Todd Palin, the hubby said he'll ignore a subpoena from the State of Alaska
puremagic
Posts: 1,907
Wtf is this? The fact that Todd, who is a private citizen feels he can ignore a subpoena demonstrates that he is deeply entrenched into the daily operation of his wife's activities as mayor, as Chairman of Alaska's Oil and Gas Commission and as Governor. He is a private citizen who has used his wife's political career for personal gain.
Meet you're next U.S. Attorney General for the State of Alaska.
Meet you're next U.S. Attorney General for the State of Alaska.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
If you ignored such a thing in the UK you would be found in contempt of course and could be jailed.
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
I don't get it - apparently prolonging the issue, making it look like they have something to hid, and looking more and more like Bush/Cheney is better than a small investigation that might show a vindictive side of Palin for a couple of days.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
That's the thing... when he doesn't show, it has to go to a full senate vote to find him (and the others) in contempt. Even if they would vote that way, it wouldn't happen until after the election, so at the very least, they are shutting this investigation down until after November.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Yep, the full Legislature is not scheduled to convene until January. So there is nothing anyone can really do now to force Palin's husband to cooperate with the subpeona.
- 8/28/98
- 9/2/00
- 4/28/03, 5/3/03, 7/3/03, 7/5/03, 7/6/03, 7/9/03, 7/11/03, 7/12/03, 7/14/03
- 9/28/04, 9/29/04, 10/1/04, 10/2/04
- 9/11/05, 9/12/05, 9/13/05, 9/30/05, 10/1/05, 10/3/05
- 5/12/06, 5/13/06, 5/27/06, 5/28/06, 5/30/06, 6/1/06, 6/3/06, 6/23/06, 7/22/06, 7/23/06, 12/2/06, 12/9/06
- 8/2/07, 8/5/07
- 6/19/08, 6/20/08, 6/22/08, 6/24/08, 6/25/08, 6/27/08, 6/28/08, 6/30/08, 7/1/08
- 8/23/09, 8/24/09, 9/21/09, 9/22/09, 10/27/09, 10/28/09, 10/30/09, 10/31/09
- 5/15/10, 5/17/10, 5/18/10, 5/20/10, 5/21/10, 10/23/10, 10/24/10
- 9/11/11, 9/12/11
- 10/18/13, 10/21/13, 10/22/13, 11/30/13, 12/4/13
subpoena shmapoena...he's the first dude...and he rides snow machines...leave the poor guy alone....
I would think that would be a hard thing to happen, especially with the Alaska Attorney General siding with Palin.
Keep in mind, no crime was ever committed by Palin, it is like the Attorney General firing thing at the national level... maybe you can get an ethics violation out of it, and put some public blame on her, but she fired a guy that she could have fired for any reason.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Honestly, if McCain wins (shudders), replacing her might be the best thing for the country in the end.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
I agree, but if that does happen, it'll be as if he duped people to vote for him.
i assumed that's why she's on the ticket
Of course, but if he makes her resign later it will be as if her fooled all of us.
For any legit reason, not because she woke one morning and told Todd she was going to fire the guy.
Your right, why would the State AG go after President Palin, oops, sorry, now that she refers to the campaign as the Palin/McCain ticket I got a little confused.
(The Nation) This column was written by John Nichols.
Here is an interesting twist on the McCain campaign's determined effort to shut down the investigation of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's abuses of power in what has come to be known as the "Troopergate" scandal.
Palin stands accused of dismissing the state's public safety commissioner because he would not fire her former brother-in-law, a state trooper with whom the governor was feuding after he and her sister divorced.
If Palin did so abuse her office, she could face any number of penalties, up to and including impeachment as governor. That would make it harder to pitch Palin as an "original maverick" reformer.
The McCain camp has tried a number of moves since Palin's selection to close down the bipartisan inquiry -- which was approved by the state's Legislative Council but is being conducted by a respected former prosecutor -- into the governor's alleged wrongdoing. If Alaska was a typical state, this partisan move might have worked. But Alaska is a very small state where top Democrats and Republicans have traditions of working together -- especially on ethics inquiries.
So, even though Republicans dominate the legislature, the McCain camp has been rebuffed.
Now, McCain's aides have gotten a handful of legislators who are tied to the campaign to file a suit in Alaska's Superior Court demanding that the investigation be halted. The clear goal is to prevent the completion of what is likely to be a damning report regarding Palin's misdeeds before election day -- as was evident when McCain aides suddenly began appearing on national news shows, fully briefed and ready to cheer on the suit, just moments after Alaskans learned it was being initiated.
What are the grounds for this suit? state Sen. Hollis French, who is managing the investigation at the behest of the legislature, is a Democrat who backs Barack Obama for president.
The five legislators name French and another Democratic legislator, Kim Elton, in the suit, as well as special investigator Stephen Branchflower and the Alaska Legislative Council. "The Partisan actions of Sen. French, Sen. Elton and the Legislative Council have tainted the investigation beyond the appearance of impartiality required under the Alaska Constitution," claims Kevin Clarkson, Esq., of the firm Brena, Bell & Clarkson, P.C., and counsel in the suit.
Here's the amusing part: The Alaska Legislative Council is a permanent interim committee of the Legislature and is responsible for conducting the business of the full Legislature when it is not in session.
The Council, which approved the Troopergate inquiry and is paying for it, and which has stood behind French despite the partisan attacks, is made up of 8 Republicans and 4 Democrats.
In other words, the McCain campaign's allies in Alaska are suing Republicans in order to protect Palin from a bipartisan inquiry.
Needless to say, the national McCain operatives who appeared on cable news shows to promote the suit failed to mention that detail.
By John Nichols
Reprinted with permission from The Nation.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/17/opinion/main4454820.shtml?source=search_story
The best line is "In other words, the McCain campaign's allies in Alaska are suing Republicans in order to protect Palin from a bipartisan inquiry."
The Clintons never did this? Or are you stuck in the present tense?
Not if he was part of the conspiracy.