Posted on 06/26/2010 9:37:58 AM PDT by Bob J
One of the most flogged excuses by both Palin and her supporters for her resignation as Governor of Alaska was that ethics complaints were "bankrupting" her. But the Independent Council Report issued in conjunction with the decision on her Legal Defense Fund says otherwise.
Not only does it show the State of Alaska offered to make payments for her legal costs it shows that even bfore the election the Palin campaign was making alternate plans to not only get the McCain campaign to pay for them but to hit up the Rnc AND set up a legal defense fund.
When confronted with Palin's legal bills in relation to the ethics violations charged against her, the State of Alaska offerred to pay begin paying bills to the tune of 100k. Now this was just the start and 100k was a round number they picked. Once they made the precedent of funding her legal expenses there would have been an obligation to continue...in for a penny, in for a pound.
But Palin and her legal advisors rejected the offer based IMO in a flimsy "accounting problem". It is clear the Palin's had bigger plans for much more money and the Alaskan offer was only going to get in the way of that.
Before you start reading these snippets from the report you must be aware that the first plan of attack from the Palinistas will be to portray the Independent Investigaror as partisan, compromised and corrupt. But you must also be aware that this is the very same IC that ruled in Paln's favor over the much more serious "Troopergate" allegations.
This report is full of eye opening relevations and I will be posting reports on several of them as time goes on. Here is the relevant section on this issue from the report.
"C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
1. Certain ethics complaints and legislative inquiries were conducted involving Governor Palin during the national presidential and vice presidential campaign when Governor Palin was a candidate for Vice President of the United States.
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.
3. No invoices were submitted to the State by Mr. Van Flein's law firm, pursuant to this state contract, due to the decision by Governor Palin and her attorneys that it would be too difficult to separate the functions of representing Governor Palin in her official capacity in the pending state-related matters, and representing her in other related campaign or partisan matters beyond the scope of the state contract. Thus, to avoid an appearance of impropriety or any allegation that legal fees were being paid for legal services beyond the scope of the state contract, Van Flein's law firm and Governor Palin agreed that funding for these services would be sought from sources other than state funding.
4. Among the sources of funding discussed were the Republican National Committee and the McCain campaign. However, after the conclusion of the presidential campaign, it became apparent that funding from the McCain campaign would not be forthcoming. Governor Palin and her advisors discussed alternative sources of funding to defray the continuing costs of defending past and future Ethics Act complaints, as well as other claims that may be brought as a consequence of serving in the Governor's Office. Among the sources discussed were the Republican Governor's Association and the creation of a trust. The trust would solicit private funding to pay for the past and future defense costs of Governor Palin, and potentially her family, her aides in the Governor's Office, and potentially, future governors and state officials.
“I guess “eviscerated” isn’t too strong a word to use when it comes to the debunking of this hit piece by Bob J.”
Not one single thing I psoted has been debunked.
Oh I forgot. To zombies making personal attacks and calling for a Zot is “debunking”.
These vanity threads will be used by the left to attempt to further discredit Palin by showing that even people on Free Republic think she's a liar or a kook or whatever the left's Palin accusation of the day happens to be. Bob J has been very useful in giving the left additional ammunition to attack the right in general.
Yes Bob J, you are a useful idiot. The left loves you (right now). But when they are done destroying Palin (with your help), they will be coming after you.
If the attack was coming from a base of fact and logic, I could understand it.
Since this is yet another red herring, I would suggest that may indicate a certain lack of comfort with the originator’s masculinity and/or lack of intellectual honesty.
Typical of a McCainiac, a Paulista or a RAT. I apologize for the redundency in this last sentence. I do realize that all three are interchangable.
“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.”
Funny, they didn’t say that when this SAME Independent Counsel found Palin innocent of charges in the Troopergate scandal.
Which is funny because I thought she was much more guilty in that. The only reason she got out of that is because he decided the State Dept head she fired for nor firing her ex-brother-in-law was an at will employee and could be let go for any reason.
Go figure.
Yes you did and your post proves it. You made various assumptions, plugged in some numbers and voila. I'm surprised you don't understand the definition of “making it up”.
Are you really a attorney?
That Palinistas don't know the most basic facts of their messiahs history surprises does not surprise me.
Again, all most of the responses on this thread prove is that most Palin supporters here don’t do the must simple and cursory research or examination of the candidate they all want us to vote for President.
I doubt more than 2 even bothered to read the report from the Independent Counsel yet they are all experts when commenting.
“These vanity threads will be used by the left to attempt to further discredit Palin by showing that even people on Free Republic think she’s a liar or a kook or whatever the left’s Palin accusation of the day happens to be. Bob J has been very useful in giving the left additional ammunition to attack the right in general.”
Ha! Believe me, anything I post here has been known to the dems and MSM for some time and they will use it when the time is ripe. That’s one reason why I believe Palin may be unelectable.
That you think they use FR for opposition research is, well, grasping at straws.
BobJ knows all about that!
You can’t provide a source for your “information.” That’s what I expected.
I’ve done my due diligence and research, why not you?
Which describes down to the molecular level what you have been doing with regards to Palin.
“You can’t provide a source for your “information.” That’s what I expected.”
What’s the point when dealing with people who make it up as they go along?
If you think my information is false, then do your own research and prove me wrong.
No mystery at all -- you and your leftist masters are afraid of a genuinely populist conservative; so you need to manufacture scandal, even when in backfires on you.
Better tell Axelrod and Sunstein that they're not getting their money's worth out of you.
“Which describes down to the molecular level what you have been doing with regards to Palin.”
Lord, not only did you not read the Inedpendent Counsel’s Report you didn’t even read this thread.
My "assumptions" are based on decades of experience in the practice of law. The legislature may have set up a fund for Palin to use $100,000, but my understanding is that the fund would have been subject to legal challenge anyway and if the democrats who agreed to the fund later challenged it and got it declared illegal, and Palin had used the money, then this would have added one more bogus ethics charge against her and she would have been legally obligated to pay the money back personally anyway.
When I take on a case I am (as an attorney) required to produce a "legal budget" for my client giving my best estimate of the number of hours and the costs that will be incurred in defending a claim. Hence my "estimate" that this would take 1000 hours of attorney time is based on experience in the field.
Are you really a attorney?
Are you really a conservative?
Source The name of the source (example: The Washington Times)
Source URL A web link to the original article
That, and misspelling the supposed name of the source, is prima facie evidence of bad faith on your part: particularly given your signup date, which precludes such an omission on your part as resulting from "n00bie ignorance."
Your posts suck as much as your pizza.
So you are admitting that you are working hand in glove with the MSM and Democrats? Why else would you be so obsessed with attacking Sarah Palin? Don't you think the MSM and the democrats are doing a good enough job?
That’s one reason why I believe Palin may be unelectable.
They said the same thing about Ronald Reagan. She may not be electable, but right now, she represents the front lines in the battle to rid us of Obama. I guess you'd rather have 4 more years of Obama than an effective Sarah Palin?
Keep trashing her. The more you and your buddies in the MSM and the democrat party pile on her, the more I support her.
Troll!
Me too.
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.