INVESTIGATION OBVIOUS PAYBACK
Find a Conversation
| Sat, 09-20-2008 - 12:22pm |
"ANCHORAGE, Alaska - The Alaska lawmaker directing an abuse-of-power investigation of Gov. Sarah Palin promised Friday the probe will be finished before the election, despite refusals by key witnesses to testify, including the governor's husband.
After waiting 35 minutes for Todd Palin and two state administrative employees to appear under subpoena before the state Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Hollis French condemned their refusal to testify and the attorney general's broken promise that seven other witnesses would testify who were not subpoenaed. "
As we know Palin went after the Oil Companies, took part of their huge profits and gave them back to the citizens of Alaska. Since French works for the oil companies and is a democrat, it is painfully obvious why this investigation began and now that he promises to finish it before the election we can be positive they hope to find a way to smear her before the election. What started as revenge is now including a pitiful and obvious attempt at political sabatoge. Amazing what depths Male politicians will stoop to when a woman succeeds in their world and takes their bosses to task.
Below is French's employment facts from the official Alaska Legislature site:
Co-owner, French Apartments, 1989-present; lead operator, ARCO, 1991-1992; production operator, ARCO, 1984-1990, Shell Oil Company, 1980-1984.

Pages
How about a 2005 video of the CEO of Fannie praising the connection with the CBC at Obama swearing in ceremony?
Yeah, that is on another board.
If you don't take the word of a regular contributor to Investor's Weekly, do you read the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine or any of the other biased media?
Not usually.
>>>"I think this means that Palin definitely has something to hide. Let's face it...if he was clean, he'd be only too glad to testify which would take away that dark cloud over his name."
You are SO far off base. I really can't believe an American can say things that are this far off base. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE familiarize yourself with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. {And I suggest a source other than Wikipedia.}
Another thing: I PRAY you NEVER serve on a jury. EVER. Because when a witness exercises his or her lawful right not to testify, the jury is not permitted to take that refusal into consideration when deciding whether the defendant or the witness is guilty of the crime(s) charged. I am really concerned about this post, and I can't imagine what about what other Americans don't know about our law.
Invoking the right to marital privilege is NOT something that can be held against someone. LEGALLY, a judge, jury, or investigator CANNOT infer ANY guilt or cover-up from the invocation of the 5th amendment privilege or other derivative privileges.
SARAH PALIN is the ONLY subject of the ethics investigation. TODD PALIN is not subject to the ethics code, only SARAH PALIN is. And if Todd Palin believes his testimony might subject him to suspicion of criminal activity (which doesn't mean he has committed a crime), he has a CONSTITUTIONAL right to refuse to testify, without fear of any inference of guilt. What's more, it is not relevant to the investigation WHAT Todd Palin did, even if he threatened people at gunpoint. He is not subject to the code of ethics that governs his wife's public office. In any event, he probably has the right to invoke marital privilege, which is an extension of one's CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to invoke the privilege not to incriminate oneself.
Please read the law. Please learn how our country works. Please. I can't ask enough.
lol re: bathroom :)
I've already posted this, but if you are actually an American who is familiar with and understands our constitutional rights, you would NEVER imply for a moment that invoking a constitutional right not to testify or other legal right not to testify in an investigation is indicative of guilt.
There is a REASON that our government GRANTS rights to avoid testimony. And there are legitimate reasons that people are legally permitted to escape scrutiny of depositions and investigations. Our government is not in the business of granting unappealable final authority to officials with subpoena power or investigative power. To grant these people unassailable authority would be to strip the American citizen of the right to due process. It is a due process issue whether or not Sarah Palin or any other deponent is required to testify, and we as Americans have the right to invoke our due process rights WITHOUT the assumption of guilt for doing so.
I beg you, read the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Over and over if you have to.
Just as I said to Sopal, I pray you are NEVER on a jury in this country. EVER.
Pages