First questions Palin answer might be in a public hearing...

[skooooo]

Someone already posted a link to this article (Lawmakers To Issue Subpoenas, But Not For Palin, on Trooper-Gate), but the last paragraph is definitely worth noting. If McCain and Palin can't strong-arm the Alaska state legislature, perhaps we can watch her be cross examined on TV.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/subponaes_likely_but_not_for_p.php

It's worth noting that the legislature doesn't have the power to compel witnesses to be deposed by Branchflower. Rather, it can require them to testify, under oath, at public hearings. That means we might not have to wait until Branchflower's probe wraps up at the end of October to hear Palin's account of what she did and when she did it.

[rfranklin]

1. MCain will cliam excutive privilege....

and Scalia will issue a stay.

[skooooo]

2. This has nothing to do with the federal government...

It's up to state officials.

[skooooo]

3. ..

Still think this is notable.

[Igel]

4. We've heard, actually.

From the deposition she filed with the administrative board. We'll hear more there, since she's stipulated that she wants the administrative board proceedings to be public and non-confidential.

The legislative process has moving its target date up by a few weeks. Apparently footdragging, which, it was claimed, would slow things down beyong 11/1, is now expediting matters. Go figure. But they're insisting on the same witness schedule, which might be a bit of a problem, seeing how nobody's on record saying they're coordinating it with the witnesses themselves. Of course, while it's a legislative/bi-partisan hearing, and billed as fair on the bi-partisan basis, few of the leaders are pro-Palin--dems and some repubs that are pissed off at Palin.

Palin's pushing for discovery in the legislative hearings. It's being denied, which means that "due process" might be a bit skewed. That might be a bit of a problem, given how the AK constitution is worded: There's the claim that it was drawn up in light of the McCarthy hearings, with an express desire that legislative hearings aim at "justice" and be "fair" (IIRC the terms correctly--I'm too lazy to track down the AK const. and check). In other words, heavily biased hearings are a no-no, however politically popular they might be at the time.

Both processes require a special prosecutor to be hired. The legislative process has one, repubs quibble that he has close links to one of the people behind the hearings and has already sort of hinted at impeachment in the press (I found the quote to be less indicative of intent than repubs did, and while it was fairly ambiguous, it was also less neutral than I'd have gone for); if the administrative process gets together, it'll also have one (unless there are two, but the two ethics complaints--the one filed by Palin and the one by the union--are likely to be dealt with together, I think). The administrative process will be faster, and that almost surely put pressure on Branchflower.