Todd Palin refuses to testify

[The_Lillard_King]

"ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's husband has refused to testify in the investigation of his wife's alleged abuse of power, and key lawmakers said Thursday that uncooperative witnesses are effectively sidetracking the probe until after Election Day."


Palin is suppose to be all about reforming congress and holding people accountable. That is of course unless she is involved. I can't blame Todd, if my was a pit bull I would either not testify against her or not particpate in any activity that involes the the initlas BJ . . . no matter cute of a GILF she is.

It's a great strategy. Win the election, then let people know you violated your ethics as governor, because your running mate now has the power to pardon. Brilliant.

 

[Denny Crane]

He has a 5th amendment right not to testify against his wife. I don't think I'd testify against my wife under any circumstances.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

He has a 5th amendment right not to testify against his wife. I don't think I'd testify against my wife under any circumstances.

That isn't exactly right. He may claim spousal immunity under certain circumstances, but that doesn't give you the right to ignore a subpeona. Just the right to invoke the privledge for certain questions involving conversations with his wife.

 

[Denny Crane]

See Trammell v. United States.

The real issue here is the case is now politicized. Democrats want to stick it to her to harm the McCain campaign, and the Republicans want to bury it so no harm is done to the campaign.

I don't have any suggestions for a remedy. Maybe a special prosecutor.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

See Trammell v. United States.

The real issue here is the case is now politicized. Democrats want to stick it to her to harm the McCain campaign, and the Republicans want to bury it so no harm is done to the campaign.

I don't have any suggestions for a remedy. Maybe a special prosecutor.

OK I glanced at it. The decision there was whether the husband could force the wife not to testify and they held that it was the wife's privledge to invoke or she can waive it. She choose to testify and it was upheld.

It looks liek the court went on to define the privledge as this: Information privately disclosed between husband and wife in the confidence of the marital relationship is privileged under the independent rule protecting confidential marital communications, Blau v. United States, 340 U. S. 332; and the Hawkins privilege, which sweeps more broadly than any other testimonial privilege, is not limited to confidential communications, but is invoked to also exclude evidence of criminal acts and of communications in the presence of third persons.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/445/40/case.html

They want to ask Todd about his communications with many people not just his wife. And I still don't read where it says you can use the privledge to ignore a subpeona. AND all this goes against Palin basically saying bring it on (the investigation by saying "hold me accountable). How are they suppose to hold her accountable if she is instructing employees and hubby not to talk. On top of taht she is running up the lawyer bill (paid by Alaska) fighting all this.

 

[Denny Crane]

OK I glanced at it. The decision there was whether the husband could force the wife not to testify and they held that it was the wife's privledge to invoke or she can waive it. She choose to testify and it was upheld.

It looks liek the court went on to define the privledge as this: Information privately disclosed between husband and wife in the confidence of the marital relationship is privileged under the independent rule protecting confidential marital communications, Blau v. United States, 340 U. S. 332; and the Hawkins privilege, which sweeps more broadly than any other testimonial privilege, is not limited to confidential communications, but is invoked to also exclude evidence of criminal acts and of communications in the presence of third persons.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/445/40/case.html

They want to ask Todd about his communications with many people not just his wife. And I still don't read where it says you can use the privledge to ignore a subpeona. AND all this goes against Palin basically saying bring it on (the investigation by saying "hold me accountable). How are they suppose to hold her accountable if she is instructing employees and hubby not to talk. On top of taht she is running up the lawyer bill (paid by Alaska) fighting all this.

This is really a non-issue. The legislature can't willy-nilly subpoena people from the executive branch or their spouses. Otherwise the executive couldn't function with all the threats made by the legislature. These things are typically done this way and the courts will have to rule if the subpoenas can be enforced. You can't allow fishing expeditions, either.

Like I said, the issue here is that the investigation has become a partisan witch hunt on one side, and resistance to everything on the other because she's now part of the national ticket. Everyone's motives in all this are in question.

The lawyer bill is probably a valid expense where she's being sued for performing her duties. If she ran over someone with her car and got sued, then she'd have to pay her own lawyer bill.

I'm not even sure there is a "there" there as well. If her underlings serve at her pleasure and they're democrats they can be terminated for any reason. If they're republicans, same thing. If they're civil servants, then no.

BTW, here's wikipedia on the 5th amendment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

In Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (1980), the Supreme Court ruled that the fifth amendment extended the right not to testify against oneself to include not testifying against one's spouse.

You also talked about the Hawkins Privilege, which is an interesting subject

 

[BlazerWookee]

The fact that there's an investigation now should be the subject of an investigation.

 

[Tortimer]

The fact that there's an investigation now should be the subject of an investigation.

I agree with this statement. I like how there is no investigation or not much until Palin was McCain's VP. I know the Republicans would probably do the same thing if the Democrats nominated a unknown. They would have sent their team in the do everything they can to discredit her. I really don't think this is going to amount to anything and won't cause anyone not to vote for McCain.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

This is going to hurt McCain. He chose her based on her spectacular integrity... and now they're dodging an investigation just like a seasoned politician does. Sorry, honey, it doesn't work this way.

There are 7 swing states that will decide the election. About 4 of those are pretty much decided as well. This will effect those remaining 3 that the vote will be less than a 1% difference. I'm not an Obama supporter, but to McCain I say "buh-bye" baby. Your moronic choice for veep just cost you the ovary, errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, oval office.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

This is really a non-issue. The legislature can't willy-nilly subpoena people from the executive branch or their spouses. Otherwise the executive couldn't function with all the threats made by the legislature. These things are typically done this way and the courts will have to rule if the subpoenas can be enforced. You can't allow fishing expeditions, either.

Like I said, the issue here is that the investigation has become a partisan witch hunt on one side, and resistance to everything on the other because she's now part of the national ticket. Everyone's motives in all this are in question.

The lawyer bill is probably a valid expense where she's being sued for performing her duties. If she ran over someone with her car and got sued, then she'd have to pay her own lawyer bill.

I'm not even sure there is a "there" there as well. If her underlings serve at her pleasure and they're democrats they can be terminated for any reason. If they're republicans, same thing. If they're civil servants, then no.

BTW, here's wikipedia on the 5th amendment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

You also talked about the Hawkins Privilege, which is an interesting subject

Funny, I always wondered about wiki's accuracy. They sure did slaughter the Tramell case. I provided a link to the case above, read it, wiki missed the ball on that one.

But I agree the issue is not about the privledge but about if the subpeona is valid and enfoceable and if it is will it be enforced.

Lawyers could write 30 page briefs on either side of that argument, but whatever the answer is, it is clear there will not be a complete investigation by election time.

 

[mook]

I'm no fan of Palin, but I don't really see the big deal here. At its worst, it's a Monica Lewinski-level of scandal. A little crazy, a little unpleasant, but really nobody was harmed. Partisans get all up in arms, but Joe Sixpack is far more worried about his 401k and Iraq. If Democrats try to push it into being a Really Big Deal like Republicans did with Monica, I see it as more of a distraction from their much better arguments than a real advantage. Democrats are trying to sell change, and a long and dreary investigation that in the big picture just doesn't matter seems a lot like "more of the same."

Run against 8 years of Bush running America, not 2 years of Palin running Alaska.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

The fact that there's an investigation now should be the subject of an investigation.

There was an investigation before McCain announced Palin as the running mate. That is were the now infoamous line "hold me accountable" came from . . . Palin's reaction to the fact there was an investigation.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I'm no fan of Palin, but I don't really see the big deal here. At its worst, it's a Monica Lewinski-level of scandal. A little crazy, a little unpleasant, but really nobody was harmed. Partisans get all up in arms, but Joe Sixpack is far more worried about his 401k and Iraq. If Democrats try to push it into being a Really Big Deal like Republicans did with Monica, I see it as more of a distraction from their much better arguments than a real advantage. Democrats are trying to sell change, and a long and dreary investigation that in the big picture just doesn't matter seems a lot like "more of the same."

Run against 8 years of Bush running America, not 2 years of Palin running Alaska.

This isn't likethe Clinton thing. This is about a governor potentially abusing her power . . . she was acting as a governor when she (allegedly) attempted to have her brother-in-law fired. Imagine if she was VP . . . now there is a position you can really start flexing your muscle.

 

[Denny Crane]

Funny, I always wondered about wiki's accuracy. They sure did slaughter the Tramell case. I provided a link to the case above, read it, wiki missed the ball on that one.

But I agree the issue is not about the privledge but about if the subpeona is valid and enfoceable and if it is will it be enforced.

Lawyers could write 30 page briefs on either side of that argument, but whatever the answer is, it is clear there will not be a complete investigation by election time.

I think Wikipediea got it right, though it's a bit convoluted. It's based on common law older than the constitution, the constitution was written at a time when it wasn't considered to apply to women the same way (e.g. right to vote). The Fifth codifies that common law rule.

 

[e_blazer]

For those who may be interested, here's a link to Palin's filing to dismiss this case for no probable cause. I'm no attorney, but it certainly looks to me that there's ample evidence that Monegan was fired due to seeking his own budget deal with the feds and running around the governor's wishes. That will get you fired in most any administration.

http://sayanythingblog.s3.amazonaws.com/09-08/palin-response.pdf

 

[maxiep]

This isn't likethe Clinton thing. This is about a governor potentially abusing her power . . . she was acting as a governor when she (allegedly) attempted to have her brother-in-law fired. Imagine if she was VP . . . now there is a position you can really start flexing your muscle.

Yep. not at all like the WH Travel Office.

 

[mook]

This isn't likethe Clinton thing. This is about a governor potentially abusing her power . . . she was acting as a governor when she (allegedly) attempted to have her brother-in-law fired. Imagine if she was VP . . . now there is a position you can really start flexing your muscle.

Yeah, and Clinton lied under oath while serving as President. I would think one of the job descriptions of being President is not lying to America (except for national security reasons).

I don't think America cared that much about the illegal firing of attorneys, the Travelgate thing, nor Monica. (Well, there was a lurid fascination with Monica, but I don't think it made many people hate Clinton outside of the partisans who'd stuck their necks out defending his innocence.)

We expect our leaders to take advantage of the privilege of power. The "spoils system" is a term that dates back to the 1800's. That includes firing who you want, and getting blown by who you want.

What we don't expect is the gross incompetence of the current administration. That's what Democrats should run against.

 

[Denny Crane]

Yeah, and Clinton lied under oath while serving as President. I would think one of the job descriptions of being President is not lying to America (except for national security reasons).

I don't think America cared that much about the illegal firing of attorneys, the Travelgate thing, nor Monica. (Well, there was a lurid fascination with Monica, but I don't think it made many people hate Clinton outside of the partisans who'd stuck their necks out defending his innocence.)

We expect our leaders to take advantage of the privilege of power. The "spoils system" is a term that dates back to the 1800's. That includes firing who you want, and getting blown by who you want.

What we don't expect is the gross incompetence of the current administration. That's what Democrats should run against.

Run against this:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

 

[Reep]

He has a 5th amendment right not to testify against his wife. I don't think I'd testify against my wife under any circumstances.

There is a reason for this amendment. Spouses almost never testify. They shouldn't ever be put in that spot. What, marriage isn't tough enough?

 

[Denny Crane]

There is a reason for this amendment. Spouses almost never testify. They shouldn't ever be put in that spot. What, marriage isn't tough enough?

If they're actually interested in the truth, they could grant him immunity from prosecution and then he couldn't refuse to testify.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I think Wikipediea got it right, though it's a bit convoluted. It's based on common law older than the constitution, the constitution was written at a time when it wasn't considered to apply to women the same way (e.g. right to vote). The Fifth codifies that common law rule.

Did you read the case and is that what you got out of it?

It was an interesting case of the husband trying to use the spousal immunity to stop wife from testifying against him. Clever twist by the lawyer, but court said no way, it 's her immuntiy to invoke or waive. That is what the case was about. It was not defining what the spousal immunity was although it did cite a case that defined spousal immuntiy.

I could start to cut and paste the decision and holding by the court, but now we are getting wierd about analyzing case law on the internet. If you see the case being about the right to ignore a subpeona for an investigation about your spouse or that it defines spousal immuntiy, I guess we read the case different.

But the investigation has a lot more questions that communications with the wife. For some reason, Todd Palin is very invovled in Alaska politics to the point of participating in meetings, phone call and emails to gov't employees. Small state politcs . . .trippy.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

We expect our leaders to take advantage of the privilege of power. The "spoils system" is a term that dates back to the 1800's. That includes firing who you want, and getting blown by who you want.

What we don't expect is the gross incompetence of the current administration. That's what Democrats should run against.

I get where you are coming from. It is a sad satement and I hope not everyone expects leaders to take advantage of the privledge of power, but I'm not surprised that many are willing to forgive that kind of behavior.

Palin is in a strange position because she is running as the person who will help clean up this perception you are talking about and when she was fist told of the investigation, she wanted to be held accountable for anything they found. I guess they aren't going find much when subpeonas are ignored.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

For those who may be interested, here's a link to Palin's filing to dismiss this case for no probable cause. I'm no attorney, but it certainly looks to me that there's ample evidence that Monegan was fired due to seeking his own budget deal with the feds and running around the governor's wishes. That will get you fired in most any administration.

http://sayanythingblog.s3.amazonaws.com/09-08/palin-response.pdf

Well that is her attorney's side of the argument and if those facts are right, it sounds like a lawful termination.

Of course there are two sides to every story. More so, i don't think anyone has accused Palin of wrongdoing, except the Monegan. All they are saying is there is enough information to raise concern and conduct an investigation (before anyone had any idea Palin would be VP).

But how do you conduct an investigation if gov't employees are being instructed by Palin's attorneys to not honor the subpeonas. I'm not even saying they are wrong to ignore them, taht is for a judge to decide . . . I just think it is clear there will not be a complete investigation.

 

[Denny Crane]

Did you read the case and is that what you got out of it?

It was an interesting case of the husband trying to use the spousal immunity to stop wife from testifying against him. Clever twist by the lawyer, but court said no way, it 's her immuntiy to invoke or waive. That is what the case was about. It was not defining what the spousal immunity was although it did cite a case that defined spousal immuntiy.

I could start to cut and paste the decision and holding by the court, but now we are getting wierd about analyzing case law on the internet. If you see the case being about the right to ignore a subpeona for an investigation about your spouse or that it defines spousal immuntiy, I guess we read the case different.

But the investigation has a lot more questions that communications with the wife. For some reason, Todd Palin is very invovled in Alaska politics to the point of participating in meetings, phone call and emails to gov't employees. Small state politcs . . .trippy.

The case referenced other cases, which I read, and those cases referenced others which I read.

See Hawkins v. United States

As for the subpoena, immunity is a huge issue, be it spousal or otherwise:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9500E4DB1639F932A25751C1A963958260

December 11, 1995
Clinton's Subpoena Fight Is Part of Long War

By STEPHEN LABATON

When the Senate Whitewater committee convenes this week to debate President Clinton's decision to defy its subpoena, the senators will be adding to an already rich history of confrontation between lawmakers and witnesses over the attorney-client privilege.

Last Friday, the committee ordered a former White House aide to provide the notes of a 1993 meeting in which senior advisers and lawyers of Mr. Clinton conferred about Whitewater. The White House has said that on Tuesday, the deadline for responding to the subpoena, it will assert that the meeting was protected by the privilege and that Mr. Clinton has as much right to confidentiality in dealings with his lawyers as he has with his minister and his doctor.

 

[mook]

I get where you are coming from. It is a sad satement and I hope not everyone expects leaders to take advantage of the privledge of power, but I'm not surprised that many are willing to forgive that kind of behavior.

Palin is in a strange position because she is running as the person who will help clean up this perception you are talking about and when she was fist told of the investigation, she wanted to be held accountable for anything they found. I guess they aren't going find much when subpeonas are ignored.

yeah, I agree with you. I was speaking from the strategic side, much like when you shout at Randolph to go down and punish Peja Stojakovic in the post.

I wasn't speaking from my own personal ethics, though. much like I wouldn't want Randolph to have sex with my sloppy seconds.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

The case referenced other cases, which I read, and those cases referenced others which I read.

See Hawkins v. United States

As for the subpoena, immunity is a huge issue, be it spousal or otherwise:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9500E4DB1639F932A25751C1A963958260

December 11, 1995
Clinton's Subpoena Fight Is Part of Long War

By STEPHEN LABATON

When the Senate Whitewater committee convenes this week to debate President Clinton's decision to defy its subpoena, the senators will be adding to an already rich history of confrontation between lawmakers and witnesses over the attorney-client privilege.

Last Friday, the committee ordered a former White House aide to provide the notes of a 1993 meeting in which senior advisers and lawyers of Mr. Clinton conferred about Whitewater. The White House has said that on Tuesday, the deadline for responding to the subpoena, it will assert that the meeting was protected by the privilege and that Mr. Clinton has as much right to confidentiality in dealings with his lawyers as he has with his minister and his doctor.

Well at least we agree that the issue is if they have a legal right to ignore the suboepna . . . to be decided by the courts at a much later date.

But I would bet dollars to donuts whatever the decision is about if Todd Palin can ignore the subpeona, it will not be based on spousal immunity.

Funny you cite Hawkins, I talked about Hawkins much earlier . . . now that defines spousal immunity. Not Trammel.

 

[Denny Crane]

The reality is that there is nothing more the Democrats would like than for accusation after accusation of potential wrong doing to be thrown out there against Palin. The Obama team and DNC didn't send 30 attorneys up there for nothing.

If she wasn't on the big stage right now, virtually the entire country wouldn't care about this trivial issue. I may be wrong, but I'd guess you didn't even know about this investigation before McCain picked her as VP. And certainly nobody outside of a small circle of people in Alaska would be expressing any kind of outrage over her potential unethical actions.

 

[Minstrel]

If she wasn't on the big stage right now, virtually the entire country wouldn't care about this trivial issue. I may be wrong, but I'd guess you didn't even know about this investigation before McCain picked her as VP. And certainly nobody outside of a small circle of people in Alaska would be expressing any kind of outrage over her potential unethical actions.

Sure, but how is this relevant? No one is saying that this is one of the biggest scandals in the nation. It's simply a scandal affecting a person running to be one of the most powerful politicians in the nation. That wasn't the case before Palin was tabbed to be McCain's running mate.

 

[maxiep]

Sure, but how is this relevant? No one is saying that this is one of the biggest scandals in the nation. It's simply a scandal affecting a person running to be one of the most powerful politicians in the nation. That wasn't the case before Palin was tabbed to be McCain's running mate.

To be fair, I don't think it was that big of a deal in Alaska until she was named to the GOP VP slot either. Now, it's been put on the front burner by those that support Obama in the House Legislature.

 

[Denny Crane]

Sure, but how is this relevant? No one is saying that this is one of the biggest scandals in the nation. It's simply a scandal affecting a person running to be one of the most powerful politicians in the nation. That wasn't the case before Palin was tabbed to be McCain's running mate.

It was their state congress doing its oversight. Now it's a team of Obama and DNC paid lawyers stirring up shit.

It wasn't a scandal at all. People are making it into one now for political gain.