Last for now, but not least. Here are some of the ways in which Todd and Sarah Palin described their alleged "fear" of former brother-in-law state trooper, Michael Wooten:
One of the paramount reasons that Gov. Sarah Palin and her husband have given for voicing their concerns to Alaska public safety officials about Trooper Michael Wooten, her former brother-in-law, is that they and their relatives live in fear of him.
They have complained that Trooper Wooten made threats of violence against the family, used a Taser on his 10-year-old stepson and has generally struggled to control his anger… Mr. Palin said in his written statement to Mr. Branchflower, “I make no apologies for wanting to protect my family and wanting to publicize the injustice of a violent trooper keeping his badge.”
All of this was the usual Palin bullshit:
An independent investigator for the State Legislature, who has concluded that Ms. Palin abused the powers of her office by pressuring subordinates to dismiss the trooper, contends that the claims of fear were a facade to mask a maneuver in a family dispute.
In a report released Friday, the investigator, Stephen E. Branchflower, said evidence, like the governor’s decision to reduce the manpower of her security detail, showed that “such 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.”
Mr. Branchflower described what he considered another inconsistency: If Trooper Wooten was inclined to harm any of the Palins, then having him terminated could lead to an act of retaliation. Forcing him out of his job, the report stated, “would not have de-escalated the situation or provided” Ms. Palin or her family with “greater security.”
If you genuinely fear for your family’s physical safety from a disgruntled employee, does it really make sense to get him fired in a personal vendetta?
The Dish 