Sarah never said Fire Wooten...and other true things

[PubliusInfinitum]

Right!

Your concession is duly noted and despite it's certainty, it is summarily accepted.

 

[Dr Grump]

LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IS NOT FIT FOR PUBLIC TRUST: IT IS HER SACRED DUTY TO SEE THAT SUCH OFFICER IS REMOVED FROM OFFICE!~
.

Not when she has a vested interest in the matter. It is called a Conflict of Interest. In such cases, she steps aside and lets somebody else take over until the matter is settled.

 

[Larkinn]

From the same article:

"Put bluntly, Branchflower completely misapplied the Ethics Act and has instead sought to create a headline to smear the Governor," the lawyers wrote

Wow...Palins lawyers think Branchflower is wrong? From such an impartial source, how could we not believe them?

 

[greenpartyaz]

ROFLMNAO... Well this member has advanced a flaccid would-be neg-rep wherein the depth of her conclusion is that I represent a concept which rhymes with BASSHOLE...

In fact Sarah Palin IS a CEO... As the Governor of Alaska, she represents the Chief Executive Officer... AKA: The CEO of Alaska. As CEO Governor Palin, like every other CEO, EXECUTES THE LAWS of the organization which has appointed her and as the CHIEF Executive, it is SHE that has the final responsibility in EXECUTING THOSE LAWS...

This despite the ignorant assertion by this Advocate of Social Science to the contrary.

Secondly, and with regard to accountability, my position regarding charges that Alaska CEO Palin abused her authority rests on my numerousl stated position that IT IS GOVERNOR PALIN'S DUTY TO SEE THAT THOSE WHO SIT WITHIN HER BRANCH THAT ARE TASKED WITH EXECUTING THE LAWS OF ALASKA ARE HELD TO THE HIGHEST STANDARD AND WHERE SHE KNOWS THAT ONE OF THEM IS UNFIT FOR SERVICE, IT IS HER DUTY TO REMOVE THEM, BECAUSE IT IS THE ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE PUBLIC ON WHICH HER DUTY SOLELY RESTS....

Now, Miss Green... I appreciate your time and consideration, but you're clearly blissfully ignorant of most of the facts; which is typical of those who profess their allegiance to the dirt... so, please, when you advance a position in my presence, please take a moment to run it by a grown up FIRST. Perhaps that would avoid all this public humiliation you're presently experiencing.

And it is also found that she broke ethics laws, so what type of punishment does she deserve in your eyes?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Not when she has a vested interest in the matter. It is called a Conflict of Interest. In such cases, she steps aside and lets somebody else take over until the matter is settled.

Really? So which 'vested interests supersedes the other? Her vested interests AS THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE STATE that has first hand knowledge that one of her Law Enforcement officers is unfit for service or her vested interest as a citizen who knows first hand that a State Law enforcement officer is abusing his power to abuse and intimidate his family?

There's no conflict of interests here... and ANY attempt to defend this scumbag is a waste of air.

Fankly, this is unforgivable; as YOU PPL DEFENDING A CROOKED MALE COP ABUSING HIS POSITION TO INTIMIDATE HIS EX-WIFE AND HER PARENTS, is how the Lifetime channel got started... the channel I lovingly refer to as "The Man-Hater Channel.

This guy is the epitome of worthless, a punk using his badge, the PUBLIC SHIELD, to abuse those around him... and you ppl are defending his ass.

The Governor had first hand knowledge that this scumbag was crooked and it was her duty to see him removed from office and in that order stated her reasoning and rejected all demands by the judiciary to reinstate him.

What's fascinating to me is that the ADVOCATES OF CHANGE are in here DEMANDING THE SAME OLD SAME OLD!

ROFLMNAO... I so love sweet Irony... even when it's so thoroughly predictable.

 

[N4mddissent]

I understand that you may hold the opinion Publius Infinitu, that in her role as chief executive she should have the power to fire state troopers, and whether she should or not is a point that could be debated. But currently as the law stands, she could not.

What is so hard to understand about the fact that whatver you think she should be able to do does not make it legally appropriate. You can dislike the institutions and regulations established to handle complaints against a state trooper. You can think they are ridiculous. But rules are rules and laws are laws, whether you like them or not. The established method was for complaints to be investigated and reprimands administered. This had happened. It did not result in the outcome she wanted.

I could agree with you that this guy is a complete reprobate. When I first heard the story, I thought he probably was. But my opinion on the governor's actions would still be consistent. After reading the reports I wasn't as certain that trooper Wooten was as terrible figure as he had been portrayed. I certainly would still have concerns about the behavior he did show. However it is only tangentially part of the issue. These are the principles involved as I see it.

1. Rules, regulations, and laws apply to everyone equally.
2. Evidence and independent investigation must be weighed more heavily than anecdotal information.
3. The primary duty of the chief executive is to enforce the rules, regulations, and laws of the state.

If someone commits a crime in America, and then during the trial some technicality allows the person to be set free even in the face of overwhelming evidence, that person can never be charged with the same crime. Similarly, after his investigation and reprimand, Wooten could not be charged with those same violations. He would have a civil suit against the state of Alaska if anyone attempted to do so.

Sarah Palin or associates as private citizens were free to lodge official complaints against Trooper Wooten. And each would be investigated. However, in using her public office to have access to the commissioner not commonly available to the general public for her and her associates, and the perceived pressure inherent in the repeated suggestions to dismiss officer Wooten were abuse of her power as governor. Commissioner Monegan himself warned the governor that they would be liable for a civil suit if she and her associates continued to question about this particular Trooper only, especially considering her personal ties to him. She chose to ignore him and continue to seek out information on this particular trooper.

She did not seem to be able to understand that regulations would not allow Wooten to be brought up on the same complaints that had already been investigated and resolved, even if she didn't like the outcome. The fact that she had personally known Trooper Wooten makes it more imperative that she not appear to be discriminating against him, especially in light of the fact that the relationship is one that would lend itself to animosity between them. If he was truly as reprobate as she claimed, she should have just quietly collected the evidence of his inappropriate behavior, presented it to the commissioner and allowed him to then carry out another investigation with this evidence. It may have still be seen as her personally targeting Trooper Wooten, but the evidence would have been there and Wooten would no longer be employed. If they hired a PI once, they could hire a PI again and have him videotape violations. She could have had her sister do it and further distance herself from the situation.

If she had personal knowledge of his poor character, these things would have exposed it and the situation could be handled through proper channels. You are making your case that she is responsible for executing the laws, but that does not give her judiciary powers as well. There was an established process to legally determine the whether and to what extent a trooper has committed a punishable offense. If she is given authority to determine whether his behavior is appropriate and whether certain actions occurred, then ask yourself, is she executing the laws, or interpreting and judging violations of those laws? It seems more judiciary to me. If a judge or jury has personal knowledge of the guilt or innocence of the accused, they are not allowed to participate in deliberations. Likewise, Palin's personal knowledge should have made her step away from the situation rather than attempt to force her way into it.

If this was truly the character of this trooper, other complaints would follow. The system would eventually result in his dismissal. If she had no faith in the system, she should have attempted to change the system through whatever legal means existed.

She was not executing the laws. She was undermining the laws. She was attempting to bypass the legally established framework for dealing with these situations, and using her authority as governor to do so. Monegan however, recognized he was bound by the law and could not get the result she wanted outside of the proper procedures. This resulted in his termination. The system obviously did not grant her the authority to fire Mr. Wooten. Otherwise, Mr. Monegan need never had been involved. If that authority is not granted to her by law, then how is it ethical or proper execution of the law for her to attempt to wield that authority second-hand by pressuring subordinates to whom that authority was granted?

I agree that it is her duty to see that those who execute the laws should be held to a high standard. However, authority is not given to Governor Palin in this case to judge whether those standards are being met. There must be evidence presented in the proper forum and an objective determination made. And as executor of the law, she is bound to that decision whether she agrees or not.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

And it is also found that she broke ethics laws, so what type of punishment does she deserve in your eyes?

Subjective findings founded upon specious grounds... the foundation of the conclusion is logically ABSURD.

Of course you're invited and encouraged to site the basis in reasoning on which the findings rest... and I will happily expose them being little more than the illusion of reason.

When ever you're ready...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I understand that you may hold the opinion Publius Infinitu, that in her role as chief executive she should have the power to fire state troopers, and whether she should or not is a point that could be debated. But currently as the law stands, she could not.

ROFLMNAO... She's the Cheif Executive sis... meaning she decides who works for her and who does not. Now you can rationalize that the Union contract, the State policy requiring this and that prevent her from executing effective control over the Executive branch... but you're wrong.

As the Governor of the State she controls the Executive Branch; including the State police, the National Guard and the POWER which the State can bring to bear... When SHE KNOWS that one of her officers is crooked, it is HER DUTY... and nothing LESS to see to it that the unfit officer is removed from service as a officer of the Executive and this is without regard for laws which are designed to protect malfeaseance... which is to say laws passed in the name of Social Science.

The Governor did not abuse the power of her office... no anything approaching it. And this without regard for spurious findings by politically charged 'committees,' populated by the defenders of a system she is exposing as crooked.

 

[Larkinn]

Really? So which 'vested interests supersedes the other? Her vested interests AS THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE STATE that has first hand knowledge that one of her Law Enforcement officers is unfit for service or her vested interest as a citizen who knows first hand that a State Law enforcement officer is abusing his power to abuse and intimidate his family?

She doesn't have a vested interest as governor of Alaska. Look up with vested interest means. The problem is that she has a responsibility as governor of Alaska NOT to let her personal dealings effect her professional actions.

There's no conflict of interests here... and ANY attempt to defend this scumbag is a waste of air.

Fankly, this is unforgivable; as YOU PPL DEFENDING A CROOKED MALE COP ABUSING HIS POSITION TO INTIMIDATE HIS EX-WIFE AND HER PARENTS, is how the Lifetime channel got started... the channel I lovingly refer to as "The Man-Hater Channel.

Nobody is defending his actions. You are making an obvious logical flaw. Learn the difference between how someone acts (the trooper), and how other people react to said individual. Merely because someone objects to how a criminal is treated does not mean they agree with the crime. Simple really.

This guy is the epitome of worthless, a punk using his badge, the PUBLIC SHIELD, to abuse those around him... and you ppl are defending his ass.

See above.

The Governor had first hand knowledge that this scumbag was crooked and it was her duty to see him removed from office and in that order stated her reasoning and rejected all demands by the judiciary to reinstate him.

Through legal channels, yes.

What's fascinating to me is that the ADVOCATES OF CHANGE are in here DEMANDING THE SAME OLD SAME OLD!

No, we are demanding political leaders act responsibly, legally, and ethically. That is most definitely not the same old, same old, considering the Bush administration has worked outside all three of those boundaries.

 

[N4mddissent]

A point about FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE

There are people who claim first hand knowledge about bigfoot, aliens, and the loch ness monster. To coin a phrase, first hand knowledge isn't worth a pot of warm piss. Evidence matters. Especially when I have already demonstrated Sarah Palin is willing to lie to the American public.

 

[N4mddissent]

Now you can rationalize that the Union contract, the State policy requiring this and that prevent her from executing effective control over the Executive branch... but you're wrong.

Well, you're making my point. You believe in authoritarianism. You believe that the leader of the executive is not bound by the laws, rules, and regulations of the state. Can you really be that unbalanced?

And if I'm wrong, why is Trooper Wooten still employed? Why did monegan have to be fired. Why didn't she just fire Wooten on day 1 and be done with it?

 

[Red Dawn]

it is HER DUTY... and nothing LESS to see to it that the unfit officer is removed from service as a officer of the Executive and this is without regard for laws which are designed to protect malfeaseance... which is to say laws passed in the name of Social Science.

So two-time Bush voters have gone, in the last 72 hours, from claiming....

- That Palin didn't try to get the trooper fired (false)....to
- At least Palin didn't break any laws (false)....to
- Palin was "afraid" of the trooper (false)...to
- Well, Palin had a right and duty to break the law to try to fire a low level state trooper.



Are you Cons going to stick to one talking point, or are you going to flip flop all over the map in a hilarious attempt to defend your corrupt heroes?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

She doesn't have a vested interest as governor of Alaska. Look up with vested interest means. The problem is that she has a responsibility as governor of Alaska NOT to let her personal dealings effect her professional actions.

ROFL... I love these... little semantic games which cannot possibly bring comfort to a failing argument. In this case the empty projection that the opposition is erroneously utilizing a critical phrase; a utilization so flawed, that HAD they used the phrase correctly, they could have never advanced their stated and conclusion. Funny, albeit pathetic, stuff..

So let's get to work... "Vested Interests" two words combined to impart a single concept...

Let's begin with "vested" Now the context which fits best here is:"to grant or endow with a particular authority, right..."

Yeah that seems to fit an elected High Official...

"interest: the right, title, or legal share in something" So vested-interest it seems, would mean: "to grant or endow with a particular authority, the right, title, or legal share in something" So the question quickly becomes "Is a duly elected Chief Executive granted or endowed with a particular authority, the right, title, or legal share in something?"

Now as I see it, I'd say that a Chief Executive Officer is in fact in possession of a vested interest... she is vested by the people the POWER TO EXECUTE THE LAWS OF THE STATE AND TO DO SO HONORABLY and WITH THE BEST INTERESTS OF THOSE PEOPLE THAT ENDOWED HER WITH THOSE POWERS... now part and parcel of doing that is to use those powers to ensure that the people who she utilizes to impart the awesome power of the State to be appropriately fit for service and where that governor should know through her own personal experience that a given individual which is employed by her office is decidedly NOT fit for service, it is HER DUTY; a duty BORN of the responsibilities inherent from that Vested Interest that she take action to remove that unfit employee...

So... there ya go, genius.

Nobody is defending his actions.

ROFLMNAO... NOOooooooooo ‘No one is defending this guy... we're just saying that just because he has a long history of abuse of power, misconduct, bad decisions, dangerous, unprofessional behavior and charges that he has threatened to murder a family member with whom he was at odds... that doesn't give the Governor of that State to publically discuss his long history of abuse of power, misconduct, bad decisions, dangerous, unprofessional behavior and charges that he has threatened to murder a family member with whom he was at odds... towards the end of having this reprobate removed from his job!’

I mean how could ANYONE infer any form of defense in that? LOL.. how you ppl manage to get to work without driving your car off the first turn you come across is anyone's guess...

You are making an obvious logical flaw. Learn the difference between how someone acts (the trooper), and how other people react to said individual. Merely because someone objects to how a criminal is treated does not mean they agree with the crime.

Now these babies are PRECIOUS! Here is a person who has YET to advance a logically valid point, speaking to the technical logical constructs... It should be noted that despite the reference to an error 'logic' the member was unable to cite a specific logical error and instead opted to advance in the place where one would expect a direct reference citing the specific logical failure... her own straw man; projecting that her oppositions argument failed to address both the Troopers behavior and the Governor's justified attempts to have him removed from his job... In essence the member wasn't able to build a well reasoned, logically valid, intellectually sound argument, so she just modified the argument to which she was responding to better suit her limited intellectual means...

ROFL... It's CLASSIC~

Simple really.

AT BEST...

No, we are demanding political leaders act responsibly, legally, and ethically. That is most definitely not the same old, same old, considering the Bush administration has worked outside all three of those boundaries.

Well nothing closes the idiotic ranting of an ignorant fool like a juicy non sequitur. Any further comment here would just be piling on... Suffice it to say that this member is claiming that it was irresponsible for the sitting governor of a state to seek the removal of a STATE (not some local city cop... BUT A STATE TROOPER...) Law enforcement officer of which she has firsthand knowledge that he is unfit for service and that his presence on the force is a hazard to the public at large.

So the left here is complaining that an elected official who went out of their way to remove a CROOKED COP... stepped out of the PC Legalese Union Protected Channels to PROTECT THE PUBLIC... Which is what they will tell you that Hussein Obama is all about... DIRECT ACTION! WORKING FOR THE LITTLE GUY! PROTECTING THE FOLKS AT HOME FROM BIG BAD GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION!

 

[Chris]

Palin on Trooper Wooten....

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/li...721/20080721_111415_PalinLetterofRecomend.pdf

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

So two-time Bush voters have gone, in the last 72 hours, from claiming....

- That Palin didn't try to get the trooper fired (false)....to
- At least Palin didn't break any laws (false)....to
- Palin was "afraid" of the trooper (false)...to
- Well, Palin had a right and duty to break the law to try to fire a low level state trooper.



Are you Cons going to stick to one talking point, or are you going to flip flop all over the map in a hilarious attempt to defend your corrupt heroes?

Wow... they're just dragging it directly from the ether now... just making it up out of whole leftist clothe right in plain view. LOL... Nothing desperate about that, I'm sure...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Palin on Trooper Wooten....

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/li...721/20080721_111415_PalinLetterofRecomend.pdf

Oh now that's just precious... a letter of Recommendation dated 8 years ago... Next this member will be citing the 1940 Roosevelt's praises of 'Uncle Joe' Stalin as evidence that he wasn't such a bad guy, so the rumors that he murdered 25 million Soviet Citizens in a blood lust purge can't be all that true; after all, there are photo's of Stalin sitting on deck chairs in smiling away with a gleeful Roosevelt and a somewhat more skeptical, but nonetheless smiling Churchill...

ROFLMNAO... Leftists.

 

[Yurt]

But rules are rules and laws are laws, whether you like them or not. .

great, now you can tell me exactly what the finding means? is it a conviction of guilt or an opinion of guilt?

come on...you seem like a smart guy...let's see if you know the difference between a conviction of guilt and an opinion of guilt.

especially by a report that cleared her of any illegal activity and you know for a fact, his reading of the ethics law and how brainfart tried to interpret it to find palin, in his OPINION, guilty of violating such.....is mere political bullshit. it is like you telling us that since a grand jury found enough evidence to take a case to trial, that ALONE is proof of guilt...

this is a political witchhunt and a pathetic one at that, especially when one reads the troopers letter from his superiors from 2006 that finds the trooper GUILTY of basically everything the palins claimed...........aare you calling that trooper fit for duty?

yes or no

are you telling me that you would just shut your mouth because you got elected governor when you know there is that scum on the police force...so just because you are governor, you lose your right to free speech....

i have posted a link to the letter to trooper asswipe, the evidence is clear, that guy should not be on the force and brainfart ADMITS that the palins frustration is REAL...due the the current way such complaints are handled and he suggests the law should be changed....


a non story, but sadly, the dems will make anything up to win the office

 

[Chris]

great, now you can tell me exactly what the finding means? is it a conviction of guilt or an opinion of guilt?

come on...you seem like a smart guy...let's see if you know the difference between a conviction of guilt and an opinion of guilt.

especially by a report that cleared her of any illegal activity and you know for a fact, his reading of the ethics law and how brainfart tried to interpret it to find palin, in his OPINION, guilty of violating such.....is mere political bullshit. it is like you telling us that since a grand jury found enough evidence to take a case to trial, that ALONE is proof of guilt...

this is a political witchhunt and a pathetic one at that, especially when one reads the troopers letter from his superiors from 2006 that finds the trooper GUILTY of basically everything the palins claimed...........aare you calling that trooper fit for duty?

yes or no

are you telling me that you would just shut your mouth because you got elected governor when you know there is that scum on the police force...so just because you are governor, you lose your right to free speech....

i have posted a link to the letter to trooper asswipe, the evidence is clear, that guy should not be on the force and brainfart ADMITS that the palins frustration is REAL...due the the current way such complaints are handled and he suggests the law should be changed....


a non story, but sadly, the dems will make anything up to win the office

Palin was warned by a judge 3 years ago not to disparage Trooper Wooten.

She was investigated by a 28 year veteran prosecutor and he made a fair judgement. Crying about it won't change anything.

 

[del]

Palin was warned by a judge 3 years ago not to disparage Trooper Wooten.

She was investigated by a 28 year veteran prosecutor and he made a fair judgement. Crying about it won't change anything.

my fries are cold. can i speak to your supervisor?
thx

 

[del]

How's the HIV infection going?

so sad that all you have are insults.

can i talk to Apu now, please?

thx