Brian Ross' "crack investigators" including: Justin Rood, Emma Schwartz, Maddy Sauer, Megan Chuchmach, Rhonda Schwartz, Len Tepper and Anna Schecter have written at least six articles about the so-called "troopergate" investigation of Governor Palin in her home state. So far, they have been unwilling to confirm for the benefit of their readers/watchers that Alaska Senator Hollis French, a Democrat lawyer who is overseeing the investigation, has been actively campaigning for Barack Obama in Alaska, a fact that it is common knowledge among the political crowd in that great state. See, for example: http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/emilybokar/gGxsmH. 

The team has been equally reluctant to disclose that French's' fellow Democrat, Senator Kim Elton, Chair of the Legislative Council and French's overseer, is also a supporter of and contributor to Obama's campaign. ABC Blotter's best effort at anything remotely resembling candor on this issue was on September 16th, in an article entitled, "Suit Filed to Stop Troopergate Probe into Gov. Sarah Palin." There they made the following observation: "French and Elston have publicly supported Obama, the suit notes." (Italics added.) Now, I'm not a member of a crack investigative team, but sitting right here in my den in the lower forty-eight I have been able to find considerably more evidence for that "Obama-French connection" than a bare allegation in a lawsuit.

Two members of my family and I have attempted relentlessly to post comments with links, some civil, some not so civil, disclosing the Obama-French connection. After a couple got through ABC Blotter has refused to post them in subsequent articles. We have also sent e-mails to ABC Blotter's information contribution site to no avail.  I suspect others have tried and given up since by now virtually all the commenters are Obama supporters who seem unaware that the presumption of innocence applies to Republicans as well as other citizens. Thus far, ABC Blotter is clearly unwilling to confirm the connection, although it is undeniable.

Ironically, crack investigator Megan Chuchmach, was quite emphatic that Alaska Representative John Coghill is a McCain supporter in her piece entitled, "McCain Ally in Alaska Criticizes Troopergate Investigation." Ross' team made certain that the political afiliation with McCain was disclosed while French's Obama connection was not, despite the fact that Coghill's criticism was focused on French's efforts to affect the presidential election. Coghill requested that French be replaced, but fellow Obama supported Elton declined.

Why is it important for ABC to conceal the Obama-French connection? Well, the most obvious explanation is that French has a clear political conflict of interest. Any upright lawyer, or for that matter any upright person, interested in avoiding the appearance of impropriety and who is affiliated with a Democrat campaign that claims to take the high road, would have disqualified himself the moment Palin became the Republican candidate for Vice President. French not only declined to do that, but he began a media campaign against Palin and McCain publically impugning her credibility, and stating, for example, to the New York Times, "She's being touted as an ethical reformer. This [investigation] could give her an ethical black eye." Who was doing the touting? The McCain campaign, of course. French has conceded that he "probably shouldn't have made those remarks." But why would a principled, objective investigator ever couch media comments in terms intended to discredit the claims of a political campaign? The answer: A principled, objective investigator wouldn't. However, a politically motivated investigator who knew the news media would run interference for him would do so with impunity.

If ABC discloses the Obama-French connection in the wake of his inappropriate and biased comments, it reflects badly on French, draws the integrity of his investigation into question and mitigates his attempt to benefit Obama by giving Palin an "ethical black eye," It also calls into question the Obama "high road," since manipulating an investigation for political gain is about as low as one can go. Ordinarily the possibility of that manipulation, in itself, would be news, but not in this campaign and not to ABC. It might, after all, be detrimental to Obama's campaign for President.

But that's not all! The continued hue and cry of the Palin-haters is, "She asked for this investigation, but now that it looks bad for her she's refusing to co-operate. She must have something to hide." And sure enough, on September 17th, crack investigators Emma Schwartz and Justin Rood trot out more fuel for this smear entitled, "Palin Calling for an End to Investigation She Requested." Never mind that anyone in her right mind confronted with French's political jibes to the press and his hand-picked investigator, an old crony from Anchorage, would have smelled a rat and challenged the fairness of the "investigation." As long as the Obama-French connection is not at the forefront, it permits French to use the investigation to the detriment of the McCain-Palin campaign. It also permits the Obama's supporters at ABC Blotter to milk the story day after day while casting new aspersions on Palin.

As for the investigation itself. It's a crock. The "issue" is allegedly whether Palin demoted her Department of Safety Commissioner, Walt Monegan, because he wouldn't fire her former brother-in-law, trooper Mike Wooten. So what? Contrary to the impression given by the news media, including ABC, Monegan wasn't fired. He was offered another position that he declined. Monegan was a merit exempt employee who served at Palin's pleasure. Although she was under no obligation to do so, she has released a detailed statement explaining why she was not pleased with Monegan and documented it with e-mails.

Monegan told CNN and other news agencies that nobody actually asked him to fire Wooten, but he knew "in his heart of hearts" that Palin allowed "her personal feelings to get involved in her professional responsibilities." Meaning what exactly? That his "heart of hearts" knew what was in her "heart of hearts?" Is this the kind of evidence from which impartial investigations flow?

Monegan, like Wooten, has had his share of domestic difficulties. Allegations of violence or threats of violence have dogged both. In court documents filed during divorce proceedings his ex-wife accused Monegan of threatening to kill her, waving a gun at her and dislocating her shoulder. ABC apparently chose not to ask whether, as a result, he may have sympathized with Wooten in his "heart of hearts."

The accusation against Governor Palin is that she, members of her staff and her husband allegedly complained repeatedly to Monegan that Wooten was a discredit to the Department. Again, so what? In fact, the Palins' earlier complaints about Wooten had been sustained and he had been suspended. Governor Palin's husband is a private citizen who can do as he pleases and the Governor and her staff have a professional, not a personal, obligation to the public to see that state troopers are held to a high standard. If another serious problem were to arise surrounding Wooten's conduct, we can bet that the Governor's detractors, including those at ABC Blotter, would be quick to point out that he was her brother-in-law and that she once, eight years ago, wrote a letter of recommendation for him. Any takers? 

Although Palin's defenders are inclined to rehash Wooten's transgressions, the rehash adds nothing to a discussion of ABC Blotter's transgressions. It's a little late to expect full disclosure from ABC Blotter, but it's time for them to stop milking this story and for Brian Ross and his seven crack investigators to find something important to do. Perhaps Obama's connections to slumlords and the Daley machine or his monster contributions from Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Lehman Brothers beckon.