In conducting a cursory review of the findings of the Alaska Independent Counsel that conclude Sarah Palin committed no violation, it is clear that the counsel--as suspected--is in the tank for Palin.
In contrasting his findings with the Branchflower report, the independent counsel dismisses basically all of Monegan's testimony, because Sarah Palin denies the conversations Monegan testified about ever took place.
Regarding the phone call in which Monegan claims Palin first mentioned the Wooten matter:
The testimony about this phone call cannot be used as evidence as a violation of the Ethics Act against the Governor for the following reasons:
The Governor denies that the conversation took place. Governor Palin asserts that this is more than a failure of recolelction on her part. She believes that she would have remembered such a conversation, given its content, had it taken place. Independent Counsel has found no evidence to corroborate or refute the contentions of either Commissioner Monegan or Governor Palin. There is no note or record of this conversation.
We discover Palin sent four e-mails to Monegan mentioning Wooten. Any time law enforcement legislation or a situation involving a different trooper accused of a crime arose, Palin's reply would tie it to her complaint against Wooten; the independent counsel elects to view these comments as relevant to the issue rather than a pattern of pushing the Wooten matter and turns a blind eye to Palin's less-than-subtle intent. Here are accounts of 2 of the 4:
In a February e-mail, Governor Palin alludes to her difficulties with Trooper Wooten in the context of discussing proposed testimony on pending legislation on a bill calling for a mandatory 99-year sentence for police officers who commit murder. Governor Palin discusses her personal experience with Trooper Wooten as an "example" of support for her position contained in the e-mail.
The reference was in connection with a pending bill filed following the Virginia Tech killings which proposed restrictions on the sale of guns to the mentally ill or unstable. In the course of discussing the legislation, the Governor discussed her experience Trooper Wooten, and pointed out that the provisions of the bill could apply, under such circumstances, to law enforcement officers.
In regard to Monegan's recollection of his conversation with Palin in which he says he told her he could not discuss Wooten with her for her legal protection, Palin again denies Monegan's claim, and the counsel accepts this:
Governor Palin denies that this conversation took place. Though she remembers seeing Commissioner Monegan on that day, she does not believe they were ever alone and insists she would not raise a subject such as this in the presence of others. Governor Palin has testified under oath that this is not a failure of recollection on her part since the nature of the conversation as described is such that she would remember having had it.
He concludes that because Palin did not outright ask that Monegan fire Wooten and her mentions of him were indirect (and in his view valid), they do not add up to an effort to get Wooten fired and therefore do not violate the Ethics law.
Now, in sexual harassment case law, one generally does not need to provide concrete evidence of a direct tit-for-tat statement from the accused that says "Have sex with me or I will fire you" to prove sexual harassment. Yet in this investigator's narrow reading of the law, Palin would have had to say "Fire Wooten or I'll fire you!" for it to constitute a legal violation.
He also exonerates her for not controlling Todd Palin's efforts in the matter, saying the law only requires her to take action in regard to subordinates or colleagues but he says Todd Palin is an independent citizen. Never mind that Todd Palin used the governor's staff and offices to push the Wooten case, which contradicts any notion he was not acting as an agent of his wife's s office. The independent counsel elects to perceive it otherwise, however, as he attempts to nullify as much evidence as possible.
We are also expected to believe, per both Palins' testimony, that Todd had such extensive contacts with Monegan and others about Wooten but kept them secret from Sarah Palin. Didn't they give an interview on this matter in which Todd explained that he was her closest confidante/advisor and often acted on her behalf? But yet he did not tell her about this?
Palin also denies she knew of any contacts her husband or office staff initiated to Monegan or others regarding Wooten's worker's compensation claims.
EIGHT government employees--including Palin's chief of staff--had official discussions about Wooten yet assert they did not apprise Plain of them. Doesn't this suggest she is wholly incompetent at managing her staff? Doesn't it call into question the quality of the people she hires, that they would wage a vendetta against someone on her behalf without her approval or knowledge? More likely, it is just a lie.
Palin's Commissioner of Administration denies a conversation Monegan relayed occurred between them because "she takes meticulous notes" and had no notes on the conversation. Apparently any conversation of which she has no notes simply did not happen. The independent counsel agrees with her.
The report mentions several meetings took place between the Governor's high level staff and those in the Commissioner's office in which Trooper Wooten came up:
Notes of the meeting could support an inference that the placement discussions may have meandered into discussion supporting a motivation to constructively discharge Torooper Wooten by assigning him to duties that would cause him to resign.
Surprisingly, the governor's staff have recollections that vary greatly with these notes (if the notes did not exist, obviously the meetings would never have taken place). Guess which side the counsel comes down on? He says the staff merely wanted to protect the state from liability from the actions of a "bad" trooper--and once again, nobody bothered to tell Sarah Palin about this apparently "official" matter?
Mr. Bailey, who made the one call about Wooten that was RECORDED, in which he claimed to be speaking on behalf of the Palins, now reverses himself and says he took it upon himself as a private citizen to complain about Wooten and the Palins did not know about the call:
The placing of this phone call, had it knowingly been done on behalf of Governor Palin, could have been used as evidence of a violation of the Ethics Act...which prohibits a public officer from knowingly assisting another public officer to violate the Act. But all agree that Governor Palin had no idea that Mr. Bailey was making this call.
Therefore, because Palin's employee (Bailey) and both Palins say Palin had no knowledge of the call, the counsel concludes she had no knowledge of the call--DESPITE THE CALL ITSELF, in which the caller claims to be placing it on the Palins' behalf--and therefore she violated no Ethics law.
So, if you treat every incident "singly" and do not consider them in totality as a pattern of intimidation, and if you believe only the Palins and the governor's staff told the truth and Monegan and others lied or had faulty recollections, you must therefore exonerate her.
In regard to Palin's use of private email, she claimed she was unaware there was a policy requiring official e-mails be retained and that she already deleted many of them. Does anyone find it incompetent or unlikely that she and her staff were never apprised of the fact that it was law that government correspondence be preserved? Then why was she using private email to conduct public business in the first place? Because she likes having Yahoo emoticons?
The document 'screening' the state used to identify emails for the investigation did not capture e-mails sent from one private account to another. Palin routinely corresponded with Todd Palin and Bailey about government business using private email; none of these e-mails (and others between Palin and her staff on private accounts) were captured.
Further, there was no way the investigator could determine whether any email related to the matter was destroyed because no backups prior to 14 days before the accounts were ordered frozen existed.
Now, either Palin or Monegan perjured him/herself. Which one do you believe?