Following her choice as Confused Candidate's V.P>. running mate in 2008, many wanted to argue that "Trooper Gate" was nothing more than a family affair. Well,I read every single page of the investigation undertaken into the scandal. This is not just a matter of a"family affair," which has no bearing on her ability to lead. This investigation shows Sara Palin as a vindictive,prevaricating, imperious person. Frankly, She is a reptile. The following is my summation of the investigation. Decide for yourselves what to think, but please, for God's sake, fucking think!
I am not interested in defending Palin's brother-in-law, Wooten. Frankly, I am shocked that he has not been fired. What I am interested in is the employment of the term personality disorder and whether that may not cut both ways, given a clear evaluation of the evidence.
Take three specific documents: the initial interview with the future Gov. in May of 2005; her re-interview in August of 2007; and the e-mail that she sent to a patrol official. I will briefly elaborate the "transformation of Ms. Palin's testimony." I would also suggest that anyone who really wants the full context take 45 minutes and read each of the documents, which are made available in order to compare them to Palin's statements. Of her initial assertions, presented as factual information based on first hand knowledge, I would be shocked if as many as a third of them are not radically amended in the second interview, when she was faced with countless contradictions by others involved in the events.
In May, Palin makes numerous claims about her former brother-in-law's conduct, which are couched in very specific, rather dogmatic language. For example, she claims that following an altercation at a bar that Wooten was stopped for suspicion of DUI, and that he employed his position so as to avoid such a charge. The same claim is made in the e-mail. (For convenience sake, these two documents need not be distinguished, because the content of each comes very close to matching one another.) Then comes the August re-interview. Well, let us just say that Ms Palin appears to have gotten just a little carried away in the initial interview.
As it turns out neither the bartender nor the patrolman who pulled Wooten over make the contention that he was intoxicated. In fact, the bartender specifically testifies to both the fact that W. had one beer in the span of the hour that he was at the bar, and that he did not display any signs of intoxication. And, it must certainly have been embarrassing, given that Palin based her May testimony on what she claims was represented to her by her sister about Wooten' s being very intoxicated, to have been presented with the fact that her sister, Molly, stipulated in court that her husband was not intoxicated on the evening in question.
Given that I anticipate a rather lengthy evaluation, I will point out only one additional, and quite disturbing discrepancy in the testimony of Palin on the separate occasions and that of another who she specifically claimed witnessed the very same events as she. This time the concern is that Mike is going nuts, Molly is “clearly” (unless you were standing beside the future Gov. watching the very same scene) scared, perhaps hysterical, and Ms. Palin initially provides an evaluation of a situation of extreme danger, based on Mikes being "in a rage," his having a gun, and the probability (based on some private statistical method, as it turns out) that he has been drinking. She describes being put on speaker phone by her sister so as to be able to listen to Mike verbally assault her sister and threaten others in her family.
Indeed, she is so concerned that she has her 15 year old son remain on the line to listen in on this lurid scene, while she travels to her sister's house, which has a "perfect" view when it is dark. She ends up parking in Molly's neighbor's driveway and watching the high definition drama from a vantage point just outside of her sister's house. Read her account of what unfolded, according to her perspective. Then think about this: if she truly believed her sister, not to mention her 12 year old nephew who was also in view holding a baby on his hip, was facing a clear and present danger, which is certainly the tone of her presentation, why did she not call 9-11? Moreover, how could she possibly have left this Jerry Springer moment to attend a meeting, if things were as drastic as her initial language would lead any reasonable person to believe?
Well, Ms. Palin, always considerate, testified (I employ this term in a broad non-legal sense.) that, in spite of her fear that her sister was in danger, indeed that she may be shot, which is the clear implication of her complaint that Wooten would likely be armed, she nonetheless respects the latter's position and decided not to call the authorities so as not to cause her brother-in-law to loose his job. Irony is certainly alive and well in Alaska. Indeed, this is a case study in irony.
Whoooa there, did I read that amended testimony correctly? I must admit that I was shocked that she did not immediately call 9-11 upon reading her May testimony. I know that if I perceived a relative of mine to be in such a dire situation, I would not hesitate for one minute to call in the cavalry. Indeed, her failure to do so appears unconscionable (Pardon a short digression; but your Public Safety Director could use a refresher course in how to employ a dictionary, as he claimed in his disciplinary letter to Wooten that he has "conscientiously" done some thing or another, which merited his being reprimanded. I am sorry, my friend to inform you that you made a grave mistake. You see, when one “conscientiously" performs some action or another it is generally accepted that said person should be commended. My good public servant, you intended to employ the term "consciously", as in "with forethought and understanding" rather than "with special attention to act according to duty" [source, my brain], as you in fact stated. I have the feeling that we are in for a great deal of entertainment in the next couple of months.), returning to my point I am incredulous, given her evaluation of the events that she did not feel a moral obligation to call for SWAT. Moreover, this failure to act reflects a questionable ability to achieve her goals in the most efficient manner. "Troopergate" would not exist at all, if only she had acted conscientiously to protect her sister, as well as her sister's family by calling 9-11. In that case, the process would have presumably, according to her own statement, led to Wooten's being released from the force. Had she been more acutely conscious of the opportunity she had before her, she would not have retained private counsel, as we have learned today.
Truly people, read all of the documents. Consider the tone of Palin's initial interviews. It is about as histrionic and overstated a performance as a daytime soap. Then, take a look at her follow-up interview three months later, presumably undertaken by the officer so as to clarify the understandably confused situation, given that nearly every one of her assertions is either flatly contradicted or made to seem less dramatic by a factor approaching infinity.
The Palin's seem to attract drama; there is a little more disclosed each day. For the most part, I must say that it is every American's right to spice up their lives with a little drama. Moreover, while the latest revelations may be quite unfortunate, they are entirely personal matters. But, having evaluated this matter of "Troopergate" carefully, and specifically her own statements to officials, I must conclude that this is not a woman who is constituted to hold the office of the President of the United States of America, as the 25th Amendment to the Constitution would require, were McCain to be POTUS and become incapacitated.
The authoritative, dogmatic, truly scary characterizations of Wooten in various situations in her May interview, show that she either lacks the capacity to judge the true danger of a situation (what do you say lovefraud, a touch of dissociative personality disorder?), or she was attempting, through a vigorous campaign of character assassination--though an inexplicable failure to take the substantive action, which would have accomplished her goal—to do everything that she could to have Mike Wooten removed from his position (Perhaps the most appropriate suggestion here is hard-core sadism.) Unfortunately, more disturbing is the "contra-testimony" offered upon being faced with having her own word discredited by everyone from her own son, Tack; her sister; her sister's neighbor; and a bartender. The difference between the May interview along with the e-mail and the August give the appearance of calculated duplicity, manipulation, and a general willingness to go to significant lengths to achieve her personal agenda. For God's sake, she hired a PI without informing her sister of her actions. The difference between the content of the two messages she presented, in addition to playing the compassionate martyr who simply could not pull the trigger on her Blackberry when Wooten was at his most vulnerable point, suggest that she is perfectly capable of having fired her Public Security Director. Finally, if this is not the apotheosis of a day-time TV family feud, then I clearly need to catch up on the latest trends in the soaps for fear of inappropriately citing what I believe to be an exemplar.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment