Having to choose between upholding the law and loyalty to the governor???

Tweet

That's the argument given by Alaska's Attorney General Colberg in why subpoenas for testimony by employees in the governor's office should be quashed. The way it reads to me is that he is pretty much admitting that the governor didn't uphold the State Constitution and that although the employees had sworn to uphold that same Constitution, the subpoenas make them have to choose between honoring that or supporting her. Doesn't that come across as odd if BOTH are upholding that constitution? Could there even BE divided loyalties if the constitution was being upheld by everyone? And, how is that a valid argument anyway? If they are sworn to uphold the law, should they not be required to obey the law (aka the subpoenas)? Or have we become a country where even our own legal authorities say obedience is optional? I'll let you decide. Here is the article: http://www.abc26.com/pages/landing_election_news/?GOP-moves-to-derail-Palin-probe-have-par=1&blockID=62543&feedID=26 When you read this and read the quote from AG Colberg's letter to the courts, tell me how YOU interpret his statement of loyalties. Does it seem the same to you as it does to me?