Todd Palin refuses to testify

"ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's husband has refused to testify in the investigation of his wife's alleged abuse of power, and key lawmakers said Thursday that uncooperative witnesses are effectively sidetracking the probe until after Election Day."


Palin is suppose to be all about reforming congress and holding people accountable. That is of course unless she is involved. I can't blame Todd, if my was a pit bull I would either not testify against her or not particpate in any activity that involes the the initlas BJ . . . no matter cute of a GILF she is.

It's a great strategy. Win the election, then let people know you violated your ethics as governor, because your running mate now has the power to pardon. Brilliant.

 

That isn't exactly right. He may claim spousal immunity under certain circumstances, but that doesn't give you the right to ignore a subpeona. Just the right to invoke the privledge for certain questions involving conversations with his wife.

 

OK I glanced at it. The decision there was whether the husband could force the wife not to testify and they held that it was the wife's privledge to invoke or she can waive it. She choose to testify and it was upheld.

It looks liek the court went on to define the privledge as this: Information privately disclosed between husband and wife in the confidence of the marital relationship is privileged under the independent rule protecting confidential marital communications, Blau v. United States, 340 U. S. 332; and the Hawkins privilege, which sweeps more broadly than any other testimonial privilege, is not limited to confidential communications, but is invoked to also exclude evidence of criminal acts and of communications in the presence of third persons.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/445/40/case.html

They want to ask Todd about his communications with many people not just his wife. And I still don't read where it says you can use the privledge to ignore a subpeona. AND all this goes against Palin basically saying bring it on (the investigation by saying "hold me accountable). How are they suppose to hold her accountable if she is instructing employees and hubby not to talk. On top of taht she is running up the lawyer bill (paid by Alaska) fighting all this.

 

The fact that there's an investigation now should be the subject of an investigation.

 

I agree with this statement. I like how there is no investigation or not much until Palin was McCain's VP. I know the Republicans would probably do the same thing if the Democrats nominated a unknown. They would have sent their team in the do everything they can to discredit her. I really don't think this is going to amount to anything and won't cause anyone not to vote for McCain.

 

This is going to hurt McCain. He chose her based on her spectacular integrity... and now they're dodging an investigation just like a seasoned politician does. Sorry, honey, it doesn't work this way.

There are 7 swing states that will decide the election. About 4 of those are pretty much decided as well. This will effect those remaining 3 that the vote will be less than a 1% difference. I'm not an Obama supporter, but to McCain I say "buh-bye" baby. Your moronic choice for veep just cost you the ovary, errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, oval office.

 

Funny, I always wondered about wiki's accuracy. They sure did slaughter the Tramell case. I provided a link to the case above, read it, wiki missed the ball on that one.

But I agree the issue is not about the privledge but about if the subpeona is valid and enfoceable and if it is will it be enforced.

Lawyers could write 30 page briefs on either side of that argument, but whatever the answer is, it is clear there will not be a complete investigation by election time.

 

I'm no fan of Palin, but I don't really see the big deal here. At its worst, it's a Monica Lewinski-level of scandal. A little crazy, a little unpleasant, but really nobody was harmed. Partisans get all up in arms, but Joe Sixpack is far more worried about his 401k and Iraq. If Democrats try to push it into being a Really Big Deal like Republicans did with Monica, I see it as more of a distraction from their much better arguments than a real advantage. Democrats are trying to sell change, and a long and dreary investigation that in the big picture just doesn't matter seems a lot like "more of the same."

Run against 8 years of Bush running America, not 2 years of Palin running Alaska.

 

There was an investigation before McCain announced Palin as the running mate. That is were the now infoamous line "hold me accountable" came from . . . Palin's reaction to the fact there was an investigation.

 

This isn't likethe Clinton thing. This is about a governor potentially abusing her power . . . she was acting as a governor when she (allegedly) attempted to have her brother-in-law fired. Imagine if she was VP . . . now there is a position you can really start flexing your muscle.

 

For those who may be interested, here's a link to Palin's filing to dismiss this case for no probable cause. I'm no attorney, but it certainly looks to me that there's ample evidence that Monegan was fired due to seeking his own budget deal with the feds and running around the governor's wishes. That will get you fired in most any administration.

http://sayanythingblog.s3.amazonaws.com/09-08/palin-response.pdf

 

Yep. not at all like the WH Travel Office.

 

Yeah, and Clinton lied under oath while serving as President. I would think one of the job descriptions of being President is not lying to America (except for national security reasons).

I don't think America cared that much about the illegal firing of attorneys, the Travelgate thing, nor Monica. (Well, there was a lurid fascination with Monica, but I don't think it made many people hate Clinton outside of the partisans who'd stuck their necks out defending his innocence.)

We expect our leaders to take advantage of the privilege of power. The "spoils system" is a term that dates back to the 1800's. That includes firing who you want, and getting blown by who you want.

What we don't expect is the gross incompetence of the current administration. That's what Democrats should run against.

 

There is a reason for this amendment. Spouses almost never testify. They shouldn't ever be put in that spot. What, marriage isn't tough enough?