That comes from the FBI, so those leftists claiming imminent federal indictments of the Alaska governor had better start retracting their claims -- and perhaps prepare to name their allegedly reliable sources upon which they based their posts and articles.

A day after Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin resigned, a federal official in her home state dismissed one potential explanation for her sudden and unexpected resignation: a rumored FBI investigation into the former Wasilla mayor on public corruption charges.

Despite rumors of a looming controversy after the Republican governor's surprise announcement Friday that she would leave office this month, some of them published in the blogosphere, the FBI's Alaska spokesman said the bureau had no investigation into Palin for her activities as governor, as mayor or in any other capacity.

"There is absolutely no truth to those rumors that we're investigating her or getting ready to indict her," Special Agent Eric Gonzalez said in a phone interview Saturday. "It's just not true." He added that there was "no wiggle room" in his comments for any kind of inquiry.

Well, you don't get any more definitive than that. There will be no indictments, and she is not suspected of corruption. Just call it one more frivolous claim disproved against Palin.

Except there is a new wrinkle to this one. Palin's attorney is raising the possibility of legal action against those making and repeating the claim.

To the extent several websites, most notably liberal Alaska blogger Shannyn Moore, are now claiming as “fact” that Governor Palin resigned because she is “under federal investigation” for embezzlement or other criminal wrongdoing, we will be exploring legal options this week to address such defamation. This is to provide notice to Ms. Moore, and those who re-publish the defamation, such as Huffington Post, MSNBC, the New York Times and The Washington Post, that the Palins will not allow them to propagate defamatory material without answering to this in a court of law. The Alaska Constitution protects the right of free speech, while simultaneously holding those “responsible for the abuse of that right.” Alaska Constitution Art. I, Sec. 5. http://ltgov.state.ak.us/constitution.php?section=1. These falsehoods abuse the right to free speech; continuing to publish these falsehoods of criminal activity is reckless, done without any regard for the truth, and is actionable.

Now some, such as the demented Andrew Sullivan (whose obsession with the circumstances of Trig Palin's birth borders on pathological), are claiming this is a move to intimidate the press. I'd argue to the contrary. After all, even a public official is allowed to sue for libel -- even if under a different standard than the rest of us. The seminal Supreme Court case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) clearly allows for a plaintiff in Palin's position to prevail in such a suit if she can prove that those making the claims acted with actual malice, meaning that they spoke/published knowing the claim to be false or with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the claim.

Now let's consider this situation. Shannyn Moore is a blogger who is noted for her venomous attacks on Sarah Palin and her involvement with a whole series of frivolous, non-supported ethics complaints. At least one of the early bloggers on the topic indicates that he had confirmed through reliable sources that an indictment was imminent. Now that it is established that there is no investigation, much less an indictment, those claims become transparently false and obviously defamatory -- and those involved in publishing the allegations will need to be able to demonstrate that they had good reason to believe that their words were true. The only way to accomplish that will be to begin naming their sources so as to prove that they exercised due diligence before making their claims.

Some argue this is a bad idea. Others are more supportive. I'm not sure which side I come down on in terms of the advisability of such litigation, but do I believe that Sarah Palin could prevail based upon the facts as they now stand? You betcha!