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: 03-25-2007
Sun, 09-21-2008 - 9:41pm

<This isn't the Bush administration.

Sopal

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-02-2008
Sun, 09-21-2008 - 10:01pm

So from what you've written, and correct me if I'm wrong, this would fairly define your Fleur_de_lis Bill of Rights:

1. If you are innocent, you must testify. However, if you testify, that doesn't make you innocent. See #2.

2. If you testify and say "I don't know" or "I don't remember," you are considered guilty.

3. If you invoke a privilege or other right not to testify, you are guilty of failing to testify AND your testimony you didn't give is assumed to prove that you are guilty. Thus you are considered guilty.

4. If there is a government investigation into your activities, you are presumed guilty, regardless of the outcome of the investigation. If people called to testify against you don't show up, you must be guilty.

5. If an investigation launched against your activities doesn't find you guilty (regardless of the evidence), it was a corrupt and illegitimate investigation.

***

Under your Bill of Rights as applied to Palin's investigation, I have to wonder how you would view the following facts:

NUMBER OF TIMES that Hillary Clinton, providing testimony to Congress, said that she didn't remember, didn't know, or something similar: 250

--Your approach: Lies. 250 of them. Without a doubt, perjury. Lock her up.

IN 1996, Hillary Clinton's Rose law firm billing records, sought for two years by congressional investigators and the special prosecutor were found in the back room of the personal residence at the White House. Clinton said she "had no idea" how they got there.

--Your approach: Liar. You did it, and you know it.

HILLARY CLINTON'S participation in a Whitewater related land deal became suspicious enough to trigger an investigation by the Arkansas Supreme Court.

--Your approach: if it's enough to trigger an investigation, she MUST be guilty, right?

A portion of the videotape captures the closing words of a lengthy conversation in which Paul was present. The voice of Hillary Clinton is heard telling Lee that Paul and her chief campaign aide "talk all the time, so she'll be the person to convey whatever I need." She is then heard adding, "I wanted to call and personally thank all of you ... tell you how much this means to me. It's going to mean a lot to the president, too." Clinton and her supporters have maintained that she had no direct knowledge that the event violated campaign finance rules. In a written declaration for the California court filed on April 7, 2006, the senator said only that she didn't remember discussions with Paul about the fundraiser.

--Your approach: Of course she's lying. Not only is it always a lie to say you don't remember, but with a videotape to prove you said it? You MUST remember everything you say (I, mean all innocent people do), so you're a LIAR AND you're GUILTY!

FBI Director Louis Freeh appears before Rep. Dan Burton's committee and this exchange takes place:

BURTON: Mr. Freeh, over 65 people have invoked the 5th Amendment or fled the country in the course of the committee's investigation. Have you ever experienced so many unavailable witnesses in any matter in which you've prosecuted or in which you've been involved?

FREEH: Actually, I have.

BURTON: You have? Give me, give me a rundown on that real quickly.

FREEH: I spent about 16 years doing organized crime cases in New York City and many people were frequently unavailable.

---Your approach: They're ALL GUILTY. It must be the MOB!

***Source: http://www.prorev.com***

This is just my guess at how your Palin If I have mis-applied your Bill of Rights to the above facts. I am so curious (1) and how you would characterize Hillary's rich history of "I don't know" testimony under oath and your rule that it is a "sham" to "get away with it" by saying "i don't remember" and "I was unaware", and (2) how you would characterize Hillary's guilt or innocence in light of your apparent conclusion that the investigation is the same as a pronouncement of guilt in the Palin case, unless, of course those who are innocent.

I am so curious how the shoe fits the other foot!

LOVE IT! PRO LIFE Pictures, Images and Photos

siggy1
pregnancy week by week
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-19-2008
Sun, 09-21-2008 - 10:37pm
Thanks for the info. Frankly I think the case was pretty much over when Monagan said that Palin didn't ask him to fire the trooper...even though the trooper certainly warranted firing.
Avatar for undefeated
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Mon, 09-22-2008 - 9:11am

"Thanks for the info. Frankly I think the case was pretty much over when Monagan said that Palin didn't ask him to fire the trooper...even though the trooper certainly warranted firing."


And you may be exactly right.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 09-22-2008 - 9:22am

>

Sandy
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-02-2008
Mon, 09-22-2008 - 2:35pm

She should just go ahead and testify and get the thing over with. It might take her a day or so, and then all this would be gone, gone. Why would anyone want this hanging over their head.

Speaking as a lawyer, knowing what the risks are to a client, it is NEVER a good idea to say ANYTHING you are not required to say. We've all seen movies and TV shows where the client is coached to "only answer the question with a yes or no," "don't give any information didn't specifically ask for," and we've all heard the opposing counsel say things like, "The witness opened the door..." Just as it's Palin's attorney's ethical obligation to reduce her risk to the bare minimum, it is the State of Alaska's job to dig as far as they can without running into an objection. Believe me, when the interests are opposing and the stakes are high, your estimate of "a day or so" is a joke. The attorneys will be on the phone with the judge every 15 minutes getting clarification of whether the questions are "a big fishing expedition" or within the scope of the investigation, her attorney will be objecting to everything, the state will have umptythreemillion questions, half of which will be restated versions of other questions in the hopes of catching her in a lie. When the average person uses the term "investigation," it sounds like a really innocuous town hall meeting type question and answer session, where the investigator will be satisfied with a few basic tidbits. It's not at all like that.

Another poster mentioned something to the effect that "this isn't just some custody case." I've seen just the legal fees dispute of a custody case (7 years AFTER the divorce was OVER) take over 2 years in the discovery phase and with over 80 hours in depositions for just 2 people and over 1000 pieces of documentary evidence introduced, including an FBI handwriting expert--and they were both bankrupt at the end. Literally. So if something so rinkydink as a custody case can blow up like that, imagine what the Alaska taxpayers would think if this ended up costing millions and taking months and months.

If the cops say they are about to release you because they've decided you're not guilty and ask if you want to make a statement anyway, you best just shut up and let the investigation close on its own. That's the case here--the committee seems to have made up its mind, and if its findings are that she did not abuse power and did not fire the commissioner wrongfully, then THAT FINDING ALONE should be enough to clear her name.

There are bad lawyers, but if it were you, do you want your lawyer risking the exposure and taking a chance that things will turn against you when they seem to be resolving in your favor? Me, I want the lawyer that tells me, "Sit tight and keep quiet--it looks like this matter can be resolved without you." Saves time, money, and human resources. If Palin's name's going to be cleared by the committee's findings of no ethical violation, nothing she can say can clear it MORE in my view. Would you be satisfied with the committee's findings alone, or do you really need to hear it right from her?

LOVE IT! PRO LIFE Pictures, Images and Photos

siggy1
pregnancy week by week
Avatar for undefeated
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Mon, 09-22-2008 - 3:20pm
Since from what you've said, we're not going to hear anything from Palin in the foreseeable future, yeah, I'll take the committee decision.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-19-2008
Mon, 09-22-2008 - 4:13pm

*** She should just go ahead and testify and get the thing over with.

Could be dangerous. Once she's under oath, unless the judge puts very tight constraints on the breadth of the questions, she could get sandbagged by a crafty lawyer.

*** It might take her a day or so, and then all this would be gone, gone. Why would anyone want this hanging over their head. The election is coming up on us quickly.

As someone said earlier (I think it was Mirage), if she's exonerated it won't convince anyone who's already against her, and this probably isn't a pivotal issue for those on the fence, so the payoff is minimal, but the damage could be big.

*** All this talk about what a lawyer is supposed to do for their client is true; but, of course, sometimes lawyers give BAD advice. There are, dare I say, millions of bad lawyers out there - and you know how you've always felt about lawyers, Doc. :)

True...but I think this advice is coming from a whole herd of lawyers and political strategists. I think they're probably right...you've heard the saying "they can get a ham sandwich indicted"...I'm sure that some scumbag lib lawyer could stir up a storm for the lib media and cause havoc before the election. Probably not worth it when they can easily manage the press on the "stall" thing.

Also...I thought I heard that it was against Alaska law to sue (or investigate) a candidate during an election? This isn't an Alaska election, but the principle should still apply.

Avatar for undefeated
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Mon, 09-22-2008 - 4:42pm

"Also...I thought I heard that it was against Alaska law to sue (or investigate) a candidate during an election? This isn't an Alaska election, but the principle should still apply."


That's interesting.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-19-2008
Mon, 09-22-2008 - 5:06pm

*** That's interesting. I'll try to look that up. I would never ask you to, Doc. I know you don't like doing it, and you said "heard" not saw, so... :)

I recall HEARING it during a television interview.

*** However do you really think it's in the best interest of the country or even Palin having this hanging over her.

It seems to be the "much lesser" of two evils. I don't know the constraints of the questioning she could be subject to, but I wouldn't put Palin under oath and the thumb of a partisan scumbag lawyer.

*** Maybe she ought not to listen too closely to those "scumbag" (think that was the adjective you used) neocon, fascist lawyers who no doubt represent her. ;)

As I said previously, I doubt she's acting on the advice of a single lawyer. She's got the whole of the McCain campaign behind her giving her strategic advice.

Pages