It did not take long for Montana’s Attorney General, Mike McGrath (D), to basically say he was going to protect Montana’s Governor, Brian Schweitzer (D) from an investigation. He probably had the letter ready to go, because they are good friends, don’t you know.
Can you believe it? One must wonder if McGrath was at the Schweitzer speech in person.
This afternoon, NewWest.net reporter Robert Struckman reports:
“McGrath declined to investigate comments made by Gov. Brian Schweitzer at a fundraising event in Philadelphia on July 14, describing the speech as “admittedly intemperate” and saying “the accusations contain no allegation supported by fact.”
Well, it has been verified that he called the head of the elections office for Silver Bow County, and we know that he called the Associated Press. Both times he was trying to influence the outcome of the election. Hopefully the U.S. Attorney’s office in Montana will dig into Schweitzer’s contacts on the reservations.
Then Mr. Struckman reports that McGrath said,
“The misuse of the criminal justice system for political purposes is a serious matter. It is inappropriate to use a public office as election-season PR for a political blogger or any other special interest,” he says.
Tampering with elections is very much a serious matter, Mr. McGrath – at least most Montanans think so. Maybe the next Montana Attorney General, Tim Fox, will take things like this a little more seriously.
By the way, McGrath wants to be the next Chief Justice of the Montana Supreme Court. Good grief. He lost a lot of votes today.
By the way, Mr. McGrath, thanks for acknowledging political bloggers. We did the work for you. You fumbled the ball.
The Western Word 
Anon: There are a lot of hoops to jump through to recall an elected official in Montana. By the time it was all together, McGrath would be gone.MCA 2-16-603http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/2/16/2-16-603.htmMCA 2-16-613http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/2/16/2-16-613.htmMCA 2-16-617http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/2/16/2-16-617.htm2-16-614. Number of electors required for recall petition. Recall petitions for elected or appointed state officers shall contain the signatures of qualified electors equaling at least 10% of the number of persons registered to vote at the preceding state general election. A petition for the recall of a state-district officer must contain the signatures of qualified electors equaling at least 15% of the number of persons registered to vote in the last preceding election in that district. Recall petitions for elected or appointed county officers shall contain the signatures of qualified electors equaling at least 15% of the number of persons registered to vote at the preceding county general election. Recall petitions for elected or appointed officers of municipalities or school districts shall contain the signatures of qualified electors equaling at least 20% of the number of persons registered to vote at the preceding election for the municipality or school district.
What would a recall entail?Simple petition?
Anon: I don’t know if he knew about it, since it was in Federal and not State court. He had nothing to do with it since it was the Feds. No matter, McGrath looks really really bad in this situation. I read where it took just two hours to answer the Secretary of State’s (SOS) letter. The SOS was doing the only thing he could do because that office does not have investigative authority and McGrath’s office does. McGrath should have reviewed the speech, interviewed the Governor about it, interviewed the officials in Butte Silver Bow, and talked to the citizen who filed the complaint. He could have them written a letter that was longer than 102 words and listed what he did and what his decision was. It would have taken a week at the most. People expect more. Lots more.
JAck, perhaps he investigated these complaints as a part of the DISMISSED lawsuit after the election. I agree that it would have been better PR for McGrath to act differently and avoid accusations of being a lapdog, but don’t you think he probably knew about the issue earlier than yesterday? Everyone else did.
“Is it the less dishonest to do what is wrong, because not expressly prohibited by written law? Let us hope our moral principles are not yet in that stage of degeneracy.”Thomas Jefferson
Anon: I appreciate your comments, but I disagree. Nothing done by the state or federal government moves that fast. McGrath did little except have a staffer write a letter back to Brad Johnson and copied Tamara Hall. The body of the letter was only 102 words!If he investigated it and listed what he did, I might be more inclined to believe he did something. McGrath basically gave Montanans the middle finger and he showed that he favors political parties and political friends more than the law. –Jack
If McGrath says the accusations are not supported by fact, he probably took the time to research it. I mean, his career is more on the line than Schweitzers. He could be disbarred, while this probably won’t hurt Schweitzer’s reelection chances at all. I think this is overblown.