CuriousJockAZ saidShe allegedly abused her power because someone that worked under her refused to fire a state trooper who a) tasered his 10 year old son b) threatened her family, and c) drank on the job. WOW! Shocker! What an irresponsible Governor
This "someone" who worked under her was a Public Safety Commissioner. However, that wasn't the core of the issue, CuriousJockAZ. The issue was that the State Trooper, Mike Wooten was involved in a "nasty" divorce from Palin's sister. Palin and her husband, Todd, also accused Wooten of threatening Palin's father. But these are accusations....and there are others that have the responsibilty to investigate them.
So whether the charges about Wooten were true or not, there is considerable self-interest on Palin's part to get directly involved, when there is a chain of command of impartial officials to investigate the trooper's behavior. Further, if this were a trial, Palin would have had to recuse herself because of her personal interest.
No one is saying that Palin shouldn't have disliked the trooper or wanted to protect her sister. The issue was that it was not her role to get involved as Governor. There is a chain of command.
Please tell me that you are not so blinded by politics here that you don't realize that what she did was a gross abuse of power, and something that indicates what she could possibly do at a much higher level if McCain died and she became president.
This is not a small issue. If she had fooled around on her husband, then I would agree that it would be a non-issue and I'd agree. Suck it up, now, this is an awful thing to come out about a vice=presidential candidate.
Anyway, here's what the report, completed by a bipartisan committee and by a unanimous vote of 12-0, says, as a direct quote, according to the Anchorage Daily News:
"Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda ... to get Trooper Michael Wooten fired,"
"Compliance with the code of ethics is not optional. It is an individual responsibility imposed by law, and any effort to benefit a personal interest through official action is a violation of that trust. ... The term ‘benefit' is very broadly defined, and includes anything that is to the person's advantage or personal self-interest."