As we noted earlier this week, right-wing Alaskan attorney Kevin Clarkson had waded into the “Troopergate” saga in Sarah Plain’s defense and was working in conjunction with the Liberty Legal Institute, a right-wing legal organization based in Texas.
Why a right-wing organization out of Texas that, by its own admissions, focuses mostly on cases dealing with religious freedoms, student’s rights, parental rights, and the definition of family was taking the lead in a case involving an investigation into the dealings of the Alaska Governor was hard to understand. But now Kelly Shackelford, head of Liberty Legal, is explaining just what they are doing there … assuring impartiality:
Liberty Legal Institute says it has filed the suit on behalf of Alaska legislators and citizens who want to halt the investigation because those running it have lost the impartiality required under the Alaska constitution. The investigation stems from Palin’s July 2008 firing of former commissioner of the Alaska Department of Public Safety Walt Monegan for insubordination.
Kelly Shackelford — chief counsel of Liberty Legal Institute — says the investigation is being led by the Alaska Legislative Council and three Democratic state senators who are outspoken supporters of Barack Obama. “Those people have [made] contributions to Obama. They have public statements pro-Obama and anti-Palin. They have public statements prejudging the case before there’s any evidence in,” warns Shackelford.
“They have conflicts of interest with those in charge because of past and current relationships. So this is clearly an unconstitutional…political witch hunt which violates the very terms of their constitution.”
That would be the same Kelly Shackelford who was recently on James Dobson’s radio program crowing about how Palin was the answer to the right-wing movements prayers and explaining his efforts as part of the GOP’s platform committee in drafting “the strongest pro-life platform ever in the history of the [Republican] party.”
No concerns about impartiality or “conflicts of interest” there.
