Palin's husband refuses to testify in probe
- Thread starter AFA
- Start date
-
- Tags
- sarah palin
Why would he have to? That's like asking Hillary to testify about Bill's "extracurricular" activities. She probably didn't know, or at least know the full story, how would this schmuck?
ChefChiTown
The secret ingredient? MY BALLS
I read that article but I don't get it...is he "supposed" to be testifying FOR or AGAINST his wife?
If it's FOR his wife, then I don't understand why he wouldn't do it. If it's AGAINST his wife, then...enough said.
If it's FOR his wife, then I don't understand why he wouldn't do it. If it's AGAINST his wife, then...enough said.
Refusing to honor a subpoena. Sound familiar?
This type of thing has become indicative of the "we can get away with whatever we want and not have to answer to anybody" attitude of the republican party.
With this refusal to testify the McCain camp is sending the message that they have something to hide. Which means that Sarah Palin most likely ****** her power as governer of Alaska.
This type of thing has become indicative of the "we can get away with whatever we want and not have to answer to anybody" attitude of the republican party.
With this refusal to testify the McCain camp is sending the message that they have something to hide. Which means that Sarah Palin most likely ****** her power as governer of Alaska.
^
I wish Christine Gregoire had to testify. She's a horrible governor.
I wish Christine Gregoire had to testify. She's a horrible governor.
Wow! How incredibly off topic and irrelevant to the discussion. Good for you.:ban:
He is said to have played an integral role in the whole trooper gate episode.McCain-Palin have made it clear their strategy is delay anything till past Nov as AFA's link says.Lucky she aint winning,probably would have to impeach her right after lol,and we have had enough impeachment talk for a while.:eek:
I imagine most politicians are involved with something before they get to that point.
Facetious
Moderated
Wrong ! This attitude is standard operating procedure for both of our domineering political parties. Are you kidding me ? I understand that there's an election in November and in all good faith, you tow your party line, but do you really really believe that either of the two pol. parties' emphasis is to serve one iota of their constituencies' interests ?
Don't be so quick to convict / cast pre judgement.
Allow the legal process to find facts.
Mr. Daystar
In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
If I'm not mistaken, he wouldn't have to testify against his wife, unless they changed the law, A wife never had to testify against her husband, I can't see why he would have to, there's no difference, unless it has to do with her being a political figure.
Wait- the guy who is in charge of the state's Department of Public Safety said she made no requests to have the trooper fired. Isn't he the guy she demanded fire the trooper?
A trooper, I might add, who used a taser on a *****.
Isn't there usually a huge uproar 'round these pahts every time a taser gets used?
A trooper, I might add, who used a taser on a *****.
Isn't there usually a huge uproar 'round these pahts every time a taser gets used?
Yes. But remember, as my liberal friends are so quick to point out, the ***** "asked" to be tasered.
"Hey *****, will you shoot me with your duty weapon?"
"Hey *****, will you ram me with the grille guard on your cruiser?"
They are relying on a law in Alaska that says a candidate running for office cannot be subpoened.The claim is since the investigation involves Sarah that applies to her husband and her staff as well.That will never stand up legally but since it would be up to the legislature they say to make that finding and they don't meet again until January that will be good enough for this to be delayed past the election.Her husband it seems by many is very inolved in the operation of the governors office,gets copied on e-mails,attends official meetings etc. Even saw a republican interviewed in Alaska who said she was shocked at how he stayed in a meeting she was having with the gov and that she had never seen a spouse do that before.
And on the spousal priviledge against testifying agianst a wife,I guess it's possible he could use that but it sure wouldn't look good,another reason they don't want that to happen before the election.
And on the spousal priviledge against testifying agianst a wife,I guess it's possible he could use that but it sure wouldn't look good,another reason they don't want that to happen before the election.
Facetious
Moderated
Said troopoer was also reprimanded for ******** in his issue patrol vehicle -
You're Fired !!!!!!!
Any argument for the security of the trooper's job is desperate, far reaching and blatantly partisan.
so even if she's totally innocent, why not testify then? It's not just a matter of having nothing to hide. I don't necessarily agree with that rational. But the bigger issue here is that it's not just a normal person, it is a government representative, and they should not be making the statement that they don't have to comply with the justice system. that sets a precedent that puts them in ripe position for corruption and ***** of the law because they are the ones that have the power to do so, so they should have the obligation above all other people to be accountable.
a citizen is accountable to themselves. a politician is accountable to all the people that they are speaking and ruling for.
a citizen is accountable to themselves. a politician is accountable to all the people that they are speaking and ruling for.
Isn't he himself a felon?
