Lawyers, Troopergate, and Questions
"This week, seven key witnesses informed Mr. Branchflower through their attorneys that they would not provide depositions. Their depositions, which had been agreed to and scheduled earlier with Mr. Branchflower, were cancelled within the last 72 hours."
So isn't there anyone with investigatory power, or even just lawyerly or reportorial skills, who could inquire into exactly how all these witnesses to "troopergate" happened to obtain lawyers and then all follow the exact same tactic in the same 72 hours? Who are their lawyers; who is paying their lawyers? And many other questions that follow.













Reed,
Check the NYT, AP, WP. The NYT says the legislature is scheduling a vote on subpoenas. It may be a close call since McCain has reached out to AK pols to quash the investigation. AK Representative Coghill wants the head of man in charge of the investigation. This story has legs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=955Y3NJTRIE
September 6, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry about that -- the server ate my homework.
The NYT URL is http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/06/us/politics/06trooper.html?pagewanted=2&hp
The other is a fire-breathing Biden clip (unrelated but juicy)
September 6, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
In case inquiring minds would find this notable,
the Alaskan Senate committee voted UNANIMOUSLY in the first place to launch this Palin abuse-of-power investigation and did so BEFORE long before she was chosen to be McCain's ogle-queen. And the committee approved of that Democrat to lead the investigation, knowing he was fair-minded and not an outright partisan like the modern Republicant Party.
Democrats: Yes We Can!
Republicants: No You Can't! Not any longer! See you at the Hague!
September 6, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
In case inquiring minds would find this notable,
the Alaskan Senate committee voted UNANIMOUSLY in the first place to launch this Palin abuse-of-power investigation and did so BEFORE, long before she was chosen to be McCain's ogle-queen. And the committee approved of that Democrat to lead the investigation, knowing he was fair-minded and not an outright partisan like the modern Republicant Party.
Democrats: Yes We Can!
Republicants: No You Can't! Not any longer! See you at the Hague!
September 6, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
In case inquiring minds would find this notable,
the Alaskan Senate committee voted UNANIMOUSLY in the first place to launch this Palin abuse-of-power investigation and did so BEFORE, long before she was chosen to be McCain's ogle-queen. And the committee approved of that Democrat to lead the investigation, knowing he was fair-minded and not an outright partisan like the modern Republicant Party.
Democrats: Yes We Can!
Republicants: No You Can't! Not any longer! See you at the Hague!
September 6, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
In case inquiring minds would find this notable,
the Alaskan Senate committee voted UNANIMOUSLY in the first place to launch this Palin abuse-of-power investigation and did so BEFORE, long before she was chosen to be McCain's ogle-queen. And the committee approved of that Democrat to lead the investigation, knowing he was fair-minded and not an outright partisan like the modern Republicant Party.
Democrats: Yes We Can!
Republicants: No You Can't! Not any longer! See you at the Hague!
September 6, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
In case inquiring minds would find this notable,
the Alaskan Senate committee voted UNANIMOUSLY in the first place to launch this Palin abuse-of-power investigation and did so BEFORE, long before she was chosen to be McCain's ogle-queen. And the committee approved of that Democrat to lead the investigation, knowing he was fair-minded and not an outright partisan like the modern Republicant Party.
Democrats: Yes We Can!
Republicants: No You Can't! Not any longer! See you at the Hague!
September 6, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
In case inquiring minds would find this notable,
the Alaskan Senate committee voted UNANIMOUSLY in the first place to launch this Palin abuse-of-power investigation and did so BEFORE, long before she was chosen to be McCain's ogle-queen. And the committee approved of that Democrat to lead the investigation, knowing he was fair-minded and not an outright partisan like the modern Republicant Party.
Democrats: Yes We Can!
Republicants: No You Can't! Not any longer! See you at the Hague!
September 6, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
September 6, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Try google.
September 6, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or ask yourself what a McCain campaign spokesman is doing in the article or in AK. Or why 6 people suddenly refused to testify? Arrr.
September 6, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
, ** Cheeseheads faking crust!! **
Here's your damned link, shooter:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/157439/output/print
Josh posted this on the main blog hours ago!
I'd rather eat worms than read this kind of back and forth you-said, no-you-said bullshit.
I know it's your job as a troll, shooter.
But z2v all you have to do is ignore the guy.
-- ARG!
September 6, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd rather eat worms
We're even for the "wall" laugh...
September 6, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee that wasn't so hard was it? More importantly here's why it's necessary. comment said...
Which according to your cite isn't true.* "Key Alaska allies of John McCain are trying to derail"
* "In a move endorsed by the McCain campaign Friday"
* "that is being closely monitored by both the McCain and Obama campaigns"
* But a top McCain campaign official acknowledged that the GOP lawyer had given the campaign a "heads up" about his letter and that the McCain campaign approved of the effort to remove French.
And then we have a large headline featuring McCain.....
with a subhead....
Does that mean McCain is moving to curb a probe? Why no it doesn't. It refers to Palin's Alaska ally. But it's an awkward sentence carefully crafted to bait and switch unwary commenters such as yourself. If it meant what it said, it would read, 'Palin's ally moves to curb probe of Palin.'
In short the headlines are fraud. You folks are going to have to do your homework for a change, the echo chamber is going to be fact checked from here on in.
September 6, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
shooter242 knows that Republicans always want to get to the truth and investigate, that's why Bush had to be forced to investigate 9/11 although his top choice as head, Kissinger, was shot down.
It is also why everyone in the White house refuses to testify about anything, including the illegalities in the DOJ under Gonzalez. It's also why they give gay studs (Jeff Gannon) passes to the White House press room to ask softball questions - to give the American people the truth!
Its also why the Republican administration led us to war on a bunch of lies, and as the party of change, have changed the reason we invaded Iraq from mushroom clouds to vans of death to dispensing God's gifts to flypaper for terrorists etc etc.
September 7, 2008 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gee that wasn't so hard was it? More importantly here's why it's necessary. comment said...
Which according to your cite isn't true.* "Key Alaska allies of John McCain are trying to derail"
* "In a move endorsed by the McCain campaign Friday"
* "that is being closely monitored by both the McCain and Obama campaigns"
* But a top McCain campaign official acknowledged that the GOP lawyer had given the campaign a "heads up" about his letter and that the McCain campaign approved of the effort to remove French.
And then we have a large headline featuring McCain.....
with a subhead....
Does that mean McCain is moving to curb a probe? Why no it doesn't. It refers to Palin's Alaska ally. But it's an awkward sentence carefully crafted to bait and switch unwary commenters such as yourself. If it meant what it said, it would read, 'Palin's ally moves to curb probe of Palin.'
In short the headlines are fraud. You folks are going to have to do your homework for a change, the echo chamber is going to be fact checked from here on in.
September 6, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee that wasn't so hard was it? More importantly here's why it's necessary. comment said...
Which according to your cite isn't true.* "Key Alaska allies of John McCain are trying to derail"
* "In a move endorsed by the McCain campaign Friday"
* "that is being closely monitored by both the McCain and Obama campaigns"
* But a top McCain campaign official acknowledged that the GOP lawyer had given the campaign a "heads up" about his letter and that the McCain campaign approved of the effort to remove French.
And then we have a large headline featuring McCain.....
with a subhead....
Does that mean McCain is moving to curb a probe? Why no it doesn't. It refers to Palin's Alaska ally. But it's an awkward sentence carefully crafted to bait and switch unwary commenters such as yourself. If it meant what it said, it would read, 'Palin's ally moves to curb probe of Palin.'
In short the headlines are fraud. You folks are going to have to do your homework for a change, the echo chamber is going to be fact checked from here on in.
September 6, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
And that's six people who had no problem testifying under oath without legal representation before McShame sent his legal storm trooper up there.
September 6, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey bud, you made the assertion, it's up to you to prove it. Otherwise you're proven wrong by default.
September 6, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I respond to courtesy with courtesy -- usually. I spend as much time on replies as was spent on requests for replies. I've dealt with second-rate trolls too often -- or haven't you noticed?
September 6, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've dealt with enough third rate hacks to vet sources offered up as proof. You're on notice that throwing out things you wish were true isn't going to fly anymore.
September 6, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
airgun177,
Ooooh I'm scared. I'm going away.
But I'll be back b4 Monday. You're deliciously amusing.
Cheers,
z2v
September 6, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
It gives me pleasure to show you how stupid and lazy you are.
September 6, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you a TPM blogger cop here to enforce info integrity? Who's your supervisor? I'd like to speak with him about the First Amendment.
September 6, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've dealt with enough third rate hacks to vet sources offered up as proof. You're on notice that throwing out things you wish were true isn't going to fly anymore.
September 6, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
From the Newsweek article others proved you the link to which you seem to be ignoring:
(emphasis mine)
September 6, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Take a look at the Newsweek story.
September 6, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bull. Once again you are wrong on the facts. I get the sense that you actually think you understand something--but you're just some deluded asshole.
September 19, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's obvious what's happening. The GOP will "manage" this scandal until at least after the election. There aren't enough real investigative reports to keep up with GOP scandals, and Republicans are very good at covering their tracks.
September 6, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's obvious what's happening. The GOP will "manage" this scandal until at least after the election. There aren't enough real investigative reports to keep up with GOP scandals, and Republicans are very good at covering their tracks.
September 6, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Going after Palin via Trooper Gate is going to blow up in our faces. Just like the "Vetting" did.
We have a Democratic Senator who is no record as partisan. There have already been calls from Alaskan Legislature for him to step down as lead investigator because his integrity is compromised.
This will be interpreted as a politically motivated witch-hunt by the liberals. And it will cost Obama.
Why do we always repeat the same mistake more than once??
September 6, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
WE? Lalo, you are a real laugh-fest!
I would like to remind those who might not know: Lalo's avatar is Barack Obama's face with Abraham Lincoln's clothing and hat -- Abraham Lincoln -- that's right; the one who was assasinated. Lalo is not "we," if we means Obama supporters.
September 6, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know what you studied in your history class. I would suggest you look up Lincoln's role in dealing with the issue of slavery.
September 6, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's actually a pretty positive message, Lalo, associating Obama with one of the great presidents, one who helped pull the union together after it was torn apart. Obama=Lincoln -- I approve of this message.
September 6, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gotta agree here. Personally, I think Obama sucks but the connection between Lincoln and Barry O is important. And very, very valid.
September 6, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Lincoln sucked?
September 6, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gotta agree here. Personally, I think Obama sucks but the connection between him and Lincoln is obvious. And very, very valid.
September 6, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Smoking your hash pipe again I see.
September 6, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The AK legislature is republican controlled. I am pretty sure only one state senator has called for him to step down.
September 6, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you really think people are going to flock to McCain based on their resentment of the media and liberal bloggers for being "mean" to Sarah Palin? Give me a break. It is now Day 8 of Palin media silence. This is just not a serious pick. America is not this stupid, I'm sorry.
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/09/no_questions_please_were.html
September 6, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
And we always get redundant again and again?
So now we've reached the point where any attempt to actually know the ethical/legal history of an obscure candidate before he or she is thrust into national election -- even when the investigation began long before anybody ever heard of the new candidate -- is to be viewed as a "liberal witch-hunt"?
Well, then, maybe it's time get on our friggin' brooms and hunt some bastards down!
September 6, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tell ya, that there Watergate investigation will blow up in our face and Nixon will be vindicated.
September 6, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
And we can't investigate Watergate and make the concern troll happy at the same time.
You want the Dems to lose in '76, don't you?
September 6, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
how exactly did 'vetting' blow up in anyone's face except for mccain's??
September 6, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've dealt with enough third rate hacks to vet sources offered up as proof. You're on notice that throwing out things you wish were true isn't going to fly anymore.
September 6, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
He did document it. See above. And the story is out in the mainstream media outlets. So stop wasting space.
September 6, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again from the Newsweek article others provided you the link too which you seem to be ignoring:
(emphasis mine)
You have been given links to direct reporting that substantiates what TPM is posting. When in a hole, stop digging shooter.
September 6, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
When one has his head up his ass, it's difficult to hear.
September 6, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
airgun177,
Since you asked twice while chanting "Yoo Ess Ay", I am compelled by the majestic dark forces you summoned to respond.
http://www.homernews.com/stories/090308/news_1_001.shtml
If the bodies of 7 decapitated sled dogs isn't suspicious, I give up.
Until later,
z2v
September 6, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Would someone please feed the hamsters in Australia to get the comment section back up and running?
September 6, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sled Dogs? There are no dogs in that story, apparently you are making things up just for fun, and in truly disgusting fashion. That's two. Three strikes and you're discredited.
September 6, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
airgun177,
No decapitated sled dogs? My apologies for disappointing you.
PWNED! AND ADVERTISING IT!! At alt.tasteless, the saying was "What a maroon."
September 6, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
shooter,
is there some sort of penalty for being discredited? If so, I'd make them listen to 5 Bush speeches.
September 6, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Guys,
Go the the home page. There is a reference to the McCain "Quick Response Team" and how after their arrival the "I will not testify" announcements came.
In an example that we truly do not live in a democracy here is the link stating the previous members of her staff who now will not testify
http://www.adn.com/front/story/513137.html
the link may be up later.
September 6, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Will the MSM report on this video?
At the 6 minutes mark.. DC talks about Sarah Palins membership in the AIP.
Alaska Independence Party - Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NK2sFJebGc
September 6, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"This will be interpreted as a politically motivated witch-hunt by the liberals. And it will cost Obama."
i might buy that if the investigation had started in the last week. this investigation, and the conduct precipitating it, started and occurred LOOOOONG before she was named the VP.
September 6, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly -- the investigation was going along just fine when it was an Alaskan matter. Once she was named to the ticket, it was derailed. Pretty clear which was a case of manipulation by the national pols, and which side is doing the manipulating.
September 6, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
"This will be interpreted as a politically motivated witch-hunt by the liberals. And it will cost Obama."
i might buy that if the investigation had started in the last week. this investigation, and the conduct precipitating it, started and occurred LOOOOONG before she was named the VP.
September 6, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me get this straight:
Palin gets caught abusing power to avenge her sister.
Palin lies about her and her office's involvement.
Palin has to retract the lie because a taped phone call surfaces.
Palin now in full-blown investigation.
Palin attempt to assert executive priviledge to keep any other incriminating information out of the hands of investigators.
Palin, on advice from McCain et al, circles the dog sleds, hires lawyer to obstruct justice.
Palin, McCain, et al widens the dog sled circle to include all staff.
So, we have abuse of power, obstruction of justice and the claim of executive priviledge. Weren't they supposed to wait until they took office for all this?
BTW, for anyone who has not yet read Palin's "Sambo beat the Bitch" article, here's the link:
http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/09/05/alaskans-speak-in-a-frightened-whisper-palin-is-%E2%80%9Cracist-sexist-vindictive-and-mean%E2%80%9D/#more-954
PEACE
September 6, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spencer's Mom,
Hey, that's "As Good As It Gets"
September 6, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if what the author of that article says is true or not.
What I do know is that it is poorly written, more of a gossip column than an actual piece of investigation. If it is true, perhaps someone with journalism skills will pick up on it and turn it into a more effective piece.
Let's hope.
September 6, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not replying to subpoenas and refusing to testify
is a staple of the Bush gang, Palin will fit right in with that type of Government.
I thought McCain was the candidate of "Change"
September 6, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Next week some GOP mouthpiece will claim she was just making a joke.
September 6, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can we get some kind of troll rating system for the comments, so we can weed out people like Shooter who are only here to stir up trouble?
If that's not possible, how about a simple "Ignore" function? There's absolutely no reason to waste time and pixels on trolls. Plus, it might foster more *actual* discussion if we could the shills, hacks, and trolls.
September 6, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
*That should be "weed out the shills, hacks and trolls."
While I'm compiling a wish list, how about a "Preview" function, too?
September 6, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
mgm,
McCain's website has, or had, a request for volunteers to go to lib and Democrat blog sites and push the McCain/Republican ideas.
I think shooter and a few others we see here might be McCain volunteers.
September 7, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
People like Lalo and Shooter are clearly here as paid Republican trolls or as right-wing inspired-by-Palin trolls. Republicans are masterful liars.
To ask a further question: When the legislative commission on Palin's role in Monegan's firing was appointed, Palin promised publicly to cooperate--now she is refusing. What is she trying to hide? She also publicly proclaimed that there had been no pressure from her or her office--now we know that her husband, her Commissions chief, and she herself sent emails to Monegan, called Monegan and other state trooper officials, and met with Monegan about her brother-in-law.
We have had eight years of lies from the White House. Palin and McCain are outright liars. Enough already.
September 6, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is OUTRAGEOUS SEXISM!!!!ONE!11!!ONE1111!!!!
September 6, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama can afford some first class lawyers.
I suggest he sends them to the North Pole ASAP.
September 6, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
What, exactly, is outrageous sexism?
You mean the fact that McCain, who doesn't even give his wife (meal ticket) the time of day, or any public respect -- chose a hottie with a soap opera life and a corrupt political past (and present) to be VEEP (and soul-mate) even though he spent a total of about 60 minutes with her?
Yeah! McCain is guilty of outrageous sexism alright! I agree! Here here!
I almost feel sorry for Cindy.
September 6, 2008 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shooter242,
Why don't you use Westlaw® or LexisNexis® yourself? Do your own damn research.
September 6, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
shooter 242 is a very low quality troll who's main skill is throwing up chaff. Plus he's a bore.
September 6, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
shooter 242 is a very low quality troll who's main skill is throwing up chaff, as he's spent the last couple of years doing at Greenwald's.
You can't convince him with facts, and he brings no facts of his own to the table. But he's very condescending, so at least he's got his pride.
September 6, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shooter triple posts his lame attack on z2v, then gets PWNED, meanwhile ARG lays it all out in the Newsweek article above...can he have gone away? That was too much fun, thanks guys!
September 6, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, Jonathan Turley. Keith has him on Countdown all the time.
September 6, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Liberal,
and Turley has a record of being a non partisan straight shooter as one can readily see if they compared his appearances on TV during the Clinton years and today.
September 6, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Note that in the Newsweek story,
(1) the Republican legislator who spoke of plans to have the investigation stopped _claimed_ to have the support of the speaker [?] of the legislature; and
(2)the 12-person committee that plans to vote on Subpoenas consists of 8 republicans and 4 Dems.
It would seem plausible that some imaginative arm-twisting might work altho this COmmissioner is apparently viewed as a straight arrow and highly regarded. [My other readings in the Alaska Daily News - and for trolls, please feel free to use the google.]
From reading the Newsweek article, however, one does get the sense that at least some republican legislators feel betrayed at having agreed to drop a Subpoena vote in mid-August based on a pledge of cooperation, and being met now with wholesale refusals...
September 6, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Note that in the Newsweek story,
(1) the Republican legislator who spoke of plans to have the investigation stopped _claimed_ to have the support of the speaker [?] of the legislature; and
(2)the 12-person committee that plans to vote on Subpoenas consists of 8 republicans and 4 Dems.
It would seem plausible that some imaginative arm-twisting might work altho this Commissioner is apparently viewed as a straight arrow and highly regarded. [My other readings in the Alaska Daily News - and for trolls, please feel free to use the google.]
From reading the Newsweek article, however, one does get the sense that at least some republican legislators feel betrayed at having agreed to drop a Subpoena vote in mid-August based on a pledge of cooperation, and being met now with wholesale refusals...
September 6, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's also worth noting that Palin is despised by a large section of Republicans in the state legislature, so there's no guarantee that they'll vote in her favor for the sake of party unity to help the presidential ticket. Particularly with this kind of turnaround after a promise of cooperation, I wouldn't be surprised if they keep it up.
September 6, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans are known to get pissed if you screw them over.
See this brilliant article by John Dean:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20080725.html
September 6, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect the one Senator that has spoken about having French removed has been enlightened by McShame's pols about the bountiful positions that will be needed to be filled by loyal republicans once McShame and Palin are in Washington. You know, just like Kathrine Harris in Florida and the recount fiasco.
September 6, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are upstanding Republicans who believe in the rule of law. However, none are in the McCain campaign.
September 6, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
FLASH
McCain Quashing Investigations of His Administration Before It's Even Elected!
September 6, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
TO clarify
My comment [above] was intended as a reply to Heretic at 2:31 pm- [on there being only one Republican voice]
TPM does seem to be giving problems in posting comments.
September 6, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
TO clarify
My comment [above] was intended as a reply to Heretic at 2:31 pm- [on there being only one Republican voice]
TPM does seem to be giving problems in posting comments.
September 6, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was thinking troopergate cries out for a timeline and the back and forth in this thread supports that need. The timeline in no way supports Palin's honesty and completely dispatches the argument that this investigation was politically motivated by her selection as McCain's VP.
So I googled "troopergate timeline" and here it is.
http://apocalyptickiwi.wordpress.com/2008/08/30/palin-vs-wooten/
The same site has a review of the legal ramifications of all this for Palin, particularly with respect to possible impeachment proceedings in AK.
http://apocalyptickiwi.wordpress.com/2008/09/02/the-case-for-the-impeachment-of-governor-sarah-palin/
September 6, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
For lawyers, the McCain has had one of DC's best leading his VP search - AB Culvahouse.
http://www.omm.com/arthurbculvahousejr/
September 6, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let her know you want her to talk.
September 6, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shooter242, a well known troll over at Glenn Greenwald's cite, is taking issue with the assertion that the McCain campaign is trying to quash Palin's Troopergate scandal. Here's your supporting cite, Shooter242: http://www.newsweek.com/id/157439. Here are firs two paragraphs from the Newsweek story:
Shooter242 has been laughed out of Greenwald's site, although her periodically resurfaces to display his ignorance of current events. His apparent ignorance of this Newsweek story is typical of his head-in-the-sand approach.
September 6, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think trolls are allergic to "teh Google".. messes with their cognitive dissonance or sumthin...
This is a BLATANT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE situation and why interfering and stalling an investigation is considered "non political" and allowing an investigation to continue as scheduled with due process of law is called "political" is all we need to know that this is more of the same crony, crooked, lying, criminals that are already in office.
Vote DoubleSpeak:
Palin/McBush in '80
NOT!!
September 7, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spencers Mom:
It's really pretty scary that she actually could become the VP!
September 6, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shooter242, a well known troll over at Glenn Greenwald's cite, is taking issue with the assertion that the McCain campaign is trying to quash Palin's Troopergate scandal. Here's your supporting cite, Shooter242: http://www.newsweek.com/id/157439. Here are firs two paragraphs from the Newsweek story:
Shooter242 has been laughed out of Greenwald's site, although her periodically resurfaces to display his ignorance of current events. His apparent ignorance of this Newsweek story is typical of his head-in-the-sand approach.
September 6, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not the crime it's the cover up... I recall someone saying that, can't remember who...ummm
de javu all over again, i know who said that...
September 6, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
me too. :-)
September 6, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me get this straight:
Palin gets caught abusing power to avenge her sister.
Palin lies about her and her office's involvement.
Palin has to retract the lie because a taped phone call surfaces.
Palin now in full-blown investigation.
Palin attempt to assert executive priviledge to keep any other incriminating information out of the hands of investigators.
Palin, on advice from McCain et al, circles the dog sleds, hires lawyer to obstruct justice.
Palin, McCain, et al widens the dog sled circle to include all staff.
So, we have abuse of power, obstruction of justice and the claim of executive priviledge. Weren't they supposed to wait until they took office for all this?
BTW, for anyone who has not yet read Palin's "Sambo beat the Bitch" article, here's the link:
http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/09/05/alaskans-speak-in-a-frightened-whisper-palin-is-%E2%80%9Cracist-sexist-vindictive-and-mean%E2%80%9D/#more-954
PEACE
September 6, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
This claim is 100% unsubstantiated and is nothing at this point but incendiary rumor (at best)
September 6, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
yep. but rumors that an elected official publicly uses racial/ethnic slurs certainly calls for a bit of beating the bushes journalism. if there's anything to it (even if the 'sambo beat the bitch' line can't be substantiated) it shouldn't be hard to find someone to say so.
and tidbits like the teenage father-to-be of palin's bastard grandchild describing himself as a 'fucking redneck' kinda makes the whole scenario believable from where i see it. but then again, rednecks ain't what they used to be since nascar went pop.
September 6, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Twas many taped phone calls ... about twenty. I believe I read that the Alaska Public Safety division is required to record all calls made on State phones. That's how Palin discovered which of her people made the calls in question.
September 6, 2008 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know the American people are sick of the corruption in the Bush Administration. I think a good tactic for the DEMs is not reliant on what happens with this investigation, but that it is the same group of obstructionists working for McCain that have obstructed justice in the Bush Administration. The story is the players. MORE OF THE SAME CORRUPTION WITH McCAIN!
September 6, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maverick McSame should not have used exclusively eHarmony to vet his running mate, although they do seem to match at the deepest level. CrunchBase.com says that eHarmony’s profiling process determines the compatibility of two individuals based on their “values, character, intellect, humor, religious / spiritual beliefs and many other dimensions”. It also says that eHarmony “supports only heterosexual matches and has taken serious criticism for this from the left.” This explains why McSame ended up with Pale-in. A spokesperson for the McSame team has told reporters that the vetting of Pale-in was such an extensive, grueling process, that they had to send a team of lawyers to Alaska to protect the running mate so that she can get the needed rest to recover.
September 6, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
My Goodness..
If you keep treating trolls as if they have purpose or point you will have to deal with them all the time. It's best to continue on with a troll post being treated as a technical error..just don't address it or acknowledge it.
As for Palin..I think she blows the thing for McCain. It seem that the case against Palin is rock solid and no GOP'er knows what is in those e-mails. From the start Palin has been backing up on this thing and probably because she knew someone had her back. This was an Alaska in house snafu that has gone global. The investigation was probably intended to go nowhere and that's the reason a Democrat was picked to run it. Credibility. But, the landscape has changed enormously since the mess rose it's head in Alaska. I'm not sure a bunch of Alaska GOP light weights can handle all eyes being upon them nor can they sweep this away under national scrutiny. It's like a bunch of folks that rig local little league games finding themselves in the center of a con involving the World Series. The tools they use to fix their dirty little work will not get them off, so bring in the big cahuna: McCain. McCain only has one option: to quash this investigation. Problem is..McCain will have the stink of it on him all the way to November.
Palin is just a local girl and she aint ready for the Big Time.
September 6, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Richard,
Alaskan politicians are already under the microscope by the Feds, and the big kahuna (sic) Stevens may have to resign his Senate seat before long. A possible Obama Presidency and Attorney General looming means the jig may be up for the Repugs all over the country.
This is not a good time for Repugs to engage in hanky panky. Christ, The Federalist Society's case load is already on overload.
September 6, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, I emailed Josh the very same question yesterday. Maybe I should be a journalist!
September 6, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
THAT'S not obstruction of justice that we can believe in!!!
September 6, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps Mr. Branchflower should issue a formal invitation, in the form of criminal charges, to the team that persuaded the witnesses to clam up to stay for a few more years as guests of the state: http://www.touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title11/Chapter56/Section540.htm
September 6, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://mudflats.wordpress.com/
If you're interested in following all things Palin, I highly recommend the great Alaska blog 'Mudflats' (link above.)
A few days ago it was noted that McCain sent a good-sized team to Alaska for the purpose of "vetting" Palin AFTER she had been announced as the VP pick. Even after taking GOP mega-incompentence into consideration, I thought this was very odd. But now I'm wondering if the real mission for that team of lawyers and Rove proteges is to "fix" things so that further embarrassing information about Palin doesn't come to light.
September 6, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I liked the article about Todd's business partner trying to get his divorce papers sealed. I heard a few hours ago from someone that in the papers, Sarah Palin is the "other woman" named in the divorce.
September 6, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Poor, poor Sen. McCain. He thought he'd pick someone on the basis of an "80% approval rating" (in a state that's 90% Republican), and that would be all we'd need to know.
Then, when news started trickling in that Gov. Palin may have some details she should've considered sharing with the lovely Sen. McCain before accepting the VP appointment, it's politics as usual -- usher her gazillion miles away and blame the other side.
Here's what I'd like her to address:
Public policy -- by design -- directly affects personal lives.
How does she square cutting funding for teen pregnancies with favoring mandated school attendance? How well would she say that abstinance-only sex ed works? What changes might she consider in her approach to this issue? Should "medicines" like Viagra continue to be covered by health insurance while birth control often is not?
All of this reminds me of the whining that followed Sen. Kerry's mention of Dick Cheney's daughter's "lifestyle" choice. Kerry was called a big, bad bully for acknowledging that Cheney's daughter, who since has had a baby, is a lesbian.
"Yikes! You can't say that! These are real people you're singling out. Our policies just deal with groups of people, not individuals!!!"
Please. Every policy directly affects fellow human beings. What in the world is wrong with dealing directly and honestly with that truth?
September 6, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain sure did "shake up" the campaign with his Palin selection. The world has been turned upside down. Just think about the fact that BEFORE the election we already have both the crime and the cover-up for all to see.
September 6, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find it hard to believe all the arguing going on here. What's to argue. We can all see what has gone on here. It is very apparent that the investigation that was going to proceed in a normal course has been derailed. That isn't just a coincidental occurrence. For those of you who are acting if as nothing has happened you better pull your heads out of your asses.
September 6, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, Christ, we've got a shooter242 infection over here at TPM. We shoulda sprayed better over at Salon.
September 6, 2008 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Strange- but whatever a politician most denies is usually what he or she is most guilty of- and that which he or she most wants to declare about him/herself is usually the exact OPPOSITE of the truth- so when a politician says that they are in favor of reform and ethical standards- as McCain did after getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar- then count on the fact that they are dirty..
When a politician screams about "earmarks", as Palin does- go look for her earmarks- ahhh- THERE they are---
This is just too easy.
September 6, 2008 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reed, the kinds of questions you ask are within the realm of professionally run campaigns. They are specific, reasonable, lead to an inquiry of fact-finding on the merits and that means it will serve the public.
Your post recognizes that an investigation has to be done first. Many of your commentators do not share that premise, assuming that the refusal of people to enter into voluntary depositions without counsel present MUST mean foul play.
No, it merely means that there are new, supercharged implications, players and influences with Palin's VP nominee status. Who wouldn't, after finding out all about that, want counsel to help them stay abreast of all of the agendas swirling around them as they answer the questions. The most basic question any individual might have of their lawyer: what if person X or Y changes tune and leaves me alone? (either way)
A full investigation into the content and context of the crisis needs to be had and published. Let the truth be known and the chips fall where they may.
September 6, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reviewing the State of Alaska website, I see that "Governor Palin has directed
all of her staff to cooperate fully with Branchflower."
It seems that Sarah Palin does not exercise any real authority as Governor or she is a liar.
Welcome to the Republican, McBush campaign.
September 7, 2008 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reviewing the State of Alaska website, I see that "Governor Palin has directed
all of her staff to cooperate fully with Branchflower."
It seems that Sarah Palin does not exercise any real authority as Governor; or she is a liar.
Welcome to the Republican, McBush campaign.
September 7, 2008 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mike7Woodson,
I can meet you half way. Those 7 key witnesses were willing to enter into voluntary depositions without counsel in the beginning. With all the brouhaha of Palin being the republican VP nominee, I concede a lawyer may be necessary to define what their client will depose. However, defining the limitations of a deposition is not rocket science. There really is no reason to refuse once a reasonable domain of questioning is defined. And that is something that should only take a few hours to discuss, negotiate and write. Anything else is stalling to the point of hampering the investigation.
September 7, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did she or didn't she "exert pressure"? Not the only relevant point - what does it say about Gov. Palin's JUDGEMENT that she would surround herself with people who would take the actions that they have admitted to, some of which are caught on tape, with or without her direction? Even if they acted on their own, her judgement in hiring staff who would act this way is SORELY LACKING.
September 7, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink