In defense of ethics violations and obvious abuse of powers, Sarah Palin defended these abuses by saying she and her family were concerned for their safety. Many of Palin's defenders have expressed similar sentiments, that Palin was only acting out of a concern for her and her family's safety.
In a report released Friday on the so-called "Troopergate" scandal, the investigator, Stephen Branchflower, said evidence, such as the governor's decision to reduce the manpower of her security detail, showed that "such claims of fear were not bona fide and were offered to provide cover for the Palins' real motivation: to get Wooten fired for personal family related reasons."
Branchflower described what he considers another inconsistency: If Wooten was inclined to harm any of the Palins, having him terminated could lead to an act of retaliation. Forcing him out of his job "would not have de-escalated the situation or provided" Palin or her family with "greater security," the report stated.
Palin's campaign against her former brother-in-law Mike Wooten stemmed from petty family concerns, and in her defense Sarah Palin lied to the investigators, claiming that there were legitimate security concerns behind her actions. The investigation into those security concerns ultimately showed Palin was lying.
Branchflower Report to the Legislative Council (pdf), Page 67:
Governor Palin and her family has stated publicly that she and her family feared Trooper Wooten. Yet the evidence presented has been inconsistent with such claims of fear. The testimony from Trooper Wheeler, who was part of her security detail from the start, was that shortly after elected to office, she ordered a substantial reduction in manpower in her personal protection detail in both Anchorage and Juneau, an act that is inconsistent with a desire to avoid harm from Trooper Wooten or others. Moreover, assuming that Trooper Wooten was ever inclined to attack Governor Palin or a family member, logic dictates that getting him fired would accomplish nothing to eliminate the potential for harm to her or her family. On the contrary, it might just precipitate some retailiatory conduct on his part. Causing Wooten to loose his job would not have de-escalated the situation, or provided her or her family with greater security.
Finally, it is noteworthy that in almost every contact with subordinate employees, Mr. Plin's comments were couched in terms of his desire to see Trooper Wooten fired for reasons that had nothing to do with fear. His comments were always couched in terms that he was a bad Trooper, that he was not a good recruitment image for [Alaska State Troopers], that his discipline amounted to nothing more than a slap on the wrist, that nothing happened to him following the administrative investigation, and so forth.[...]
I conclude that such claims of fear were not bona fide and were offered to provide cover for the Palin's real motivation: to get Trooper Wooten fired for personal family reasons.
My guess is that more shoes will drop. Watch for civil suits from Wooten and/or Monegan to follow, possibly before the election.
Lying in order to punish a former in-law. It's exactly the kind of petty, trailer trash approach you'd expect to find from Sarah Palin.
Republican arguments that the investigation was pushed forward by Obama and the Democrats is absolutely 100% false. Alaska's Republican-led Legislative Council voted in July of this year to open this investigation. The Council's vote to investigate was unanimous, and took place a month before John McCain announced that Palin was his pick for Vice-President.
Palin "knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda."
It's exactly the kind of Washington politics "mavericks" abhor, and yet Palin not only participated fully, she lied about her reasons for doing so.
Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!