The AP reports today that Sarah Palin abused her power in firing Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan. The AP then reveals that the firing was amazingly not illegal. The story adds,
Monegan’s firing was lawful, the report found, but Palin let the family grudge influence her decision-making — even if it was not the sole reason Monegan was dismissed.
This is just crap. Either it’s illegal or it isn’t. If it is illegal, then she would be guilty of abuse of power. But if it isn’t illegal, then she cannot be guilty because there is nothing to be guilty of. This puts both the Legislative panel and the AP in the difficult position of having to explain how Sarah Palin can be both guilty and not guilty at the same time. Of course, anything is possible in the fantasy world that Liberals call reality.
The article does not explain how the circumstances leading to the case could possibly be handled without any reference to the “family grudge.” It’s a very convenient excuse for the panel to cover their butts for this sham of an investigation. But again, the left-media is all too eager to help “explain” the situation.
The story also says,
Investigator Stephen Branchflower, in a report to a bipartisan panel that looked into the matter, found Palin in violation of a state ethics law that prohibits public officials from using their office for personal gain.
Neither the panel nor the AP explained how Sarah Palin obtained “personal gain” by firing Monegan, a point Palin’s attorney brought up. What’s more, Mr. Branchflower is not an impartial observer of the facts in this case. He’s had an ax to grind against Palin for a long time already and should never have been allowed to serve as investigator.
Fortunately, reasonable people will be able to see this farcical attempt at Justice as a thinly veiled attempt at payback by people with an agenda. This is a non-story disguised as a scandal by people seeking to distract public attention away from Sarah Palin.
Thankfully, at least one panel member has displayed some honesty. Sen. Gary Stevens is quoted as saying,
“I think there are some problems in this report…I would encourage people to be very cautious, to look at this with a jaundiced eye.”
Yes, jaundiced enough to match the color of the journalism going on here.
Instapundit got an email this week from a reader in a newsroom. The anonymous source explains the vast difference between the treatment of stories on Sarah Palin and stories about Barak Obama.
A READER AT A MAJOR NEWSROOM EMAILS: “Off the record, every suspicion you have about MSM being in the tank for O is true. We have a team of 4 people going thru dumpsters in Alaska and 4 in arizona. Not a single one looking into Acorn, Ayers or Freddiemae. Editor refuses to publish anything that would jeopardize election for O, and betting you dollars to donuts same is true at NYT, others. People cheer when CNN or NBC run another Palin-mocking but raising any reasonable inquiry into obama is derided or flat out ignored. The fix is in, and its working.” I asked permission to reprint without attribution and it was granted.
Is there anyone who still doubts the liberal bias in the media?