Thread: Palin's 'Trooper-gate' Cover-up

Independent Investigative Journalism Since 1995

Palin's 'Trooper-gate' Cover-up
By Robert Parry
September 6, 2008

Ripping a page from George W. Bush’s playbook on obstructing investigations, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and her senior aides are maneuvering to thwart an abuse-of-power investigation that Palin initially vowed to assist.

Now, rather than cooperate with an independent counsel assigned to examine whether Palin fired the state’s public safety commission because he refused to fire her ex-brother-in-law from the state troopers, Palin, her husband and seven witnesses close to Palin are resisting giving testimony.

Moreover, on Tuesday, just one day before giving her widely acclaimed speech to the Republican National Convention, Palin took the unusual step of filing an ethics complaint against herself – to move the investigation to the state personnel board whose three members are appointed by the governor.

Palin’s decision to, in effect, turn herself in so she could get a hearing before more sympathetic investigators was known by the U.S. news media before Palin’s speech, but was rarely, if ever, mentioned by TV pundits filling hours of air time with chatter about her charisma, her moose hunting and her 17-year-old daughter’s pregnancy.

Back in Alaska, state Republicans also took on the role played by congressional Republicans in Washington, attacking the fairness of any investigation that might put a GOP leader in a negative light.

John Coghill, a Republican state legislator from North Pole, Alaska, demanded that Democratic Sen. Hollis French, who has been overseeing the probe, resign because French suggested that Palin’s alleged abuse of power could lead to her impeachment.

“These statements cause me to think that the report is already written even though the investigation is only just begun and the most important witnesses have not even been interviewed,” Coghill said in a letter. [NYT, Sept. 6, 2008]

However, Palin and her administration appear determined to make sure that those witnesses don’t get interviewed, at least not in a way that might cause political embarrassment before the November elections.
State legislators have set a goal of issuing a report by Oct. 10 on Palin’s firing of state public safety commissioner Walt Monegan, but it now appears that the legislature will have to issue subpoenas to compel the testimony of the seven witnesses, including Palin’s top aide, her personnel director and the commissioner for administration.

A subpoena battle could eat up time both in getting approval from Republican legislators and in overcoming objections from lawyers for the witnesses.

Balking at Depositions

Palin and her husband, Todd, also are balking at giving depositions to independent counsel Steve Branchflower, who was picked by the legislature to investigate whether Monegan’s firing was retaliation for his refusal to fire trooper Mike Wooten, who has been embroiled in a bitter divorce/custody battle with Palin’s sister for several years.

Palin’s lawyer, Thomas Van Flein, indicated that Sarah and Todd Palin would likely rebuff any request by Branchflower for a deposition and insist that the investigation only be handled by the state personnel board.

Palin’s legal team also appeared to be following another favorite tactic of the Bush administration – putting the investigator on the defensive by lodging complaints against him for supposed wrongdoing.

Attorney Van Flein complained that independent counsel Branchflower had sought to reach Todd Palin directly “on a secure and confidential line,” which Van Flein called “a serious security breach that we may be obligated to report to the Secret Service.” [Anchorage Daily News, Sept. 3, 2008]

Palin’s recent attempts to frustrate the legislative investigation reverse her assurances in late July that she was “happy to comply, to cooperate.”
After her surprise selection as John McCain’s running mate, she began traveling with the national Republican crowd, which has many years of experience in fending off legislative oversight of controversial actions by the Bush administration.

For instance, Bush has made broad executive privilege claims to block testimony from his subordinates about a White House drive to politicize the Justice Department, including the firing of nine federal prosecutors who were not considered “loyal Bushies.”

The case of Palin’s firing of public safety commissioner Monegan is somewhat different because the allegations are that the governor was abusing her power to carry out a personal -- rather than a political -- vendetta, but many of the tactics for thwarting an investigation would be similar.

Family Vendetta

<snip>

I don't think that the election should proceed until all of the investigations of Palin's alleged criminal activities have been completed, because it appears that this "lady" has a lot of "baggage" which shouldn't accompany her - or anyone - into the vice-presidential office.

She definitely "fits in" with the Shrub cabal, doesn't she?

MeMyselfnI

:whistling:

Originally Posted by MeMyselfnI

I don't think that the election should proceed until all of the investigations of Palin's alleged criminal activities have been completed, because it appears that this "lady" has a lot of "baggage" which shouldn't accompany her - or anyone - into the vice-presidential office.

She definitely "fits in" with the Shrub cabal, doesn't she?

MeMyselfnI

:whistling:

That's a joke....right?

The guy tased a 10 year old kid. Police departments are warned by manufacturers that is unsafe to tase anyone under 85 -90 lbs. It is unconscionable for anyone to defend an adult, more so a trained police officer, that tases a 10 year old for ANY reason. Drinking on duty, anger management problems and tasing children, that either you or I would be arrested for child endangerment, assault, child abuse you name it. But some how all these things put together resulted in an old boy network that slaps Wooten on the wrist with a 5 day suspension?

Just the drinking on the job results in termination in almost every department in the country, just because the sheer liability aspect.

Spokane police officer accused of drinking on the job is fired

By The Associated Press

SPOKANE — A Spokane police officer accused of drinking on the job and using his department cellular telephone to photograph a woman baring her breasts has been fired.

Police Chief Anne E. Kirkpatrick said Thursday that Officer Jason Uberuaga, a 10-year veteran, is being terminated as of Jan. 23 for conduct unbecoming an officer. He's expected to appeal his dismissal.

Uberuaga is accused of using his police cellphone to take pictures of a woman baring her breasts — and then of having sex with her in a tavern parking lot while off duty in October.

She claimed he sexually assaulted her at a Spokane Valley bar. Investigators cleared him of criminal wrongdoing, but the chief says he violated department policy, partly by drinking while using a police car.

Copyright © 2008 The Seattle Times Company
Local News | Spokane police officer accused of drinking on the job is fired | Seattle Times Newspaper

APD officer fired
by Troy Hooper, Aspen Daily News Staff Writer
Saturday, August 30, 2008

The Aspen Police Department fired an 18-year veteran of its force Friday after another officer suspected he had been under the influence of alcohol on the job. A breath test allegedly confirmed it.

Jim Crowley, a patrol officer and former detective, was arrested for suspicion of driving while ability impaired (DWAI) and prohibited use of a weapon, both of which are misdemeanor charges, at 9:45 a.m. Thursday — just a little over two hours after he had reported to duty at the police station.

“It’s my responsibility to keep people safe, and to have an intoxicated officer come to work in uniform and drive a police car is not acceptable,” Aspen Police Chief Richard Pryor said.

APD officer fired | Aspen Daily News Online

Wooten was a loose cannon and a law suit just waiting to happen to the State of Alaska. Every other Police Department in the country would have fired him immediately for either drinking on the job and especially for child endangerment by tasing a 10 year old child. Since it is the higher ranking in the departments responsibility to keep people safe, and to have an intoxicated officer come to work in uniform and drive a police car or tasing kids simply is not acceptable. Yet he wasn't fired. The departmental heads proved they weren't responsible in their jobs and they got fired for it!

Spin it any way you want to but Wooten deserved firing not a 5 day suspension, and those who refused to fire him and protect the Alaskan public deserved to get fired for not doing their jobs too.

Please I welcome any rational argument as why a Police officer SHOULDN'T be fired for drinking on the job or using a police issued taser on a child the size of a 10 year old when the manufacturer warns of heart failure in people under 85 lbs? I'd really like to hear it.

Originally Posted by Professor Peabody

That's a joke....right?

The guy tased a 10 year old kid. Police departments are warned by manufacturers that is unsafe to tase anyone under 85 -90 lbs. It is unconscionable for anyone to defend an adult, more so a trained police officer, that tases a 10 year old for ANY reason. Drinking on duty, anger management problems and tasing children, that either you or I would be arrested for child endangerment, assault, child abuse you name it. But some how all these things put together resulted in an old boy network that slaps Wooten on the wrist with a 5 day suspension?

Just the drinking on the job results in termination in almost every department in the country, just because the sheer liability aspect.
Wooten was a loose cannon and a law suit just waiting to happen to the State of Alaska. Every other Police Department in the country would have fired him immediately for either drinking on the job and especially for child endangerment by tasing a 10 year old child. Since it is the higher ranking in the departments responsibility to keep people safe, and to have an intoxicated officer come to work in uniform and drive a police car or tasing kids simply is not acceptable. Yet he wasn't fired. The departmental heads proved they weren't responsible in their jobs and they got fired for it!

Spin it any way you want to but Wooten deserved firing not a 5 day suspension, and those who refused to fire him and protect the Alaskan public deserved to get fired for not doing their jobs too.

Please I welcome any rational argument as why a Police officer SHOULDN'T be fired for drinking on the job or using a police issued taser on a child the size of a 10 year old when the manufacturer warns of heart failure in people under 85 lbs? I'd really like to hear it.

They aren't investigating Palin because of what Wooten did. They're investigating Palin for misconduct alledging that she unduly influenced a personnel matter, accessed confidential personnel records and fired the Public safety commissioner for personal reasons.

Originally Posted by Bourne

They aren't investigating Palin because of what Wooten did. They're investigating Palin for misconduct alledging that she unduly influenced a personnel matter, accessed confidential personnel records and fired the Public safety commissioner for personal reasons.

Bourne, the Public safety commissioner didn't do his job properly in making sure the higher ups in the State Police did their jobs properly and fired Wooten for his abominable actions that surely exposed the State of Alaska to a law suit of Biblical proportions had Wooten tased another child and it came out he had done it before with only a slap on the wrist. You can call it personal all you want, Wooten should have been fired for his actions, but got a 5 day suspension instead. Palin fired those responsible for NOT doing their jobs and firing him.

Your argument makes no sense on a personal level. Keeping Wooten on the job would insure Palin's sister received child support from garnished state wages, he's a captive audience. Now he's free to disappear to parts of the country unknown, good luck finding him let alone getting child support.

Originally Posted by Bourne

They aren't investigating Palin because of what Wooten did. They're investigating Palin for misconduct alledging that she unduly influenced a personnel matter, accessed confidential personnel records and fired the Public safety commissioner for personal reasons.

If a police officer who was part of my family by marriage was doing those kinds of things to members of my family, I would do exactly the same thing and so would you and every other honest person on this board. That is not an abuse of power. Of course she has to cover it up. But what she did was right.

In fact, this adds to Palin's image in my book. I'll take a moose hunting, family protecting, Harry Callahan-like state official over you limp wristed, bureaucrats any day of the week.

Go Sarah!

I am thinking firing policemen who beat women is a good thing. I am thinking firingpublic officials who try to cover up those beatings is also a good thing.