Palin allies sue to halt trooper probe, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times

reply posted on 17-9-2008 @ 10:54 AM by Benevolent Heretic

In an effort to stop this ongoing investigation, Palin has made an ethics complaint against herself, to take the investigation away from the Legislature.

Palin Makes Ethics Complaint Against Herself

Gov. Sarah Palin wants a state board to review the circumstances surrounding the dismissal of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan -- taking the unusual step of making an ethics complaint against herself.
...
The lawyer, Thomas Van Flein, also asked the state Legislature to drop its own investigation into the Monegan matter. He says the Personnel Board has jurisdiction over ethics.

A senator running the investigation immediately refused.

Originally posted by DCFusion
What I don't get is if Palin is truly innocent of any wrong doing, why is she not pushing this investigation through herself.

That's a good question. In the beginning, she welcomed the investigation, saying she had nothing to hide. I can only speculate as to why it's a big problem all of a sudden.

It would also make the Dems look bad for sloshing this thing around when there really was no grounds for it.

It's not "the Dems" doing this. The legislative panel is comprised of 2 Democrats and 3 Republicans.

[edit on 17-9-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply posted on 17-9-2008 @ 04:21 PM by Keyhole

Originally posted by ppskylight

Palin allies sue to halt trooper probe

www.cnn.com

Allies of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin asked a judge Tuesday to halt the state Legislature's investigation into the firing of her public service commissioner

Originally posted by ppskylight

Palin will not be cooperating with the investigation.

Sounds to me like the same sort of thing Bush has been doing in the White House.

Attorney General says Bush blocked wiretap investigation
White House blocks inquiry into construction of $736m embassy in Iraq
Bush Blocks DOJ From Releasing CIA Leak Documents
Attorney General sells out and Bush blocks justice once again
Government 'blocks' Katrina probe
White House Blocks Release of FBI Files
Bush reportedly blocks Rove testimony
Bush Blocks Congressional Probes by invoking Executive Privilege
Bush blocks Miers from appearing before House Judiciary Committee, contempt charges possible

Need I go on?

Seems Palin has discovered one of the Bush Administrations strengths, never let an investigation or inquiry continue that might hurt you or let somebody testify that might hurt you.

She'll make a PERFECT Cheney replacement! (Due to the fact that I think Cheney is the actual "snake in the grass" that was pulling the strings to block investigations, inquiries and testimonies.)

Originally posted by ppskylight
I have to agree with commentators on CNN earlier today who had mentioned that this probe is being stalled, prolonging it until after the election is over for the benefit of one candidate.

Of course it is!

[edit on 9/17/2008 by Keyhole]

reply posted on 17-9-2008 @ 05:37 PM by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Keyhole
Sounds to me like the same sort of thing Bush has been doing in the White House.

It's exactly like what has happened in the Bush Administration. Palin Shows Traits of Previous Officials.

I thought subpoenas were a demand to appear. I didn't know you could choose not to "comply" with them... What good are they, then?

Palin's Staff Won't Testify in Trooper Probe

Aides to Gov. Sarah Palin won't comply with subpoenas issued by state lawmakers investigating the firing of Alaska's former public safety commissioner because Palin "has declined to participate" in the probe, her attorney general says.
...
"As state employees, our clients have taken an oath to uphold the Alaska Constitution, and for that reason, they respect the Legislature's desire to carry out an investigation in support of its lawmaking powers," Attorney General Talis Colberg, a Palin appointee, told the investigation's manager in a letter released Wednesday.

Won't comply? What is this? An RSVP? "Oh, look! A subpoena to the event of the season! Honey, can we make it to this investigation on the 23rd? I have a beautiful new dress I'd like to wear... No? Oh, too bad... I'll let them now we won't be able to make it..."

Palin initially denied that anyone in her administration or family had pressed for action against Wooten, whom she has branded a "rogue trooper." But in August, two weeks before her nomination as a vice presidential candidate, she acknowledged that members of her staff had contacted Monegan's office nearly two dozen times about the trooper. An aide was suspended after being taped telling a state trooper lieutenant that the Palins were concerned that there had been "absolutely no action for a year on this issue."

[edit on 17-9-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

[edit on 17-9-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply posted on 17-9-2008 @ 06:16 PM by zlots331

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by mabus325
The Alaskan State constitution, which is the law in Alaska, prohibits this kind of investigation.

Hi, and welcome to my world, confused as usual.
Impeachment and investigation are two entirely separate issues. Obviously you can't instigate impeachment proceedings without first performing some type of investigation. Preferably by a bi-partisan group ( which we appear to have). So, having any type of investigation, which in many cases would be to prove that no wrongs were committed, would seem to be clear legal proceedings.
Also, many legal proceedings are initiated at the request of citizens of that constituency, as is their right under the US Constitution. Policy makers are subservient to the people, not the other way around. Playing legal mumbly-peg just makes them look bad. Can't wait to see how this plays out.
(did I wander off topic? sorry, but I'm still confused.)

reply posted on 17-9-2008 @ 07:16 PM by Sublime620

reply to post by Keyhole

Awesome post! That's what I was getting at above.

I recall back during the Plame scandal the Press Secretary said this:

Before the investigation
"We can't comment on this until it is investigated further."

During the investigation
"It's under investigation so we can't comment."

After the investigation
"It's already been investigated so why are we talking about it?"

Unbelievable. If only I could not comment on anything ever, I'd never get in trouble.

reply posted on 18-9-2008 @ 04:57 PM by Keyhole

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

I thought subpoenas were a demand to appear.

Well, for most people it is!

Dictionary Results for: subpoena

subpoena

noun
1. a writ issued by court authority to compel the attendance of a witness at a judicial proceeding; disobedience may be punishable as a contempt of court

subpoena [(suh-pee-nuh)]

An order of a court, a legislature, or a grand jury compelling a witness to be present at a trial or hearing, under penalty of fine or imprisonment. Subpoena is Latin for “under penalty.”

All the rest of the definitions are about the same.

Unless you feel you are above the law, you should appear before the court when you are served a subpeona!

reply posted on 18-9-2008 @ 05:00 PM by AtlantaInsider1

reply to post by Keyhole

Stop using facts will ya!!!

McCain+Palin = Change...just don't look under the covers.

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^