uncivil partisan hack … I am accustomed to projection … As to being a hack, well, perhaps I am. But it does make it easier to recognize in others.

The projection is obviously all yours. Let us know if you can come up with any proof to back up the claim you made.

Based on the Papers the Palin team had submitted

You are citing a document that contains multiple blatant falsehoods. Here's an example, regarding a statement that appears on p. 16:

Claims about prior discipline

According to the suspension letter issued by Col. Grimes,[38] there had been three disciplinary actions against Wooten: a Warning, a Reprimand, and an Instruction, for such things as "not using turn signals," in the period prior to April 11, 2005, the date when the divorce was filed and a Domestic Violence Protective Order was issued.

According to Palin, "Wooten had been disciplined a dozen times before he was the subject of a Domestic Violence Protective Order from Molly McCann."[135]

3 is not equal to 12.

google troopergate to find the wiki article. It contains links to the primary sources, so you can see for yourself.

You seem to be operating on the notion that there's no credibility issue, here.

You seem to be operating on the notion that you can get away with smearing Wheeler and Glass by claiming they have a "credibility issue," while also not lifting a finger to explain why there's any reason to doubt their credibility.

And even if they have a "credibility issue," there's no excuse for Petumenos to fail to even mention their testimony. This proves that the Petumenos report is a joke.

I'm no big fan of Beldar, but he may actually have a day job that keeps him from posting every 15 minutes. So let's grant him some time and space to respond.

Think he's had enough time yet?

By the way, I notified him of his falsehoods weeks ago, here. He's had plenty of time to respond. He's not going to (at least not in any remotely substantive manner).

He also ran away from another thread, here.

English translation: 'uncivil partisan hack.'

Charles, you of all people should be the last one accusing others of being uncivil, partisan, or a hack.

jukeboxgrad

English translation: 'uncivil partisan hack.'

According to the papers filed by Palin’s legal team, that was not the only instance of insubordination from Monegan:

* 12/9/07: Monegan holds a press conference with Hollis French to push his own budget plan.
* 1/29/08: Palin’s staffers have to rework their procedures to keep Monegan from bypassing normal channels for budget requests.
* February 2008: Monegan publicly releases a letter he wrote to Palin supporting a project she vetoed.
* June 26, 2008: Monegan bypassed the governor’s office entirely and contacted Alaska’s Congressional delegation to gain funding for a project.

From this presentation, it looks like Monegan had decided from the start to be a loose cannon in the Palin administration. The wonder of this isn’t that he got fired — it’s how he managed to hang onto his job as long as he did. The response calls Monegan’s trip to Washington the “final straw”, and it’s not difficult to see why.

Based on the Papers the Palin team had submitted. These may be in dispute from her detractors, but I haven't seen any official finding to show that the team made a fallacious filing.

Since this whole affair became a non-issue in the election I stopped following it very closely. The facts are that Monegan was 'fired' because of Monegan's own actions and not Wooten, which was the only point I was making.

Please explain why Petumenos did not bother to make even a pretense of explaining the contradiction between the testimony offered by Palin and the testimony offered by the other witnesses I mentioned. Petumenos is pretending this other testimony simply doesn't exist

Heh. You seem to be operating on the notion that there's no credibility issue, here.

Hopefully this issue wasn't politicized in order to drag out the decision.

gee... ya think?

I think you're looking for "plenary," meaning "complete."

Yes, that's it. Thanks JJ.

So for 2 of the 3, we have reason to think they have a bias.

jukeboxgrad, I agree with much of what you say, but I am not inclined to believe the Personnel Board is necessarily biased in favor of Palin. I think those conflicts of interest should be noted, but I don't think they are necessarily damning in and of themselves.

Beldar (aka Bill Dyer), this is now the third time I'm pointing out to you...

Now, I'm no big fan of Beldar, but he may actually have a day job that keeps him from posting every 15 minutes. So let's grant him some time and space to respond. :)

Are you really claiming that the Legislature has no right to investigate the Executive branch?

You say that like you'd be surprised by such a claim. The current federal administration has been making exactly that claim for years.

Headline should read...

"Damage Done , Jackasses Backoff"

In this case, then, the "Jackass" is Sarah Palin, because she is the one that initiated the investigation that led to this particular report. The investigation that was initiated by the state legislature released it's report a while back, which by the way found that she abused her power.

Drag her name through the mud from the time she is selected until the day before the election.

Standard Operational Procedure.

Get used to it.

Right, campaigning is messy business, and every candidate gets their reputation drug through as much mud as the opposition can find.

Drag her name through the mud

English translation: 'hold her accountable for her actions.'

But when asked to remove Wooten for those crimes, he [Monegan] balked. And should have been fired on that basis alone, to say naught of the rest of it.

Let us know if you're really claiming that Monegan had any basis for revisiting a matter that had already been fully adjudicated by the previous administration. Was Monegan supposed to reopen all such investigations that had been done under Murkowski, or just the ones that related to Palin's family?

By the way, you need to do a better job of coordinating your talking points with Palin. According to her, Monegan was never "asked to remove Wooten for those crimes."

That is far from established. [that Glass and Wheeler are neutral witnesses]

Please explain why Petumenos did not bother to make even a pretense of explaining the contradiction between the testimony offered by Palin and the testimony offered by the other witnesses I mentioned. Petumenos is pretending this other testimony simply doesn't exist. Is this OK with you? It's a rhetorical question.

At what point do we get the proof of your claim?

At this point: the moment you overcome your click-impairment and follow the links I provided.