The LAW thumbs ITS nose at the law, too!
Find a Conversation
| Sun, 09-21-2008 - 9:32pm |
Not to purport that this is 100% accurate or infallible or even true, but assuming it is, perhaps there is more to the story than just that Palin didn't show...
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1842992,00.html
Todd Palin (Among Others) a No-Show at Troopergate Hearing
In the end, the First Dude wasn't the only no-show. The five other witnesses who had been subpoenaed with Todd Palin were also, as expected, missing from the Alaska Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing into the so-called Troopergate scandal. In fact, the committee itself didn't even show up. Twenty minutes after the 10 a.m. scheduled start time, the second-floor conference room of the utilitarian Legislative Information Offices building in downtown Anchorage still had nothing but bystanders: a few legislative aides and two dozen or so journalists who sipped coffee, traded business cards and wondered exactly what there would be to see.
...French, at the end of his statement, said that the investigator Steve Branchflower will deliver his findings, as planned, on Oct. 10, regardless of who testifies or doesn't.
***
I find it strange and interesting that the findings would be issued without any testimony, if that is how it shakes out. Seems the ethics committee is abusing its authority, and the Alaskan people aren't getting what their tax dollars are supposed to buy them if the investigation isn't going to be completed...or, maybe it can be completed without their actual testimony. I believe it was a legal blunder to admit that the findings would be released without testimony--that's actually a legitimate basis for arguing to block the testimony--the committee has admitted they don't need it to make a finding.
If the documents attached as exhibits to the Motion filed by Palin's lawyer last Monday are legit, and if the committee can verify that, then based on the Code of Ethics, she was within the bounds of her executive authority to fire him.




Another lawyer for the Palins has said that Todd was too busy with the campaign to testify, as if standing stage left behind Sarah Palin, holding Trig and grinning during her speeches, were a matter of national security.
I fail to see where the author of the Time piece found any connection between the claim of hardship due to campaign related travel (and presumably feeding, bathing, diapering and otherwise caring for Trig, which Dude is certainly likely to be doing a great deal of these days) and the claim the author inserted, which is that his campaign participation is a matter of national security.
Hardship and inconvenience is a legitimate excuse to postpone a deposition--it happens all the time. In addition, since French has already indicated that the results of the investigation will not turn on the testimony of the witnesses (he stated in the Time article "the investigator Steve Branchflower will deliver his findings, as planned, on Oct. 10, regardless of who testifies or doesn't.," and also stated, "the real question of the investigation was already solved in his mind — Palin had the right to fire Walt Monegan because he was an at-will employee." Given those statements, a judge would be perfectly within his or her authority to quash the subpoenas.