But there's a couple of paragraphs at the end of the article that has me shaking my head. The entire article is here. But the excerpt I'm concerned about is this: (Note that Branchflower is the investigator and Colberg is the Attorney General appointed by Palin.)
When Branchflower sought to subpoena 10 employees of Palin's administration, Colberg responded with a letter that said they had been placed in a untenable position.
"As state employees, our clients have taken an oath to uphold the Alaska Constitution," he wrote.
Yet, he added, "our clients are also loyal employees subject to the supervision of the Governor" whom he said has stated that the subpoenas were of questionable validity.
"We respectfully ask that you withdraw the subpoenas directed to our clients and thereby relieve them from the circumstance of having to choose where their loyalties lie," he added.
Choose where their loyalties lie? Seriously? This is a reason to dismiss the subpoenas? Because these employees would have to choose between upholding the state constitution or protecting Palin? Isn't that why they took an oath to uphold the constitution? It's not a choice, people. Are you kidding me?
No comments:
Post a Comment