100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
| Topic: Palin Above the Law? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Gee, she hasn't been elected and already Palin is playing the dodge accountability game.
Her husband has followed suit and is refusing to respond to a subpoena. Now ladies and gentlemen, every judge, congress person, administrative law ref, committee and grand jury is made up of individuals who all have their own political convictions. They are citizens and humans. If I received a subpoena to testify from any of the above mentioned and said, "No I am not showing up because I don't like their politics" I'll give you one guess what the result would be. I likely would be found in contempt and perhaps jailed. I guess, the Palins have decided they are already above the law. Geez, Palin, while invoking executive privileged as the governor of Alaska can't even decide if the office of veep is within the executive branch?? From http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/19/palin-executive-branch/ When Sarah Palin was announced as John McCain’s running mate, President Bush said that she “had the executive appearance and that’s what it takes to be a capable person…in the executive branch.” But like Bush’s own vice president, it’s not clear that Palin would consider herself to be part of the executive branch. The Hill reports that it inquired with both Joseph Biden and Sarah Palin about whether they would consider themselves to be part of the executive branch in the next administration. The Hill’s Kevin Bogardus reports, “Sen. Biden (Del.) believes the office he is seeking is solely in the executive branch, according to his staff. But aides to Alaska Gov. Palin did not answer the question”: [A] spokesman for the Republican presidential campaign did not answer the question. Instead, he e-mailed remarks Palin gave at a campaign rally in Golden, Colo., on Monday. Palin did not say what branch of government she believes the vice president’s office is part of in those remarks. Instead, Palin said she and Republican presidential nominee John McCain had discussed what responsibilities she would take on as his second-in-command. **** Cheney, and his chief aide David Addington, have repeatedly tried to argue that the vice president is not part of the executive branch. Cheney, who has referred to his office as “a unique creature,” has tried to exempt himself from a presidential executive order designed to safeguard classified national security information. Already, Palin’s handling the “Troopergate” probe has demonstrated a striking resemblance to Cheney’s penchant for secrecy. Palin is thwarting both a state legislature probe and a state Personnel Board investigation into the ethics scandal. Like the Bush White House, she is claiming “executive privilege” on e-mails from personal accounts. And just yesterday, her husband Todd Palin — following in the footsteps of Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten — said thanks but no thanks to a subpoena demanding he appear before the state Senate Judiciary Committee. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have to call BS on this. She is interfering with the Legislature's probe, since it is illegal, but she is not interfering with the Personnel board. She was the one who got the Personnel board involved in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Like I said, if you or I refused to respond to a subpoena we would be held in contempt and that's just the start of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to do your research. They don't have to respond to an illegal subpoena.
I already posted this in another thread on this topic. In Alaska, the only ones authorized to investigate/pursue an ethics complaint against the Governor, Lt. Governor, or Attorney General, are the Personnel Board. Not the legislature. This is a political stunt by Hollis French, nothing more. Ok. A couple of things. Obviously none of you are aware of Alaska's constitution and that this "investigation" was launched by the Alaska legislation who is not authorized to investigate such matters anyway. AS 39.52.310. Complaints. (a) The attorney general may initiate a complaint, or elect to treat as a complaint, any matter disclosed under AS 39.52.210 , 39.52.220, 39.52.250, or 39.52.260. The attorney general may not, during a campaign period, initiate a complaint concerning the conduct of the governor or lieutenant governor who is a candidate for election to state office. (b) A person may file a complaint with the attorney general regarding the conduct of a current or former public officer. A complaint must be in writing, be signed under oath, and contain a clear statement of the details of the alleged violation. (c) If a complaint alleges a violation of AS 39.52.110 - 39.52.190 by the governor, lieutenant governor, or the attorney general, the matter shall be referred to the personnel board. The personnel board shall return a complaint concerning the conduct of the governor or lieutenant governor who is a candidate for election to state office as provided in (j) of this section if the complaint is initiated during a campaign period. The personnel board shall retain independent counsel who shall act in the place of the attorney general under (d) - (i) of this section, AS 39.52.320 - 39.52.350, and 39.52.360(c) and (d). Notwithstanding AS 36.30.015 (d), the personnel board may contract for or hire independent counsel under this subsection without notifying or securing the approval of the Department of Law. (d) The attorney general shall review each complaint filed, to determine whether it is properly completed and contains allegations which, if true, would constitute conduct in violation of this chapter. The attorney general may require the complainant to provide additional information before accepting the complaint. If the attorney general determines that the allegations in the complaint do not warrant an investigation, the attorney general shall dismiss the complaint with notice to the complainant and the subject of the complaint. (e) The attorney general may refer a complaint to the subject's designated supervisor for resolution under AS 39.52.210 or 39.52.220. (f) If the attorney general accepts a complaint for investigation, the attorney general shall serve a copy of the complaint upon the subject of the complaint, for a response. The attorney general may require the subject to provide, within 20 days after service, full and fair disclosure in writing of all facts and circumstances pertaining to the alleged violation. Misrepresentation of a material fact in a response to the attorney general is a violation of this chapter. Failure to answer within the prescribed time, or within any additional time period that may be granted in writing by the attorney general, may be considered an admission of the allegations in the complaint. (g) If a complaint is accepted under (f) of this section, the attorney general shall investigate to determine whether a violation of this chapter has occurred. At any stage of an investigation or review, the attorney general may issue a subpoena under AS 39.52.380 . (h) A violation of this chapter may be investigated within two years after discovery of the alleged violation. (i) The unwillingness of a complainant to assist in an investigation, the withdrawal of a complaint, or restitution by the subject of the complaint may, but need not in and of itself, justify termination of an investigation or proceeding. (j) The personnel board shall return a complaint concerning the conduct of the governor or lieutenant governor who is a candidate for state office received during a campaign period to the complainant unless the governor or lieutenant governor, as appropriate, permits the personnel board to assume jurisdiction under this subsection. If the personnel board receives a complaint concerning the conduct of the governor or lieutenant governor who is a candidate during the campaign period, the personnel board shall immediately notify the subject of the complaint of the receipt of the complaint, of the suspension of the personnel board's jurisdiction during the campaign period, and of the candidate's right to waive the suspension of jurisdiction under this subsection. The candidate may, within 11 days after the personnel board mails or otherwise sends notice of the complaint to the candidate, notify the personnel board that the candidate chooses to have the personnel board proceed with the complaint under this section. If the candidate does not act within that time or if the candidate notifies the personnel board that the candidate is not waiving the suspension of jurisdiction, the personnel board shall return the complaint to the complainant with notice of the suspension of jurisdiction under this subsection and of the right of the complainant to file the complaint after the end of the campaign period. (k) A campaign period under this section begins on the later of 45 days before a primary election in which the governor or lieutenant governor is a candidate for state office or the day on which the individual files as a candidate for state office and ends at the close of election day for the general or special election in which the individual is a candidate or on the day that the candidate withdraws from the election, if earlier. For a candidate who loses in the primary election, the campaign period ends on the day that results of the primary election showing that another individual won the election are certified. The complaint alleges to fall under AS 39.52.120 (Misuse of Official Position) and the only ones legally able to pursue the matter at hand are the personnel board (to avoid a conflict of interest.) and Hollis French, the partisan hack who is leading the charge against Palin has already decided the outcome of the case without an investigation. http://community.adn.com/adn/node/131386 And now this Posted by Alaska_Politics Posted: September 16, 2008 - 8:13 am From an e-mail sent overnight by Anchorage attorney Kevin Clarkson: Five Alaska Legislators, Rep. Wes Keller, Rep. Mike Kelly, Rep. Bob Lynn, Sen. Fred Dyson, and Sen. Tom Wagoner, will file suit in state superior court in Anchorage tomorrow morning (9/16/08) at 9:00 am (Superior courthouse 4th Avenue) against Sen. French, Sen. Kim Elton, Stephen Branchflower and the Alaska Legislative Council in order to halt the investigation of Governor Sarah Palin and others because the investigators have lost the appearance of impartiality required under the Alaska Constitution. The Legislators will ask for declaratory and injunctive relief in the investigation, stating that it is an attempt to use the Alaska Legislative Council to further partisan politics. The Legislators cite in their lawsuit that the investigation into the firing of former Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Public safety Walt Monegan, led by Sens. Hollis French and Kim Elton, with Stephen Branchflower and the Alaska Legislative Council, is being driven by partisan politics in an attempt to unlawfully smear Gov. Palin and others. “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,” said Kevin Clarkson, Esq., of the firm Brena, Bell & Clarkson, P.C., and counsel in the suit. The investigation, which began after Monegan’s dismissal in July 2008, is being led by outspoken supporters of Barack Obama and members of the Democratic Party. Sen. Elton, the Chair of the Legislative Council donated $2,000 to the Obama campaign but has failed to disclose this to the Legislative Council and he continues to preside over the Council with respect to the investigation, refusing to convene meetings of the Council at the request of a majority of the Council’s membership. Sen. French the investigation “project manager” failed to disclose to the Legislative Council the comments he made on a radio program criticizing the Governor’s conduct regarding the termination of Monegan as “criminal” prior to being appointed as the investigation “project manager” and even prior to a vote to investigate at all. Sen. French also failed to disclose to the Legislative Council that he had a personal bone to pick with the Governor over the Monegan firing because Monegan was a friend and because he had worked closely with Monegan during the 2008 legislative session regarding attempts to include in the state budget items that Governor Palin had vetoed. Since the Alaska Legislature wrote the ethics laws, they should know better. Obviously out to score political points though. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MirrorMirror
on
Fri 09/19/08 09:56 AM
|
|
Like I said, if you or I refused to respond to a subpoena we would be held in contempt and that's just the start of it.  Your right. If I ignored a subpoena, the cops would be kicking my door down right now. The law should apply to everyone equally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And those personal emails were already forwarded to the Personnel board, the only ones legally authorized to investigate/pursue ethics law violations by the Governor/Lt. Governor/Attorney General.
State Sen. Bill Wielechowski, a Democrat, said the McCain campaign is doing all it can to prevent the Legislature from completing a report on whether the GOP's vice presidential nominee abused her power as governor.
Wielechowski and another member of the panel that summoned the witnesses, told The Associated Press that the witnesses can avoid testifying for months without penalty and that court action to force them to appear sooner is unlikely. Republican Sen. Gene Therriault agreed with Wielechowski's analysis. The court is not going to force an illegal subpoena, even if they do get involved with a legislative subpoena, which they never have. The Legislature does not have the leverage to compel any witness to testify before Nov. 4, said Wielechowski, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Wielechowski said he did not know whether Branchflower has enough material for a complete and fair report with so few witnesses. But he said delaying the probe would only politicize the matter more. "It would be to appease the McCain camp," Wielechowski said. "They're doing everything they can to delay." Ignoring a legislative subpoena is punishable by a fine up to $500 and up to six months in jail under Alaska law. But courts are reluctant to intervene in legislative matters and the full Legislature must be in session to bring contempt charges, Wielechowski said. The Legislature is not scheduled to convene until January. Nothing will come of it. Bank on it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wiley
on
Fri 09/19/08 10:14 AM
|
|
Like I said, if you or I refused to respond to a subpoena we would be held in contempt and that's just the start of it. Your right. If I ignored a subpoena, the cops would be kicking my door down right now. The law should apply to everyone equally.
We're not talking about a subpoena from a judge. This is from the Alaska state legislature. You or I would never be the subject of one unless we were in office, working for someone in office, or related to someone in office. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The thing I am starting to find interesting is how involved TODD PALIN has been in Alaskan affairs.
Why was she sending all these STATE BUSINESS e-mails to TODD? Why was she using her personal e-mail for State Business? Why did TODD spend so much time in meetings in her office with staff? This is getting more interesting by the minute. Maybe she is just an empty skirt? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wiley
on
Fri 09/19/08 10:31 AM
|
|
The thing I am starting to find interesting is how involved TODD PALIN has been in Alaskan affairs. I found that interesting too. Why was she sending all these STATE BUSINESS e-mails to TODD? From what I've read he was involved with the governor's office whenever he wasn't working his 100,000/year oil job (which is seasonal.) Why was she using her personal e-mail for State Business? My theory -- to get around the archive requirements for official state communications. She wouldn't be the first. Why did TODD spend so much time in meetings in her office with staff? As I read it, stated above. I'm not sure why this was allowed since he wasn't on the state's payroll and was never elected. This is getting more interesting by the minute. Maybe she is just an empty skirt? I wouldn't be surprised. Her comments so far haven't led to a different opinion. |
|
|
|
|
