Posted on 09/11/2008 8:04:50 PM PDT by freespirited
A lawyer for Gov. Sarah Palin is taking another stab at derailing the Legislature's ethics investigation into the firing of her former public safety commissioner, accusing the retired prosecutor who is conducting it of acting unethically himself.
In two letters released Wednesday, Thomas Van Flein called the investigation "unlawful and unconstitutional" and said the man hired to run it, former prosecutor Stephen Branchflower, has a conflict of interest because he's a friend of the fired commissioner. Citing "your seemingly biased conduct of the investigation in recent weeks," he urged Branchflower to stop interviewing witnesses — the second time this month that he's asked Branchflower to stand down.
Branchflower is looking into whether Palin, now John McCain's running mate, canned Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan because Monegan wouldn't fire a state trooper who was involved in a messy divorce from Palin's sister, a probe that has come to be known as "Troopergate."
The investigation has included setting up a secret tip line to "accept and investigate anonymous rumors and complaints outside the scope" of the inquiry, Van Flein alleged. He also said Branchflower has deposed witnesses without proper notice to other attorneys.
Branchflower did not immediately return an e-mail seeking comment.
Van Flein sent one of the letters to Branchflower and the other to Democratic Sen. Kim Elton, who heads the Legislative Council, the body that unanimously approved the investigation in July. Both letters were dated Tuesday.
Elton this week rebuffed a Republican attempt to have Sen. Hollis French, an Anchorage Democrat, replaced as head of the investigation.
Van Flein wrote that both French and Branchflower are friends of Monegan but apparently failed to disclose those relationships to the Legislature. He did not say what he was basing those statements on or how he became aware of the tip line.
(Excerpt) Read more at adn.com ...
Is corruption pretty much SOP in Alaska politics?
Governor Palin challenged the good old boy network in Alaska and now they are out for their revenge.
There has historically been a shortage of ladies up there, so maybe.............. well, wouldn't want to say eh?!
I’m glad they’re out in front on this. Since it’s being run by partisan political hacks, It’s probably the one thing that has the potential to do some damage.
...taking another stab at derailing...
Canned...
I don’t exactly get what they’re hoping to achieve by pursuing this trooper story.
Even if Palin did what they are hoping she did, the most she’s guilty of is trying to use her authority to get rid of a bad cop.
Since when do liberals have a problem with getting rid of bad cops ... oops, just caught myself there ... bad cops they’re okay with. It’s the good one’s they try to railroad.
And I don’t think most Americans have the same concept of “right to work” that liberals have. Every small business owner and business manager I know is tired of how hard it is to get rid of worthless employees.
Most Americans don’t agree with the liberal philosophy that employees can sleep on the job, no-call/no-show, steal, or threaten co-workers, etc... and still demand a paycheck. Enough with the gov’t mandated paperwork and the endless second chances.
From what I can tell, this guy was threatening lives and tazering kids. Any supervisor that fails to get rid of a cop like that, may not be the kind of manager we need in charge.
The only thing Sara could be guilty of is solving problems.
First and foremost, they’ll claim she abused her office by trying to influence his employment status. The subtext will be that she is vindictive and inappropriately involves her family members (e.g. Todd) in official state matters.
The whole thing is a RAT set-up. I cant believe what I’m reading.
Makes sense from the RAT point of view. But their view is obscured by their blind hatred.
They’re trying to “Whitewater” Palin. They think Whitewater was nothing but “the taint of scandal” and it “made it hard for Clinton to stay on topic.”
But what they’re missing is the perception of the candidates.
Clinton was sneaky, manipulative, and duplicitous. It was easy for Americans to believe he was involved in scandal.
But Palin is perceived as a plain-spoken, common-sense, problem solver. So it’s easy for Americans to accept that whatever she’s accused of, it was probably for the best.
Kind of like the difference between murder and self-defense. The character of the accused speaks volumes as to the nature of the intent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.