Devil505 wrote:Fair point Paul, but he has announced his intention to disregard the subpoena so are we in agreement that he has no legal grounds to simply thumb his nose at the legal system by failing to appear? If he fails to appear & if you agree that he must appear, doesn't he deserve to be arrested? (you would be)
I don't know the law on this, but I suspect there is legal recourse available to get out of a subpoena. Both spousal privilege (depending on the questions that would have been asked) and potentially executive privilege come into play here. Also consider that perhaps the state legislature doesn't have legal authority to compel appearance without first holding a full senate vote. The subpoena in this case was issued by a 3-2 vote of a 5 person panel. It may well not hold the full weight of a subpoena issued by the full senate. You seem to be jumping to the worst of conclusions here.
That said, I believe he will appear if and when the time comes that he is legally compelled to do so. It is also proper for him to do so. It does no one any good to be held in contempt, be fined, or even be sent to jail for a couple months.
And that said, I don't think it will come to compelling him to testify. I think this may be some political gamesmanship of their own. This appears to be a very simple investigation, only a handful of people involved. They may well be playing things so as to create a political villain out of the process so that they can go in and clear their name at the time of their choosing, to play the opposition against itself. They may also be forcing the investigator into a position of having to issue findings well in advance of Nov 4. If they do this playing hard to get for another week or two, let it gain some broad media attention, and then go in, testify, and demand that for the sake of fairness issue their report ASAP, instead of waiting until the friday before election day... it could be a smart strategy to defuse the october surprise that Hollis French said he'd be delivering.
That is obviously your opinion, & one not shared by everyone, including a majority of the Republican members of the investigation. Regardless of the politics here, doesn't the truth need to come out as to whether or not Gov. Palin overstepped her authority? Should investigations be simply quashed for the political benefit of one of the sides?
I'd love to see a source on that. From what I've read the vote to get this set of subpeona's issued was 3-2. 2 Dems and 1 Rep yea, 2 Rep nay. I'm sure the republicans want it to be over and done with and want the truth to come out, but the partisan nature of Hollis French's statements and his action of striking a key witness from the subpeona list (leader of a meeting where Palin may have been involved and where this firing was discussed) creates an air of unfairness and partisan hackery.
I want the truth to come out, but given the increased profile and the partisan turn it has taken, I think it makes sense to find a non-partisan individual or group to run things. And barring that, expect for French and others to be kept in line while it goes on. I'm not saying scrap the whole thing. It is started, I'm for finishing it. But it needs to be fair and not used as a platform for unfair political character assassination.
The merits of this case are not for us to decide & there is not enough public info available for anyone to make a decision....YET.
Says the man who openly advocates for Bush, Cheney, Rove, and the rest to be put in chains and hauled off to prison.
There is quite a bit of information available publicly as to the professional reasons Wooten could have been fired (two exampled, unreasonable pushback on budgetary directives and meetings behind Palin's back). There's also the list of things the police officer did and the fact he wasn't fired when any right minded supervisor should have fired him. There's also Wooten's testimony that he was never told to fire the police officer, only that a number of contacts on the subject of the officer were made (given his record it is unsurprising and entirely reasonable in the abstract). And most recently we have Palin's personal email account being hacked and the contents made open to the world to see, and nothing even remotely incriminating being found on any subject.
You may not be interested in making a judgement of your own at this point, that's fine. I think there is enough known to be reasonably certain Sarah Palin did nothing wrong (or to be a little less charitable, she had ample reason to fire him regardless of the personal aspect that may have been at play) and that perhaps Todd Palin overstepped his bounds a little bit (something that I do not believe will be at all an issue if McCain/Palin are elected).
edit: Sorry, I got the names confused. Wooten is the state trooper, Monegan is the chief that was fired.