Comments on: Report Clears Palin in Troopergate

By: MadKat97

MadKat97 — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 20:21:00 +0000

if you lie under oath: that’s perjury. If person A says something occured, and person B says it didn’t, then one of them is lying under oath. Somebody needs to be prosecuted for perjury based on the Petumenos report: Sarah Palin or Walt Monegan. Somebody has perjured themselves, but I sincerely doubt that the Alaskan attorney general will touch this one with a 10 foot pole. I’m sure that he can see Wasilla from his house …

By: youhavetodothework

youhavetodothework — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 20:13:47 +0000

The story is easy to check up now on Wikipedia. I did it the hard way by reading the Anchorage Daily News, Monegan’s interview, the Branchflower report and the Petumenos report.

I must remind people that lawyers must represent their clients interest; thus Branchflower represented the interests of the legislature, BOTH Republican and Democratic, whereas Petumenos represented his client the executive branch, ie Palin. Because of the different obligations it is not surprising the reports differ.

In a nutshell, Petumenos has determined based on sworn testimony by the Palins and staff the Monegan had lied repeatedly under oath about converations that Monegan alleged to have taken place.

Basically Petumenos claims Monegan fabricated out of whole cloth an enormous amount of testimony. Multiple counts of perjury, just so Monegan could maintain his reputation?

Branchflower felt Monegan was credible and obtained independent testimony that the conversations had likely taken place. Petumenos did not and could not ask such questions if he represented the executive branch. A lawyer does not throw his clients under the bus.

So who do you find credible? A police chief with a 35 year record, or a governor and staff of 2 years? Should or could Monegan be prosecuted for perjury by the Alaskan attorney general?

By: blackoutyears

blackoutyears — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 19:33:09 +0000

Come on. It’s not Troopergate that stands as Palin’s downfall, it’s her resort to the sort of divisive cultural warfare tactics that have characterized the worst of the GOP. Conservatives with a conscience need to admit this and stop apologizing for her. Any moderate or reasonable conservative who countenances a campaign based on proposals of *real* America, and a pro- versus anti-America polemic, needs to do a little (make that a lot of) soul-searching. This. Is. A. Big. Deal. You need to expect better of yourselves and of your party. Nobody else is going to.

By: rob

rob — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 13:15:06 +0000

I know she is allowed to fire Monegan, with or without reason. I thought the ethics violation was trying to get Monegan to fire XXX, I don’t remember his name.

By: bunny fufu

bunny fufu — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 05:04:45 +0000

It’s the report that she and her husband testified at because they refused to testify in the legislative report. The fact that she at first said that she would cooperate with the legislative body and then rescinded is a bit sketchy. I’m not quite sure why a Republican governor would have issue with a committee with 8 (out of 12) Republican legislators.

Reading chunks of the Petumenos report, I find myself convinced that Palin did not violate any laws. Petumenos makes a decent case as to why this new report should be more influential than the Branchflower report. But it seems that the reason Palin isn’t guilty is because as governor, she had the power to do whatever she damn well pleased. No reason was required in her reassignment of Monegan. It was also not an ethics violation to not stop others’ actions.

But in reading Palin’s e-mails in the Petumenos report, it seems pretty clear that Palin did not care about ethics as much as she should. Todd Palin was shown to pretty much be stalking Wooten. And the report still leaves open the fact that Palin’s administration (much like the White House) has e-mail issues.

By: mw

mw — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 05:01:16 +0000

"No there, there." - mw

But I was wrong when I said that. I completely misunderestimated the ability of bloggers and media to make something out of absolutely nothing. Mission accomplished. Damage done.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 04:39:46 +0000

There’s ethics laws in Alaska? Who knew…..

By: Rich Horton

Rich Horton — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 02:37:20 +0000

Rob, the lead investigator of this report is a Democrat.

By: Justin Gardner

Justin Gardner — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 02:17:07 +0000

Yes, this is great news for Palin, and I’m actually glad to see that she has finally caught a break. She’s been through the wringer already.

However, I’m still a bit disappointed that she tried to lie her way through the aftermath of the other report, which clearly showed she violated ethics laws.

In the end, this latest report will help her maintain her governorship in Alaska. Had this one found her guilty too, I really think she would have been vulnerable.

By: Alan Stewart Carl

Alan Stewart Carl — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 02:09:15 +0000

This was the official report in which she and her husband testified. The other report was a legislative action. From my understanding, this one holds the real weight. It’s not that there’s nothing to it, just that it’s not as clear-cut or as significant as Palin’s harsher critics would like us to believe.

By: rob

rob — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 01:56:41 +0000

Wasn’t this the investigation by people that report to her?

Are you discounting the first bi-partisan report that indicated she did abuse her power?