[af_vet_rr]

Possibly, but what and when? And how can we be sure the former director isn't making this up to get back at Huck because he was fired?

The only thing he could make up was that Huckabee leaned on him not to fulfill the request of the prosecuting attorney. Everything else is documented, or has witnesses. There was no logical reason for him to turn down the request of the attorney, since they are normally granted (they require the assistance of the state police).

I will admit that it would be easy to say that he was pressured by Huckabee and that is why he would not assist the local prosecutor, and that is why he kept his job for another seven months before being fired...

I'll have to take your word for that since I don't watch Larry King.

I posted the transcripts above, but I bet it'll be repeated this coming weekend.

But since no charges were filed, perhaps it wasn't.

Because they dealt with state laws, the local prosecutor could only file charges if they had the assistance of the state police in determining if state laws were broken. If the state police are ordered not to investigate, the local prosecutor cannot file charges.

[MEGoody]

There was no logical reason for him to turn down the request of the attorney, since they are normally granted (they require the assistance of the state police).

Except he did. If he did so because Huck pressured him, why was he subsequently fired? It seems you are implying that the firing was not related to this, yet the article implies that it was.

Something's not right with the way this article is written, apparently.