Posted on 06/26/2010 9:37:58 AM PDT by Bob J
The judges who point out that Palin is innocent and proscribed no penalty against here, again and Again and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN.
Cheers!
So's your p**i*n**.
Cheers!
Relevations??
I can't believe that you don't know that she chose to relieve the taxpayers of the state of the burden of defending her. I can't believe you wouldn't value the honor inherent in that and call yourself a conservative.
You're nothing but a Romneybot shill.
Worse, I bet you're backing Pass-the-Buck-a-Bee.
Best,
Chris
amen!!!!!!!!!
Wow, leave for a Sat off and look what happens. It will take me some time to go through this thread and I will respond to some posts...but only the those that demand it most.
I must say after perusing some of these repetitive and illogical responses, I fell like I’m starring in Day of the Dead.
That movie made more sense and was of higher quality than this stupid article you posted. BTW you neglected to mention that the 'independent' person who wrote this drivel was a Partner in Obama's law firm.
I guess you overlooked that little fact.
My first response is it appears that 99% of the Palin zombies didn’t bother to read the report from the Independent Counsel.
Hmmm.
But then again, who needs to read such inconsequential trifle after digesting “Going Rouge”?
“Sara said it was not fair for the Alaska tax payers to pay for the frivolous law suits. She took it on on her own.”
The report states the plans were to approach the RNC, Repub Gov Assoc, the McCain campaign and set up a LDF.
A funny approach to “take it on her own”. Palin supporters are fond of stating she had to take out a second mortgage...is there any proof this was done or was that just spin?
You mean that leftist book that was written to spoof "Going Rogue," right? A little Freudian slip there, Bob?
I've been perusing the thread, and I would suggest people have been reading this Independent Report, but are dismissing the contents as not being accurate or reputable. You are implying motivations to people you don't know, and that always ends badly.
“I don’t think she was able to focus on her job because of all the distractions of legal complaints against her.”
Possibly, but that in itself is disturbing and an indication she may not be up to serving as president.
Not to defend or even invoke the POS, but Clinton managed to keep up with his duties (as PRESIDENT) in the face of the Whitewater AND Lewinskey investigations.
If Palin can’t stand the heat of the governorship of one of the least populous states in the nation, how is she going to fare as president when the assault will be even more intense?
No.
“Are you attacking her for writing a book or giving speeches for money?”
No.
But you will infer I am because you have no legitimate answer to the issues I raised in the OP.
“When you say “The State of Alaska” offered to pay, what does that mean? Attorney General, state legislature?”
I’m not sure, the report doesn’t go into detail. All it says is;
“2. A contract for legal services was issued by the State of Alaska to the law firm of Clapp,
Peterson, Van Flein, Tiemesson & Thorsness to represent Governor Palin, and others, in connection with these
matters, for up to $ 100,000 at public expense.”
But it clearly references “the State of Alaska”.
You just made that up. Her bills eventually reached over 500k but we don't know what they were at the time of the 100k offer.
“Sarah made it clear, early on, that she didn’t want the Alaskan taxpayer to have to pick up the tab for her defense.”
Then her and her supporters should quit whining about it. But it is funny, every avenue the Palin’s were considering to pay this tab, RNC, RGA, McCain, LDF...there never appears to be any consideration to pay it themselves. To be fair, it’s kind of ambigusous tht she wouldn’t consider allowing Alaska to pay for it since that would have given hrr the most formidable PR clout and weapon to attack her harassers as vandals who didn’t give a rats ass about the State.
“Whether your story is true or false, you need to either:
1.Supply some credible supporting links, or
2.Resubmit this as a vanity post, maybe over in “chat”.
At the moment it’s just a bunch of opinion. Nothing wrong with that, you’re welcome to your opinion — but it ain’t news, it’s a vanity.”
I stated it was from the Independent Counsel’s Report. But I’m not surprised you aren’t familiar with it.
“This makes me respect her even more. The taxpayers of Alaska shouldn’t have been on the hook for these bills anymore than she should have been. She’s a woman of honor.”
Yes, it’s so much more admirable to make the donors to McCains election campaign responsible.
“It seems alot of people on FR have trouble supporting someone who clearly can do the job..”
But isn’t that question? Some are not convinced she CAN do the job.
Of course they are called trolls, DU plants, the MSM echo chamber and Palin haters.
Nice debate. But one thing most people do know is when others first response is to make a personal attack it usually means they have no good answers to the problem.
No I didn't. It would have been obvious from the beginning to anyone who works in the legal profession. <>I am an attorney and I know what these kinds of cases cost. The $100,000 offer from the Legislature was just a bait and switch tactic to get her trapped into taking the taxpayer money (which would then give them another opportunity to pile on the ethics charges).
$100,000 wouldn't even cover the costs on a political ethics case, much less the attorney fees. At $500 per hour you would get about 200 attorney hours without costs. Depos cost a minimum of about $2000 each not including attorney time. With research, subpoenaing records and review of documents, preparation of pleadings and trial preparation, I would suspect that with all these various specious ethics claim, that at least 1000 hours of attorney time would be necessary to mount a legitimate defense of all these bogus ethics claims.
You sir, are a tool of the left. I know you have been here a long time, but your recent obsession with beating down Sarah Palin tells me that you are either a conservative imposter or a useful idiot. If you were the former you would have been banned a long time ago. Therefore I can only conclude that you are the latter.
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.