Does anyone care to make an analogy to the Dan Sutton case here in South Dakota? Sutton was never found to have violated any law, but the South Dakota State Senate censured him for inappropriate behavior. Some said Sutton's actions warranted his removal from office:
What is at stake in these situations is not whether there is criminal wrong doing, but whether the honor of the office has been disgraced. That is a political standard, not a legal one, and the courts should, and I think will, defer to the political body.
The fact that Sutton is attempting to hold on to his seat with legalisms rather than by fighting the charges directly is damning. For the sake of his own honor and that of the South Dakota Legislature, Dan Sutton should simply resign [Jon Schaff, "Plenty of Sutton, South Dakota Politics, 2007.01.12].
The voters gave Sarah Palin power, and she abused it. That's pretty serious. Serious enough to remove a politician from office? We'll find out in January, when the Alaska Legislature reconvenes.
Update 17:25: From independent investigator Stephen Branchflower's report, 2008.10.10, p. 66:
Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda, to wit: to get Trooper Michael Wooten fired. She had the authority and power to require Mr. Palin to cease contacting subordinates, but she failed to act.
Such impermissible and repeated contacts create conflicts of interests for subordinate employees who must choose to either please a superior or run the risk of facing the superior's displeasure and the possible consequences of such displeasure.