« The Need for Community Organizers: Not Everyone Can Afford to Buy Politicians | Home | Situation: Not Good »
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.
Advertisement
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