INVESTIGATION OBVIOUS PAYBACK

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-14-2008
INVESTIGATION OBVIOUS PAYBACK
105
Sat, 09-20-2008 - 12:22pm
NOTE: Alaska Sen. Hollis French is a Democrat and worked for two Oil companies, still works for one of them














"
updated 4:58 p.m. ET, Fri., Sept. 19, 2008


"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

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-24-2008
Sun, 09-21-2008 - 5:19pm

This may have come up already, but it has been suggested to me that the stonewalling was "cooked up by RNC campaign strategist to continue the "Sarah is under attack" myth".

 

Avatar for undefeated
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sun, 09-21-2008 - 5:33pm

If "you" are an American?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2007
Sun, 09-21-2008 - 5:37pm
He

Sopal

<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />

Avatar for undefeated
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sun, 09-21-2008 - 5:40pm

That sounds like their modus operandi!

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2007
Sun, 09-21-2008 - 5:42pm
It has come up on another I-village board.

Sopal

<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-01-2004
Sun, 09-21-2008 - 5:44pm

Claiming to rely on "facts" can be pretty dicey:

Avatar for undefeated
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sun, 09-21-2008 - 5:46pm

"So, unless

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-05-2006
Sun, 09-21-2008 - 5:53pm

it is probably better to read information from a wide variety of sources and points of view and then form an opinion.


Advice that you can dish out, but which it appears you yourself don't follow (based on all the links you provide to back up your arguments).


Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-02-2008
Sun, 09-21-2008 - 5:57pm

>>>>"Now, most "Americans" would be required to appear if a subpoena was served on them."

Only if they do not have a lawful excuse. For example, if there is an emergency or another circumstance outside your control, and judge will usually excuse the absence. In addition, you are not required to appear if you have filed a motion to quash or a motion for protective order. Once these motions are filed (which I belive they have been in the Palin ethics investigation), the deposition is suspended and the judicial authority presiding over the matter makes a ruling or determination as to whether the motion is granted to quash, the motion for protective order is granted and the witness is protected from testifying, or the motion is denied and the subpoena is determined to be valid. Once it has been determined that the witness must appear, they have the right to appear and then to invoke their 5th amendment rights against self incrimination, and also the derivative rights based on privilege (marital, doctor-patient, priest-penitent, and any other valid privileges in that jurisdiction).

>>>"Otherwise, she's just seen as possibly/probably having something to hide and not wanting to have to say these constitutionally granted words, "I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may incriminate me."

The right against self incrimination applies during nearly every phase of legal proceedings, including Grand Jury hearings, pretrial motions, preliminary investigations, all aspects of discovery (including supboenas), and trial. If you are stating that invoking 5th amendment rights is an indication that someone has something to hide, you are wrong, and I pray you never serve on a US jury. When a witness invokes his/her 5th amendment rights (and any other valid rights to privilege) the government may not comment to the jury about the witness's silence. Furthermore, However, there is a mandatory jury instruction that THE WITNESS'S SILENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF GUILT AND NO ADVERSE INFERENCES MAY BE DRAWN FROM THE WITNESS'S REFUSAL TO TESTIFY.

And having a motion to quash or a motion for protective order granted by a judge also does NOT permit the inference of wrongdoing. So before everyone jumps that Todd Palin is hiding some evidence of his and his wife's wrongdoing, let's let the situation shake out a bit further. Otherwise, if you prefer to jump to conclusions at this stage of the investigation, perhaps getting a job with the New York Times or MSNBC is a good fit.

I'll wait for the facts to come in. I prefer to wait for the results and be thought a fool than to prejudge and find out I actually am a fool.

LOVE IT! PRO LIFE Pictures, Images and Photos

siggy1
pregnancy week by week
Avatar for undefeated
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sun, 09-21-2008 - 6:08pm

I see that you did a little investigation about subpoenas, and what you posted is exactly right.


Perhaps you should ask yourself why someone would go through all this trouble with motions and the like.

Pages