Sarah Palin Broke The Ethics Law In Alaska, And Is Subject To Impeachment And Removal From Office If The State Legislature Chooses To Do So
I might be wrong, but this is the way I read the facts, the law, and the Alaska state constitution.
The Recently-Released Report Says:
"Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda, to wit: To get Trooper Michael Wooten fired,"
Note: The report uses the vague term "personal agenda" rather than the more precise term "personal interest," which is a specific violation of state law.
But it seems to me that the "personal agenda" of firing Trooper Michael Wooten is exactly the same thing as a "personal interest" in firing Trooper Michael Wooten. And this makes her "impermissible pressure" an actual violation of Alaska state law, not merely an improper thing to do.
It appears to me that she violated both Sec. 39.52.110 (Scope of code) and Sec. 39.52.120. (Misuse of official position)
The State Law Says: (Please note the precise term "personal or financial interest")
Article 02. CODE OF ETHICS
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. (more)
and . . .
Sec. 39.52.120. Misuse of official position. (b) A public officer may not (3) use state time, property, equipment, or other facilities to benefit personal or financial interests; (4) take or withhold official action in order to affect a matter in which the public officer has a personal or financial interest; (5) attempt to benefit a personal or financial interest through coercion of a subordinate or require another public officer to perform services for the private benefit of the public officer at any time; (more) Source: http://www.law.state.ak.us/pdf/ethics/ethicstatutes.pdf
The Alaska Constitution Says:
Section 2.20 - Impeachment.
All civil officers of the State are subject to impeachment by the legislature. Impeachment shall originate in the senate and must be approved by a two-thirds vote of its members. The motion for impeachment shall list fully the basis for the proceeding. Trial on impeachment shall be conducted by the house of representatives. A supreme court justice designated by the court shall preside at the trial. Concurrence of two-thirds of the members of the house is required for a judgment of impeachment. The judgment may not extend beyond removal from office, but shall not prevent proceedings in the courts on the same or related charges.
Rev. Bill McGinnis is an Internet Christian minister, writer and publisher. He is Director of LoveAllPeople.org, a small private think tank in Alexandria, Virginia, and all of its related websites, including InternetChurchOfChrist.org,CommitteeForTheGoldenRule.org,CivicAmerican.com, and AmericanDemocrat.net. His agenda is to help maximize the happiness and well-being of all people. His blog is located at http://blog.myspace.com/revbillmcginnis
I believe she also broke the law against "denning" in Alaska as well. Years ago, in the efforts of cattlemen/ and or farmers to eradicate wolves-- helpless defenseless wolf pups were exposed to noxious fumes/and or poisons to kill them in their dens. Their deaths were anything but humane. Since then I read, denning is against the law. When she sent biologists to shoot 14 rolly polly pups in their den, she broke the law. Will have to do more research, but I definitely read this somewhere and was glad that such a law probably exists.
by
Suzana Megles (39 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 163 comments)
on Saturday, October 11, 2008 at 8:26:21 AM
It seems to me there is a difference between a personal agenda and a personal interest. I think the ethics law is intended to address getting a personal benefit through abuse of authority of position. In this case, she did not get a personal benefit, but she furthered what was a personal agenda instead of a governmental policy agenda. It may be an abuse of power, but not one within the meaning of the ethics law.
It seems to me like impeachment would be excessive for this offense alone, but a reprimand might be appropriate.
by
Bill Samuel (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 330 comments)
on Saturday, October 11, 2008 at 8:46:40 AM
I think the media -- particularly including MSNBC -- are failing to emphasize the important words from this report. They keep saying the report found that Palin "abused her power" (from finding #1 on page 8 of the report). In my mind, those word are less significant than the immediately following words: "by violating Alaska Statute" The important point to me is not the subjective and somewhat nebulous determination of power abuse, but rather the legal conclusion that she violated the law. The fact that she broke the law -- at least according to this report -- is directly pertinent to Palin's candidacy for Vice President.
by
Gary Anderson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Saturday, October 11, 2008 at 9:37:55 AM
According to the an AP article, she cannot be impeached for this --it's not an ethics "law" she broke-- the worst that will happen is up to a $5,000 fine.
"Branchflower said Palin violated a statute of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Lawmakers don't have the authority to sanction her for such a violation, and they gave no indication they would take any action against her.
Under Alaska law, it is up to the state's Personnel Board -- which is conducting its own investigation into the matter -- to decide whether Palin violated state law and, if so, must refer it to the Senate president for disciplinary action. Violations also carry a possible fine of up to $5,000."
The legislature initiated the investigation, but their part is done: It now goes SOLELY to Alaska's Personnel Board, which is doing its own investigation. I have no doubt that the Branchflower report will weigh HEAVILY in their findings, though.
The woman was not unlike the majority of political tyrants of our corporate representative government. She simply took too big of steps when she was learning that walk that crooked path that so many others do with cunning. Sicker still are the imbicile people that elected, not once, but twice, the diaboical dishonest and murdering crude we still have running our very Whitehouse. Sara might be better suited in a professional in CIA where no ethical standards are called for.
by
Philip Dennany (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 77 comments)
on Saturday, October 11, 2008 at 9:42:11 AM
She has brought a lot of unwanted attention to Alaska. The rest of America has learned that they gave over $3,000 to every man, woman, and child in Alaska, while mooching and getting money far in excess of the rest of the states.
Alaska received over $13,000 for every $5,000 they sent to the Treasury. They shouldn't receive a cent further until they keep that money and take care of themselves.
by
Brenda Thornton (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Saturday, October 11, 2008 at 9:54:09 AM
Alaska law is precisely that: Alaska law. And it would be to Alaska representatives to first compose a bill of impeachment, and then to the state's senate to actually try the pit bull with lipstick hocky-mom. They'll have to gecha some integrity, and, premised on the recent hIstory of the state (Murkowski, Stevens, Young . . .) I becha they don't.
_
Or, to paraphrase Charles Gibson, "What's your understanding of the Alaska ethics doctrine?"
_
"In what way, Charlie? It's not like Russia, I can't see it from here. And, it's all about sending a 'maverick' to Washington to bring some Wasilla common sense to Washington for job creation. " (By the way, there were some cute winks along that Northwest passage.)
by
Ed Tubbs (177 articles, 1 quicklinks, 24 diaries, 58 comments)
on Saturday, October 11, 2008 at 11:13:12 AM
Abused power, a bit unethical in order to get what she and her family wanted ( revenge). Again, she will make a Great Cheney, she has already practiced at the state level. Now she can go abuse power and be unethical (like Cheney and the rest) in Wash DC. Oh joy.
by
shirley reese (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 369 comments)
on Saturday, October 11, 2008 at 2:10:14 PM
Comment is flagged and has been reviewed by the editors -
Reason: Slanderous
Editor's Message: Slander and libel will not be tolerated by this site. If you have opinions, fine./ If you want to spew lies--not so fine.
she was not proven guilty......... just be glad we will vote for Obama and become the new Russia where everyone will work amd make the same amount of money, where we will no longer have our freedom of speech, guns will be removed so we can be an easy target for the terrorist ... this is what we want? Vote Obama......... Sarah was not guilty.. read todays newspaper......OBAMA went to a muslem school .. and we don't need to worry what wil happen when he gets in office ? America vote Obama and watch the new USSA unfold ....... the new world order.... he will not reduse taxes.. he has too many programs and needs all our money.
The ecomony is because of Democratic policies giving loans to people who can't afford them... problems began when you voted Nancy Pelosi into office ... has a lower approval rating than the President...... and we want to vote Obama into office to finish America? .. Can't wait to say I told ya so........ America has been blinded thank you Satan job well done... we no longer believe in Jesus...Obama is our new Messiah
Mr. Bybee,
Please don't come back here to insinuate that Obama is "Muslim" or "Arab" or anything else that is simply racist or full of prejudice. You don't have to like him, and you may express your opinion, but you will not use this site to further lies or bigotry.
by
don bybee (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 206 comments)
on Saturday, October 11, 2008 at 2:10:46 PM
Funny, your summation is EXACTLY how I've been feeling living under a Rubublican President and a Repuglican Congress. Right down to the last word your description is correct- in the extreme opposite!
This administration has taken 1984 way too seriously, right down to the "New Speak words like "nuc-u-ler". You have yourself soooo convinced that it's all on the Dems. Suggestion: Point your finger elsewhere, like at yourself for voting Bush in - TWICE!
Republicans won't get yet another chance to screw things up even more.
As to your inference that Obama is of Satan...Have you looked in Dick Cheney's eyes...ever? I'd rather stare down a hungry shark.
Bottem line: Those that abuse power and hurt the electorate should not get voted back in. At least it looks like that may finally be the case.
I suggest you go move back under the rock you came from.
by
INtooDeep24 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments)
on Saturday, October 11, 2008 at 7:55:01 PM
90 percent of middle class with tax relief(ie.Tax cut). All children with health care. A jobs program aimed at our infrastrucure.(Not Iraqs'). A return to Reagans tax on wealthy. Relief for our war weary troops, and greatly improved health care that they deserve. A chance at resurrecting the honor that Bush has so carelessly tarnished. Most importantly, bringing back the American Dream, hijacked by neocon usurpers. Honor and Will returned.
Tnut.
by
Tnut (16 articles, 0 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 45 comments)
on Saturday, October 11, 2008 at 9:40:27 PM
This let everybody know how she would run this country, very selfish.
She has hung herself and McCain and their is no return. And yes she can be impeached at anytime, but they may not because she is running for VP.
After this is over and they lose, then they will hit her with it, but I don't think it will be now, unless they want her bad enough. But the people in her state don't like her because if she don't get things her way he will punish in some way.
by
Gloretha Gray (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments)
on Saturday, October 11, 2008 at 3:10:41 PM
Where in heck is the law when someone commits a so-called "crime" more substantial than Gov. Palin letting her husband use the phone in her office -- and contacting Monegan to have Wooten fired for legitimate reasons? Give me a break. Pathetically, those shyster lawyers and shady investigators were on a witch hunt and all they found was proof of a few phone calls. And they are charging her with abuse of power?
Also, what you are ignoring, is the fact that Palin offered Monegan another equal-paying position (as he did not live up to his job duties in the Public Safety Commissioner's position), which implies that Monegan chose to become vindictive, for no other reason than his pride being broken. Sounds -- and smells-- like an act of desperation to me.
by
Lisa Clark (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 32 comments)
on Saturday, October 11, 2008 at 4:00:23 PM
To the person who posted with the name "Smarterthanu". Palin's misuse of her office, while it may not have officially violated the Constitution of Alaska, is certainly an abuse of her position. It stemmed from her firing of a public official that refused to "fire a state trooper" who was in the process of divorcing Sarah Palin's sister. It seems this firing could be overturned through a lawsuit for "unjust termination" and could make the right lawyer rich or famous or both. It had nothing to do with Palin herself or her husband. I assume Palin is happily married.
by
Harold Sutton (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Saturday, October 11, 2008 at 4:43:56 PM
But you want Obama "impeached" for something that is not even a charge of wrongdoing.
It was proven that in the Keating scandal John McCain was in voliation of ethics. He was reprimanded. But we all know they let him off lightly. He had his hands in the cookie jar and got caught.
So there, you see. In your dream, they'd have to "impeach" him too.
:(
Just a last thought: George Bush is the one who should have been impeached...Oh well...too late now. At least he will have his legacy to live and sleep with for the rest of his days.
:)
by
INtooDeep24 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments)
on Saturday, October 11, 2008 at 9:41:15 PM
Let's see...Palin could only resist abusing her power for a few months after being elected in Alaska after winning that office on an Ethics in Office campaign.
How long does anyone think she could resist abusing power in Washington DC?
6
4
4
