As the primaries drag on, and the candidates make their cases for Nationwide hot button issues that effect their voter sway, a lot of us focus on the financial crisis that stares down on America. Mitt Romney, for example, has a tax plan that so clearly favors the rich, and from that stems the curiousity of his own personal wealth and how he himself files for tax.

Romney’s 2010 tax return has been quite damning of favoring the 1% – so much so, that this Infographic (below) was recently published to demonstrate exactly how wealthy he is compared to your typical millionaire, and your average “well-off” American.

Created by: Online MBA Programs

^{John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi schooled by George Washington Plunkitt}

In a recent feature story on 60 Minutes, Steve Kroft detailed how many in Congress use their privileged access to information on pending legislation, investigations and regulations to line their own pockets. Much of the piece was based on research of Hoover Institute fellow Peter Schweizer from his book “Throw Them All Out”. Among the surprising revelations in the book – Congress is exempt from prosecution for the same kind of insider trading that would send the rest of us to jail.

Coincidentally, über-lobbyist and felon Jack Abramoff was saying much the same thing to anyone who would listen while promoting his new book “Capitol Punishment”. CNBC has been covering the story for a while and offers a succinct summary in the video linked here (I would have embedded it, but my Donk permissions don’t allow).

Abramoff asserts the practice is widespread and growing. Schweizer connects the dots between the increasing entanglement of the federal government in the private economy and the consequential exponential increase in opportunity for our congressional leadership and their staff to partake in the profitable practice of insider trading. Both Abramoff and Schweizer name names.

Kroft focused primarily on the specific examples of our most recent Speakers of the House. He reported John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi participated in investment activity that, at best, created the appearance of conflict of interest. Some have criticized Kroft and 60 minutes for focusing on two of the weaker examples cited by Schweizer, presumably because of their leadership roles. But even these examples are illuminating. More interesting than the exposure of the trading activity itself, was the response from their respective offices. While we already knew that they did nothing illegal, predictably both offices also emphatically denied they did anything wrong.

Kroft described purchases of Visa stock by Nancy Pelosi and her husband while she controlled the timing of legislation that would have hurt credit card companies. Her spokesman:

Current Speaker John Boehner purchased health care stocks when he was aware that the “public option” was about to be dropped from Obamacare. His spokesman:

Note that neither the response of Boehner or Pelosi directly addressed the question of whether their profitable trades benefited from insider knowledge. In both cases they defend their consistent record on the policy issue (credit card consumer protection for Pelosi, opposition to the public option for Boehner), and take umbrage at the mere suggestion that their positions on these issues might be influenced by personal financial gain. Fine and good, but that is not the point. The issue at question is whether they used insider information not generally available to the public to make trades that benefited themselves.

When sorting through these fine gradations in the taxonomy of congressional graft, it is useful to have a guide. There is no better guide or greater authority on the subject than George Washington Plunkitt, who literally wrote the book on political graft.

At the turn of century, George Washington Plunkitt was a Senator in New York, and considered one of the most corrupt members of possibly the most corrupt political machine in our history – New York’s Tammany Hall. He is famous for (among other things) writing his own epitaph – “He Seen His Opportunities and He Took ‘Em.”

Yet – George Washington Plunkitt was not without a moral compass. He made a clear distinction between honest graft and dishonest graft. This distinction was a moral line in the sand that even he would not cross. Moreover he forthrightly defended this distinction in a series of public speeches, which were later compiled into a book: “Plunkitt of Tammany Hall: A Series of Very Plain Talks on Very Practical Politics, Delivered by Ex-Senator George Washington Plunkitt, the Tammany Philosopher, from his Rostrum—the New York County Courthouse Bootblack Stand.”

We’ve have had occasion to consult this valuable reference before, when in 2006 we explored the Speaker of the House Denny Hastert’s land deals and came to the conclusion that they perfectly fit Plunkitt’s definition of “Dishonest Graft”. The Speaker of the House of the United States of America in 2006, the man who was third in line for succession to the presidency of the United States, was engaged in activity that would not meet the moral standards of one of the most corrupt 1906 political participants of the most corrupt political organization in the history of the United States.

That was then, this is now.

Good news. Our last two Speakers are no longer participating in “Dishonest Graft”. They are simply engaging in good old, perfectly acceptable, “grab your opportunities where you see ‘em “Honest Graft”. GW Plunkitt explains in Chapter 7:

There you go. Plunkitt’s criteria for honest graft is: Do nothing illegal (monkey with the penal code); serve your party’s interest (the organization); and serve your constituent’s interest (New York City and the US). If you do those things, and you happen to learn about money making opportunities along the way, no problem. You are entitled to that money. Go for it!

With Plunkitt’s criteria in mind, now go back and reread Boehner and Pelosi’s dismissive brush-off of the 60 Minute charges. Nothing illegal. Good for the party. Good for the country. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Of course, there are always a few spoil-sports who don’t appreciate the moral certitude of Plunkitt’s Razor. These misguided souls continue to introduce The Stock Act every year, where it gets no co-signers, is never brought to the floor, and goes nowhere. Reporter Eamon Javers of CNBC is on the case:

This one bears watching. It looks like Representative Slaughter’s bill might even get some action in the Senate. No one has a better nose for political opportunism than Sarah Palin. Palin jumping on the bandwagon may indicate this issue will have legs. Maybe even – dare I say it? – bipartisan support.

It could happen.

^{X-posted from Divided We Stand United We Fall.}

White-collar crime is quite an incredible industry – millions of dollars disappear each year to offshore bank accounts, hookers, drugs, and yachts because rich executives (generally rich white guys) aren’t satisfied with their Porsches. White-collar crime finally got some serious attention when corruption single-handedly destroyed the lives of four thousand Enron employees at the start of the economy’s downturn.

These days, criminology theories often blame the economy for the rise in these types of crimes. White-collar workers are losing money in the stock market and finding themselves unemployed. They want to maintain their same standard of living, which leads to Office Space style scenarios.

It generally consists of lying, cheating, and stealing. It’s normally a non-violent crime, but can wipe out the savings of entire families. (See scams such as the one in the movie Boiler Room.)

So what are the biggest all-time white-collar crimes in America, and does the criminology behind it change from case to case?

Top 5 Infamous White-Color Criminals and Their Crimes

5) Insider Trading: Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken

Pilfered: $200 million

In the 1980s, some of the big guys on Wall Street made millions through inside trading. The law was already in effect when Ivan Boesky was sold out by Dennis Levine for large-scale insider trading. Boesky in turn implicated Michael Milken. Milken and Boesky were the face of the largest corporate fraud scandal for a decade. Now insider trading is more commonly associated with our pal Martha Stewart.

Victims: Investors

Dennis Levine purchased a large amount of Nabisco stock just before a merger, then immediately sold them for a large profit. This got the SEC’s attention, and Levine turned in Boesky, who then turned in Milken.

4) Enron Corporation (Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling)

Pilfered: Over $1 billion

What appeared to be an incredibly successful company in a short period of time was in fact an incredibly complex scam. For fifteen years, executives of Enron fudged reports, used accounting loopholes, bribed foreign governments for contracts, and hid failed deals and projects. All in all, they were able to hide billions of dollars in debt from their investors, while manipulating and damaging the California energy market, and the Texas power market.

Victims: California energy was one of the big victims, but some 4,000 employees went from a cushy salary to unemployment when the company was swiftly brought down.

The Enron stock was trading at 55 times its earnings; analysts and investors did not know how it was making its income, and Bethany McLean shone light on this situation in her article, Is Enron Overpriced? She found strange transactions, erratic cash flow, and huge debt when she viewed the company’s 10-K report. When Enron reported $638 million third-quarter loss that October, the SEC began an inquiry to the company’s accounts, and it was all downhill from there.

3) WorldCom and Bernard Ebbers

Pilfered: $3.8 billion (Some sources state up to $11 billion in fraud took place.)

The second-largest long-distance telecommunications company in the U.S. didn’t get there with honest hard work. Though Bernard Ebbers began growing the company with well-timed acquisitions, a major one left them struggling, and caused their stock to suffer. Ebbers artificially inflated stock prices and cooked the books to hide the losses. He also “borrowed” $400 million from WorldCom to finance his other businesses.

Victims: Investors, and WorldCom, which filed for bankruptcy immediately

A team of internal auditors uncovered the original $3.8 billion fraud, and then discovered billions of losses concealed through false accounting practices. Some of the funds were siphoned off for personal use. They filed bankruptcy in 2002, and it was the largest filing at the time.

2) Adelphia Communications and John Rigas

Pilfered: $60 billion

In the 1950s, Adelphia Communications was founded, and in just a few decades became the fifth largest cable company in the country. It was a rags-to-riches-to- prison story that landed Rigas and his son behind bars. The head honchos hid $2.3 million in liabilities from investors, and failed to record $3.1 million in loans. He inflated Adephia’s subscriber growth and lied about their bottom line. He used company money for personal use, including investing in a golf course, and building luxury condominiums.

Victims: Investors and employees

The SEC actually caught Adelphia after taking a good look at the company’s financial statements and finding a loan for millions of dollars to John Rigas. As soon as the news hit Wall Street, the stock dropped from its peak of $66 a share, to 15 cents a share. Rigas was indicted for securities, bank, and wire fraud in 2002; he and his sons were also charged with tax evasion. John Rigas is currently serving the remainder of his 15-year sentence.

1) Bernard Madoff

Pilfered: $65 billion

Probably the biggest corporate con in history, Madoff created a huge Ponzi scheme by encouraging huge investments from individuals and corporations around the world. Their payoff came from future investments, not legitimate returns on investments, while he kept the payoff.

Victims: Mostly wealthy New York Jewish businessmen were targeted, though he also took advantage of charity circuits and country clubs.

Similar to the cause of the Great Depression, when the recession came around about a decade ago, investors tried to pull out around $7 billion from the fund. Obviously that money was no longer available, and Madoff’s scheme was uncovered. The person to finally turn him in? His son.

It seems that the criminology behind these crimes are pretty much the same. Too much power and responsibility, not enough good sense.

Our first head of the Department of Homeland Security has written a tell all and it’s more of the same we’ve heard from insiders about the former administration. They politicized nearly everything and made the wrong decision and nearly every turn.

From US News:

Among the headlines promoted by publisher Thomas Dunne Books: Ridge was never invited to sit in on National Security Council meetings; was “blindsided” by the FBI in morning Oval Office meetings because the agency withheld critical information from him; found his urgings to block Michael Brown from being named head of the emergency agency blamed for the Hurricane Katrina disaster ignored;

Never invited to sit in on National Security Council meetings? The director of the government agency that was created in the aftermath of 9/11?

WTF??????????

So yes, that’s a bombshell, but the one in the title seems to be even more craven…

and was pushed to raise the security alert on the eve of President Bush’s re-election, something he saw as politically motivated and worth resigning over.

Yes, 3 years after the worst terrorist attack in our country’s history, Bush and company were scaring people into voting for him. I think that tells you all you need to know about the guy and his crew.

My question…we finally going to get some mea culpas from the right or will Tom Ridge simply be smeared like Paul O’Neill, Richard Clarke and Scott McClellan?

I’m not holding my breath.

Timothy Burger – Bloomberg:

Ken Vogel – Politico:

Stephanie Condon – CBS

“The White House and the pharmaceutical industry are pushing back against allegations that one of President Obama’s senior advisers is personally benefiting from industry cooperation on health care reform. On Tuesday, the House Republican Conference published a one-page talking points memo that says, “Even as President Obama campaigned on a platform of change and transparency, recent dealings between the pharmaceutical industry and the administration raise serious questions as to whether the drug lobby is helping to bankroll a multimillion dollar severance package for one of the president’s senior advisors.”

If there is one lesson that any adviser to a sitting president should have learned by now it is this: It is not necessarily actual conflict of interest or impropriety that bites you in the ass. It is the appearance of conflict of interest and impropriety that is political poison. While not always fatal to a political career, it is always very damaging to a presidency. This was true for Bert Lance. True for Michael Deaver. True for the hordes associated with Iran-Contra. True for the legions touched by Whitewater. True for Dick Cheney. True for Karl Rove. And it will be true for David Axelrod.

As Hugh Hewitt points out, there is a direct comparison to the Dick Cheney/Halliburton deferred compensation connection that had the left foaming at the mouth:

Predictably, the right-o-sphere jumped on the story, precipitating a minor memeorandum blogstorm (ok – more like a heavy blog-drizzle) including Hot Air, protein wisdom and RedState. Their “enthusiasm” will give the left an opportunity to dismiss this story as right wing hyperbole. That would be a mistake. There has been too much smoke around David Axelrod for too long. Too many “appearances of impropriety” are piling up for an administration that ran on transparency and “change we can believe in”.

As with Jimmy Carter, the press is eager to reverse perceptions of favorable treatment to this president. It is easier to target someone close to Obama rather than the popular president himself. This is the role that Bert Lance played in the Jimmy Carter administration. It may be the role played by David Axelrod in this one. Even if this story does not have legs, it tarnishes the administration halo. How Obama handles the accumulating Axelrod “appearances of impropriety” may very well turn into a bigger test of his presidency than than the health care debate. This is the lesson of the Jimmy Carter Presidency.

Axelrod is a very smart guy. He knows how to cover his tracks. He knows how to walk the line. This is why I am surprised he chooses to walk so very very close to the ethical edge. Maybe it’s a Chicago thing. I’ve been following him for some time and think he has crossed that line more than once:

October 28, 2008 – Barack buying the election?:

“One wonders how Axelrod takes a leave from a co-located consulting firm with only three partners and where he is the “A” in ASK Public Strategies. Did they divide the office with blue tape on the floor and keep Axelrod on one side? Does he wear blinders and earplugs when in the office? But I digress… Also among ASK’s clients? You guessed it. From Business Week:

“Among ASK’s other clients: AT&T. The telecom company, formerly known as SBC Communications, had been a customer, Sedler confirms, when it requested ASK’s help to defeat a broadband referendum..”

And why shouldn’t AT&T hire Axelrod’s firm? After all, the “S” in ASK is David Axelrod’s partner Eric Sedler:

“Prior to joining ASK Public Strategies, Sedler served as a Public Relations Director for AT&T Corporation, managing the company’s offices in Chicago, Atlanta and Miami. In that position, he was responsible for directing the company’s corporate public affairs campaigns in the central and southeastern United States.”

So AT&T gives a lot of money to ASK. Some of that money is in David Axelrod’s pocket, as one of three partners in ASK. But David Axelrod is on “leave” from ASK. Nothing to see here. Move along.”

November 6, 2008 – Comment on Donklephant:

Last week - The Audacity of Astroturfing:

Yes, I am stealing this post title from myself. I think I can make a legitimate claim to being “patient zero” of a hot new blogospheric pandemic infection – ADS (Axelrod Derangement Syndrome). Does anyone really believe that this will be end of the revelations about David Axelrod? Barack Obama would be well advised to put some distance between himself and his favorite political adviser. There may not be enough spark in this story to light the fuse, but when the Axelrod time bomb goes off as it inevitably will, there will be collateral damage.

X-Posted from “Divided We Stand United We Fall“

Early this month, Tyler Durden of Zero Hedge reported on the case of Sergey Aleynikov (pictured above), a former employee of Goldman Sachs who allegedly stole the code that runs their automated high frequency trading software.

Well, this could have been the catalyst for the recent focus on high frequency trading and may ultimately lead to its downfall.

More at True/Slant.

Maybe not all of the 7 that Doug proposed, but enough to make me comfortable that we’ll be getting a lot more information about his staff’s contact with the Illinois Governor’s office.

Ambinder has more…

In a press conference today, President-elect Barack Obama said that he’s “absolutely certain” that no one in his campaign had anything to do with Gov. Blagojevich’s pay-for-play system. He reiterated that he had no contacts with Blagojevich, and said that his staff is compiling of its own contacts with the governor and his staff, information that he’ll release in the next few days.

“I won’t quote back some of the things that were said about me,” he joked. “This is a family program.” “I can’t presume to know what was in the mind of the governor. I can only read what was in the transcripts…and shake my head.”

“I think in Illinois as is true in American politics generally, there are two view of politics. … [one] that goes in for public service and sacrifice, and another that says, ‘you’re wheeling and dealing and what’s in it for me. If, in fact, the various allegations end up proving to be true, this is … the far end of the spectrum of that business mentality of politics. But there are more subtle examples of it that are within the lines of legality that still don’t fulfill the reality of service,” he said, citing lobbyists’ “disproportionate” power in Washington.

More as it develops…

Here’s the short version: Blagojevich = Moron.

Now for the long version…

One interesting thing that Lynn Sweet brought up in that clip was the idea of how little Blagojevich was involved in the Obama campaign. In fact, she said she would have been laughed at if she had asked what role Blagojevich played in the campaign. This idea lends some amount of credence that Rahm Emanuel alerted federal prosecutors, but it’s all speculation at this point.

We shall see…

That’s the speculation at this hour…

And it looks like Blagojevich was going after everybody for money, even Warren Buffett…

In a November 11th conversation with John Harris, his Chief of Staff, Blagojevich said he could start a 501(c)(4) political organization to extract money from the billionaire Sage of Omaha, whom the governor called Obama’s “friend.”

“What, for you?” Harris replied.

“Yeah,” said Blagojevich.

The next day, Blagojevich again brought up the idea of creating a political entity, suggesting that Obama could get Buffett or even Microsoft founder Bill Gates to help underwrite it.

Such donors, the governor said, could put “10 to 15 million in it so I can advocate health care and other issues I care about and help them, while I stay as Governor, [Obama’s adviser is] a Senator.”

Blagojevich proposed controlling the 501 (c) (4) through a board of directors and then taking over the organization after leaving office.

At this point, Blagojevich looks like he’s completely screwed.

MSNBC checks out the new Congressman we wrote about yesterday here and here.

One thing I want to focus on is how House Minority leader John Boehner characterized this victory…

In a memo to colleagues called “The Time is Cao,” Boehner says that Anh “Joseph” Cao’s win over Jefferson in a heavily Democratic district points the way out of the wilderness. The House GOP focus, he argues, ought to be ethics, ethics, ethics.

“The Future is Cao” reads the subject line of Boehner’s memo. “As House Republicans look ahead to the next two years, the Cao victory is a symbol of what can be achieved when we think big, present a positive alternative, and work aggressively to earn the trust of the American people,” offers Boehner.

Is Boehner serious? Does he really think that Americans will all of a sudden look at the GOP as the party of ethics? After Abramoff, Cunningham and DeLay? After Bush, Rove and Cheney?

Good look with that John.

If anything, Cao’s victory represents a repudiation of ANY type of corruption, and to think that any one party can own that brand is naive at best.

Well, looks like he’s going to fight the conviction, but his claim of prosecutorial misconduct seems rather weak. I mean, Ted, the prosecutors didn’t remodel your home and put all that furniture in your house for free.

In any event, from Stevens website comes the following statement…

“I am obviously disappointed in the verdict but not surprised given the repeated instances of prosecutorial misconduct in this case. The prosecutors had to report themselves to the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility during the trial for ethical violations. Exculpatory evidence was hidden from my lawyers. A witness was kept from us and then sent back to Alaska. The Government lawyers allowed evidence to be introduced that they knew was false. I will fight this unjust verdict with every ounce of energy I have.

I am innocent. This verdict is the result of the unconscionable manner in which the Justice Department lawyers conducted this trial. I ask that Alaskans and my Senate colleagues stand with me as I pursue my rights. I remain a candidate for the United States Senate.”

One last note…I bet Palin doesn’t appreciate Stevens using her picture on the front page of his site…

Maybe that’s why she was hinting that he shove off today?

More as it develops…

I found Palin’s response today to one of the biggest ethics scandal in her state to be pretty clear code for “Get lost old man.”

Here’s what she said…

“The verdict shines a light on the corrupting influence of the big oil service company that was allowed to control too much of our state. It was part of the culture of corruption I was elected to fight. And that fight must always move forward regardless of party or seniority or even past service.”

“I’m confident Senator Stevens will do what’s right for the people of Alaska.”

It’s that last part that has me intrigued.

Because “do what’s right for the people of Alaska” sure sounds like, “Resign or I will embarrass you before you embarrass us any more than you already have.”

What do you think? She telling Stevens to take a hike in not so many words?

Of course, she may not have a lot of leverage after TrooperGate.

We shall see…

Hi, this is Danielle Ivory at the American News Project in DC. Thanks to Justin Gardner for allowing us to post story items here! We’ll start doing this regularly next week.

Just by way of introduction, the ANP is an independent non-profit video news organization in DC. We produce pieces for the web, but offer all of our content for free to newspapers, blogs, websites, radio, and television so please feel free to embed or share our videos. We see all visitors to our website as potential partners and hope that our community will eventually help fund specific beats, send us news tips and story ideas, and join us as freelancers. Another great site to check out is http://spot.us.

We’re convinced that journalistic collaboration will be essential to the future of news, and so far it’s worked pretty well for us. We’ve worked with McClatchy, The Nation, the Washington Independent, and The Huffington Post on investigative and breaking stories and look forward to more teamwork in the future.

Recently, I’ve been covering voting infrastructural issues for the ANP and found myself in Philadelphia. During the 2008 primary, parts of Pennsylvania (particularly areas with high concentrations of poverty and people of color) experienced major delays due to machine failures, and many voters ended up waiting in line for hours or getting disenfranchised. When I spoke to Philly’s Deputy Commissioner, Fred Voigt, I was startled by a strong sense of institutional inertia, an unwillingness to admit that serious problems exist and, what’s more, that these problems could possibly be fixed with better management and funding. Furthermore, he and the commission (headed by Marge Tartaglione) seemed alarmingly unconcerned about long lines leading to disenfranchisement. We aired a story about this on Monday, featuring this disturbing interview. Since then, the NAACP and the Election Reform Network have filed a lawsuit against the state or Pennsylvania, requesting that paper ballots be made available for the voters of PA in case there are machine breakdowns. ANP’s original story was quoted in the complaint—Voigt’s comments were described as an example of a “woefully inadequate” official response to election problems.

We aired a follow-up yesterday, covering the lawsuit and presenting more of our strange interview with Fred Voigt. I asked Voigt how voters could avoid lines, and gave me another surprising answer.

We’ll continue following this case and the state of voting in Pennsylvania and elsewhere. (If you have ideas or tips, please feel free to email us at contact@newsproject.org.)

ANP: Voters Sue Pennsylvania, Election Official Scoffs

Click here to view our original story.

Click here to view the Voter Action complaint and plaintiffs’ memorandum.

The second TrooperGate investigation gets under way soon.

Today is not a good day to be a Palin…

The Alaska Personnel Board is conducting the investigation, led by an independent counsel.

It will be the first deposition of the Alaska governor, but the second inquiry into the matter. The first investigation by the Alaska state legislature found that Palin abused her power in her efforts to get her former brother-in-law, a state trooper, fired.

Palin was not subpoenaed in the first probe, although her husband, Todd, gave an affidavit. Todd Palin is also expected to give a deposition Friday.

So there are the facts.

Here are some questions….

• If the first investigation ended with finding Palin guilty of violating ethics laws (and she didn’t even give a deposition in that case)…what do you think this investigation will find?
• Can Palin find any more reasons for swing voters to not cast a ballot for McCain?
• Has Palin forever changed the notion that a VP pick doesn’t matter?

Thoughts?

Her “hometown” paper fires back in one of the more strongly worded editorials I’ve seen this campaign season.

Again, I don’t know how she thought she was going to get away with it, but the press is now hammering her for trying to spin her way out of these ethics findings, thus ensuring that the story will continue to be part of the news cycle.

From Anchorage Daily News:

Sarah Palin’s reaction to the Legislature’s Troopergate report is an embarrassment to Alaskans and the nation.

She claims the report “vindicates” her. She said that the investigation found “no unlawful or unethical activity on my part.”

Her response is either astoundingly ignorant or downright Orwellian.

Page 8, Finding Number One of the report says: “I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.”

In plain English, she did something “unlawful.” She broke the state ethics law. [...]

Palin’s response is the kind of political “big lie” that George Orwell warned against. War is peace. Black is white. Up is down.

My question now…with the presidential race extremely close to being a done deal for Obama, is Palin putting her gubernatorial reelection hopes in jeopardy with this fibbing?

TODAY has the story…

They won’t let her spin her way out of this.

My guess is that this is the final nail in the McCain/Palin coffin. If people didn’t trust her before, now they have a real reason not to support her.

The Branchflower report and the McCain camp’s clearly dishonest spin was bad enough, but it looks like the McCain campaign opened up Palin to even more scrutiny when they didn’t even need to.

From Newsweek:

Some weeks ago, the McCain team devised a plan to have Palin file an ethics complaint against herself with the State Personnel Board, arguing that it alone was capable of conducting a fair, nonpartisan inquiry into whether she fired Monegan because he refused to fire Wooten, who had been involved in a messy custody battle with her sister.

Some Democrats ridiculed the move, noting that the personnel board answered to Palin. But the board ended up hiring an aggressive Anchorage trial lawyer, Timothy Petumenos, as an independent counsel. McCain aides were chagrined to discover that Petumenos was a Democrat who had contributed to Palin’s 2006 opponent for governor, Tony Knowles.

Palin is now scheduled to be questioned next week, and the counsel’s report could be released soon after. “We took a gamble when we went to the personnel board,” said a McCain aide who asked not to be identified discussing strategy. While the McCain camp still insists Palin “has nothing to hide,” it acknowledges a critical finding by Petumenos would be even harder to dismiss.

So what happens if the State Personnel Board finds that she acted unethically?

Will she claim vindication then too?

More as it develops…

Again, I don’t why she thought she was going to get away with this, but maybe she’s not used to reporters asking more follow up questions.

From Jake Tapper…

One can make the argument, as Palin and her allies have tried to do, that this investigation — launched by a bipartisan Republican-controlled legislative body — was somehow a partisan Democratic witch hunt, but one cannot honestly make the argument that the report concluded that Palin was “cleared of any legal wrongdoing” or “any hint of unethical activity.” [...]

Asked “Governor, did you abuse your power?” she said, “No, and if you read the report you’ll see that there was nothing unlawful or unethical about replacing a cabinet member. You gotta read the report, sir.”

It’s true that there’s nothing “unlawful or unethical about replacing a cabinet member” in principle. And the report concluded that she had the power to fire Monegan.

But the report concluded that she had abused her power, and there was indeed something “unethical” about her behavior, insofar as it violated the state Ethics Act. [...]

“Governor,” asked a reporter with the Anchorage Daily News, “finding Number One on the report was that you abused your power by violating state law. Do you think you did anything wrong at all in this Troopergate case?”

“Not at all and I’ll tell you, it, I think that you’re always going to ruffle feathers as you do what you believe is in the best interest of the people whom you are serving,” Palin said. “In this case I knew that I had to have the right people in the right position at the right time in this cabinet to best serve Alaskans, and Walt Monegan was not the right person at the right time to meet the goals that we had set out in our administration. So no, not having done anything wrong, and again very much appreciating being cleared of any legal wrongdoing or unethical activity at all.”

Again, not true.

She was NOT cleared, certainly not of “unethical activity.”

Trust me, the press will be ALL OVER these new statements tomorrow and it’ll make her look like a liar…again.

And who’s to blame for this perception?

Sarah Palin. That’s it.

She can’t blame this on the media. She can’t blame this on “gotcha journalism.” She is trying to spin her way out of the TrooperGate findings and it simply won’t work.

Moving on…

First, the McCain camp and Palin herself are saying that the investigation found no laws were broken or nothing unethical was done.

On the first count they’re right. No laws were broken. But do you know why she didn’t break any laws? Because the employment law states she A) could either fire him for any reason or B) she didn’t even need a reason. So as far as laws go, that one was virtually impossible to break.

On the second count, though, they’re either not reading the report or they’re simply trying to convince folks of something that isn’t true.

The report clearly stated that she violated state ethics laws and that the firing of Monegan was influenced by the Wooten case. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act states, “[...] 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 fact, the investigation showed that Todd Palin contacted NINE separate people about Wooten, two of whom were contacted, as stated in the report, on “numerous occasions.” And Sarah made five phone calls herself about the trooper. Three to Monegan and two to somebody else. And then there’s her staff, four of whom contacted various concerns.

Listen folks, if you think Wooten should have been fired, that’s fine, but for the Palins to say the following back in July shows that they played fast and loose with the truth…

“All I know what the facts are and what the truth is. And the truth is never was there any pressure put on Commissioner Monegan to hire or fire anybody.”

“Never putting any pressure on him,” added first gentleman Palin.

Long story short, if Palin claims to be bringing reform and change to Washington, but had no problem lying about something as trivial as this only 3 months ago, I think that’s obviously a knock against that claim.

For a more detailed look at the report and the arguments for and against the Palins, see David Post’s thoughts at The Volokh Conspiracy.