TPM Muckraker

« previous | MUCK HOME | next »

Palin's Emails Reveal a Habit of Bringing Up Troubles With Wooten

Today's new Trooper-Gate report (pdf), shows a number of the emails between Gov. Sarah Palin and fired Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan that discuss Trooper Mike Wooten. While the report finds that Palin did not violate any ethics code in firing Monegan, it's worth looking at the emails between the governor and Monegan -- many of which seem to go out of their way to bring up the governor's grievances against her former brother-in-law Wooten.

An e-mail sent on Feb. 7, 2007 from Palin to Monegan with the title "CONFIDENTIAL cop bill" actually spends little time discussing the cop bill at all. While the email briefly touches on the bill -- which addressed jail time for police officers after killing someone -- the governor spends a full three paragraphs discussing her family's history with Wooten.

It was a joke, the whole year long "investigation" of him - in fact those who passed along the serious information about him to Julia Grimes and Tandeske were threatened with legal action from the trooper's union for speaking about it. (This is the same trooper who's out there today telling people the new administration is going to destroy the trooper organization, and that he'd "never work for that b****, Palin")

Three months later, after a flair up with another state trooper, Palin used the incident as an excuse to mention Wooten again to Monegan:

[B]etween this and the message I received the other night where an Ak [sic] State Trooper recently told a friend of family [sic] that he could further "mess with the governor's sister" by claiming falsehoods about us. . .

In July of that same year, Palin emailed Monegan about a legislative proposal on guns. Again, Palin used the opportunity to bring up Wooten:

The first thought that hit me when reading Gara's quote about people not being able to buy guns when they're threatening to kill someone went to my ex-brother-in-law, the trooper, who threatened to kill my dad yet was not even reprimanded by his bosses and still to this day carries a gun, of course. We can't have double standards.

And in Sept. of 2007, Palin brought up Wooten as the "trooper we've talked about before" in an email to Monegan relating to a state settlement with another trooper.

The take-away on Palin's emails to Monegan listed in the exhibits, is that she didn't shy away from inserting her personal history into her official dealings. Whether or not it was Monegan's failure to pay deference to these (not-so) subtle hints that led to his firing, is still unknown -- but this report would have you believe it didn't.

As we noted before, this report is the result of the investigation at the behest of Palin herself -- so it's not any kind of big surprise that it exonerates her.


6 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Remember this is the same person who cc-ed Todd on lots of state business while claiming that said emails where protected by executive privilege when asked to release them as public records. Now the fact that she cannot be held responsible for his misdeeds is used to exonerate her . . .

Clever.

user-pic

"Three months later, after a flair up with another state trooper, ..."

Change "flair" to "flare" and you got it. ;)

Well the wingers are saying that Sarah has been vindicated with the new report that came out.

Must be nice to be the one who hires your own jury...

user-pic

Thanks, but she didn't appoint the Personnel Board -- her predecessor did. She can't fire them easily either.

The Personnel Board's investigator is a strong Democrat. He is also a widely respected lawyer.

user-pic

So her appointees exonerated her, big surprise. Maybe they should have let Ted Stevens appoint his own jury, then he could've been exonerated too.

user-pic

What specific new evidence counters the pretty definitive evidence in the Branchflower report? Palin's testimony alone should not be sufficient as counter to what Branchflower came up with. Does this whitewash report have details, other testimony from witnesses which was not included in the first report?

user-pic

They did it by saying Branchflower misinterpreted the law at hand. The Personnel Board used mostly the same kind of evidence -- they simply said that the same actions Branchflower described do not violate the ethics laws in question.

I dispute that. The Personnel Board seems to be saying that since the actual act of firing Monegan wasn't a violation, then her numerous attempts to lean on him to fire Wooten weren't a violation, either. They're dumbing it down.

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe
Tip Line

Josh
Marshall

Bio

Zachary
Roth

Bio

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address