Is this sequence of events correct? Several years ago, suspicion that the CCA wasn't running an Idaho prison correctly surfaced. The CCA responded by doing an "internal investigation" of itself and concluded that nothing was amiss ... (fox and henhouse?).
Otter responded by asking the chief officer of the ISP to investigate. (Was this an order?) Months passed. When asked how the investigation was progressing, several people were told that it was "in progress." Then the Statesman finds that no investigation had ever been going on and none was "in progress."
Wow. The responsible person in the ISP says, in effect, that he attended several meetings and on that basis determined that nothing criminal had occurred. (Thorough investigation?) Several days later, Idaho's attorney general recommends the governor order a thorough investigation immediately. The governor refuses this recommendation. Soon afterward, the AG meets privately with the governor - guess what, the governor immediately orders the investigation. Then he and the AG claim the attorney-client privilege, meaning their discussions can be kept private. Then the FBI steps in and the governor says the FBI investigation is "great." What's happening here? The conclusions of a thorough FBI investigation should be public knowledge.
Jack Stevens, Boise