Beltway Snark

I’m already seeing the headlines starting to come out that the Troopergate investigation found that Palin abused her power in the firing of Monegan. The problem? They found no evidence to prove it.

The investigator, Stephen Branchflower, found that Monegan’s refusal to fire Wooten “was not the sole reason” but was “likely a contributing factor” to his firing.

Here’s how the AP is spinning it.

The panel found that Palin let the family grudge influence her decision-making even if it was not the sole reason Monegan was dismissed. “I feel vindicated,” Monegan said. “It sounds like they’ve validated my belief and opinions. And that tells me I’m not totally out in left field.”

Branchflower said Palin violated a statute of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.

…

The nearly 300-page report does not recommend sanctions or a criminal investigation.

So there will be much ado about nothing this weekend about this in the blogosphere, I don’t know how much the average citizen will care. Let’s face it, if they aren’t getting hyped up over Ayers I don’t see anyone getting hyped up over this.

And yes, it is much ado about nothing; if there was something actually there the report would call for either sanctions or a criminal investigation. There is no “there” there to prosecute or sanction. Even Hollis & Co. had to admit that there were other perfectly valid reasons for Palin to fire Monegan.

UPDATE – How schizo is this report’s findings? This schizo.

Finding Number One

For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) provides

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.

Finding Number Two

I find that, although Walt Monegan’s refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety. In spite of that, Governor Palin’s firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.

Is it just me, or does Finding Number Two negate Finding Number One? Either what she did was proper and lawful or it wasn’t. Sounds like Branchflower was trying to please two masters when he was writing his report.

And here’s Team McCain’s reposnse to the report.

“Today’s report shows that the Governor acted within her proper and lawful authority in the reassignment of Walt Monegan. The report also illustrates what we’ve known all along: this was a partisan led inquiry run by Obama supporters and the Palins were completely justified in their concern regarding Trooper Wooten given his violent and rogue behavior. Lacking evidence to support the original Monegan allegation, the Legislative Council seriously overreached, making a tortured argument to find fault without basis in law or fact. The Governor is looking forward to cooperating with the Personnel Board and continuing her conversation with the American people regarding the important issues facing the country.”

UPDATE #2 – Hey look, I found someone who can articulate my Issues with this better than I can! And he’s a lawyer! Ooooh!

Instead, Branchfire has piled a guess (that the Palins wanted Wooten fired, rather than, for example, counseled, disciplined, or reassigned) on top of an inference (that when the Palins expressed concern to Monegan about Wooten, they were really threatening to fire Monegan if he didn’t fire Wooten) on top of an innuendo (that Gov. Palin “fired” Monegan at least in part because of his failure to fire Wooten) — from which Branchflower then leaps to a legal conclusion: “abuse of authority.” Branchflower reads the Ethics Act to prohibit any governmental action or decision made for justifiable reasons benefiting the State if that action or decision might also make a public official happy for any other reason. That would mean, of course, that governors must never act or decide in a way that makes them personally happy as a citizen, or as a wife or mother or daughter, and that they could only take actions or make decisions which left them feeling neutral or upset. This an incredibly shoddy tower of supposition, and a ridiculous misreading of the law.

Branchflower puts under a microscope every direct and indirect contact that can possibly be claimed to to come, directly or indirectly, from Gov. Palin or her husband, Todd. In none of them did either Sarah or Todd Palin demand or request that Wooten be fired. Some of them date back to before Gov. Palin was even a candidate for governor. All of them are equally well explained by legitimate concerns that Wooten was a potential threat to the Palin family (having already made death threats against Gov. Palin’s father) and/or an embarrassment to the Alaska Department of Public Safety and the entire state law enforcement community. That the Palins also had strong — and entirely understandable! — negative feelings about Trooper Wooten does not make any of these communications remotely improper, much less illegal.

Nevertheless, Branchflower leaps to the personal conclusion (page 67 of the .pdf file) that “such claims of fear were not bona fide and were offered to provide cover for the Palins’ real motivation: to get Trooper Wooten fired for personal family related reasons.” Well, here’s another memo to Mr. Branchflower: When the family is question is the family of the Governor of Alaska, and when her security detail is charged with protecting her from threats, and in the process of that, the security detail actively seeks out information as to who may have previously made death threats against the family, that’s no longer solely a “personal family related reason.” And when someone like Trooper Wooten threatens to bring ridicule and shame to the entire state of Alaska, that’s no longer solely a “personal family related reason” either.

Branchflower, I’m told, is an attorney and a former prosecutor. If he thinks this kind of nonsense could support a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, or even a finding of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, then he may be the worst lawyer I’ve ever encountered — and I’ve met a lot of awful ones in almost three decades before the bar.

I’ll say a little more clearly what I alluded to earlier; this portion (yes, it’s only a portion) of the report that has been released seems to be engineered to show that a) Sarah Palin did Something Wrong and b) to show that Tropergate wasn’t a huge waste of time and money.

And just for the record, the results of this report mean sqat. The only way Palin is going to face any sort or anything for this is if the Alaskan state legislature conducts its own investigation and finds wrongdoing. They don’t convene again until after the election. So the Palin haters will just have to wait until that happens. That is, if it happens. Considering the joy the Right is having in tearing apart this report (and let’s face it, it lends itself to being torn apart), I don’t know that the legislature will want to take up this subject again.