I realize that in blogging about this, I risk the wrath of those Palinites who just think that Saint Sarah can do no wrong. Her supporters will also be quick to analyze even further the political leanings and affiliations of the 8 Republicans and 4 Democrats on the investigatory panel to come up with their own version of Palin’s “gotcha” politics.

But her folksy and charming ways bely a darker side to the moose-killing former mayor of Wasilla and current governor of Alaska. Palin probably thought that no one would pay attention to her or her husband’s shenanigans in the northern most state of the Union – a state that is far removed from the mainland and tends to draw little attention unless the “bridge to nowhere” is mentioned.

A legislative investigation has concluded that Gov. Sarah Palin abused her power in pushing for the firing of an Alaska state trooper who was once married to her sister, or by failing to prevent her husband Todd from doing so. While some of the committee disagreed with the findings, all 12 members, including the 8 Republicans and the 4 Democrats, voted to release the report.

“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,” concluded investigator Steve Branchflower in his report made public Friday.

Ah, the sin of omission rather than the sin of commission.

Photo credit: Anchorage Daily News


Todd Palin talked with over a dozen state officials, many of them repeatedly, in his crusade to get a state trooper fired whom he considered to be a bad cop, a dishonest person, and a threat to the Palin family, according to his sworn statement given Wednesday to a legislative investigator. Todd Palin’s efforts started before his wife became governor and accelerated during the first 19 months of her administration.

Todd Palin fought for weeks to avoid responding to subpoenas issued by the investigatory committee. When a state judge last week refused to invalidate the subpoenas, Palin was forced to answer the questions he had avoided for so long.

The downside to the entire sordid mess is that, while Palin was found to have abused her power, her firing of public safety commissioner, Walt Monegan, in July was found to be a lawful exercise of her powers. However, Monegan’s refusal to fire Wooten was one of several reasons he lost his job, the investigator said.

The old saying that “absolute power corrupts absolutely” certainly fits Palin’s actions. It would appear that Saint Sarah’s crown has lost a few gems.


About Charlotte A. Weybright

I own a home in the historical West Central Neighborhood of Fort Wayne, Indiana. I have four grown sons and nine grandchildren - four grandsons and five granddaughters. I love to work on my home, and I enjoy crafts of all types. But, most of all, I enjoy being involved in political and community issues.
This entry was posted in Politics and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. clint jenkins says:

    I think most Americans can realize that the trooper
    1 drank beer in his patrol car
    2 Shot animals unlawfuly (that ought to piss you off)
    3 Shot his teen step son with a tazer
    4 Threatened the lives of people in her family

    The firing of the middleman was found to be just. The pressure put on him to fire the trooper was not.

    Wow. She is a really bad person. I guess sometimes to clean things up, you might piss some people off. I know I would want that trooper in my community.

    So, with this high crime, what is her punishment?

  2. clint jenkins says:

    I dont remember anyone calling Sarah a saint but you. Here is a reference to a real biblical man
    And remember the glass houses thing!
    ELECTION 2008

    Farrakhan on Obama: ‘The Messiah is absolutely speaking’
    ‘Barack has captured the youth,’ will bring about ‘universal change’

    Posted: October 09, 2008
    8:03 pm Eastern

    © 2008 WorldNetDaily

    Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, another powerful Chicago-based political figure associated with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and other long-time associates of Democratic Party presidential candidate Barack Obama, is leaving no doubt about what he thinks of the leader in the campaign for the White House.

    He says when Obama talks “the Messiah is absolutely speaking.”

    You can watch it for yourself on a newly posted YouTube video.

    Addressing a large crowd behind a podium Feb. 24 with a Nation of Islam Saviour’s Day 2008 sign, Farrakhan proclaims,

    “You are the instruments that God is going to use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth. And he has involved young people in a political process that they didn’t care anything about. That’s a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking.”
    (Story continues below)

    “Brothers and sisters,” Farrakhan said, “Barack Obama to me, is a herald of the Messiah. Barack Obama is like the trumpet that alerts you something new, something better is on the way.”

    Farrakhan points out that the man Nation of Islam followers refer to as “the Savior,” Fard Muhammad, had a black father and a white mother, just as Obama did.

    “A black man with a white mother became a savior to us,” he said. “A black man with a white mother could turn out to be one who can lift America from her fall.

    “Would God allow Barack to be president of a country that has been so racist, so evil in its treatment of Hispanics, native Americans, blacks?” he asked. “Would God do something like that? Yeah. Of course he would. That’s to show you that the stone that the builders rejected has become the headstone of the corner. This is a sign to you. It’s the time of our rise. It’s the time that we should take our place. The future is all about you.”

    Farrakhan suggested he would keep a low profile in the campaign, despite his enthusiasm for Obama.

    “That’s why you have never heard me make any comment,” he explained. “I love that brother, and I want to see that brother successful. I don’t want to say anything that would hurt that brother, and I don’t want them to use me or the Nation of Islam.”

    Returning to the theme that Obama is a mystical figure, Farrakhan said, he “is not the Messiah for sure, but anytime he gives you a sign of uniting races, ethnic groups, ideologies, religions and makes people feel a sense of oneness, that’s not necessarily Satan’s work, that is, I believe, the work of God.”

    He went on to point out that when religious scholars talk about Christ or the Islamic Mahdi, they never talk in racial terms – again, pointing to Obama’s mixed racial background.

    WND previously reported a website called “Is Barack Obama the Messiah?” captured the wave of euphoria that followed the Democratic senator’s remarkable rise.

    The site is topped by an Obama quote strategically ripped from a Jan. 7 speech at Dartmouth College just before the New Hampshire Primary in which he told students, “… a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote” for Obama.

    MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews is among the many members of the media enraptured by Obama, admitting he felt a “thrill going up my leg” listening to an Obama speech.

    At the media watchdog Newsbusters, P.J. Gladnick writes that Obama has a charisma that goes beyond “his youthful vigor, or handsomeness, or even inspiring rhetoric.”

    “Bill Clinton, with all his effortless, winking charm, didn’t have what Obama has, which is a sort of powerful luminosity, a unique high-vibration integrity,” Gladnick says. “Dismiss it all you like, but I’ve heard from far too many enormously smart, wise, spiritually attuned people who’ve been intuitively blown away by Obama’s presence – not speeches, not policies, but sheer presence – to say it’s just a clever marketing ploy, a slick gambit carefully orchestrated by hotshot campaign organizers who, once Obama gets into office, will suddenly turn from perky optimists to vile soul-sucking lobbyist whores, with Obama as their suddenly evil, cackling overlord.”

  3. Clint:

    As to calling her a “Saint”, I thought the alliteration with “Sarah” was catchy, so I used it.

    And I believe Obama denounced Farrakhan. Of course, why bother with that fact. It always sounds better when you can link him somehow to all those nasty black people.

  4. clint jenkins says:

    You mean like Raines? Farrakhan, Ayers, Alinsky, Acorn, Wright. Any others he needs to distance himself from?

  5. Arthur L says:

    Sarah Palin abused her power. This thing probably won’t change any minds out there, but since she’s running as a reformer, and as someone who’s not into ‘politics as usual’, this is fair game. What’s as disturbing as the abuse of power itself is the ham-handedness of the campaign to oust Wooten. This underscores the fact that Sarah Palin is a poor choice for a VP, and her selection reflects badly on McCain. She just isn’t serious or credible as a candidate.

  6. clint jenkins says:

    I would have to disagree Aurthor, if she was one of your run of the mill politicians she would have went out drinking with the state police and raped a couple of men. Instead all she did was try to get a crooked policeman off the street using her influence as head of the state which oversees the affairs of said state.

  7. Arthur L says:

    You, and the Palin apologists, say he’s a crooked policeman. I’ve seen no evidence of that, but even if it is true, governors don’t fire state policemen. It’s more likely that she and her husband tried to get rid of him for personal reasons, having to do with his marriage to Sarah Palin’s sister, than the high-minded reasons you suggest. After all, they hired a private detective to get dirt on this guy before Palin even became governor.

  8. Clint:


    Alinsky died in 1972 – Obama was 11 years old. Here is a clip about Alinsky’s views:

    “Alinsky was a critic of mainstream liberalism, which he considered passive and ineffective. He argued that the most effective means are whatever will achieve the desired ends, and that an intermediate end for radicals should be democracy because of its relative ease to work within to achieve other ends of social justice.”

    “While his grassroots style took hold in American activism, his call to stockholders to share their power with disenfranchised working poor only began to take hold in U.S. progressive (social liberalism) circles in the 1990s, when shareholder actions were organized against American corporations.”

    How terrible – imagine that – shareholders (the actual owners of the corporations) holding the corporations accountable.

    Here is the definition of community organizing – which right-wing fear mongers continue to misrepresent:

    “Organized community groups attempt to influence government, corporations and institutions as well as achieve increased direct representation within decision-making bodies and social reform. Where negotiations fail, these organizations seek to inform others outside of the organization of the issues being addressed and expose or pressure the decision-makers through a variety of means, including picketing, boycotting, sit-ins, petitioning, and electoral politics.”

    Frankly, I don’t see any thing wrong with being community organizers.


    The former CEO of Fannie Mae. Attempts to tie him to Obama have failed. Here is the statement:

    Raines had “taken calls from Barack Obama’s presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters.” Raines said “I am not an advisor to Barack Obama, nor have I provided his campaign with advice on housing or economic matters.”

    So what if Obama’s campaign called him? Was that a crime?

    Ayres and the Annenberg Foundation:

    That has been run through the mill by McCain’s camp ad nauseum, and it isn’t working. Obama was 8 years old when Ayres committed his criminal activities. Ayres lived in the same neighborhood, served on a board of directors with Obama, and hosted an open house.

    Annenberg Foundation:

    Here is an interesting read. It appears that McCain is touting one of the Annenbergs as a supporter when he originally trashed the foundation for its “lefty” work:


    Strange Bedfellows: McCain Touts Endorsement by Head of Annenberg Foundation

    In John McCain’s newest Web ad, he attacks Barack Obama for supporting a “radical education foundation” that gave millions to “idealogical allies” that resulted in scant improvement in the quality of public schools.

    He was referring to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, detailed by my colleagues in this EdWeek story and this sidebar story.

    McCain, who has criticized Obama for his ties to William Ayers, one of the founders of Chicago’s Annenberg project, is now associating with the very foundation that funded the “radical” work.

    His campaign sent out a press release listing all of the former U.S. ambassadors who support him.

    On his supporters’ list: Leonore Annenberg, 90, who was chief of protocol in the Reagan White House and is the president and chairman of the Pennsylvania-based Annenberg Foundation. She is the widow of Walter H. Annenberg, the late publisher, philanthropist, ambassador, and founder of the Annenberg Challenge.


    And now for the “scariest” — ooh — word of all.

    To be radical means to go to the root of the problem to change something. Again, I don’t see a problem with that. The Revolutionary War was radical, our Founding Fathers were radical, the programs that saved us and brought us out of the Depression were radical, the bailout is radical, etc.

    Again, the term is used to scare people, and the sad thing, most don’t read enough or understand the idea of radical to not be afraid – which is exactly what McPalin and the Republicans hope every time they throw out the word.

  9. clint jenkins says:

    So Aurthor, you come to this site and blog, yet dont know why the policeman might be a little off base in his dealings. Ok, lets assume all I have said is true
    1 he drank beer in a patrol car
    2 he tazered his step son
    3 he treatened lives
    4 he killed wild game without a permit

    OK. Lets say he and the palin family were tight. The Christmas get togethers were peachy and Sarah respected and admired him, dispite his flaws mentioned above.
    Would Palin be under investigation for allowing a family memerber to disgrace the Alaska State Police? (kinda like the bad child)
    I just wander somtimes what yall would say if she did nothing. Maybe even if she suggested he be promoted?\

    I know it is rationalization. I know I would have done exactly what she did if someone threatened my family and did the other actions he did. I guess that makes me a bad person.

  10. clint jenkins says:

    Charlotte, you forgot about acorn and their illegal registration of people. Does obama support acorn?

    All I can say is wow. Dismiss it all. Everyone gets a house. Everyone stand in line and take your bread.

  11. Clint:

    You are missing the point entirely. If the officer violated his duties and should have been let go, then the police department has a process for that. That process doesn’t include call after call from Todd Palin or pressure from the Governor.

    Ask yourself this – if you can get beyond your blind support of McPalin. Do you think Mitch Daniels or his wife would or should call the State Police Department to pressure them to get rid of a trooper in Indiana? Or how about your governor over there in Ohio? Think he would insert himself into the disciplinary proceedings of the state police?

    You know the answer to that one – but I bet you won’t admit it.

  12. clint jenkins says:

    If a govenor knows of a situation and doesnt act, could they be held responsible?

  13. Clint:

    I will go out on a limb here and say the Governor is not responsible for the running of the disciplinary procedures in the state police department.

    Again, the point isn’t that the situation was hidden – it wasn’t hidden as evidenced by the fact that the officer had been brought up on complaints. His case went in front of the disciplinary committee and was resolved in 2006 before Palin was elected Governor.

    Palin then inserted herself into the issue even though it had been resolved. You can argue all you want that the trooper perhaps shouldn’t have been kept on the force, but that isn’t the issue.

    The issue is thst both of the Palins put pressure on officials after the disciplinary proceeding was resolved.

    Here is a statement from Monegan – her new public safety commissioner – who was a part of the investigation:

    “After Palin’s election, her new public safety commissioner, Monegan, said he was summoned to the governor’s office to meet Todd Palin, who said Wooten’s punishment had been merely a “slap on the wrist.” Monegan said he understood the Palins wanted Wooten fired.

    The Palins couldn’t fire the trooper – they had no authority to do so, and the investigation into his activities had been resolved before Palin took office. So what did both Palins do? They made calls to pressure Monegan to take action against Wooten.

    That is what the investigation was about.

    Again, go back to what I asked about Daniels or your governor. They have no authority to hire, fire, or sanction state troopers. Both Palins sought to use the office of governor to accomplish something indirectly that they knew they had no right to do directly.

  14. clint jenkins says:

    So you said it yourself. The Palins didnt ask him to be fired. And really is this a deal breaker for anyone. If you can listen to GD America, US of KKKA, Americas chickens are coming home to roost, Ayers didnt do enough, Rules for radicles, Acorn, Farrakahan, Sueing citibank, False voter registration, Whitey, Kill the rich, Kill your parents, Socialist education agenda,\\
    Is it a suprise Palin didnt win a lot of friends Rep or dem in Alaska, no she clobbered them as any strong conservative woman would do. In the mean time gaining enemies to put out the report.

    You are probably right, in the eyes of conservatives
    Palins folleys are meaningless compared to the above actions of Obama.

    We have no real dirt on Obama, he hasnt done anything. Never had a budget, never had power, never had to answer to anyone. All that we as Americans can do is look at who he surrounds himself with.

  15. Clint:

    Please re-read what I wrote. Here is what I said:

    “The Palins couldn’t fire the trooper – they had no authority to do so, and the investigation into his activities had been resolved before Palin took office. So what did both Palins do? They made calls to pressure Monegan to take action against Wooten.”

    I said they “couldn’t” fire the trooper. That is a big difference from using coercion and influence to get what they wanted.

    The Palins had no authority to fire the trooper, but they both misused the power of the office to interfere. Neither Palin had any right or reason to step into the issue.

    Let’s see – I wonder if either one of the Palins bothered with getting involved with any other troopers who were subject to disciplinary hearings? What do you want to bet? Anything?

    I bet if you could somehow manage to get info on other disciplined troopers, you wouldn’t find one word from Mr. or Ms. Palin in reference to the cases.

  16. Kenny says:

    Palin was found guilty of the ethics law provision: “any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust.”

    The intent of the statute was to prevent politicians from using their office to benefit financially, period!

    What did she seek to gain? The report fails to mention that.

    As an outsider, it just looks like a bunch of good old boys were upset and used a law designed to prevent true abuse to smack down an outsider they don’t like.

    I guess she should have used a crack team of lawyers, spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars and forced the issue to rid the state of a self-admitted bad cop.

    It’s obvious that Commissioner Monegan was unwilling to violate an unwritten rule that you don’t question the judgment of others in positions of power in Alasks, even when they are obviously wrong. Officer Wooten admitted to the abuses but was shown special favor. From what I’ve read, Alaskans were fed up with top level corruption, that is why Palin was elected.

    When Commissioner Monegan proved his unwillingness to change anything, he was replaced. As far as Todd Palin and Sarah Palin, they were privy to inside information that was probably overlooked by any commission. In my opinion, it was their duty to bring the issue back to light for the good of the community.

    Again, what “interest” did she “benefit personally or financially?”

    I don’t think she’s a saint, just someone who calls it like it is, obviously with little regard to what it will do to her political posture. That’s kind of refreshing in American politics.

  17. Kenny:

    You cited the law as using the words as follows:

    “any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust.”

    Then you follow that with your take on what the law actually means. If the law uses the words “personal” or “financial” gain, then you don’t have the authority to change it to your own perspective by stating:

    “The intent of the statute was to prevent politicians from using their office to benefit financially, period!”

    The “good old boys” doesn’t work either since the commission was about half and half male and female – that is unless you are now also changing the definition of the “good old boys” as well.

    Your statement:

    “It’s obvious that Commissioner Monegan was unwilling to violate an unwritten rule that you don’t question the judgment of others in positions of power in Alasks, even when they are obviously wrong.”

    So are you saying that Monegan was acting properly in refusing to fire Wooten even though the Palins wanted him fired? The state police already investigated the allegations against Wooten, and, whether or not he received “special favor” will never be known since the proceedings of the state police disciplinary committee are not made public. In addition, if the state police investigation had already resolved the Wooten issues and had not fired him, how could Monegan then turn around and fire him?

    Palin simply found other reasons for getting rid of Monegan. As anyone who is employed knows, if the higher ups want you out, they will find a reason.

    Your statement:

    “As far as Todd Palin and Sarah Palin, they were privy to inside information that was probably overlooked by any commission. In my opinion, it was their duty to bring the issue back to light for the good of the community.”

    No it was not their duty. That is what the state police disciplinary committee is for – whether it is Alaska or any other state in the Union. If the Palins were “privy” to inside information, then I have to wonder how did they obtain such inside information? By coercion, by threats, by viewing files that were confidential?

    The Palins continuous attempts were driven by an ulterior motive that involved the governor’s sister.

    If we followed your philosophy that executives(and by inference legislators and judges)could simply “get involved” when they saw fit, we would have chaos. It would also lead to undue influence on a continuous basis. We would have no need for ethics rules and regulations or ethics committees.

    Why bother, just let any official say what they want whenever they want and never mind the consequences.

    I don’t think Palin is “refreshing” as is now coming out by her actions and what she has done in Alaska.

    Before McCain tagged her as the VP choice, she was under little scrutiny and little focus. Now that she is in the national spotlight, the things she was really doing are coming out. That is not refreshing – that is what she and McCain consistently label politics as usual.

  18. J. Q. Taxpayer says:

    And to think this is the best Obama’s buds could do. I was surprised they came out this easy. This was the “big news” they set us up for a few weeks ago.

    Since Todd is such a low life we can not believe that his wife told him not to be sticking his nose into it… Gosh, I wonder how many times Bill told that to Hillary that….

    I wonder what you would be saying if you learned John McCain had a friend who killed a couple vets? I wonder what you would be saying if you learned John McCain had a couple friends still members of the KKK? I wonder what you would be saying if John McCain had a friend who built homes for the poor and they fell apart? I wonder if we would hear from you if John McCain had a friend in senior management of Emron?

    I know darn well where you would be subjects!

    For someone who appears to dislike government I would think you would tell the city to stay off your street when the river flooded. That you would take care of the flooding yourself….

  19. J.Q.

    Obama’s buds? Care to explain? The committee that found a violation was composed of Democrats and Republicans.

    If Monegan was called to the Governor’s office, I doubt Todd did that. That means that Governor Palin summoned him, so it doesn’t like she told him to stay out of it if she was the reason Monegan was called to her office in the first place.

    You again are throwing out accusations that simply have not been supported. You are using the term “friend” rather loosely, aren’t you?

    Is this all the better McCain’s buds can do? McCain’s campaign has said if they have to stay on the topic of the economy, they will lose. I guess that means McCain has nothing to say about the economy. He is desperate, period.

    How does one tell the City to do anything? You, Jeff, and numerous others have been stressing how little the City pays attention, so now you want me to tell them to do something?

    Actually now that you have brought the subject up, my plan is to build a retaining wall around the front of my home. The river comes to just the top of my lawn. I am never kept out of my house as I park on the side and go in the back way. Always have and always will.

    If I have a retaining wall, and, assuming the two or three others who are impacted go along with that idea for their homes, then the City shouldn’t have to do anything. The river could be allowed to cover the intersection. Of course, it would be a little inconvenient, but that would be for only three or four days.

    A bigger problem has nothing to do with my flooding – the sewer overflow backs up through the manhole covers.

    But here is another fact – I have flooded four times in about 4 1/2 years: July 2003, June 2004, January 2005, and February 2008. I have lived here since January 1995, and the flooding has gotten worse.

    My belief is that when the City slaps up another flood wall or levee somewhere else – whether upstream or downstream – that simply forces the water to find a place of least resistance. That place is becoming the intersection where I live.

Comments are closed.