Speaking to ABC News, French accused the McCain-Palin campaign of using stall tactics to prevent him from releasing the results of the probe by October 31st -- just four days before the election.
The issuance of subpoenas will need to be voted on by the full Judiciary Comittee, which is composed of 8 Republicans and 4 Democrats. In late July, the Committee voted 12-0 to hire an independent investigator to look into the affair.
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.
The way things are going, with a two to one ratio of Republicans to Democrats, even the issuance of subpoenas is now at risk except for the fact hat Palin is not well regarded among many state Republicans. She caused the leader of the Alaska Republican party to be investigated and to lose his state job. He is stil leader of the party and she was not invited to the most recent annual state party picnic.
TPM reports that there are no plans to issue a subpoena for Sarah Paley-- that she had previously promised to cooperate with the probe. But things on the ground are changing fast, including her being managed by Rove proteges. That makes the likelihood of her voluntary cooperation close to nil. History has shown that Bush and Cheney, in similar circumstances, have refused to testify or have only volunteered to testify behind closed doors without recording and without being sworn in.
The question that must be asked is whether the McCain campaign has interfered with an investigation of violations of ethics or the law. It is legal to advise Sarah Palin. But is it legal or ethical to persuade or intimidate witnesses so they refuse to cooperate? Who knows how many millions of dollars have been spread around or what threats or promises of rewards have been dished out to silence witnesses?
1 | 2
