarah Barracuda in my life watching my back.
When I was in college, we had a name for professors who similarly were extremely nice but wouldn't mess around with impropriety or mediocrity. We'd call such a person a "velvet screw." It was a label of respect, and indeed they got it.
I don't understand why you would quote the 6th amendment unless you are confused about the legal context. Violation of an ethics law is not, per se, a criminal act, but in some cases there is a corresponding criminal law. For example, bribery might first be investigated in the context of an ethics violation and then reported to prosecutors for possible criminal prosecution. Most ethics violations, however, are not criminal offenses. You might say all criminal violations are ethics violations, but not vice versa. At any rate, you simply aren't entitled to a criminal investigation unless there is probable cause that a criminal law has been broken. There is no indication whatsoever that any criminal laws have been broken. The only purpose of investigating this matter further is to refine our understanding of what actually happened, and the only conceivable importance of that is political in nature, not legal.
