Alaska AG: Employees Won't Honor TrooperGate Subpoenas

The press will not ignore TrooperGate. The Alaska Attorney General informs us that Gov. Sarah Palin's employees won't honor the subpoenas to testify about TrooperGate.

In a letter to state Sen. Hollis French, the Democrat overseeing the investigation, Republican Attorney General Talis Colberg asked that the subpoenas be withdrawn. He also said the employees would refuse to appear unless either the full state Senate or the entire Legislature votes to compel their testimony.

Colberg, who was appointed by Palin, said the employees are caught between their respect for the Legislature and their loyalty to the governor, who initially agreed to cooperate with the inquiry but has increasingly opposed it since McCain chose her as his running mate.


"This is an untenable position for our clients because the governor has so strongly stated that the subpoenas issued by your committee are of questionable validity," Colberg wrote.

Palin stonewalls just like Dick Cheney and George Bush. First she agrees to cooperate, then she tries to delay and derail the investigation by moving it to an agency under executive rather than legislative control. Losing that battle, she says "Never Mind" and refuses to cooperate. Now, her employees are doing the same.

We've had enough of Dick Cheney-style politics. If Alaska wants to put up with Palin's antics, that's its business. But there's no reason to inflict her lies and distortions of her record or her lack of preparedness and qualifications to lead on the rest of us.

The bloom will come off the rose, let's just hope voters get it by November 4. I think they will.

< Biden: Feds Should Not Bail Out AIG | Wall St. Wipeout: Stocks, Other Companies Tumble >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Can people (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by WS on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:48:40 PM EST
    just ignore subpoenas like that?

    Ask Karl Rove. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by coigue on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:50:40 PM EST
    only if ... (none / 0) (#29)
    by wystler on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:32:32 PM EST
    ... they wish to risk the consequences.

    In this case, enforcing the consequences falls to the Alaska AG. Mr. Colberg's in a politically tough spot. We'll see what he does. (Or does not do.)


    Unreal. (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Faust on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:54:52 PM EST
    I like how the conservative line about surveillance: "why do you care about surveillance if you have nothing to hide?" NEVER EVER EVER applies to them.

    It's strange... (none / 0) (#5)
    by kredwyn on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    I've heard that line from both Dems and Reps.

    The group I never hear that from? Civil Libertarians. They tend to be more paranoid re: Big Brother.


    Lots of dems (none / 0) (#53)
    by Faust on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:58:01 PM EST
    have terrible views about civil liberties, particularly since 9/11. Score one for Bin Laden.

    I had that mistrust before 9/11 (none / 0) (#56)
    by kredwyn on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:05:28 PM EST
    but I've been a CT junkie for ages...plus knowing more than my fair share of computer hackers from the old "shall we play a game" days. Love 'em...but they leave you scratching your head--nervous about the real possibilities.

    I remember talking about them once with some Dem friends of mine when we were living in TX. Several of them said that they had nothing to hide ::shrug:: "so why worry?".


    heh (none / 0) (#65)
    by Faust on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:25:56 PM EST
    Texas democrats. come to Seattle we have a lot more paranoia up here. Good and bad.

    Lack of sunshine... (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:51:33 PM EST
    ...or too much coffee?

    Not mutually exclusive. (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by Faust on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:31:30 PM EST
    Def not enough sunshine and WAY too much coffee.

    I thought this was lame (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:02:04 PM EST
    But seriously if she's going act just like Goerge Bush, then I think this should be a major story.

    What will the reaction be from the left if (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by coast on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:02:20 PM EST
    this whole Troopergate thing turns out to be nothing.  I heard information this morning, albeit talk radio, that would easily explain Palin's actions in both wanting her former brother-in-law off the force and in dismissing the other official...can't recall his actual title.  I know the source is questionable, but I also question the information that is currently available.

    It already isn't "nothing" (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by coigue on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:04:56 PM EST
    because she is mucking up the investigation.

    The cover-ups are often what get people in trouble worse than the crime.


    So true (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by coast on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:11:10 PM EST
    If nothing to hide, answer the questions and move on.

    Cliches aside... (2.00 / 1) (#17)
    by ks on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:17:22 PM EST
    This is nothing and will be nothing because when you get down to it, the facts behind the supposed "abuse of power" break in Palin's favor. The "cover up and stonewalling" shouts are just spin.

    ya (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:32:13 PM EST
    Tell that to Scooter Libby. Acting like there is a problem can often hurt you.

    tell that to Bill Clinton also (none / 0) (#31)
    by coigue on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:35:11 PM EST
    I will next time I see them (none / 0) (#37)
    by ks on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:41:16 PM EST
    Right after I tell Cheney and Karl Rove.  You two are engaging in selective hindsight bias.

    Also, yeah, if Clinton didn't fight the Repubs tooth and nail, I'm sure he would've had a much better outcome.  Uh huh.


    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:48:02 PM EST
    If the GOP hadn't managed to get Clinton's case before a hack Republican judge willing to make the unprecedented ruling that a sitting President had to appear for a deposition in a civil action, there may have never been a Monica scandal at all.

    Can't say as I blame him for trying as opposed to voluntarily showing up for that deposition with the attitude "well heck, wouldn't want it to look like I have anything to hide!"


    I'm not interested enough to do the (none / 0) (#62)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:18:41 PM EST
    actual research.  But, I'm wondering if the Alaska Legislature was the venue for the investigation at the point Gov. Palin sd. she would cooperate?  Also, does the issurer of the subpoenas in question have authority to subpoena witnesses?  

    Yes. The Alaska Legislature has a (none / 0) (#77)
    by scribe on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:54:38 PM EST
    committee (3 Republicans, 2 Democrats) who appointed the investigator and, last week, approved his issuing subpoenas.  Note, also, that both houses of the Legislature are controlled something like 2-1 Republican, and the vote to investigate and appoint was hugely in favor.  Note also that the committee vote on the subpoenas was 2 Republicans against subpoenas, and 2 Democrats and 1 Republican in favor of subpoenas.

    The investigator proposed to the committee the subpoenas - naming the witnesses by name - and the committee approved them that way.  All pretty much by-the-book.

    TPM has been following this story since a good month or more before Palin was nominated to be VP, and has probably the most comprehensive "book" on it outside of Alaska.


    Federal Judge Susan Webber Wright (none / 0) (#76)
    by KeysDan on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:51:56 PM EST
    deferred the Clinton v Jones case until after President Clinton completed his term, although she did permit pretrial discovery to proceed to facilitate an eventual trial.   Both Clinton and Jones appealed and the Court of Appeals held for Jones; Clinton appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which also held for Jones stating that a sitting president has no immunity from civil litigation for actions unrelated to his office (having occurred prior to assuming office).  In perhaps John Paul Stevens most off the mark opinion, he stated that "it appears highly unlikely to occupy any substantial amount of petitioner's time."  

    I didn't mean that. (none / 0) (#45)
    by coigue on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:50:59 PM EST
    More like he got impeached due to the lie not the private action....that's all

    There would not have been any need to lie (none / 0) (#80)
    by scribe on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:03:23 PM EST
    nor any occasion to lie, had there not been the civil action and the deposition on-going.

    And, boy, do I remember the wails of pain out of Republicans over the mere thought of a high elected official lying - LYING! - under oath.  Given their wails of pain, one would have thought them to be suffering the treatment of St. Sebastian.

    Risible, considering what the Republicans themselves do.


    made me laugh (none / 0) (#91)
    by coigue on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:42:36 PM EST
    your comment did.

    No one can do faux outrage like the Rethugs.


    By no co-operation (none / 0) (#99)
    by Amiss on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 06:04:32 PM EST
    She helps keep Obama off message and once again the Repubs get to avoid the "real" issues plaguing our nation. I simply feel that is her real job as v-p nominee, is to distract the Dems until after Nov 4.

    hmmmmm (none / 0) (#100)
    by coigue on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 06:09:13 PM EST
    The Clintons (2.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Emma on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:21:05 PM EST
    tried that with Whitewater.  It didn't work.  

    That's the ONLY thing that makes me the least bit sympathetic to Palin for not cooperating with "Troopergate":  overreaching and abusive "investigations" of public officials based on specious accusations.

    Since Palin could have fired Monegan for any reason at all, I don't particularly care why she fired him.  Since the brother-in-law was, apparently, abusive to his wife and stepson, I don't care if Palin pressured Monegan to fire him.  The brother-in-law SHOULD have been fired and anybody that opposed his termination should have been fired, too.

    And after hysterical hyperventilating about "banned book-gate" and "charges for rape kits-gate" and "teaching creationism in schools-gate", I don't believe that any accusations of wrongdoing against Palin have anything much behind them besides partisan hackery.


    commenters supporting (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:26:25 PM EST
    McCain-Palin and attacking the Dems are limited to four such comments a day. Just a reminder.

    I'm not attacking (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Emma on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:31:10 PM EST
    Dems.  Nor am I supporting Palin.

    Is this directed at me? (none / 0) (#27)
    by coast on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:31:35 PM EST
    No, it' s directed at Emma (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:25:22 PM EST
    who wrote:

    And after hysterical hyperventilating about "banned book-gate" and "charges for rape kits-gate" and "teaching creationism in schools-gate", I don't believe that any accusations of wrongdoing against Palin have anything much behind them besides partisan hackery.

    If there is nothing to hide (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Faust on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:55:17 PM EST
    then she can just let the investigation take its course no?

    How about she actually answers the questions of the press direction for once instead of hiding behind walls of advisers and employees.


    actually (none / 0) (#34)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:37:37 PM EST
    Well, lets try to introduce some other facts.

    A) She did say she wanted creationism taught in school in the gubernatorial debate.  

    B) A named source in town says she campaigned to get creatonists on the school board

    C) Another named source says she discussed removing a childrens book (with two fathers) from the library.

    D) She raised book banning with the librarian on three occasions.  The librarian told her it was unacceptable.  Why three times?

    E) Her church was crusading against certain books (mostly gay issue books) at the time.

    She's a small town fundamentalist so none of it surprises me.  She quickly learned she didnt have the power to do those things.  But as a president, with a friendly court, she might get that power.


    troopergate (none / 0) (#35)
    by coigue on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:37:59 PM EST
    started before Palin was a VP candidate.

    She said she would welcome an investigation.

    Nothing in the investigation has changed except that she is now VP.

    They are not handling this well, the GOP.


    I agree (none / 0) (#58)
    by Emma on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:07:15 PM EST
    well (none / 0) (#48)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:54:53 PM EST
    They discussed giving her a subpoena but a republican said they "didnt want to hang a bell around her neck".   It was too hot politically to give her one.

    Clearly they are investigating her actions by seeing what her aides and husband were told. They might come out and say it was her staff's fault for being overzealous, who knows.

    She's already had to revise her statements on the issue.  Now it turns out she personally emailed the top cop.  The contents of those emails will likely determine the case.

    I think its odd the way her husband works as this sort of blue collar consiglieri.  This is the second time, that we know of, where he has approached officials demanding a firing.


    her husband was subpoenaed (none / 0) (#63)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:24:20 PM EST
    and the investigation is into whether she, her husband or members of her staff used improper influence to get the public safety manager to fire the trooper, and whether that's the real reason the public safety manager was fired. Articles:




    If That's So (none / 0) (#74)
    by daring grace on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:51:25 PM EST
    that Governor Palin was within the purview of her official discretion to fire Commissioner Monegan for any reason because he was a political appointee then why is there an investigation?

    And if the answer to that is that this is an investigation based on politics (i.e. Obama supporter leading it, moving up the end date etc.) then why is the McCain campaign not trumpeting both of these ideas--She could fire him for whatever reason she wanted and this is a politically motivated non-starter, because of that?

    Instead, we see Palin producing differing explanations for why Monegan was fired.


    It is similar (none / 0) (#78)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:56:11 PM EST
    to the US Attorney scandal, where everyone concedes that Bush has the power to hire and fire US Attorneys, yet there is still an investigation into whether the firings occurred for inappropriate reasons (such as the refusal of certain US Attorneys to indict Democrats in order to help the GOP win election).

    Thank You (none / 0) (#84)
    by daring grace on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:14:28 PM EST
    I thought it played out like that, but I wasn't sure. I admit I'm only half following this.

    Palin's Explanations (2.00 / 1) (#61)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:15:40 PM EST
    Have changed like the Bridge To Nowhere.

    If Monegan was such a "rogue official" why did she offer him another job?

    As for Wooten, she has a personal vendetta against the guy. He was punished for his actions, but that wasn't enough for Palin.


    Questions (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Todd on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:02:42 PM EST
    David Kurtz at TPM just posted an email from a reader that brings up some interesting points.
    How can the McCain inject itself into an Alaskan dispute and it not be considered obstruction?
    And the How is it possible to ignore the Legislative branch?
    It's much better posed by the reader, here's the address:

    Hmmm (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by CST on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:07:33 PM EST
    To be honest, I thought trooper-gate was a loss for the Dems on narrative since Palin comes off as sympathetic.  But now that Palin is stone-walling the whole thing, it does make you sit back and wonder: what's she so afraid of?

    I suspect... (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by kredwyn on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:15:58 PM EST
    that the shift in the date, by an Obama Dem, makes a few people concerned about the impartiality of the investigation.

    Yep (none / 0) (#18)
    by ks on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:20:11 PM EST
    There was no reason to move it up except to play politics.  

    changing the date (none / 0) (#23)
    by kredwyn on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:26:43 PM EST
    was a bad move...

    na (none / 0) (#40)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:46:01 PM EST
    They moved the date up to respond to Palin stonewalling.  After Palin aide's began to back out, the legislature fired a shot across their bow by moving up the date.  Im sure some repbublicans on the panel felt sooner was better rather than later.

    That's why they had to issue subpoenas in the first place.  Now they are getting ignored as well.


    It was moved... (none / 0) (#43)
    by kredwyn on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:49:07 PM EST
    days after McCain's announcement was made.

    Do you have a link for its moving in response to "stonewalling"?

    And as many have pointed out, politics is perception...it looks like it was moved for political reasons.


    You missed a step (none / 0) (#66)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:28:16 PM EST
    Palin's aides first started backing out of testimony they agreed to give (without subpoenas) before the date was moved.

    Several days later the investigation was moved up which was sold as being helpful to her as it would prevent an october surprise. The panel is 10 republicans and 4 democrats, hardly a witchhunt.  Better to get the air clear in september than october 31st (the original end date).  

    Once they backed out the legistlature had to go back to subpoenas, which Palin's camp is now ignoring as well.

    Theyve been stonewalling since the announcement.

    First aide to balk: sept 3.

    Palin called on stonewalling: sept 5.

    Investigation moved up: sept 5.

    [quote]The statement also noted that the Alaska governor would not receive a subpoena because she has vowed to cooperate with investigators.

        "We agreed that an earlier completion date was achievable, and that it was fair to all sides. We are satisfied that the report can be finished by no later than Oct. 10, 2008," it said. [/quote]

    The only reason they didnt get subpoenas, including her, was that they pretended to cooperate.  There is a quote somewhere of French complaining about the trouble with them first saying they were in, then balking.


    whoops (none / 0) (#67)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:29:24 PM EST
    Here is Palin being called on stonewalling, sept 5.

    That op-ed is dated the 5th... (none / 0) (#69)
    by kredwyn on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:35:35 PM EST
    The new date for the investigation "pub date" was announced as an exclusive on the same day.



    but (none / 0) (#71)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:42:40 PM EST
    It was obvious she was stonewalling and I thought that at the time.  

    Why is noting that she is stonewalling nefarious?   She is and was doing it before the date was moved.  


    Because stonewalling (none / 0) (#73)
    by kredwyn on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:48:27 PM EST
    has "nefarious" (aka negative spin) connotations to it.

    Otherwise it's known simply as "going through the process."


    Though this from your link... (none / 0) (#72)
    by kredwyn on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:46:23 PM EST
    "I learned that the governor's office was contesting the jurisdiction of the Legislature to handle this matter..." makes sense given the interview I heard the other night. Seems that the lawyers think that there's a conflict with the Alaska constitution.

    I was in a hurry, but it sounded like some of these folks were being interviewed without being allowed to have a lawyer present??? Is this a civil investigation? Or is it a criminal one? The legislature doesn't have jurisdiction over a criminal one...

    On Sept. 3rd people knew that papers were being filed.

    So why is this such a surprise now?


    well (none / 0) (#79)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:57:53 PM EST
    So youve conceded your first point and moved on to additional propaganda?

    I dont know alskan juridiction but the real comedy is that Palin opened an investigation into herself with the personel board and her lawyers just asked that it be shut down.  She's appealing her own decisions. lol.  She's shutting down all of it.

    Politically, she looks bad.  WHich might explain the drop in the polls.


    My understanding (none / 0) (#83)
    by kredwyn on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:13:39 PM EST
    is that the personnel department that an investigation like this is under a different venue than something set up by the legislative branch.

    But since I haven't been following this with your eagle eye, I asked a bunch of questions.

    It's hard for me to keep track of this stuff when I'm working 2 jobs at the moment.


    But... (none / 0) (#85)
    by kredwyn on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:21:59 PM EST
    it still makes sense from their POV. After all, these investigations can sometimes go from being one thing to turning into something completely different..especially when politics and a POTUS campaign is involved.

    ya (none / 0) (#87)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:27:10 PM EST
    You could argue to either shut it down if there is some aspect that might have legs politically. But you risk looking like you are hiding.

    Or you could argue to just take the medicine on the 10th, act shocked, and move on to other issues.  You might take a lump but you dont get these obstruction stories.


    Or you can go through the process... (none / 0) (#95)
    by kredwyn on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 04:45:45 PM EST
    including asking a judge to make sure that it doesn't turn into a prosecutorial boondoggle, which--if interviewees are really getting interviewed without being allowed lawyers--it could easily turn into.

    At the moment, there are two different spin campaigns going on.

    And it's entirely possible that the "Obama supporter Hollis French==a Democratic Ken Starr" meme will stick. And if that sticks, it won't look good.

    And the reality is prolly somewhere in the middle.


    Let us all remember (none / 0) (#101)
    by Amiss on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 06:13:40 PM EST
    that the panel consists of 3 republicans and only 2 democrats, the repubs clearly hold the majority, so her blaming it on Obama is just another attack/distract move by the campaign.

    Seriously (none / 0) (#11)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:10:02 PM EST
    Their preferred explanation actually seems worse "he was fired for going to DC to ask for Sexual Violence funding" I mean who the hell actually thinks funding to fight sexual assualt is a bad thing (other than NAMBLA John McCain I mean)?

    Especially odd.... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:29:01 PM EST
    that she would be against sexual violence funding since, when comparing state by state, Alaska has the most cases of rape per capita in the entire country.

    no surprise. (none / 0) (#42)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:48:27 PM EST
    I read she also cut funding in her town for rape victims. Previously the town picked up the tab for the rape tests.  Palin changed that so they had to pick up their own tab for the test.  In a state with a huge rape problem.

    Maybe someone remembers more about it.


    I remember more. (none / 0) (#54)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:02:10 PM EST
    Her police chief wanted the ins co's to pay for the medical rape tests (Probably what put AIG under. Kidding.) instead of the town. Not a particularly good move, imo.

    After having lived through ... (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by Inky on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:14:33 PM EST
    Bill Clinton's highly politicized and ultimately completely baseless Troopergate, why on earth should we want to relive history, even if the shoe is on the other foot? It seems pretty clear that Hollis French is not the person to be put in charge of this investigation if we don't want it to seem like a political witch hunt.

    round and round (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by NYShooter on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 04:00:23 PM EST
    So far our, "we only want to get at the truth," position has attached to Gov. Palin: Bush, Cheney, Rove, Libby, and to show our halos are functioning properly, Clinton.

    What is it we don't understand, especially on a site authored by an attorney, and populated by a fair share of lawyers as well?

    Each side wants the case abjuducated in a forum more friendly to it's position.  Prior to Palin's being picked as the VP candidate, she didn't seem to have any problem going through with the investigation. Now, how disingenuous is it for us to say, with all the maneuvers that have taken place since then, and with the stakes being profoundly higher, that she's "stonewalling," or "mucking up the works," or the best one, the one that any attorney regardless of which side they're rooting for, should dismiss out of hand, "well, if she didn't have anything to hide......."

    Do we want to smear Sarah Palin that badly that even if the process is ultimately perceived by the public to have been unfair, partisan, selective, and fueled by political vengeance..........that's o.k?

    Cause we're Democrats, and that means the ends really do justify the means.


    Stupid (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by magster on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:53:54 PM EST
    All she had to say was "my ex brother in law was an abusive jerk, and I went a little overboard standing up for my family-- I'm sorry."  The story would be over.

    Now she is painted with Gonzalez, Rove, Myers, and every other obstructionist under Bush. This story will do a lot of damage now.

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:03:11 PM EST
    Her reasction really makes me wonder if either she was planning on doing what you suggested initially (she's massively popular in Alaska and could take a small hit if one occured), but then changed her mind after it became clear that this had national implications (after she was nominated), or if there's somehting more to this story that would look really bad if it got out.

    I heard an interview with the lawyer (none / 0) (#3)
    by kredwyn on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:51:19 PM EST
    who submitted a "something or other" (not a lawyer, so I don't know the technical word) pointing out that portions of the investigation may be against a section of the AK constitution.

    well (none / 0) (#81)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:08:56 PM EST
    Her lawyers are arguing that the personel board should investigate it even as they ask the personael board to shut down the investigation as well.

    There is no doubt she wants this dead immediately.


    well, presumably, (none / 0) (#14)
    by cpinva on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:14:45 PM EST
    they could go for enforcement of the subpoenas, after the people getting them request that they be quashed. this will take time, to run through the courts.

    of course, that's the whole point; delay the investigation until after nov. 4th.

    coast, it may well be nothing, but i have to question that assertion, since it was a republican majority commission that initiated it.

    from everything i've read and seen, there is something there; ethical and conflict-of-interest violations by gov. palin and/or her staff.

    while these may not constitute criminal acts, they certainly reflect badly on her character, a personal trait that republicans have trumpeted for years, as important in electing public officials.

    i assume (though i'm probably wrong, given their track record), they were not referring to bad character.

    Or put it back (none / 0) (#16)
    by kredwyn on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:17:09 PM EST
    to its original date...whatever that was before it was moved ahead.

    that was (none / 0) (#82)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:09:30 PM EST
    october 31st, worse for Palin.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#102)
    by Amiss on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 06:17:18 PM EST
    it may well be nothing, but i have to question that assertion, since it was a republican majority commission that initiated it.

    It's gone to destruction of evidence, now. (none / 0) (#21)
    by scribe on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:22:26 PM EST
    Careful readers here and elsewhere were doubtlessly aware of the existence of a private (yahoo) email account which Sarah Palin used for both personal and gov't-business emails.  (You can find the address, so I won't put it up).  Shades of Rove and his RNC account being used to coordinate and all that.

    Well, some hacker found the account and managed to access it.  (Please note:  neither I nor anyone other responsible adult condones hacking. But, that bell can't be unrung, now.)  In response, the Palin account has been erased.

    But not before Gawker (among thousands of sites, I'm sure) got screencaps of some of the stuff and posted them, as well as her contact list.

    But, the erasure of an email account which was the subject of a subpoena moves this into the realm of ... the crime of obstruction of justice....

    Only a matter of time before these clowns got there.  I mentioned to someone that my dog's first response to any stimulus - even getting stepped on lightly - is to wag her tail.  Lying down, standing up, curled up, draped over a chair - that tail's wagging.

    For these Rethuglicans - their first response is to lie, and then to cover up.

    You've got to be kidding? (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by ks on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:35:21 PM EST
    The erasure of a private email account that was hacked! moves it into the "realm" of obstruction of justice?  C'mon.... Also, you only know that the account was erased but you don't know whether the contents (e-mails and whatnot) were turned over, as per the sub before then and, on top of that, from the Gawker link most the the stuff looks to be innocuous personal stuff.  

    I don't think trying to gin up this angle is going to work.


    The problem is she was using the private (none / 0) (#39)
    by scribe on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:45:34 PM EST
    account to do state business, so as to avoid open government and retention of records laws.  And it was fairly clear that avoiding those laws was exactly the reason she and people in her administration were using the personal accounts.

    In reality, Palin's use of a private email account to avoid open government and retention of records laws is no different from Rove using an RNC blackberry and RNC email address to direct, coordinate or effect communications or efforts to use the government to help Republicans, or to purge US attorneys.

    That there was an outstanding subpoena from the state trooper investigation seeking the information in Palin's account, and the account was deleted, constitutes a prima facie case of obstruction of justice in any jurisdiction I can think of.


    Is it a given (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:49:13 PM EST
    that state business was conducted using this account?

    The emails I see include some to other state officials, but I wouldn't necessarily call them state business.


    This is going to fall flat... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by ks on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:55:27 PM EST
    You're really reaching for conclusions and ascribing motives based on very limited evidence and the "obstruction of justice" claim is a laugable example of internet lawyering.

    They posted the email addresses (none / 0) (#30)
    by kredwyn on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:34:35 PM EST
    for the kids?

    And (none / 0) (#33)
    by Emma on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:35:59 PM EST
    family photos of the kids.  And private email of Palin's that has nothing to do with this.

    As one of the commenters elsewhere said: (none / 0) (#36)
    by scribe on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:41:11 PM EST
    The power to bring down the McCain campaign was in the Mountain Dew coated hands of a 17 year old hacker. What could have possibly gone wrong?

    Good, full vetting, I suppose, made all this possible.

    And then there's this one:

    Where's the email that says if Sarah just forwards it on to 12 more people, she'll be the Republican VP candidate?

    The key is they deleted the account while there was a subpoena outstanding.  That's obstruction of justice.  The actual email address for Palin's personal account was out there since last week.  I think the screencaps were put out there with no thought of editing them (which, ironically, can help in defending a libel action).


    I'm glad I'm not running (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by kredwyn on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:51:45 PM EST
    for elected office.

    Last thing I want is someone hacking into my email and then posting my emails all over for people to read...


    the email list (none / 0) (#38)
    by kredwyn on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:43:10 PM EST
    is a string of email addresses written in the same text as the post.

    Man, some of the comments at your link (none / 0) (#49)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:55:04 PM EST
    made me spit out my Crystal Geyser! Why don't we get such pithy comments here?

    Anyway, one thing looks odd to me, her email address: track_44@blahblah.

    "track" because she's a runner, ok that's fine. But "44" because she's (presently) 44 y/o?

    Does that mean that she changes email addresses every Feb 11 (her b-day)?

    Or does that address look fishy...


    Isn't that (none / 0) (#52)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:57:45 PM EST
    the email address for her son Track?

    Huh. That would make sense. (none / 0) (#57)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:05:54 PM EST
    In my defense I'm over 40 and it's hard to read those itty bitty screen shots in the link...

    the subject is not hacking email accounts (none / 0) (#98)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 05:08:41 PM EST
    please stay on topic.

    maybe (none / 0) (#90)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:36:13 PM EST
    They dont expect gravity to be that strong.

    Concern for the Rule of Law (none / 0) (#96)
    by Ladyjustice on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 05:01:25 PM EST
    Ignoring subpoenas is eroding our Rule of Law.  Congressional subpoenas have been issued and those in the Bush Administration have ignored them.  Jeralyn, isn't that the case?  How can an investigation be concluded (and criminals brought to justice) without answers from individuals involved?  Do you have to have only the very best lawyers and a great deal of money to have one argue to insure that you can ignore a subpoena.  How can there be justice by ignoring the Rule of Law - on a national or state level?

    Ignore Subpenas (none / 0) (#103)
    by Joe Values on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 02:42:31 AM EST
    In Alaska, does the oath of office the Govenor elect swear to during the inaugeration contain the words "uphold" or "protect" the US Constitution and the Constitution and the laws of the State of Alaska?  I mean is this not the main thing they promise to do?  So why would there be any confusion as to "loyalty" versus obeying the laws of the State of Alaska?  This seems like a no brainer.  The law should supercede loyalty every time.  Sounds like the Alaska Govenor places "loyalty" above the law.  

    What nasty vindictive person.  Seems as if you get fired in Alaska if you cross the Governor.  Sounds like abuse of power to me, and now because an agreement was broken, lawsuits are filed, no cooperation, lie, deny, hide.  Was it a legal agreement?  Or was it a special double secret lets not make this incident public type of agreement? Either way a subpena is a subpena, they are legal, and you can be compelled to appear.

    Oops, looks like some rather unflattering and very telling skeletons are coming out of the Governor's closet.  Better to find out now so you can vote against her before she is a heartbeat away from national POWER.  Who knows who she will decide to get EVEN with?