Palin Cleared in Second Troopergate Report

The Alaska Personnel Board released a report last night clearing Sarah Palin of charges of wrongdoing in the so-called Troopergate matter.

Timothy Petumenos, an independent investigator hired by the Alaska Personnel Board, addresses the media on Monday, November 3, 2008, in the Hotel Captain Cook. Bill Roth / Anchorage Daily News

Timothy Petumenos, an independent investigator hired by the Alaska Personnel Board, addresses the media on Monday, November 3, 2008, in the Hotel Captain Cook. Bill Roth / Anchorage Daily News

A new report just released — hours before the polls open on Election Day — exonerates Gov. Sarah Palin in the Troopergate controversy.

The state Personnel Board-sanctioned investigation is the second into whether Palin violated state ethics law in firing her public safety commissioner, and it contradicts the earlier findings by a special counsel hired by the state Legislature.

Both investigations found that Palin was within her rights to fire Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan.

But the new report says the Legislature’s investigator was wrong to conclude that Palin abused her power by allowing aides and her husband, Todd, to pressure Monegan and others to dismiss her ex-brother-in-law, Trooper Mike Wooten. Palin was accused of firing Monegan after Wooten stayed on the job.

[…]

– There is no cause to believe Palin violated the state ethics law in deciding to dismiss Monegan as public safety commissioner.

– There is no cause to believe Palin violated the state ethics law in connection with Wooten.

– There is no cause to believe any other state official violated the ethics act.

– There’s no basis to conduct a hearing to “address reputational harm,” as requested by Monegan.

– The state needs to address the issue of using private e-mails for government work and to examine how records are kept in the governor’s office. Palin used her Yahoo e-mail account for state business until it was hacked.

I know very little about Alaska personnel law or whether an investigation by the Personnel Board trumps one by the state legislature.  Having reported on the first, however, I wanted to do the same for the second.

What I do know about the case, however, is that Wooten probably deserved to be fired and that, whether it’s legal or even ethical, it’s unseemly for a state governor — let alone the husband of said governor — to use the power of her office to pursue personal grievances.

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2008, Law and the Courts, Politicians, US Politics, , , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. Bithead says:

    James;

    Two points.

    1: Can you imagine a Governor who wasn’t related, NOT firing Monegan, given Wooten’s misdeeds? Given the increasing scrutiny that police forces across the country have been getting… and not without justification… (Ask Balko)… what kind of reaction do you suppose that would have gotten?

    2: Can you imagine this even being an issue, absent the desperation of the Democrats to create as many issues as possible with the Republican ticket?

    I suggest if we’re going to make a moral issue out of this, it’s the Democrats, not Palin, that comes up short.

  2. […] Joyner notes the ruling and says: […]

  3. jukeboxgrad says:

    How did Petumenos pull this neat trick, of reaching a different conclusion than Branchflower? With several techniques, but one of the key techniques was to simply ignore the testimony of key witnesses.

    Petumenos whitewashes important facts. For example, see his report, p. 13. He says the Palins met with AST in 11/06 and expressed their concern that Wooten was “a security threat.”

    Now look at the Branchflower report, p. 44, regarding the testimony of Gary Wheeler. He was at this meeting, and specifically asked the Palins “whether they perceived any threats from any individual or were afraid of any individual.” Wheeler said “I got a negative response … they basically said no.”

    Wheeler has been a trooper since 1981. His sworn account directly contracts the claim made by the Palins, as reported by Petumenos. Did Petumenos interview Wheeler? No. (See Petumenos p. 9 for the list of people he interviewed.) Petumenos claims that he carefully took into account all the testimony that Branchflower gathered, but Petumenos is obviously ignoring this blatant and material contradiction between what Wheeler said and what the Palins said.

    Wheeler’s testimony is important, because it shows that the Palins were not sincerely concerned that Wooten was a threat. Because of Wheeler’s testimony and other facts, Branchflower concluded that the Palins’ “claims of fear were not bona fide and were offered to provide cover for the Palins’ real motivation: to get Trooper Wooten fired for personal family related reasons.”

    Nowhere does Petumenos mention Wheeler’s testimony, or address this contradiction. This is an example of how sloppy, incomplete and slanted the Petumenos report is.

  4. jukeboxgrad says:

    More lies and contradictions.

    The Branchflower Report includes testimony by John Glass, Deputy Commissioner of Public Safety. Glass testified that he told Todd Palin “that Wooten had already been penalized for his actions that he had taken.” See Branchflower, p. 63.

    Now see Petumenos, p. 34. Todd claims “he did not ever learn, from anyone, that any consequence of significance” had been imposed on Wooten.

    Of course Petumenos did not interview Glass or make any attempt to explain this contradiction.

    Petumenos and the Palins are basically saying this: “just assume we’re telling the truth, even though there are various credible witness who swear we’re lying.”

  5. sam says:

    2: Can you imagine this even being an issue, absent the desperation of the Democrats to create as many issues as possible with the Republican ticket?

    Desperation???

  6. rodney dill says:

    According to the papers filed by Palin’s attorneys, Monegan was fired for other reasons, including going to Washington and lobbying for funding for a project already cut by Palin. He’d become a rogue public servant.

  7. sam says:

    According to the papers filed by Palin’s attorneys, Monegan was fired for other reasons, including going to Washington and lobbying for funding for a project already cut by Palin. He’d become a rogue public servant.

    That was shown to be false:

    The “last straw,” the campaign said, was a trip Monegan planned in July to seek federal money for investigating and prosecuting sexual assault cases.

    Palin, saying she did not authorize the expenses for the travel, cited that trip as a primary example of the insubordination that led to Monegan’s firing.

    However, Palin’s chief of staff did authorize the travel to Washington.

    A travel authorization document signed by Palin’s Chief of Staff Mike Nizich on June 18 approved Monegan’s trip to Washington for the purpose of meeting Sen. Lisa Murkowski.

    The document’s existence was first reported by ABC News on Friday.

    Monegan told ABC that the travel authorization was explicitly to pursue funding for the anti-sexual-violence program, though the document does not state that as a reason for the trip. [Source]

    And the project had not been “already cut”:

    In a July 7 e-mail, John Katz, the governor’s special counsel, noted two problems with the trip: the governor hadn’t agreed the money should be sought, and the request “is out of sequence with our other appropriations requests and could put a strain on the evolving relationship between the Governor and Sen. Stevens.” [Source]

    Try to keep up, Rodney.

  8. Bithead says:

    The Branchflower Report includes testimony by John Glass, Deputy Commissioner of Public Safety. Glass testified that he told Todd Palin “that Wooten had already been penalized for his actions that he had taken.” See Branchflower, p. 63.

    Now see Petumenos, p. 34. Todd claims “he did not ever learn, from anyone, that any consequence of significance” had been imposed on Wooten.

    Of course Petumenos did not interview Glass or make any attempt to explain this contradiction.

    Petumenos and the Palins are basically saying this: “just assume we’re telling the truth, even though there are various credible witness who swear we’re lying.”

    Just in case you’d not noticed, you ask Palin to take Glass’ word for it. Yet you somehow neglect to take the word of Petumenos and the Palins. Why is that, I wonder?

  9. Bithead says:

    Desperation???

    Desperation.

  10. […] that Palin had violated state ethics laws.  A lively discussion on this matter can be found in the comments thread of James Joyner’s article. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)National Day Parade? Cheh.And Today’s […]

  11. Anderson says:

    I’m so happy for Palin that her own appointees have found her faultless.

    Maybe she “vetted” her appointees pretty well.

  12. rodney dill says:

    from one of sam’s links

    “The Governor decided to replace Mr. Monegan based on his refusal to execute her administration’s policy on fiscal and budget matters, a refusal that between late 2007 and the middle of 2008 blossomed into outright insubordination.”

    Sounds rogue to me, maybe you should read your own links.

  13. jukeboxgrad says:

    “Wooten probably deserved to be fired”

    Why? Only two allegations against Wooten are clear and undisputed: the Taser incident and the hunting incident. Although the Taser incident happened in 2003, it was not reported to police until on or after April 11, 2005, the day that McCann filed for divorce. On June 6, 2005, a police investigator asked Bristol why they “waited so long and brought the incident up after two years.” Bristol said “because of the divorce.” For this and other reasons, it’s hard to take the Taser incident seriously. It’s pretty clear the family didn’t take the incident seriously until two years after it happened.

    With regard to the moose incident, that’s even more clearly immaterial. He was using a permit under his wife’s name. She was right there. She asked him to pull the trigger so she wouldn’t have to. Just like with the Taser incident, the family didn’t report this for two years. When Todd told Monegan he wanted Monegan to bring criminal charges against Wooten for this misconduct, Monegan had to remind Todd that Sarah’s sister and father would also have to be charged, because they were accessories.

    The other allegations against Wooten (especially the ones about threats he allegedly made) are based on very flimsy evidence. They seem to be either complete fabrications, or exaggerations. And we now know that Palin is perfectly comfortable lying. One very clear example of her doing so is here.

    By the way, did you know that Wooten is 10-year Air Force veteran? Did you know that Palin once wrote a glowing recommendation for him, calling him “a fine role model for my own children?”

    There are indications that he is a competent and brave cop (link, link). And aside from the Taser incident, there has never been a finding that he committed violence against any person. Palin’s campaign has said he abused Molly, even though Molly told police he never abused her. One of many examples of Palin lying about Wooten.

  14. Beldar says:

    If you still think that Gov. Palin used the power of her office to pursue personal grievances, you’re still badly misinformed.

    Read the report. Or just admit that you don’t care and you’d rather be misinformed.

    But don’t link it and then disagree with its conclusions without having any factual basis for doing so.

  15. Houston says:

    I’m so happy for Palin that her own appointees have found her faultless.

    Maybe she “vetted” her appointees pretty well.

    These “appointees” that you fret about were “appointed” by another governor, not Palin.

  16. Beldar says:

    Anderson:

    You’re 100% wrong. The Personnel Board chose its own independent counsel — a Democrat who’d contributed to Palin’s opponent, Tony Knowles, in the 2006 general election. He’s who wrote the report. As for the Board’s own members, all three were already in place before Gov. Palin took office. One of them, she’s re-appointed. Only one of the three is a registered Republican, the other two are registered as Independents.

    And the Board is the state agency that, by statute, properly has jurisdiction over these matters.

  17. sam says:

    Sounds rogue to me, maybe you should read your own links.

    I read the links, Rodney — I was calling BS on your “facts”.

  18. jukeboxgrad says:

    bit:

    “Can you imagine a Governor who wasn’t related, NOT firing Monegan, given Wooten’s misdeeds?”

    There is no connection between “Wooten’s misdeeds” and Monegan. “Wooten’s misdeeds” (at least the only undisputed ones) took place in 2003. The family didn’t report them until 2005. Wooten was punished in 2006, with a suspension that was announced in 3/06. Monegan wasn’t on the job until Palin took office in 12/06. Monegan wasn’t responsible for “Wooten’s misdeeds,” and he played no role in the investigation and punishment of “Wooten’s misdeeds.” And Monegan had no basis for second-guessing the original investigation and punishment, because there had been no further “misdeeds.” Even though Todd apparently spent a lot of time chasing Wooten through the woods with a camera.

  19. sam says:

    Oh, and yeah, Gov. Palin was within her rights to fire Monegan for cause. That was never an issue for me.

  20. jukeboxgrad says:

    beldar:

    “If you still think that Gov. Palin used the power of her office to pursue personal grievances, you’re still badly misinformed.”

    The ones who are badly misinformed are those who take you seriously. You have no credibility whatsoever on this subject (not that you have any credibility on any other subject). Your Troopergate posts are packed with misinformation. I’ve documented that here, and you haven’t lifted a finger to correct your falsehoods. Even though I’ve reminded you of them. And I am now reminding you again.

  21. Eric says:

    And the Board is the state agency that, by statute, properly has jurisdiction over these matters.

    It is my understanding that the Alaskan State legislature was found to have plenipotentiary (right word?) power to investigate Palin. I believe all state legislatures, as the law-making bodies in each state, have this power.

    Now, one can argue about whether this is a matter for a legislature to waste its time on, but the fact remains that legislatures, whether a state or the federal, can and do investigate whatever they want whenever they want.

  22. jukeboxgrad says:

    bit:

    “you ask Palin to take Glass’ word for it. Yet you somehow neglect to take the word of Petumenos and the Palins. Why is that, I wonder?”

    Duh. Because Glass and Wheeler are neutral witnesses, and Palin is not. Wheeler has been a trooper since 1981. He used to run security for Palin’s predecessor.

    And it’s not just that Glass and Wheeler contradict Palin. It’s that Petumenos didn’t even bother interviewing them. And he claims that he took all the Branchflower testimony into account, but obviously that’s not true. Petumenos does not lift a finger to explain the contradictions that are raised by the testimony of Glass and Wheeler. He just pretends that testimony doesn’t exist.

    By the way, in 2002, Petumenos’ firm handled the $15 million bond issue for Wasilla’s hockey complex, a pet project of then-mayor Palin.

    The Personnel Board consists of 3 people. One was reappointed by Palin, and another was a contributor to her campaign. So for 2 of the 3, we have reason to think they have a bias. And all three are subject to reappointment by her, if they want to keep their jobs when their term is over.

  23. sam says:

    And Beldar, what do you think, in general, of an executive official filing an ethics complaint against herself so as to have the matter moved to the personnel board in an attempt to circumvent the legislative inquiry?

  24. jukeboxgrad says:

    rodney:

    “Sounds rogue to me, maybe you should read your own links.”

    Please continue to make a big fuss about this. Alaska has one of the highest rates of domestic violence. Monegan was trying to get federal money to do something about this. Why should Palin oppose this? Meanwhile, she’s doubling the dividend check everyone gets, because as a socialist she thinks it’s a good idea for everyone to “share in the wealth.”

    And then she replaces Monegan with Kopp, even though he has a record of committing sexual harrassment. And she knows this, and she lies about knowing it. But she hired him anyway, because he “was a rising star in Alaska’s Christian conservative movement.”

    By the way, on April 28, 2008, Palin had praised Monegan for his work in this area (sexual assault and domestic violence).

  25. jukeboxgrad says:

    houston:

    “These ‘appointees’ that you fret about were ‘appointed’ by another governor, not Palin.”

    One more time, for clarity. Yes, all three were originally appointed by Murkowski. But one has already been reappointed by Palin, and another was a contributor to her campaign. So for 2 of the 3, we have reason to think they have a bias. And all three are subject to reappointment by her, if they want to keep their jobs when their term is over.

    And at any time, she can fire them for cause. And the Wooten story proves she’s not shy about fabricating ’cause.’

  26. jukeboxgrad says:

    beldar:

    a Democrat who’d contributed to Palin’s opponent, Tony Knowles, in the 2006 general election.

    That’s true. It’s also true that his firm handled the $15 million bond issue for Wasilla’s hockey complex, a pet project of then-mayor Palin. It’s also true that his report has very blatant flaws, a couple of which I’ve documented above.

    By the way, is the timing of his report just a remarkable coincidence?

    As for the Board’s own members, all three were already in place before Gov. Palin took office. One of them, she’s re-appointed. Only one of the three is a registered Republican, the other two are registered as Independents.

    I’ve already addressed this. She has authority over them.

    And the Board is the state agency that, by statute, properly has jurisdiction over these matters.

    Are you really claiming that the Legislature has no right to investigate the Executive branch? Good luck with that.

  27. jukeboxgrad says:

    sam:

    And Beldar, what do you think, in general, of an executive official filing an ethics complaint against herself so as to have the matter moved to the personnel board in an attempt to circumvent the legislative inquiry?

    Exactly. And note that she did this very abruptly, after spending the month of August repeatedly stating that she welcomed the Branchflower investigation and would cooperate thoroughly. That all changed overnight when she got the call from McCain.

  28. jukeboxgrad says:

    Beldar (aka Bill Dyer), this is now the third time I’m pointing out to you that your Troopergate posts contain multiple falsehoods. On both previous occasions (here and here), you reacted by promptly making yourself scarce. Is that what you’re going to do in this thread, too?

  29. James Joyner says:

    It is my understanding that the Alaskan State legislature was found to have plenipotentiary (right word?) power to investigate Palin.

    I think you’re looking for “plenary,” meaning “complete.” “Plenipotentiary” means “invested with full power” but it usually refers to a designated representative in the executive branch. For example, the Secretary of State or the NATO ambassador may be given full power to act as the president’s rep within the scope of their duties.

  30. Bithead says:

    There is no connection between “Wooten’s misdeeds” and Monegan. “Wooten’s misdeeds” (at least the only undisputed ones) took place in 2003.

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

    Duh. Because Glass and Wheeler are neutral witnesses, and Palin is not

    That is far from established. But do try to prove that negative.

    Beldar (aka Bill Dyer), this is now the third time I’m pointing out to you that your Troopergate posts contain multiple falsehoods.

    You DO keep saying that, don’t you?
    At what point do we get the proof of your claim?

  31. Floyd says:

    Headline should read…

    “Damage Done , Jackasses Backoff”

  32. jukeboxgrad says:

    More contradictions. A key claim by Palin and Petumenos is that Sarah simply had no idea what Todd was doing. For example, Petumenos said “Governor Palin … has testified under oath that the was unaware that Todd Palin made these early 2007 inquiries to Commissioner Monegan.”

    Meanwhile, Wheeler testified to Branchflower that “at least 50 percent of the time, he’d [Todd] drive the governor in and remain either at the office or in the office most of the day … And he would participate in, you know, the meetings.” And of course Todd was also copied on many official emails.

    And notice what Todd said in his affidavit of 10/8:

    I have heard criticism that I am too involved with my wife’s administration. My wife and I are very close. We are each other’s best friend. I have helped her in every stage in her career the best I can, and she has helped me. … Like most couples we talk about our jobs, our work, the issues of the day, and of course, our family.

    Do these facts fit? No.

  33. 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.

  34. jukeboxgrad says:

    bit:

    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.

  35. jukeboxgrad says:

    charles:

    Drag her name through the mud

    English translation: ‘hold her accountable for her actions.’

  36. Michael says:

    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.

  37. JT says:

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

  38. Eric says:

    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. 🙂

  39. Bithead says:

    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?

  40. rodney dill says:

    It’s not BS, Sam, but it was my best recollection from memory of this post.

    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.

  41. On account of Open Records Acts, state governments are wise to insist that employees (including governors) route all business e-mail through a central e-mail archive and to encourage employees to take all personal e-mail to personal accounts. –Ben detailed analysis

  42. jukeboxgrad

    English translation: ‘uncivil partisan hack.’

  43. Eric says:

    English translation: ‘uncivil partisan hack.’

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

  44. Eric, my apologies if I seem uncivil, I really don’t set out to be but when I am it is usually in response to something more egregious. Since I regret the election of either Senator Obama or Senator McCain I’m not sure how partisan I am, but I am accustomed to projection on the part of those who are annoyed at everyone who does not worship at the altar of The One. As to being a hack, well, perhaps I am. But it does make it easier to recognize in others.

  45. jukeboxgrad says:

    eric:

    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.

  46. jukeboxgrad says:

    bit:

    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.

  47. jukeboxgrad says:

    rodney:

    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.

  48. jukeboxgrad says:

    charles:

    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.