GOP lawmakers sue to stop Palin investigation - Page 3

RightinNYC · 09-17-08, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

Especially in light of the current administration, it's not the crime, it's the cover-up. This will play worse than just cooperating. Everyone is pretending as if evidence would be made up. There is an Obama supporter heading it. Fine replace him and go on with the majority republican board.

They tried, and their efforts were stopped by another Obama supporter.

Quote:

Van Flein sent one of the letters to Branchflower and the other to Democratic Sen. Kim Elton, who heads the Legislative Council, the body that unanimously approved the investigation in July. Both letters were dated Tuesday.

Elton this week rebuffed a Republican attempt to have Sen. Hollis French, an Anchorage Democrat, replaced as head of the investigation.

independent_thinker2002 · 09-17-08, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightinNYC

They tried, and their efforts were stopped by another Obama supporter.

Well, Palin better figure out something soon, playing Cheney isn't going to cut it.

aps · 09-18-08, 07:43 AM

I think there's something to this investigation. In reading more about the background, it appears that when the divorce proceedings were taking place, the judge who was presiding had warned Molly Hackett (Palin's sister) that she and her family should stop disaparaging Wooten. Looks like they couldn't leave well enough alone.

Quote:

Court records obtained by NEWSWEEK show that during the course of divorce hearings three years ago, Judge John Suddock heard testimony from an official of the Alaska State Troopers' union about how Sarah Palin—then a private citizen—and members of her family, including her father and daughter, lodged up to a dozen complaints against Wooten with the state police. The union official told the judge that he had never before been asked to appear as a divorce-case witness, that the union believed family complaints against Wooten were "not job-related," and that Wooten was being "harassed" by Palin and other family members.

Court documents show that Judge Suddock was disturbed by the alleged attacks by Palin and her family members on Wooten's behavior and character. "Disparaging will not be tolerated—it is a form of child abuse," the judge told a settlement hearing in October 2005, according to typed notes of the proceedings. The judge added: "Relatives cannot disparage either. If occurs [sic] the parent needs to set boundaries for their relatives."

Palin Warned to Stop Disparaging Sister's Ex | Newsweek Politics: Campaign 2008 | Newsweek.com

Wooten had already been punished for the acts that the Palin family were alleging to the fired employee. Hmmmmmmmmmmm

PeteEU · 09-18-08, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

Well, Palin better figure out something soon, playing Cheney isn't going to cut it.

Looks like it is. Witnesses are falling by the wayside refusing to testify, which basicly means no investigation for now. Again the Republican-Rove machine wins.

Gill · 09-18-08, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

I don't know, it looks like McCain has sent a pack of wol....I mean lawyers up to Alaska to stop this.

It's funny how Bush/Cheney have been doing this for going on 8 years and here we are with more of the same BS. They'll say that they cooperate with investigations and hold people accountable, and then when push comes to shove, they balk and cry "left wing conspiracy".

Replace the Obama supporter and cooperate. But that isn't what they are trying to do. First they want it moved to a bunch of Palin appointees, and now they don't want any investigation. She agreed to cooperate. Now it seems that they have something to hide. It reeks to high heaven.

Yep, the lawyers should have just asked for a full and complete definition of the word "is". That alone would have delayed it for a few months if legal precedents mean anything.

independent_thinker2002 · 09-18-08, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gill

Yep, the lawyers should have just asked for a full and complete definition of the word "is". That alone would have delayed it for a few months if legal precedents mean anything.

My bad. I forgot that republicans can never be investigated due to Clinton's law.

Gill · 09-18-08, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

My bad. I forgot that republicans can never be investigated due to Clinton's law.

Well, I'll let you slide this time, but don't forget it again.

ADK_Forever · 09-18-08, 01:07 PM

And now : Attorney general says state staff won't testify

Attorney general says state staff won't testify: Walt Monegan firing | adn.com

So much for "full cooperation"!

I wonder if those state employees will be brought up on criminal charges for not abiding by a legal subpoena?

Gill · 09-18-08, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADK_Forever

And now : Attorney general says state staff won't testify

Attorney general says state staff won't testify: Walt Monegan firing | adn.com

So much for "full cooperation"!

I wonder if those state employees will be brought up on criminal charges for not abiding by a legal subpoena?

Who's going to file criminal charges??? The Attorney General is the one saying they won't testify.

ADK_Forever · 09-18-08, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gill

Who's going to file criminal charges??? The Attorney General is the one saying they won't testify.

That's my point. They were served with legal subpoenas and it's the AG's responsibility to support the state's laws, whether he likes them or not.