Woody Woodpecker goes McCain

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

No, it does not Once again, you take what someone says (the fact) and distort it.



They have been given one, but they refuse to cooperate and likely will be held in contempt in January.



No, It was put on the national stage by McCain. In other words, Freanch could have said the same thing and if she were not the R VP nominee, it would not be on the national stage.



Once again (commentary supplied in bold):

Palin, who later became the Republican vice presidential nominee in the 2008 United States presidential election, said that she dismissed commissioner Walt Monegan because of performance-related issues. Monegan said that his dismissal may have been tied to his reluctance to fire Mike Wooten, an Alaska State Trooper who is also Palin's ex-brother-in-law. At the time Palin dismissed Monegan, Wooten was involved in a custody battle with his former wife, Molly McCann, Palin's sister. Monegan alleged that the Governor herself, her husband, and members of her staff as well as the state's Attorney General, had contacted him numerous times regarding Wooten.

Palin denied that there had been any pressure on Monegan to fire Wooten, either from herself or from anyone in her administration. In August, Palin acknowledged that "pressure could have been perceived to exist, although I have only now become aware of it." She also apologized to Alaskans for what she called "this distraction."

Before Palin became governor, she and other members of her family had made various allegations of misconduct against Wooten. An internal investigation upheld some charges and rejected others. On March 1, 2006 the chief of the Alaska state police issued a letter of reprimand to Wooten, and he served a five-day suspension as penalty. After Palin became governor in December 2006, she, her husband Todd Palin, and various aides had further contacts with Monegan about Wooten. Monegan told both Sarah Palin and Todd Palin that the disciplinary proceeding against Wooten was concluded and could not be reopened.
__________________________________________________

Do the math

Finally, because what Wooten did was mostly irrelevant because Wooten was already disciplined for it. Palin obviously could not take the legal result of that though. Moreover, if Palin thinks she is being denied the opprtunity to be heard in a fair forum, she could tell the world exactly what her "budget disagreement" reasons were with Monegan instead of vaguely referring to them and refusing to cooperate. Yet, she does not. Wonder why

That you excuse this total disregard for the rule of law speaks volumes.

"Commissioner Walt Monegan had received a letter of reprimand from the Head of Alaska State Troopers, Col. Julia Grimes, suspending him because his "...record clearly indicates a serious and concentrated pattern of unacceptable and at times, illegal activity occurring over a lengthy period, which establishes a course of conduct totally at odds with the ethics of our profession," When employed to carry out a job, you may become unemployed for not carrying out that job. Commissioner Monegan was fired because he was incapable or unwilling to do his job over a long and documented period of time; he was fired for insubordination." It seems this is totally at odds with what French is saying. Clearly, French has an axe to grind, as his statement states what his findings already were. If ANY other investigator made such a statement to the media when investigating a high profile case, he would be removed, or impeached during a trial. If you didn't raise that kind of objection, if you were acting as my attorney, it would be an easy appeal for incompetence of counsel. You are not applying the laws regarding due process evenly. You simple don't like the target of the investigation, so you are willing to deal with the misconduct of the investigators. Imagine if Lance Ito had said such a thing? It would have been grounds for a mistrial.

Monegan has been disciplined before. Wootten was nto disciplined for everything he stood accused of and your comments assume that he had been. Your comments also assume that Palin pressured Monegan to fire Wootten, which Monegan hasn't even said. As was stated above, it was a political opponent of Palin's that made this charge. You are practicing selective reading again. The conclusions you draw ASSUME that the allegations are true. Wootten should have been fired and I think there should be an investigation of Monegan as to why a guy like this was allowed to carry a gun. I mean, I guess you must think a suspension for child abuse (perhaps attempted murder because of the number of cases where weak people are killed by tazers) is an appropriate punishment. Are you REALLY going to say that? Obviously a suspension isn't enough in that case, which would make the firing of Monegan completely acceptible, even if the allegations are true. What if a cop tazered YOUR kid, would you think being his suspended was an okay punishment? I bet you'd sue the hell out of the department, as well you should, as well as try to press criminal charges. You are also incorrect here, an IAB finding is NOT the same as a criminal proceeding. An officer can still be found guilty in another court or have further actions taken, despite an internal punishment.