What sorta P.O.S. state constitution would give this thug the right to disrupt justice?

Seriosly, how is this not obstruction, contempt, conspiracy and screwing with an independent investigation?

I smell booooosh, cheney, libby, gonzales et al type administration. IF the American people vote for Palin/McCain 08, that means they like corruption in government - "Palin and simple" as that.

Seriosly, how is this not obstruction, contempt, conspiracy and screwing with an independent investigation?

It's not, because she's a Republican and when Republican's do it - it's legal. Where have you been for the last 8 years?

Sounds like the Bush/Cheney justice system. So in reality then it's just more of the same.

How wonderfully consistent the repubs are in denying subpoenas when they are used to investigate corrupt practices by their executives. Wow, I hope they do move to quash them if issued. That would be a great narrative to point out that there would be no change if those two made it into office.

Cover-up!

Fredo-style injustice.

Wait a minute. How does the Attorney General (a member of the Executive Branch of the Alaska State government, quash subpoenas issued by the Alaska Legislature?? That would be like the US Justice Department trying to stop the House or the Senate from issuing subpoenas. Hard to imagine the circumstances under which the AG has the right under law to do any such thing.

This lady is one fine Christian woman, alright.

Looks like she is following the Bush doctrine. Do you think that Karl Rove is advising her

Looks like she is following the Bush doctrine. Do you think that Karl Rove is advising her

We are closing in on the 35th anniversary of the resignation of the US Attorney General Elliot Richardson. Let's see if this guy is more Richardson or Mitchell.

Sarah Palin is running for the second-highest office in the land. Therefore, she shouldn't be scrutinized or questioned in any way. It's disrespectful. The American public has no "right" to know anything about the people they're voting for. What the hell do you think this is, a democracy?

Given that the investigation into Palin's corruption, and let us call a pig a pig, began before McCain even knew her name. It can't logically be called a political witch hunt, except, of course for the obvious "witch" connection. And, it doesn't matter what the law says, or what the Alaska constitution says, delaying tactics are routine in the legal field, so routine that their absence is evidence of legal misrepresentation.

For many years now the news media have operated on the basis that voters have no business trying to find out any facts about candidates. Instead we are supposed to go by what the media pundits tell us. After all these years why do I have to explain this stuff.

Let us just stick to the rule of law.You`re served a subpoena,you got to the hearing and testify.You have nothing to hide as you are a friend of Governor Hockey Mom.You decide not to go;you`re arrested.

I think this is a lose-lose for Palin. If they issue subpoenas, they lose. If they quash the subpoenas, she looks guilty anyway.

A judge warned her to stop harassing the brother-in-law. She blew that off.

She abused the power of her office on a personal vendetta.

She's known for retaliating against anyone she considers an enemy.

She told the press on her plane that she wouldn't answer questions. When they asked why, she arrogantly said "it's my plane, and I'll do what I want" or words to that effect.

Just like McCain would be Bush III, Palin is really Cheney in a dress. Secretive, vengeful, corrupt, disrespectful of the law and the public they serve.

Someone on the Dem's side should do some research comparing Cheney's "dark side" to Palin's secretive "dark side" -- the public would see that she's more of the same.

It's not a pig with lipstick -- it's Cheney in a dress.

A judge warned her to stop harassing the brother-in-law. She blew that off.

She abused the power of her office on a personal vendetta.

She's known for retaliating against anyone she considers an enemy.

She told the press on her plane that she wouldn't answer questions. When they asked why, she arrogantly said "it's my plane, and I'll do what I want" or words to that effect.

Just like McCain would be Bush III, Palin is really Cheney in a dress. Secretive, vengeful, corrupt, disrespectful of the law and the public they serve.

Someone on the Dem's side should do some research comparing Cheney's "dark side" to Palin's secretive "dark side" -- the public would see that she's more of the same.

It's not a pig with lipstick -- it's Cheney in a dress.

How come this is not obstructing justice by the AG ,trying to impede an investigation ??Any attorneys out there can you comment.

The second coming of Bush/Cheney, or should I say Bush/Cheney's wet dream has come to life.

RESPONSE TO: "Wait a minute. How does the Attorney General (a member of the Executive Branch of the Alaska State government, quash subpoenas issued by the Alaska Legislature?? That would be like the US Justice Department trying to stop the House or the Senate from issuing subpoenas. Hard to imagine the circumstances under which the AG has the right under law to do any such thing."

Anyone has the right to file a motion to quash a subpoena. The checks/balances system is designed so that if the legislature (US or state) is abusing its power or overreaching its authority in issuing subpoenas, the AG (or attorney representing the subpoenaed parties) has recourse, and the Judicial branch has the authority to decide the dispute. I find it strange that you would question the right of one branch of government to step in and reel in the other if it is acting outside its authority--please rereach your civics chapter on Checks and Balances. Briefly, the system is DESIGNED so that, in circumstances like these, the AG's office can request that the Justice Department evaluate whether the issuing authority is playing by the rules--House or Senate, or whomever--it doesn't stop them from issuing subpoenas, it quashes the subpoenas that are issued on unlawful ground.

A motion to quash isn't a guarantee the subpoena will be quashed--it's just a request. There are many grounds for which a subpoena may be quashed, not the least of which is that the subpoenaed person has the same information as every other subpoenaed person, and only one should be called to testify. That happens very frequently, because it would be a monumental waste of time and money for every single employee to testify when they all have the same information. There are many reasons to quash a subpoena, but some are privilege, person has no information or documents requested or improperly issued subpoena. I've seen a protective order issued when a wife said she wouldn't be able to emotionally hold up, and the judge allowed the husband to testify in her behalf, so long as he did not answer questions with, "I don't know, only my wife knows that."

Sometimes it's a stall tactic, but often there was an improper subpoena. We'll see how this shakes out. I can actually imagine Todd Palin's motion being granted--if the investigation is whether Sarah Palin improperly exercised her authority, it doesn't matter what he said to anyone, that's not the same as his wife saying it, and it's not relevant to the legal issue. I also find it strange that, according to the Alaska State constitution, the governor has the right to appoint the commissioner--wouldn't that give her the right to fire him? And if the commissioner's job is to staff the police force with people who are not committing unlawful acts of violence against children, wouldn't it be a reasonable justification and use of power for the appointing authority to require the commissioner to fire the officer in question, or risk losing his job? I mean, his JOB is to staff the POLICE FORCE, and her job is to make sure he's doing that properly. I have no problem with what she did, and I would certainly expect it to be within the scope of her authority fire the commissioner for keeping a bad cop on the force.