More from below the waterline

Even beyond Todd Palin's manly stride into the perjury trap, there's plenty left for Governor Palin to worry about in Troopergate. Mudflats has a good post up exploring the possibility that the Legislative Council might launch an investigation into witness tampering during the cover-up.

And, yeah, there's a primary source (MSWord File!) on all this.

And: As for the worker's compensation business, Andrew Halcro is willing to take Murlene Wilkes at her word and accept Branchflower's finding that no wrongdoing occurred. I don't know. Pretty clearly, Jason Leopold overrreached. On the other hand, Todd Palin did gather information regarding Wooten's worker's comp case, and it is apparent that confidential material in Wooten's personnel file was shared, at the very least, between Todd Palin and Frank Bailey. If you agree with Les Gara that Audie Holloway's allegations of witness tampering are credible, then it seems to me that you have to continue to wonder what exactly happened at Harbor Adjustment services.

Update: Johanna Grasso's comment from Halcro's post:

OK, I'll Bite! Finding Number 3: The claim was handled appropriately at Harbor Adjustment Service because I made sure it was. I worked at Harbor, twice, for a total of 8 years. I left because I received a great opportunity to leave adjusting and become the manager of a property, liability, and workers' compensation claims department. I left in Harbor good standing. I was not told I was inelgible for rehire. I was not disgruntled and not insubordinate. I had returned numerous times to visit staff, including Murlene. I called 3 of the adjusters to say hello over the year since I had left. I had lunch with one adjuster, on a monthly basis, who still works there. We had been friends since 1991 but now she won't speak with me because she believes I lied in some way. Murlene's statement posted here is very false and causes me grave concern about my reputation. Murlene told me in a closed door meeting who Wooten was in relation to the governor. She told me that the Division of Risk Managment was pleased with my claims handling of the Wooten case. She told me the Division of Risk Management heard from someone in the Governor's office that they wanted the claim denied. I indicated that I would not handle his claim differently knowing this and I didn't care if the President wanted it denied; that I would not do it because of WHO the claimant was! I told her I would not deny it without the proper evidence as my license was on the line. I left Murlene's office frustrated that the Governor's long reaching arm was already felt in the few months Palin became Governor. I had to keep adjusting the claim and not think about who I was dealing with. In fact, I vented with others in the office about the Governor's office after that conversation. Murlene did not pressure me to deny the claim. The frustration, for me, was about the Governor's office more than anything else. I called the tipline about 3 weeks before Palin was nominated for VP. When I provided my statement to Branchflower in August 2008, I had NO idea he had already spoken with Murlene. I gave my very short statement and afterward, he said he had already spoken with Murlene and he would have to recontact her. Branchflower is the one who indicated to the legislators in September the Murlene may have lied and may have financial incentive to not say anthing due to her contract with the State of Alaska. I merely gave my statement and left! Yes, the claim was handled appropriately regardless of the information I had about who Wooten was and that the Governor's office wanted it denied for whatever reason. Afterall, when I denied benefits, MY license was the one on the line. |Johanna Grasso|