I'm not taliking abot the firing of the trooper-he wasn't fired nor does she have the power to do so-rather I'm talking about the firing of the commissioner of public safetyMonegan. It is the firing of Monegan that's the legal issue NOT the tropper himself.
You're right. Democrats and their media allies desperately trying to generate a scandal. Same people who consider Obama's long association with terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn to be irrelevant.
It's a complte yawner, nothing issue raised by some Alaska state senators who're backing Obama. Because the media felt obligated to "vet" Palin naturally it got play. It's dead.
If the brother-in-law was an isolated case, maybe the evidence that he was dangerous and Palin's eagerness to have him gone is understandable. However, I seem to recall there was another example of the Palins not liking someone being hired and expressing themselves in such a way to as to give the impression they wanted that person removed. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/u...en=afcd714ae3b553ae&ex=1221624000&oref=slogin
Not sure where you're getting this information, but here's the original report about his 2005 suspension. It includes the unsubstantiated allegation from Palin's family about drinking while on duty (although I bet he did it.) http://media.adn.com/smedia/2008/07/21/16/Wooten_suspend_letter.source.prod_affiliate.7.pdf His punishment for these offenses during 2005 was suspension. It is now 2008. Palin becomes Governor. Palin tries to get her former brother-in-law fired. She admits that her staff made about "two dozen contacts" to the department about Wooten. Then there's the audio tape of her guy pressuring her former employee about Wooten. The Governor then fired the guy who wouldn't exceed his authority, just as she fired the librarian who wouldn't ban certain books (and then was forced by community outrage to rehire her.)
You should hope so, as the results of the investigation was already set to be due four days before the election and "it's likely to be damaging." She's trying to stonewall and now refusing to cooperate to delay the findings, although I'm skeptical that she'll be successful.
Hmmm - that's interesting. If that's true , that's kind of a long lag between his suspension and now - unless he's done something lately to warrant being fired. I guess that is the key to both arguments If he hasn't, then it may be revenge served cold.
You're report says exactly what my report said. Not sure what your point is. He was charged with drinking...even according to your report. The head of the police department decided there was sufficient information to charge him with it. Now is where you start to insert your opinion rather than facts. The Governor has the right to fire the head of the Public Safety Commission. She has gone into substantial information about why she did it in one of her interviews. According to her, it had nothing to do with the ex-brother-in law. She says the guy wasn't doing his job. Likewise, she did not fire the librarian. More bad information on your part. Dave, I got no problem you dislike the Republicans. I just would like to see you stick with the facts, rather than inserting your opinion as if it were a fact. Or just state your opinion, and don't give any facts at all...I'm OK with that too. LOL. OldTrader
In 2005. Out of 14 charges they found five Palin family charges had merit. (One of the charges was hunting moose without a licence, when his wife had the licence and they shared the meat with... wait for it... that's right, Sarah Palin.) Result: suspension. Except for his good performance review a few months before. Plus Monegan says he has the emails from her directly pressuring him to fire an employee. You're wrong. She fired the librarian and due to pressure from the community was forced to withdraw the termination letter the next day. You can see the email (since verified) from Anne Kilkenny verifying this. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/52031.html Your turn. Show me your links to primary source material regarding this case which supports your statements. I put the smiley face because you and I both know that simply isn't going to happen. The REAL question is why didn't McCain vet his own candidate and is this indicative of how he'll run a presidency. I believe it is.