Posted on 06/25/2010 10:03:27 AM PDT by Bob J
Information in this post is gleened from two sources;
http://www.facebook.com/notes/sarah-palin/the-cost-of-legal-warfare-a-few-words-about-todays-defense-fund-agreement/401885808434
http://www.adn.com/2010/06/24/1339431/settlement-of-ethics-complaint.html
Yesterday, Sarah Palin's legal defense fund was judged to be in violation of State ethics laws. I have followed this controversy and to be fair, I found the objections to it to be a little thin, but most of us don't live in Alaska and are not famliar with the subtle tones of their ethics laws and issues.
I will say this, IMO most if not al of the problems with it could have been avoided early on but Palin in concert with her advisors made several bad decisions and missteps that brought it to this point.
1. Alaska State Ethics Laws
Much is made of the back bencher dems in Alaska who filed ethics complaint after ethics complaint which "hounded" Palin out of office. But we have to remember this severely flawed ethics law was one that was championed by Palin and which she signed into law.
Now it happens that sometimes flawed laws get passed and signed but when they are discovered it is possible to go back and fix it. From the beginning of these ethics charges right up until now I've never understood why a Republican Governor with a 2/3rds majority in the State Congress couldn't just go back and amend the law allow the State Attorney General the ability to handle and defend these issues (like most states) and also if the charges are thrown out or deemed without merit allow the politician in question to recover any legal costs incurred.
Seems reasonable to me, why was this never done, maybe never contemplated by Palin or the pubs in Alaska? Palin supporters make much hay about how the law is flawed, how it was used to harass and bankrupt her, just fix it, dammit!
2. Rejecting sound legal advice
Supporters repeat over and over how Palin was only following the advice of her attornesy, fair enough, that's what most do. But this isn't entirely true. Yes Palin accepted what ammounted to the final product of her advisors but early on it was "strongly advised" by her personal attorney to have the fund vetted by the Alaska Department of Law to make sure it was legal under Alaska ethics law.
"But Palin instead chose to follow the advice of another attorney who recommended against seeking input from the attorney general, and instead to simply contest the "inevitable" ethics complaint when it came, Petumenos wrote in his report."
Huh? Why?
3. The "Alaskan" Connection
Next, Palin asked that "we keep it Alaskan".
Now I'm not exactly sure what this means but I guess it means that it be controlled and staffed by Alaskans. It seems to me a competent chief executive would want to get the best possible people to handle affairs no matter where they come from. But this led to her team turning down an offer from a former White House Special Counsel to serve as trustee. Instead she chose a personal friend and community volunteer, Kristan Cole.
Huh? Why? The stated reason was that Cole was someone Alaskans would know, but what difference would that make? Probably 95% of donations would be coming from outside the state, it seems those donors would recognize and a former White House Councel over some soccer mom friend of Sarah's. The only reason I can think of is because it has been the case (although who knows in this one) that trustees of these kinds of fun receive a considerable salary to market, manage and disburse the fund. Maybe Palin wanted to "keep it in the family" like Hillary did when she made the famous White House Travel Office scandal comment "We have to get OUR people in these spots".
Whatever, that decision was involved in her losing this ethics complaint because Palin had appointed Cole to several volunteer boards and therefore "worked" for Palin and the relationship could engender a political payback down line.
Thin, I agree, but could have been avoided if she hadn't rejected good sound advice and offers.
4. The Name and Website.
This one I just don't understand. They decided to call this the "Alaska Fund Trust".
Huh? Why not call it the "Sarah Palin Legal Defense Fund" so no one would be confused as to it's purpose? Second, on the website created for the fund they described it as "Official". Well the word "official" has legal connotations. By slapping that lable on it they gave the impression it was sanctioned not only by the Governor but by the State of Alaska.
Just a dumb move. But that's what happens when you have your volunteer personal friends handling things and making decisions instead of experienced, competent professionals. And if it wasn't her frinds making those decisions then it means Palin was, which is even more disturbing.
Palin supporters want us to believe she is ready for the oval office. I've researched her history and find these kind of missteps and bad decisions throughout her career. In this case it wasn't five or ten years ago, these things happened in the last year or so.
If Palin can't handle and make good decisions in something as simple as a legal defense fund, how can we trust her to make the right decisions sittig in the oval office with her finger on the button?
Indeed, and there’s just something about her beautiful baby Trig. :)
Best interests??? So you know what those BEST INTERESTS are? You know what she is planning? Tell us.
RE :”There is something viscerally powerful about Palin that goes beyond her gender (even Michele Bachmann doesn't attract the kind of hate Palin does) and beyond her nonconformist style of operating...it's really quite fascinating to ponder how and why God is using her and her family to invoke such captivating responses from people across the world. The hate, envy, and ultimately FEAR she is met with by ...”
OK, I am having some trouble with your logic here. Obama is pretty good at attracting ‘hate’, but Pelosi is the champ at attracting total hatred(which is why I enjoy watching her , she kills democrats). Exactly why do you see this as a huge positive? Couldn't we try a president that is 'liked' for a change?
Are you saying God wants us to hate her?
she’s hated by all the right people.
If that definition of yours as 'hated' which includes many freepers becomes too many people, you cant win elections. Bush, Obama, Pelosi are all very much hated by many, that doesnt mean they can be trusted.
Still dont see ‘Hated=good”
““She did not spend a penny of the funds in question and is re-imbursing all of that money to the donors so that NO QUESTION will remain about her motives.”
“It’s called going the extra mile to insure integrity.”
She is reimbursing the donations because she was forced to by the ruling of the Indpendent Counsel and the Agreement she negotiated and signed.
“Yet your post conveniently ignored the fact that most of the Republicans in the Legislature at the time were clients either of the Murkowski Administration or the Oil Companies (Exxon-Mobil, Conoco-Philips, or our old friends, BP, as in “Beyond Petroleum”).”
I see. Not only are the dems and MSM out to get Palin, but “most Republicans” in the Alaskan legislature.
When will this “Sarah is just a victim, A VICTIM I TELL YOU!” going to stop? How is she going to win the presidency with the campaign slogan “Vote for Sarah because she’s a victim!”
“She wouldn’t have *needed* a legal defense fund in the first place if she weren’t facing trumped up charges from the Dem machine.”
DING! DING! DING! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!
Palin 2012... help us get our country back.
Bob, when you were a little boy, did you pick your scabs and eat them? Do you still do that? Why?
My Gawd man, I can see that you’re not stupid, I think you’re conservative, but it’s starting to look as though you’re crazy.
You really need a new hobby, as this one is getting old.
Palin 2012.... can we count on you or are you voting for the Black guy?
We need to submit more "Do not try posting hilarity at home" advisories. Not only are these amateur attempts feeble, but they're bordering on dangerous as well, not to mention in probable violation of the Comedians Local 543 union charter.
Whatever. Enjoy your Romney.....
“We need to submit more “Do not try posting hilarity at home” advisories. Not only are these amateur attempts feeble, but they’re bordering on dangerous as well, not to mention in probable violation of the Comedians Local 543 union charter. “
Possibly the only worthwhile Union in America.
It keeps housewives, and RINOS from making the “ultimate mistake”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.