Palin refuses to comply with a legal subpoena relative to Troopergate

@4magoo (396)
September 20, 2008 7:00pm CST
As you have heard by now, the McCain campaign is moving to block the investigation into Troopergate. They have argued a form of "executive privilege" to not have Palin's staff testify but they have no reason to have Palin's husband, Todd, not comply with the subpoena. Here we have someone that could potentially be the president of the United States and they have so little respect for the law that she refused to comply with a legal subpoena. Do you think Palin's staff and her husband should comply with the subpoena? Do you feel that Palin is trying to hide something? What is she trying to hide? I can't copy fna paste URL's. I have typed a short one here but if it doesn't work, just go to Google and type in "subpoena Palin" and you will get all kinds of references. http://www.kansascity.com/445/story/804503.html
3 people like this
10 responses
@ClarusVisum (2163)
• United States
21 Sep 08
This stinks to high heaven, as the saying goes. Could they take a more suspicious course of action, especially when BEFORE Palin was chosen as VP, Sarah was saying "hold me accountable" and was so compliant with the investigation that they decided not to even bother subpeonaing (sp?) her at all? They are definitely hiding something--what they are doing is not what innocent people do.
4 people like this
@4magoo (396)
21 Sep 08
I agree 100%. If you have nothing hide, then just stand up... put your hand on the Bible and tell the truth. The story would be over. This whole thing stinks to high heaven ...
3 people like this
@liscampll (124)
• United States
21 Sep 08
I think they should have to comply with the subpoena. It isn't fair to the voters to try to stall it until after the election. It really makes me wonder what they are hiding. I don't trust them one bit.
• United States
21 Sep 08
LOL! That's funny KennyRose. Your entire post is filled with debunked stuff. Yeah, she says he wasn't doing his job, he was noncompliant with budget issues. Do you know why? He was approved by Palin's chief of staff to go to Washington to meet with a Senator from Alaska. He wanted funds to develop a program to combat the domestic violence and rape problem that Alaska has. Apparently Palin didn't like that and wanted him fired. I'm not trying to persuade you to believe anything KennyRose, because I know you never will.
4 people like this
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
22 Sep 08
Since when do we make a husband or wife testify against each other? At the time of the firing, of the Public Safety Commissioner Gov Palin asked for a review by the Human Resources Board. I also believe that the firing was upheld by a judge saying that it is a political appointment and she had the right to let him go at any time without review. The man was hired to do a job and if he had a different agenda than the Governor then he should resign his position. It would be like you hiring a person to invest your money and telling him that you want safe investments and he goes and invests in highly risky stocks. You hired him so you should be able to fire him even if he tells you that the risky stocks were your best chance to get rich and he thought that is what you wanted. This is the same thing, the people of Alaska voted for Gov. Palin and her agenda not his.
@4magoo (396)
21 Sep 08
Well put Lis.... If they have nothing to hide then swear to it and we will all move on. If there is smoke there is fire and if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, the chances are "its a DUCK."
3 people like this
@djbtol (5493)
• United States
21 Sep 08
No need to be concerned about troopergate. It is another feeble attempt by liberal democrats to attack Palin. So far no one has found it necessary to dig into Obama's long line of anti-American corruption, so why is this even worth posting here? djbtol
@djbtol (5493)
• United States
22 Sep 08
Not totally facetious. First of all, during this witch hunt being conducted by the media and the democrats, there is very little truth surfacing. Until democrats get ready to listent to truth, I think she is doing the right thing. When do we start to investigate Obama? When do we realize that this community organizer was working with a group called Acorn that has lots of legal problems? When do we start to investigate the relationship between Obama Hussein and Bill Ayers? They worked together 4 years and key records that were previously open to the public have been locked away at the University of Illinois in Chicago. Obama is a dirty political thug - that is where the investigation needs to start. Most Americans do not agree with the media that it is OK to just hide Obama's true identity and mission. djbtol
@4magoo (396)
23 Sep 08
djbtol on the issue of "investigating" Obama, don't you think that the opposition would have spend a good deal of time and money trying to dig up possible on dirt on him and if they would have had something, they would have moved on it? This election has gotten so negative I can't believe that McCain would be holding back, especially with the Palin investigation, to not pull it out of his hat now if his investigative team had found anything illegal.
@4magoo (396)
22 Sep 08
DJBtol you are just being facetious aren't you. You have read about Troopergate? You wouldn't want someone who uses there political power for personal reasons to be in charge of one of the great nuclear nations of the world would you? On the possibility that you aren't being facetious, let me suggest that if it was all "much-a-do-about-nothing" that you talk to the McCain camp and suggest that she just acknowledge the legal subpoenas and go in .. have her husband and her staff tell the truth and bury the issue. If she has nothing to hide, then why hide it. Let's just get this over and move on to other issues.
@xParanoiax (6987)
• United States
21 Sep 08
She originally claimed executive privilege for her emails -- that's why that guy hacked her email, he thought she had something to hide. It's been revealed, I believe, that Todd Palin'd been participating in said emails...which means executive privilege kinda goes out the window. You can't just not cooperate with a subpoena. That's an order to testify, if you don't obey you're technically breaking the law. Now if she makes a trip out of the country, like Rove did...she could be held in contempt and SHOULD be arrested immediately. Seeing as she originally planned to cooperate and then when she got picked as VP she magically decided not to, yeaaaah. I'm guessing there's something hidden there. If not, then they made a big deal out of nothing and are showing a lack of respect for the law by not cooperating when they've nothing at all to hide -- which I consider just as bad.
3 people like this
@4magoo (396)
21 Sep 08
Very well said xParanoiax. You have your facts line up.
2 people like this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
21 Sep 08
I'm sorry, I don't really care what any of her fans say but to me this proves she has something to hide! As it usually is, it's the cover-up that's going to be her undoing, or I sure hope she doesn't just get away with it like Karl Rove has so far. Annie
1 person likes this
@irishidid (8687)
• United States
21 Sep 08
When I come across articles like this I always read the responses. I learn some interesting things. Like an article was written before this one and was pulled, according to several of the responders. I think it is very telling.
1 person likes this
@irishidid (8687)
• United States
21 Sep 08
Here is the subpoena list. There are some interesting and insightful comments dealing with the legalities of the investigation. http://community.adn.com/adn/node/131619#Comments_Container
1 person likes this
@4magoo (396)
21 Sep 08
I don't understand. What is very telling?
@4magoo (396)
21 Sep 08
Thanks Irish... I hadn't seen it and it is very telling. right on...
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
22 Sep 08
This is just a witch hunt and a waste of tax payer money. The trooper was not fired, the man fired was a political appointment and served at the pleasure of the Governor. This is like the firing of the 8 US Attorneys. All the hype and time spent and nothing happened except it is one more thing that caused congress to achieve nothing. This is done by the Democrats to try to make Gov. Palin look bad. Lets have an investigation of Senator Dodd and Senator Obama and the big donations they have received from Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac. Did their blocking a call by Senator McCain in 2005 lead to the current financial investigation. Sorry bu the media will not touch their "Golden Boy" that they have created
@evanslf (484)
22 Sep 08
I don't think that postponing the investigation will do Palin any good though. In fact, though I understand the fustration of many that the investigation might be postponed until after election day, I have to say I am quite happy with this outcome. By delaying the investigation, it makes Palin look fishy and she loses the opportunity to clear her name, it will be a running sore with reporters asking her questions over it until election day. She would have been much better giving at least the semblance of cooperation and quietly slowing things down so that the findings don't come out until after the election.
@evanslf (484)
23 Sep 08
Agreed, well said
@4magoo (396)
22 Sep 08
The fact of the matter is if they postpone it it tells everyone they are hiding something. Why not just come out and answer the questions. If you have nothing to hide, then why hide. This investigation started long before she was tapped on the shoulder to be McCain's VP. McCain vetted her right. Why does everyone worry so much about this. Put your hand on the Bible, the truth, and we can move on. Until they put this question to rest it will taint her and McCain through association.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
21 Sep 08
Obama's followers have turned what was once a fair investigation, into a smear campaign. The man in charge is one of Obama's minions and right from the moment she was picked as McCain's VP he started saying there would be an "October surprise" and that it would be "Damaging to the governor". The man has already decided she's guilty without even looking at the evidence. If a judge in a court of law spoke that way at the beginning of a trial he would be removed. It's not unreasonable to expect French to be removed based on his statements.
• United States
21 Sep 08
At least they have a precedent in BJ Clinton.
@4magoo (396)
21 Sep 08
I don't understand your post. He testified. He didn't thumb his nose a at the legislative branch. Now it is true that he lied but are you suggesting the Palin or Todd should go and then all they have to do is lie.
2 people like this
• United States
21 Sep 08
If you think I just mean Monica Lewinski, That would be wrong. There is a list of charges against BJ and Hillary (I wanted so bad to say "and the Bear:~) That they never answered for. This is actually Troopergate v2.0. Between the two of then they received $20mil for their memoirs and they are both notorious for not remembering anything.=D
• United States
21 Sep 08
yeah and who has been trying to get this more time than the issues??????????