OH MY FUKING GOODNESS that was the first report the second report cleared her of any and all wrong doings ethics and legally speaking...do some fuking research
your article printed 10/10
my article printed 11/4
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/us_elections_2008/7707489.stm
"Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin has been cleared by a new report of abuse of power in firing Alaska's top law enforcement official."
SO YES SHE WAS CLEARED OF ANY WRONG DOING 
Apparently the independent investigator from the first investigation was wrong when he concluded that Palin:
“The evidence supports the conclusion that Governor Palin, at the least, engaged in ‘official action’ by her inaction if not her active participation or assistance to her husband in attempting to get Trooper Wooten fired [and there is evidence of her active participation],” Branchflower wrote. He found she “knowingly … permitted Todd Palin to use the Governor’s office and the resources of the Governor’s office, including access to state employees, to continue to contact subordinate state employees in an effort to find some way to get Trooper Wooten fired.”
“I conclude that such claims of fear were not bona fide and were offered to provide cover for Palin’s real motivation: to get Trooper Wooten fired for personal family-related reasons,” Branchflower wrote.
How can an independent investigator go from a slam dunk conclusion that an ethics violation to vindication on election night?
Let's take a look:
Mr. Petumenos said the legislative inquiry had determined that Ms. Palin violated the scope of state ethics laws by “inaction,” because she supposedly did not stop her staff and her husband from pressuring Mr. Monegan.
"(so she did in fact engage in the unethical behavior alleged...how could the second report clear her then...)
In the legislative report, the investigator, Stephen E. Branchflower, a former prosecutor in Anchorage, said Ms. Palin had herself applied pressure to get Trooper Wooten dismissed and also let her husband and subordinates press for his firing. The report concluded that she had violated the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/04/us/politics/04palin.html?_r=1But Mr. Petumenos said the legislative inquiry had not met requirements for finding a violation because it did not cite violations under specific sections of the ethics code.
What? The independent investigator concluded that there was no violation by Palin b/c a specific statutory reference of her act/omission was not made?
Just what the hell was author of the first report looking at when he found a conclusion of ethical impropriety?
The first report was based on factual findings from an investigation run by the State Legislative Assembly. The second report was run by Alaska's personnel board...Palin herself filed an ethics complaint with Alaska's Personnel BoardShe filed an ethics complaint against herself right before the presidential election? Why would she do that?
This 'exoneration' stinks to high heaven.
To recap:
1st investigation's conclusion (State Legislative Assembly investigation_: Palin violated the public trust, violated state ethics laws, and lied about it.
2nd investigation's conclusion (State Personnel Board): No problem here.
I'll believe the first report. The second one doesn't mean shit to me. It reeks of whitewash.
Gov. Sarah Palin wants a state board to review the circumstances surrounding the dismissal of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan -- taking the unusual step of making an ethics complaint against herself.http://www.adn.com/monegan/story/514163.htmlLike I said, this second investigation is whitewash.
