Palin and Supporters Busted - Alaska Offered to Pay Palin Legal Costs

Independent Council Report | 6-26-10 | Bob J

[trisham]

Odd. It appears that the author is none other than Bob J.

Independent Council Report | 6-26-10 | Bob J

[grey_whiskers]

You failed to provide a link. What you put in place of the URL was not even a typo for a web address, but instead was a typo for what would have been a starting point for people to do their *own* websearch in trying to find what you had been talking about.

And it was a real word, too: which meant those reading your posting could easily have been misdirected and *never* found what you had originally intended to link to.

Not content with this, you then disappeared for quite awhile following the original posting.

And finally you resorted to ad hominem and baiting when you *did* finally show up again.

You're the one who made the original assertion; it's your thread.

Ergo, the phrase "Is this all you got?" should apply far more to yourself than to *ANY* of the later posters.

[wagglebee]

When there’s an agenda inconvenient facts are often omitted.

[Hoodat]

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.

Geez, the opening premise is a lie. The entire piece is based upon this very same false premise. Typical leftist BS.

[grey_whiskers]

Because if he's outnumbered 300,000 (you granted this premise in your question), he obviously does not belong on this site: he is too far outside of the prevailing point of view.

And since his personal signal-to-noise ratio is almost nil.

Either reason would be sufficient; together, they constitute overkill.

(Are you Bob J's kid sister or something?)

Cheers!

[EveningStar]

It looks like Bob merely forgot the link. By the time Bob got around to replying, the link had already been supplied. Since all his quotes from the report are accurate and in context, this is not exactly a gotcha moment.

Here's the link again:

http://media.adn.com/smedia/2010/06/24/14/Palin%20report%202010-06.71097.source.prod_affiliate.7.pdf

[P-Marlowe]

Heck, I was even head of a big homeowners' association and both I and my board had errors and omissions insurance as well as other coverage.

E&O insurance does not cover criminal charges. It only covers errors and omissions. If you are accused of criminal wrongdoing (i.e. ethics violations) you have no coverage. Your insurance company will simply advise you to "hire a lawyer".

BTW I don't believe Alaska law provides for legal services for ethics accusations. The $100,000 fund was a loophole created by the legislature which would probably have been declared illegal if Palin had accepted the money and then would have added one more bogus ethics charge to her enemies' arsenal.

[EveningStar]

I used the 300,000 figure because Jim used it. I don’t know what the real figures are. I do know that Bob is not the only person who criticizes Palin’s most ardent fans. However, based on what I’ve seen on the threads, the fans far outnumber the critics.

[rintense]

Are you really that dense?

[EveningStar]

(Are you Bob J's kid sister or something?)

Bob and I are not related. I met him once in person several years ago. I'm quite a bit older than him, and I'm a guy.

[grey_whiskers]

Not good enough. Someone from the FReeper class of 97 shouldn't make such an elemental mistake: particularly concerning a topic which is guaranteed to be so controversial here on FR.

Nice try though.

Cheers!

[rintense]

No, Bob J is a Romney man. That should tell you all you need to know.

[EveningStar]

I’m from the class of 2000 and I make posting mistakes all the time.

[rintense]

Add to that forgetting ‘VANITY’ in the title. On several occasions.

[grey_whiskers]

Bob and I are not related. I met him once in person several years ago. I'm quite a bit older than him, and I'm a guy.

Ohhhhhhhhh. So you and he like to slide down poles to a secluded cave, where you put on masks and tights, and fight conservatives?

Cheers!

[P-Marlowe]

In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled Palin and Supporters Busted - Alaska Offered to Pay Palin Legal Costs, rintense wrote: No, Bob J is a Romney man. That should tell you all you need to know.

I would expect that in the grand tradition of Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin may choose Romney as her running mate in 2012.

[rintense]

Then this Palin supporter will watch from the sidelines.

[rintense]

Then this Palin supporter will watch from the sidelines. The bigger question is, will FR’s McGinnis support a Romney/Palin ticket? I’d bet yes.

[grey_whiskers]

I would expect that in the grand tradition of Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin may choose Romney as her running mate in 2012.

She won't need the Utah vote *THAT* badly.

I'd like her to pick Chris Christie to get some of the Northeastern vote: or, to bolster her foreign policy creds, Bibi (hey, if Barack didn't have to answer natural-born citizen questions..._) ;-)

Cheers!

[Al B.]

I don't know why Sarah refused to avail herself of the coverage....or if there wasn't any for her to refuse.....or if insurance did not cover what she was being sued for......or what. The details and reasons in the article are a little sketchy.

The relevant portion of the report that applies to your concern is:

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.

In other words, Palin and her attorney did not want any further ethics complaints based on what they billed the state. Believe me, it would have been an open invitation to the moonbats. Plus, as Palin has stated, she didn't believe the taxpayers should be responsible for footing the bill for partisan witchhunts.

Palin's attorney, Thomas Van Flein, discussed this on camera way back during the campaign in Oct. 2008 during the troopergate witchhunt. He makes his position very clear about the legal difficulty in billing the state for legal fees that do not specifically involve state business. The video is 8 minutes long and covers a number of issues involving troopergate, including the quashing of subpoenas. The part on billing the state for legal services comes up in the mid-part of the interview.

Video link

Just to make it clear again from my earlier post on this thread, the issue of the $100,000 authorized by the legislature was based on troopergate. It was covered extensively in the media almost 2 years ago. More dredged-up old news by the PDS'ers.