Well ya, but driving drunk is a crime. Shooting a moose is a crime (I'm assuming lol). Tazing your stepson is abuse. Threatening her father is a crime. Who cares what the union says.
My conclusions are that what should have been a fairly routine oversight kind of investigation into a trivial matter has turned into a partisan mess because Palin was appointed VP candidate and both sides of the presidential campaign have partisan reasons to overblow or bury the thing. It's really unfortunate, but it's almost like a trial where the accused can't get a fair venue because the story is so public everyone who'd be on the jury has reached some conclusion.
You posted an interesting link to the local paper. In that article it says: Todd Palin, although a private citizen, frequently participates in a range of official duties. He had been copied in on official state e-mail that are now being withheld from the public on the grounds of executive privilege. Cell phone records show that Todd Palin called key Palin aide Ivy Frye three times on the afternoon of Feb. 28, the day before Bailey's conversation about Wooten with Dial. The topics of discussion have not been disclosed. Three-and-a-half hours after the last call, the first of 10 e-mails begin to fly among Frye, the governor, Todd Palin, Bailey, Administration Commissioner Annette Kreitzer, Deputy Chief of Staff Randy Ruaro and Palin aide Kris Perry. The exchanges continued overnight and into the morning of Bailey's phone call. How can you conduct an through investigation without interviewing Todd Palin. Another interesting note in the article: Almost from the moment Palin was named McCain's running mate, Republicans started pressuring to end the probe, which had been approved unanimously by a legislative committee of four Democrats and 10 Republicans. McCain's campaign began claiming the investigation was a political witch hunt, even though some Alaska Republican lawmakers still backed it. Then Palin aides canceled their appointments to testify. After lawmakers began issuing subpoenas, Palin's legal team -- bolstered by McCain campaign lawyer Ed O'Callaghan, a former federal prosecutor -- said the governor would no longer cooperate.
Well that's awesome. This could all be nothing, but the way the McCain campaign is working, it sure doesn't seem that way.
Some of those things, the only witnesses are a family named Palin, who seem to be anything but disinterested observers. Do you really want to take their word as gospel? Note also that they didn't report any of those incidents at the time they happened. They only reported them after the divorce got nasty. So the Palin's supposed 'concern' for the state of AK having a bad trooper is utter bullshit - they are just out to get the guy. Which makes the idea that she fired Monegan as part of this plausible. Not necessarily true, but plausible. barfo
So what do we do in those cases? Just forget about justice? Yes, there are political consequences - but there is no evidence that the guy doing the investigation (Branchflower) is letting politics influence the investigation. barfo
Yes, and if Palin was so concerned about those issues, she probably should have looked at pressing charges. But ya, poaching is not something that goes away. You can talk to the Forest Service or the Dept. Of Fish and Wildlife, they'll nail your ass hardcore. Poaching is a serious offense. The drunk driving would be harder to prove.
I think we've been through this before. There's no separation of branches of government if the congress (of the state) can harass the executive and vice versa. The subpoenas have to go to a judge, the third branch, to resolve the dispute. Not only did Clinton and Bush go through the same procedures, the Bush administration sent in the FBI to grab a bunch of actual evidence against William Jefferson (the guy caught with $90K in cash in his freezer) and the courts threw all that out. Of course the executive can submit to the subpoenas, or work other deals to testify - which Palin offered to do. And I don't see why there'd be any reason to not comply fully with the investigation if it weren't politicized. The bottom line still is that it's in the Democrats' best interest to go on a fishing expedition and throw as many potential issues out there as they can to drag down McCain/Palin and help Obama. The reverse is true - it's in McCain/Palin's interest to squash the investigation until after the election.
The guy that hired Branchflower was talking about impeachment before one shred of evidence was even looked at.
I get taht this whole process will be put on hold and decided at a later time. The part I was refering to was how you call the subpeona for Todd Palin a fishing expedition. If you were an impartial investigator, and you had evidence to show how intertwined Todd Plain was with the process, would you subpeona him? That's not fishing, that is proper and reasonable investigation.
But of course that's not what is happening here. This investigation started before Palin was picked as VP candidate. The investigation was started by a bipartisan panel, and no new charges have been added since national politics got involved. So calling it a Democratic fishing expedition is completely inaccurate. Which is not to say they don't hope it turns out badly for Palin. barfo
Yes, he foolishly (but correctly) pointed out that that was one possible outcome. So what? Does that change anything? barfo
Asked and answered on this one, too. Hawkins Privilege for starters. The scope of what questions will be asked is also in question. If he's asked about those three e-mails, not a problem. If he's asked about anything but the firing of Monagan or pressuring him to fire the trooper, then it's a fishing expedition. Think about the Fitzgerald investigation. He knew who violated the law, and people were claiming it was someone else hoping for the worst against the Administration. Who got busted? Scooter Libby, who didn't leak the name or violate any law in question - he was busted for something else. Fishing expedition.
Yes. It indicates a predisposition of guilt, and the matter of degree being of the worst sort (for her).
Alright . . . we are not connecting here. I'm not discussing the legal aspect, we could go around with that all day. My only idea I'm trying to say, is usally a fishing expidition means you really have nothing to bring this guy in, you just want to see if you might get something. In this case, Todd Palin had his fingerprints all over this incident. How could you, as an investigator, not interview him. Of course you to talk him and subpeona him to do so. If the lawyers want or can quash the subpeonas . . . that is for the lawyers. But the investiagtor is not fishing, it would be bad investiagtion not to interview him.
I think they should get this entire thing over with. Get information and if there is fault condemn it, if not then get it over with. The focus should be on the campaigns and issues that they are focusing on. Two hens do not equal a bucket of milk.
They're investigating something akin to jaywalking. It's just not as big a deal as one side wants to make out of it. In fact, I'm not sure there's any law here broken - it's an ethics investigation. They're probably going to find, if the investigation is fair, that she deserves a slap on the wrist for pushing to get the trooper fired (though he deserved it anyway) and that she had every right to fire Monagan. Subpoenas aren't required to get people to testify under oath. Testifying under oath isn't required to find the truth, also.
I saw on Rachel Maddow show on Friday, that they plan on finishing the investigation before the election. It was breaking news during her show.
You are kidding me right? You think the the investigating committee can just call Todd up and say hey, come on down we want to ask you a few questions about this taped conversation and emials we have. This is somewhat of an offical investiagtion going. I would hope that if their is a vote in legislature to offically investigate the Governor, whoever did it would do their due dilligence and conduct a competent investigation instead of a no big deal just a jaywalking ticket attitude.
