I’ll have more detail on this later in the week after I’ve finished with the big Obama post. In the meantime, here’s Beldar, who has actually followed this story from the outset and has read the whole thing.
10 thoughts on “Beldar on the Branchflower Report”
Comments are closed.
wow, that’s ten minutes of my life I’ll never get back. Talk about logic leaps. It can be legal to fire an employee and unethical at the same time. As an example, if Palin fired the government employee because she was paid $250,000 personally to do so, it would be both legal, since she technically has the power to fire any at will employee for a good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all…but also completely unethical in taking the benefits of that transaction. Essentially, they found that a similar thing resulted…she used her firing ability for a personal gain, and although the act of firing an employee is legal (note: no lawsuit for you, Mr. Employee), it can at the same time violate the ethics laws of Alaska.
It does show that neither she nor McCain have the temperment to run the White House, a fact that the polls are certainly showing of late.
It’s perfectly legal that she fired this dude. It’s legal to send thousands of Americans to their death to fight against a fabricated enemy. It’s legal to torture anybody you’d care to, as long as you call it something else. It’s legal to incarcerate American citizens without charge by calling them something else. It’s legal to supercede the Constitution any damned time you want because we are at war, haven’t you heard?
Oh, and it’s also legal to serve on a board with some sixties throwback neorevolutionary and a bunch of Republicans. Also legal to use a ghostwriter when writing your memoirs. Also legal to have previous ties to an organization which comes under intense scrutiny for peddling outright lies. Like Enron.
Palin’s accuser Branchflower was appointed by French, an Obama supporter and friend of Monegan who promised an October surprise. Branchflower’s conclusions have been accepted by no-one other than himself at this point, although I feel fairly certain that French will ultimately accept them. Monegan, who apparently was a bit slow to learn his lines, originally stated that he had not been told by anyone to fire Wooten. And oddly enough, Wooten still isn’t fired.
Quite a scandal.
I fail to understand the reference to Enron unless you are referring to its former advisor, Nobel Prize economist Paul Krugman.
When the troopergate report was issued on Friday and it concluded that Palin abused her power under Alaska law, I wondered how the GOP would deal with this. The spin is this: the report was prepared by a biased committee. That is to be expected, but it ignores that this was a bipartisan committee that investigated the allegations. The GOP strategy is to ignore the report and to boldly declare that it clears Palin, even though it clearly does not. Incredible! Let’s face it: Palin is a total fraud – chosen for her pretty face. She is as corrupt as any other politician.
The reference to Enron equates Obama’s relationship with ACORN to GWB’s relationship with Enron and former CEO Ken Lay.
“Palin… is as corrupt as any other politician.”
This is quite an advance for you, admitting that Palin is not *worse* than any other politician.
But let’s review. Palin transferred Monegan, and he chose to quit. He initially stated that he was *not* told to fire Wooten. Wooten still has his job. Branchflower the investigator stated that through psychic means he had determined part of Palin’s reason for transferring Monegan was the Wooten matter. (He forgot to mention his psychic powers, but what factual information had he to go on?)
She had the clear legal right to remove Monegan, either with reason or without. She had good reason to remove him, since he was insubordinate in attempting to go around her on budget matters, and was weak in a couple of other job performance categories. I say again, quite a scandal!
You weaken your denunciations by harping on doubtful accusations. Why not accept two things, and aim your attacks at other aspects of Sarah Palin? First, she appears to be as straight an arrow as any politician we know. Second, she is to this point the most successful as well as the most popular governor in America.
Surely you can find some legitimate flaws to criticize–maybe she colors her hair or uses false eyelashes. Perhaps she once fouled out in basketball. There must be something. After all, she has admitted to accepting a free facial. If she went that far, who knows but what she might have profited from a sweetheart real estate deal.
Oh wait… That was someone else.
You are ignoring the report’s conclusions: she terminated this guy in part for an unlawful reason. It does not matter that she is legally entitled to fire him. She can terminate at will, but she cannot terminate for an unlawful reason. Our legal system recognizes that legitimate authority can be abused. That’s what she did. If you don’t like the report’s conclusions, then that’s your problem.
You give great credence to “the report.” But a report is only as accurate as the individual making it, and I’m saying that Branchflower has not made his case.
Palin stated her reasons for transferring (not terminating) Monegan, but Branchflower has chosen–without direct proof, as far as I can see–that she had a covert reason. Is it possible she had an additional reason? Yes, but someone preparing an official report should not depend upon his intuition for determining conclusions.
That’s not *my* problem, but *the* problem.
She fired Monegan because he took her on. In other words, he was a “maverick”.
This is all the mainstream media illuminati want to talk about in Palin’s case. She has great ideas, and has executive experience. Maybe the liberal media should focus on that, and remove their bias.