I've seen many comments from Sarah Palin's supporters regarding her legal fund on various blogs.
They claim that all these frivolous ethics complaints against Sarah Palin are an attempt to bankrupt their darling governor, that none of the accusations have stuck so far, blah blah.
The ethics complaints are not lawsuits and don't cost Sarah Palin a penny unless they are found to be justified and she chooses to employ an expensive attorney. The Attorney General looks at the complaints and if he considers them worthy of an investigation, they are passed on to the Personnel Board.
If the accusations are indeed baseless, as claimed by Sarah Palin, they wouldn't get past the AG and would cost her absolutely nothing. Zero, zilch, nada, niente, rien... you get my point. Which means her supporters are coughing up money for nothing, if she's so innocent and the allegations are worthless.
Many of the complaints have not been assessed for validity yet. But one in particular springs to mind: it was filed in October 2008 by Frank Gwartney and concerned Sarah Palin charging the state for her children's travel. The result? She had to reimburse the state nearly $10,000 for dodgy travel expenses.
Sarah Palin used the services of Thomas Van Flein on this occasion, as she did when Troopergate blew up in her face. He's very expensive and an expert on spinning, which suits the governor really well. The fact that she was found to be in breach of the rules and had to pay money back means that the "baseless", "frivolous" ethics complaints only cost her money when she's guilty!
The bulk of the $500,000 that are bankrupting Sarah Palin went on the Troopergate investigation, which wasn't the result of a frivolous complaint by an anklebiter. She spent this astronomical amount of money for political reasons, after she pulled the little stunt of filing the complaint against herself. We all know what a mess Troopergate turned out to be. To this day, her "innocence" is highly debatable. Sarah Palin was exonerated of any wrongdoing by a far from impartial Personnel Board.
The transparent, ethical, spotless governor had to pay tax on $18,000 worth of per diems collected for staying in her nice, warm home, make a few phone calls and give interviews to Fox News. This wasn't a result of any complaints from anklebiters, it was to do with the IRS, not known as anklebiters by any stretch of the imagination. No legal expenses in this case, but it shows a pattern.
From the Alaska Fund Trust website:
Statement of Trustee Kristan Cole
"Over the past months it became increasingly clear that supporters of Governor Palin needed to help defend against the onslaught of frivolous attacks against her. These baseless accusations are designed to inhibit her ability to focus on the issues Alaskans truly care about and force massive personal debt on her and her family."
Well, as baseless and frivolous accusations cost the governor absolutely nothing, I think they should reword the whole thing and tell the truth: the Fund was created to pay for expenses incurred during her quest for the White House. That failed and the RNC, having given Sarah Palin bad advice regarding Troopergate, left her on her own to face the music and pay the bills.
Considering that both the AG and the Personnel Board are at Sarah Palin's beck and call, the odds of any Fund money being used to fight any new battles would seem to be very low. If any of the ethics complaints make it past the AG, they can't be deemed to be baseless and frivolous.
I rest my case.
Please read this very logical post about Sarah Palin's attorney fees.
Recall Sarah Palin
.
10 comments:
Reg, Please feel free to just read this comment and then not post it, as it is an English syntax suggestion. Where you say "blew on her face" I think you mean "blew up in her face". "blew on her face" has some rather different (sexual) connotations that I'm sure you did not intend! Keep up the great work! You know, for someone writing in your second (?) language, you make far fewer of these kinds of boo-boos than native English speakers. You're a natural~
Regina, I'm continually amazed at your investigative skills and dedication to our knowledge of this batcrap crazy woman. Keep up the good work!
the problem child,
Thanks, I've corrected it. I don't moderate comments now, so it will stay. I don't mind people correcting my boo-boos at all.
I learn a lot from boo-boos, unlike somebody we all know very well...
Cheers,
Reg
Her ethics complaints are real… not frivolous. She deserves every one of them and deserves to pay the legal cost out of her own pocket.
Paying back travel cost of her children is an admission of guilt. She was guilty of taking the children on a “free” vacation courtesy of the taxpayers of Alaska.
Her own “appointed board” selected which trips she had to pay back. How many other trips would be questioned by an independent board of inquiry? How many of the other trips should be paid back?
Sarah is in politics for money. Power and fame come in second place. She does not want to do the work of being mayor or governor. She just wants the riches.
How much did Ted Stevens teach her about the “bennies” of being in Alaska politics? If I win the mayor race for Wasilla can I get a free house?
I am hoping to see indictments in lieu of ethics complaints in near future… then she can run up an enormous legal bill.
Asking for money is simply an admission that she and Todd are not good hunters.
If she was a better hunter, she should have enough bear and coyote pelts and wolf paws to pay the lawyers.
Why should others pay for her being a poor shot?
Hi Regina,
I raised exactly this issue in a series of comments on seeforpee: How exactly does a "frivolous ethics complaint" cost SP anything at all?
RAM, one of the main contributers over there, one who is inciting a whole lot of anger and scorn towards the evil ankebiters who are trying to paralyze and bankrupt poor Sawah, called me obtuse, and then ignored the question without ever answering it.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Ennealogic,
I read your comments and was inspired to write the post using your arguments, which totally make sense! I don't get this RAM woman...
Cheers,
Reg
Hey look what I found posted at ADN comments on the article about the Bots being a "formidable army" - yeah right...
Is it true that they spend their money on SP AND crack? Anyone want to see if this $7,000,000 DONATIONS figure is right?
Gee duper, that must be WHY she was able to pull in $7,000,000 in donations last month for a speech that lasted less than an hour...do ya think?
I bet it was those 40 supporters that made the phone calls that chipped in the 7 mil.
I heard that they are gonna start a new country for her tommorrow.
They are gonna take her new bff Rick Perry off our hands at the same time!!
Sarah Palin/Tucker Bounds 2012!!
Hi Regina!
I'm a new poster here but a long time reader.
There is an article at ADN that is titled..."Comment Was Fair." This had to do with her stance on Measure 4 and ADN was sticking up for her. This was my reply:
"Someone asked Palin during a press conference for her opinion on Measure 4."
Does anyone know who asked this question? Was this a set-up to get her answer out to use it for the ad campaign to oppose Measure 4?
The mystery is to find out who asked the question and if they had any connection to opponents of Measure 4.
******************************
I've been posting this all over the place. We know Sarah, someone could have been planted at the press conference to ask this and she was all ready to say..."let me take my Governor's hat off here for a minute"...B.S.
I'm hoping someone will check this out!
Ginger
Post a Comment