Judge won't block Palin Troopergate investigation; report due Oct. 10
By MATT VOLZ | Associated Press Writer
10:15 PM CDT, October 2, 2008
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) _ An Alaska judge on Thursday refused to block a state investigation into whether Gov. Sarah Palin abused her power when she fired her public safety commissioner this summer.
Judge Peter Michalski threw out the lawsuit filed by five Republican state legislators who said the investigation had been tainted by partisan politics and was being manipulated to damage Palin shortly before the Nov. 4 presidential election.
"It is legitimately within the scope of the legislature's investigatory power to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the termination (of) a public officer the legislature had previously confirmed," the judge wrote in his decision.
The probe is looking into whether Palin, who is the Republican vice presidential candidate, and others pressured Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan to fire a state trooper who was involved in a contentious divorce from Palin's sister, and then fired Monegan when he wouldn't dismiss the trooper. Palin says Monegan was ousted over budget disagreements.
The five Republican lawmakers had argued that the legislative body that ordered the investigation exceeded its authority. Their attorney, Kevin Clarkson, said the political bias was demonstrated by the plan of the Legislature's independent investigator to issue a report by Oct. 10 although the full legislature won't consider until reconvening in January.
But Michalski said in his ruling that the mere appearance of impropriety does not mean any individual's right to fairness was violated.
The independent investigator, Steven Branchflower, still plans to conclude the probe and report his findings by Oct. 10, said Democratic state Sen. Hollis French, the investigation's project manager. Branchflower's report will not include the testimony of Palin's husband, Todd, and several top aides who refused to appear under subpoena.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Newsvine
Furl
Google
Yahoo
Budget Disagreements?
I thought it was for poor performance. Or did I hear wrong? And if they have nothing to hide then they shouldn't have any problem facing a subpoena. Once everything is out in the open it would be clear if this whole thing was just a witch hunt or not. (There should be laws preventing publically elected and appointed officials from refusing to appear under subpoena when it involves impropriety of office or abuse of power is in serious question.)
The poor performance was his
The poor performance was his refusal to fire her ex-brother in law.