And I know Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton "lawyered up" in the 90s.

We pretend that McCain is about 2 months away from kicking the bucket and, vow, this hick becomes president.

Jeralyn is absolutely right, Palin's hiring a lawyer means nothing.  Also, one of the articles seemed to make a big deal about it being a 'private attorney' who was hired but it's quite common for public officials AND state and federal governmental entities to retain outside counsel.

Here's a link to Alaska's ethics code.

The relevant section seems to be:

Sec. 39.52.120. Misuse of official position.
<snip>
(5) attempt to benefit a personal or financial interest through coercion of a subordinate or require another public officer to perform services for the private benefit of the public officer at
any time.

The method for proceeding, if the legislature's investigation finds evidence for a violation seems to be to bring a complaint to the Atty General, Sec. 39.52.310. Complaints.

There are a number of penalties for ethics violations, most of which don't apply because she's Governor.  The way I read the statute is that if, as here, the complaint is brought against an officer that can only be disciplined through impeachment, then the AG has to refer the matter back to the Senate.  Alaska's Constitution, Art 2, sec 20, gives the legislature impeachment powers that are procedurally similar to the federal government's.

What I can't tell is whether the legislature has to proceed through the AG/Ethics board procedures before bringing impeachment proceedings; they may be able to proceed on their own.

I imagine the legislature may also have powers of lesser penalties/punishments, like fines (the ethics code seems to support fines) or censure, but I haven't found any support for that.

Also, the situation, if the legislative investigation finds cause to proceed, would also be governed by state ethics regulations.  The ethics regs state that an 'appearance of impropriety' does not constitute a violation.  However, public officials are prohibited from official actions based on 'an improper motivation.'

This is interesting and if true, defuses the "abuse of power" charge:

Todd Palin was ORDERED by the head of the Governor's security detail, Special Agent Bob Cockrell, to discuss Trooper Wooten with Walt Monegan, as Wooten presented a credible threat to the Governor's safety. Here's a direct quote from Special Agent Cockrell, who is now providing security for his sixth consecutive governor:

"When made aware of the security concerns regarding a state trooper, I instructed the First Gentleman to contact the commissioner of Public Safety. It is standard protocol to ask every governor about any threats they perceive or have realized. "I will not hesitate to set the record straight in answering these false allegations by former Commissioner Monegan." (emphasis added)

What do you think of the request for evidence itself, for that matter?  I've never heard of such a thing with a legislative investigation, or any investigation, come to think of it, before actual charges are filed.

Palin became the center of the Democratic world

for me, she's only of interest as yet another, in a long litany of examples, of sen. mccain's poor judgment.

as has been noted, here and elsewhere, the obama campaign, and its fans, would do well to ignore the whole "lack of experience" issue, with regards to gov. palin.

that said, her stated positions on relevant issues, and past actions, speak volumes about where her social and political philosophies lie: just to the left (barely) of attila the hun.

One of the reasons the polls are so close in this elction is that the public doesn't quite trust what, or who, Obama is. With, McCain, that's simply not an issue.

Don't ever underestimate the power of, "the devil you know........."

I must be stupid...

While the post is well done, I think that your use of such a negative colloquialism twice, and once in the title no less, is rather inappropriate for someone in your position and of your convictions. You've made it clear why and how much you don't like the woman - more than fair, and not unexpected. However the terms used are far more in line with a Marc Antony eulogy than with those of a pro-defense site.

Your other posts today are far more in line with your normal standards of class. There truly should not have been a post at all about this - it doesn't advance the narrative in a reasonable way and is more in line with sites I don't respect. Failing that, you should have stuck to the "retained counsel" phrasing instead of the colloquial cheap shot.

The site's firm stand on the personal crap is admirable and one of the reasons why I love reading, despite what it sometimes does to my blood pressure. I expect unrelenting attacks the ticket, I've seen the rules (and am doing my best to go nowhere near the lines you've drawn), and I'm not even worried about the withdrawal pool. It just seems that you've let yourself get a bit too exuberant with your word choice, despite your best efforts.