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!
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.
Independent Council Report | 6-26-10 | Bob J
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.
When there’s an agenda inconvenient facts are often omitted.
Geez, the opening premise is a lie. The entire piece is based upon this very same false premise. Typical leftist BS.
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!
Here's the link again:
http://media.adn.com/smedia/2010/06/24/14/Palin%20report%202010-06.71097.source.prod_affiliate.7.pdf
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.
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.
Are you really that dense?
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.
Nice try though.
Cheers!
No, Bob J is a Romney man. That should tell you all you need to know.
I’m from the class of 2000 and I make posting mistakes all the time.
Add to that forgetting ‘VANITY’ in the title. On several occasions.
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!
I would expect that in the grand tradition of Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin may choose Romney as her running mate in 2012.
Then this Palin supporter will watch from the sidelines.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.