McCain/Palin = Bush/Cheney?
 

The McCain campaign recently announced Palin and everyone else involved in troopergate will not respond to subpoenas in the investigation. This is a tactic perfected by the Bush administration.

Is this legal? Will there be consequences both legally and electorally because of this? To me it reminds me to much of the politicization of the justice department and Bushes contempt for any sort of oversight.

Is it? How so? If there are no supporting details as to why the subpoenas have been over-ruled, then there would be justified grounds for outrage. If it is suspect, the issue will not go away. There also seems to be great political motivation to bing this to a head just before the election. Who might gain from that tactic?
Sure, it's legal if based on evidence, precedence, procedure, etc. Depending how it plays, it could be damaging to either side.

Who has the authority to overrule the subpoenas? If I get a subpoena can I ignore it without consequence by overruling it myself?

It's not legal to ignore a subpoena. The issue is who can do something about it if you ignore it. The advantage Rove/Cheney have is that the contempt power of Congress (which is what is used to enforce subpoenas) is enforced by the Justice Department. Which is controlled by the executive branch. The McCain campaign, through Alaskan surrogates, is trying to quash the subpoena. As far as I can tell, they're unlikely to succeed, but I haven't really looked into it.

Have they made a motion to quash? If so then it is legal but it is definitely not the transparency in government McCain is pledging.

You know what I think is funny? I'm a lawyer and I read this stuff in the newspaper about subpoenas and think to myself that I don't have enough information (either factual or legal) to make judgments about who is right. But a bunch of people here seem to know that the law is on their preferred team's side.

Won't that be the case in all politics? The instant either side hears a gem of rumor it becomes solid fact to be used to back up all their arguments? It's like...second nature.

Well, I mean, that's life.

Since you've outed yourself as a lawyer, how about clearing this up for us from a legal standpoint? Is there any legal grounds for failing to comply with a subpoena? I mean, it's a demand from the bench to appear in court (or from congress to appear before congress), right? Is that something you can just say "nope" to?

You're not the only one who's gone to law school, Mr. Ipsa, and I'm pretty sure everything I said was accurate based on what is publicly known. But I haven't passed the bar yet, so maybe you know something I don't.

I don't know because I haven't seen the subpoenas and I'm not expert enough on executive privilege or separation of powers. That's on the federal side. On the Alaska side, I don't know what the relevant state statutes and constituitional provisions say. It makes a difference in terms of the authority to issue subpoenas, the proper scope of the subpoenas, the procedures for response or nonresponse, etc etc etc. The short answer is I just don't know.

In the lawsuits I do, which are plain old civil disputes, I deal with subpoenas all the time, and you're right, they can't just be ignored at the outset, but they can be negotiated and nitpicked to death and then eventually ignored, litigated over, argued about, and appealed. I have no clue what the rules are when there are separation of powers issues. I have no clue what the rules are for congressional subpoenas (as distinct from court subpoenas). I would expect they're not that different from court subpoenas, but I just don't know. And when you toss in separation of powers issues, I'll be goddammed if I know how that works. I do know that the Clinton White House litigated a lot of these things and for the most part lost, but there was an independent counsel in that case and the indep counsel wasn't acting for Congress. The rules for Congress might be different.

That "based on what is publicly known" qualifier is sorta important, don't you think? I'm also curious about how much Alaskan law on governmental subpoenas you know, esp in a separation of powers context. I don't know anything.

I think it's bad precedent and bad pr tactic. McCain/Palin should hit it head on and be wide open. Nothing to hide folks, here, go through my underwear drawer and have fun! Instead, all this dodging and ducking just arouses more suspicion. They should just take the high road, cooperate and then some and squash the whole thing once and for all.

while this is the kind of lint that is starting to bug me alot----that it is still being substituted for discussions of actual issues---it seems to me that (a) she can't come clean about this because (b) the basic position that either palin or the campaign has taken is simply nutty.

and i don't think m-p = b-c. i think m-p would be much much worse.

Why?

Is it a timing thing, that they'd be mediocrities in a time of crisis? Or, is that they're just more incompetent, have harder ideological arteries, or worse people?

Hillary and Bill Clinton sure had no problem ignoring Whitewater subpoenas until the statute had run out, or an election had been held. That was the quintessential precedent.

So if you believe that is the case, shouldnt you have the same disdain for Palin or Bush/Cheney for similar conduct?

Depends on what they find. From the reaction of the McCain camp I suspect they perceive that things are not going well for her. As I understand it this investigation was started long before Palin was picked for VP.

The American people will gain from it. They have a right to know if something illegal or shady did or did not happen before voting. This investigation (like the Stevens investigation) should finish before the election takes place as long as it can be done in that time frame without sacrificing the quality of the investigation. Stonewalling the investigation is a direct attack on the public's right to make an informed decision during the election.

Or do you think the American people should not know the truth before an election?

Face it... if you are a Obama supporter you think Palin should face the true and necessary subpoenas immediately. If you are a McCain supporter the subpoenas are frivolous and nothing more than dirty election-time politics. Our political bias will tilt us one way or another in support or disregard for this matter. (Not saying which way I lean)

My bias is for more information for the people regardless of political alignment. I'm a firm believer that the public has a right to know everything our government says and does excluding the obvious security issues (where is the president going to be, how to build a nuke, nuclear codes, etc).

guy:

it's a timing thing.

The investigation started before she was announced as the VPILF and back then she had stated that she would absolutely cooperate. I think it is very important that this matter is resolved as much as possible before the election.

I agree, the sooner the better. I think they are only hurting themselves by holding out.