Monte51Coleman Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Probe seeks subpoenas for Palin's husband Friday, September 12, 2008 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/09/10/politics/p164612D91.DTL (09-12) 11:34 PDT Anchorage, Alaska (AP) -- The investigator looking into whether Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin abused her power in trying to fire her former brother-in-law is asking state lawmakers for the power to subpoena Palin's husband, Todd. The probe has taken on new significance since Republican presidential candidate John McCain picked Palin as his running mate. Retired prosecutor Stephen Branchflower asked the state House and Senate judiciary committees for power to subpoena 13 witnesses, including Todd Palin. The committees were expected to grant the request. Branchflower said he wants to interview Palin herself, but did not ask for a subpoena for her Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 and again, what's your problem with her firing a guy who used a police issued taser on his ten year old and got a DWI while in uniform? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoot Point Really Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 I'm all for them vetting Palin... I'm hoping they do the same with Obama... A few subpoenas around the Tony Rezko association might be in order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte51Coleman Posted September 12, 2008 Author Share Posted September 12, 2008 and again, what's your problem with her firing a guy who used a police issued taser on his ten year old and got a DWI while in uniform? You've obviously mistaken me for someone else. Why are you so defensive? It's an official investigation. If she did nothing wrong then she'll be exonerated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 and again, what's your problem with her firing a guy who used a police issued taser on his ten year old and got a DWI while in uniform? - Accessing private docs her staff didn't have the right to see. - Abuse of power. - Lying to investigators - Trying to remove the prosecutor from the case so that it can be settled after the election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 I don't know what happened, but I'm sure this is an Obama smear tactic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 All legit questions that the voters should know about. It's a shame the same kind of process isnt being used to investigate Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 All legit questions that the voters should know about. It's a shame the same kind of process isnt being used to investigate Obama. Investigations happen for a reason. It's not a shame that Obama isn't under investigation - it's a shame you think he should be just because the GOP ticket picked up Cheney II. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Investigations happen for a reason. It's not a shame that Obama isn't under investigation - it's a shame you think he should be just because the GOP ticket picked up Cheney II. Yeah, Im sure there's nothing to the Rezko stuff. Let's just accept what Obama says and let it go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 and again, what's your problem with her firing a guy who used a police issued taser on his ten year old and got a DWI while in uniform? how dare she do what she thinks is right without thinking about how the dems will view it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 What would have happened if Palin had let this guy stay on the force KNOWING his violent streak, and he went out and hurt someone? The left and media would go bat**** about how she knew about it and protected her family. I personally think it's great she used her power to get rid of the guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONAWARPATH Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 What would have happened if Palin had let this guy stay on the force KNOWING his violent streak, and he went out and hurt someone?The left and media would go bat**** about how she knew about it and protected her family. I personally think it's great she used her power to get rid of the guy. That's fine Kilmer but I would prefer if she would turn over emails and not try to get the investigation turned over to the State Personnel Board. And it just so happens that she appointed the members of the State Personnel Board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte51Coleman Posted September 12, 2008 Author Share Posted September 12, 2008 how dare she do what she thinks is right without thinking about how the dems will view it. Where is there any mention of Democrats, Mike? The investigation is news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 That's fine Kilmer but I would prefer if she would turn over emails and not try to get the investigation turned over to the State Personnel Board.And it just so happens that she appointed the members of the State Personnel Board. Absolutely. Turn it all over. In fact, I think it would help if she came right out and said "yep. The guy was beating my sister up, tasered a 10 year old and was too dangerous to keep around. So I circumvented rules to do what needed to be done. And we're all better off for it. And I'd do it again." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Yeah, Im sure there's nothing to the Rezko stuff. Let's just accept what Obama says and let it go. You're not sure of anything with that Rezko stuff, you want to go fishing just because your celebrity VP is being investigated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 That's fine Kilmer but I would prefer if she would turn over emails and not try to get the investigation turned over to the State Personnel Board.And it just so happens that she appointed the members of the State Personnel Board. I'd prefer that she stop trying to get the investigation turned over to people she appointed in an effort to derail it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 You're not sure of anything with that Rezko stuff, you want to go fishing just because your celebrity VP is being investigated. Yeah. How silly for me to expect both sides to be looked at through the same lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 While every report I've read states that it was within Palin's legal power to oust this guy, personally I couldn't care less if she circumvented rules or not. I'd do the same frickin thing to get rid of some jerk who tasered his kid, got a DUI while on the force, had a violent streak, etc. Yep, you bet I would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Yeah. How silly for me to expect both sides to be looked at through the same lens.That's not what you're asking for Kilmer. You're asking for an investigation where there isn't enough evidence to justify it just because little Cheney is being investigated. Stop trying to equate the too - one is a hunch and the other one has enough evidence behind it for Alaska's legislators to authorize it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 I'm all for them vetting Palin... I'm hoping they do the same with Obama... A few subpoenas around the Tony Rezko association might be in order. If Palin received a sweetheart deal on a million dollar home from a convicted felon or was friends with a terrorist it would be front page news until the election. How about knitpicking the tenants of black liberation theology. The media has given up even the slightest bit of objectivity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONAWARPATH Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Yeah. How silly for me to expect both sides to be looked at through the same lens. I thought the Rezko situation was looked into. Or are you suggesting that it be investigated again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONAWARPATH Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 While every report I've read states that it was within Palin's legal power to oust this guy, personally I couldn't care less if she circumvented rules or not. I'd do the same frickin thing to get rid of some jerk who tasered his kid, got a DUI while on the force, had a violent streak, etc. Yep, you bet I would. But I don't think you would lie about it Katie. (Assuming Palin did anything wrong) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 I thought the Rezko situation was looked into. Or are you suggesting that it be investigated again? Im saying it was skimmed over and left alone. Des, you continue to apply one set of rules for your side and another for those with whom you disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Where is there any mention of Democrats, Mike?The investigation is news. true, but somehow I dont think this is coming from a conservative standpoint. You dont usually call out your own problems... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 That's fine Kilmer but I would prefer if she would turn over emails and not try to get the investigation turned over to the State Personnel Board.And it just so happens that she appointed the members of the State Personnel Board. She has been very cooperative according to the head of the investigation. The State board is the one who's responsibility it is to investigate the charge...what's your objection to following the law? She appointed one,reappointing another that was already on the board. You don't trust them for some reason? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.