« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Palin, Aide, Have Same Lawyer
We learned on Friday that seven witnesses last week cancelled their scheduled depositions in the Sarah Palin Trooper-Gate investigation. This came after Palin's lawyer asserted in a court filing last week that the governor would not herself testify unless the probe were taken out of the hands of the legislature.
But there's additional evidence of a centralized effort to protect Palin. Another possible witness in the case, Palin aide Ivy Frye, has hired Thomas Van Flein, the lawyer representing Palin herself. Asked by TPMmuckraker this afternoon about her role in the inquiry, Frye, described in news reports as a "special assistant" to Palin, responded: "You can call my attorney if you'd like," and named Van Flein.
Palin's office has claimed executive privilege on a group of emails sent this spring between Palin aides, including Frye. Van Flein did not immediately return a request for comment.
As for the seven witnesses who cancelled their depositions last week, we already knew that one of those seven was Frank Bailey, the Palin aide who was heard in a recorded phone conversation telling a trooper official that Palin was wondering why Trooper Mike Wooten -- the figure at the center of the case -- still had a job.
And on Saturday, the Anchorage Daily News reported the names of the other six:
• Annette Kreitzer, Palin's administration commissioner.• Kris Perry, a Palin confidant who managed her gubernatorial campaign and now manages her Anchorage office.
• Nicki Neal, state personnel and labor relations director.
• Karen Rehfeld, the governor's budget director.
• Brad Thompson, state risk management director.
• Dianne Kiesel, a state human resources manager.
Update: When asked about the cancellation of his deposition, Thompson told TPMmuckraker, "no comment." The rest did not immediately return calls.
Josh
Zachary
How the hell can she claim executive privilege, she's not in the White House yet.
September 8, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The same way they can claim executive experience. The same way people who when they are in charge, without talking to anyone, make executive decisions.
Once again demonstrating example of power instead of example of power.
PS, a girl of that age sitting at a desk like that should have no business in getting lawyered up. Just goes to show how they roll.
September 8, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I meant demonstrating example of power instead of power of example. Or both in this case. One gets a lawyer, aide follows.
Eh, it's all in the shitter now anyways with this girl.
September 8, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this what half of America really wants? Four more years of obstruction, stonewalling and in your face corruption? I love most Americans, but they are shallow idiots when it comes to picking leaders. I want to say "Go ahead, put these two flim flam artists in the WhiteHouse, and get exactly what you deserve." But of course, there is that other half of the nation that suffers right along with the idiots.
September 8, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please name the wonderful country you come from which has wise leaders. Seriously. Aside from Australia taking a good turn recently, looks like most of the Western World is racing the US to Hell. Britain? You'd be joking. France? Likewise. Germany? Yeah, right.
September 8, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd love to find who's paying the attorney fees and it I bet it rhymes with RNC.
September 8, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
What are the chances that all of the Suddenly Silent 7 get jobs in the McOld administration if, god forbid, there is one?
September 8, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aren't we all executives of something? I thought executive privilege extended to the President of the United States (and not every member of any agency of the federal government.) How can it possibly extend to governors, mayors, or company executives or anyone that claims they should have private conversations? How does this work with our government's willingness to read/listen to any of our conversations without asking our permission? This is not a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
September 8, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it ought to be easy to check if the Alaska Gov. has ever used executive privilege before. If there is no precedent, THAT is suspicious, IMO.
September 8, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did a little Google research and found a partial blurb that Alaska adopted executive privilege for the governor back when Nixon was using it to cover up his hands in Watergate. Haven't found the exact article in their Constitution, but you can get a hit on Google.
September 9, 2008 6:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why doesn't Palin answer questions? What is she hiding?
September 8, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
The next time I get a traffic ticket,I`m going to refer the cop to my lawyer when he asks me for my drivers license and insurance information.I`ll clain executive privilege as I am the CEO of my corporation.It`s name is "Jail Bound."
September 8, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
They're all good soldiers I'm sure.
And do remember what happens to people not completely onboard with Palin. They get the ax. You need to support her completely or get out of her way. And if she doesn't win VP these folks will be out on those cold Alaskan streets hunting for work if they talk. They're protecting her butt and theirs. Great Americans all of them. Already hunting for townhouses in Georgetown thanks to the favors they're banking now.
September 8, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe the term is "loyal Bushies"
September 8, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
This attempts to dig into another motivation behind the executive privilege claim on these emails:
September 8, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the link to Andrew Halco about her husband who has power without accountability , whom Sarah Palin nicknames "the first dude"; well that is better than Bush`s nickname for his brain Rove. About Todd, Halco says:
Evoking executive privilege for non-members of the executive ...mnn, could anything be more typically corrupt traditional mainline GOP.
September 8, 2008 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excuse me, here is the proper second link in the above comment, `How perfect is Sarah Palin’s First Dude'
September 8, 2008 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I M P E A C H ! ! !
September 8, 2008 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
S U B P O E N A !
September 9, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I I were a Palin staffer, I would my OWN farging attorney ASAP.
Inquiry: Is conspiracy to cover up illegal in Alaska OR do Federal RICO statues need to be applied?
September 8, 2008 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nixon's claim of executive privilege was not upheld by the Supreme Court, which found that he had to turn over the subpoenaed tapes. It would seem to make sense to keep some matters confidential, however, such as foreign policy discussions -- we don't want our allies learning any details about how we intend to violate our treaties; people should not bandy about just how we intend to undo our enemies. Yet, the privilege can't properly be used to hide acts of retaliation against govt. employees, based upon a personal vendetta or animus, or to shroud executive illegality. Once, we took it for granted that the public has a right to know what government officials are up to. Now, do we really want to know how many people a vindictive, capricious, governor has ordered fired; or how many people our President has ordered tortured? Executive privilege can keep us all happy, since ignorance is strength.
September 8, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
If there ever were a place to claim "more of the same", this would seem to qualify.
This deserves a TV ad, if anything ever did!
Script:
Govenor Palin fired Alaska public safety commissioner, Walter Monegan, after he refused to violate the law and state policy to fire her ex-brother-in-law; now Gov Palin has claimed "executive privilege" to prevent the public from finding out what happened.
Executive privilege to cover up punishment of honest public servants. Sound familiar? McCain and Palin represent more of the the same corruption Bush Cheney and Rove have wrought upon our nation.
September 9, 2008 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I view all of this as an experiment in Physics. This is to determine the coefficient of static friction for Bull Shit. The Palin/McCain duo is piling it up as high as they can, and we will soon find out when it all starts sliding down, picking up speed as it goes, until Ms Palin is buried to the chin in it.
McCain is an ex POW. His doesn't stink or slide, no matter how high it gets.
September 9, 2008 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
In this case, that stinking pile is more accurately described as moose shit.
September 9, 2008 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not only is Ms. Fry a fool for retaining the same lawyer as the Gov. but this lawyer should be investigated by the Alaska State Bar for conflict of interest. By representing this witness as well as the Governor, he will likely be in the position of defending 2 clients whose interests conflict with each other. Suppose things heat up and Ms. Frye is going to get "fried". Suppose she has to start talking to save herself? No way can or will her lawyer defend her zealously because to do so, he has to dime out the Gov. That's why the Code of Ethics (yes, hee, hee, lawyers do have one and must abide by it)forbids this dual representation.
September 9, 2008 1:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Conflict of Interest and Double Jeopardy? Sounds like two game shows wrapped as one.
September 9, 2008 5:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
@superid
Good call! I wonder if Alaska does have an executive privilege clause in their Constitution. No clause, no privilege. Next stop, the deposition train.
September 9, 2008 5:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
From:
Head of State
http://tinyurl.com/65qxee
Sunday, September 07, 2008
10 Ways in Which Sarah Palin Is *Exactly* Like George W. Bush
1) Like Bush, she is completely against a woman's right to choose (in fact, she exceeds Bush in that she is against a woman's right to choose even in cases of rape or incest;
2) Like Bush, she opposes stem cell research to prevent fatal diseases in men, women and children;
3) Like Bush, supports the teaching of Creationism alongside Evolution in public schools;
4) Like Bush, does not believe that Global Warming is man made;
5) Like Bush, has supported abstinence-only sex education methods that have proven ineffective;
6) Like Bush, has virtually no foreign policy experience prior to running for national office--(in Palin's case, despite a 72-year old, chronically ill running mate)
7) Like Bush, has engaged in conduct that has resulted in current government investigation of her actions;
8) Like Bush, has made statements which indicate lack of knowledge of basic elements of the office they are running for (Palin, July 2008: "What exactly does the Vice President do everyday?");
9) Like Bush, has been sequestered to prevent her being asked questions that she has not yet been prepared to answer;
10) Like Bush, talks like a reformer--yet in her actions (i.e., relying on lobbying, supporting the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it) acts in the most typical, all-too-familiar fashion.
H/T: On The Issues
Cite:
Head of State
http://tinyurl.com/65qxee
September 9, 2008 5:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lawyers cannot violate their fiduciary duty to one client, when they represent two clients in the same fact pattern.
Conflict of Interest...is an issue for any disciplinary board to review.
September 9, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink