On Friday night Stephen Branchflower, an investigator appointed by Alaska’s legislative council, released his report on whether Sarah Palin had acted improperly in firing Walt Monegan, a political appointee who served as her public safety commissioner. Branchflower found that while Monegan’s refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten, Palin’s ex-brother-in-law, “was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor” to Monegan’s termination. While the firing of Monegan was “a proper and lawful exercise”, Branchflower concluded:
Paul Mirengoff examines Branchflower’s speculation about Sarah Palin’s “mixed motives” for firing Monegan. Branchflower was engaging in some weak reasoning there, but his conclusion that Palin violated the ethics act rests upon the even flimsier argument that Palin sought “personal” gain by allowing her husband and staff to press the case against Wooten. Palin’s legal counsel pointed out in a court filing in September that
So even if you concede Branchflower’s speculation that Monegan’s refusal to fire Wooten was “likely” one reason among many why Palin fired her political appointee, it’s hard to see how firing this trooper would not “generally” benefit the public. Wooten physically abused his 10 year-old stepson by tasering him. Wooten also threatened that he would make Palin’s father “eat a f—ing lead bullet” for meddling in the divorce proceedings. Wooten also committed a number of other violations of the law and trooper policy. To argue that Palin sought a narrowly “personal” benefit by firing Monegan is ridiculous. It would generally benefit society to have a child-abusing, violent trooper off the force. If we weren’t in the midst of an election right now, I think more people would agree.
