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
Palin shouldn't have brought hubby to the statehouse to sit in on meetings and poke his nose into state business. In my opinion that negates the husband/wife marital privilege.
First of all, since Todd Palin is a state citizen, I believe it is a matter of law and common knowledge that STATE business IS HIS BUSINESS.
Second of all, I guess that means that eating at the same table with, riding in the same car with, and sleeping in the same bed with my husband would, by your logic, void marital privilege when my husband is accused of a crime that took place in my home or car or in my presence.
Finally, there is no law I can find which prohibits Todd Palin from being present anywhere he was present, and there is nothing in the Code of Ethics as I read it that could be construed as an ethical violation in his presence. Therefore, you just don't like it, but it was legal and ethical for him to be there.
Thankfully, nothing, even your opinion, can trump our 5th amendment rights. And this is, once again, another person I pray is NEVER EVER sitting on an American jury.
What you don't seem to have as the foundation of your position is that, as a matter of LAW, a witness is
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
PERIOD.
No one has to "testify to clear their name," or otherwise prove they are innocent. They are LEGALLY innocent, and an accusation, subpoena, or even criminal charges do NOT constitute EVIDENCE of guilt.
So if you say, "I don't remember," (a la Hilary Clinton in the Rose Law Firm depositions), or "I was not aware," of course you "get away with it." Are you actually insinuating that only someone who is guilty of something would ever claim to have forgotten something or be unaware of it? You have probably not been deposed. In a deposition, you can be asked check numbers of any one of hundreds of checks, you can be asked what color suit you wore to a meeting 10 years ago, you can be asked whether you signed a document in blue or black ink. People are VERY often honest when they answer that they cannot remember things. Most attorneys ask so many questions about so many things so far in the past during a deposition that even the attorney doesn't expect you to know or even guess. A deposition is just short of a fishing expedition--a good lawyer asks everything they can think of in the hopes they get an answer that works in their favor. And let me tell you, against a really excellent attorney, YOU cannot possibly say that were you deposed on any matter, that there is NO POSSIBILITY that you would need to HONESTLY answer that you don't recall something, or that you were unaware of something?
An extension of "innocent until proven guilty" is the legal premise that the burden is on the plaintiff or the government to prove a lie, to prove a statement is false. FEELINGS, HUNCHES and ASSUMPTIONS without corroboration don't hold weight in the courtroom. That means if someone says, "I don't remember," the statements must be taken as true unless there is testimony that supports a finding of fact that the statement is not credible, which usually involves a history of lying under oath (which usually requires a pattern within the same legal matter, or a conviction of perjury, which is VERY VERY rare). The burden of proof is on the attorney asking the question to prove the lie.
If you had this your way, this is how it would go in the real world:
IRS Lawyer: "In 1992, did you or did you not purchase $106.71 in postage stamps for personal use?"
Witness: "I don't recall."
JUDGE: I hereby find you guilty of tax evasion, because "I don't recall" is what people say to get out of a criminal conviction.
Here's another one:
Lawyer: "How many times have you written a check without verifying your account balance first?"
Witness: "I can't estimate something like that--it's not something I keep track of."
Judge: "I find you guilty of check kiting because if you can't remember something like that, you must be guilty of something."
It's not a sham, it's designed to protect the rights of the individual.
If you were a lawyer operating on your philosophies, you'd lose your license for doing what you think these investigators and judges should do. If you were a judge, you'd be guilty of ethics violations if you did what you expect these investigators and judges should do. You are certainly entitled to express your opinions, but put into practice, what you suggest as a sensible approach to handling this investigation is actually illegal.
<<He
>This is untrue.
FYI, you seem like someone who would read this
http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2008-09/palin-response.pdf
It's a Motion for Determination of No Probable Cause filed by Palin's lawyer. The mainstream media hasn't reported that it was filed (even though the date was last Monday), and google news turns up nothing. However, assuming it is legit (and for what it's worth, it looks legit to me), it includes as exhibits several letters and an email chain among several staffers and Monagan.
Just FYI!
I think it depends on the timing.
Pages