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?
Palin supporters will come on this thread and try to discredit it’s merits by claiming I am a nut with PDS. Frankly, that is their first response to any Palin criticism.
While I appreciate a lot of what Palin is doing right now, yes, I am a Palin critic because I don’t think she is ready for the oval office. Sue me.
But people should read this and draw there own conclusions, is what I say reasonable?
Why all the uproar?
Tempest in a teapot. Let it go. Another day and it’s forgotten. Sheesh.
Ah, the ADN. Can always count on them to bash Sarah at every turn. IIRC, Sarah never asked for the legal defense fund to be set up. Further, she never drew so much as a nickel from it, and is refunding every bit of it to donors. So, what again is the problem?
Actually, the court said she was following the advice of her lawyers, which was reasonable. They didn’t fault her in this.
she was cleared so why are YOU ASTROTURFING HERE with a vile vanity !
I correct myself here. Bob J’s commentary, then. Everything else in my previous post stands.
Bob J, this may be an objective assessment of Palin’s troubles, but it sure sounds alot like the hit jobs the media have been putting on her for the past 2 years.
She’s not a candidate so who the hell cares? If she runs then this MIGHT be an important topic. Just because people want her to run doesn’t mean she will. I’d like Reagan to rise from the dead but that’s not happening either.
Cindie
Let me be the first to point out this obvious fact!
Right... "Further, she never drew so much as a nickel from it, and is refunding every bit of it to donors." Incorrect. She is only reimbursing up to the point of her resignation and has already set up a new LDF.
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?’
Name me one ... member of congress, President , cabinet , etc. that has not made miss judgments during their career.
Look at John McCain !! and the Keating 5 scandal, and that is just one of John's many missteps. He is still making bad judgments. MO
Too much is made of these areas of unreasonable laws. True they are on the ledgers ... it takes time and money to search all this stuff out and time is of the essence. MO
All you do is post anti-Palin stuff.
Do you work for Myth Romney?
“Actually, the court said she was following the advice of her lawyers, which was reasonable. They didn’t fault her in this.”
I didn’t say she acted unethically, I said it was a boondoogle that could have easily been avoided.
After reading post after post by you slamming Sarah Palin, I think you might need a shrink to work on your obsession.
“she was cleared”
Huh? The LDF was judged a violation of States ethics laws.
Yes, but I put it in the keywords first! ;) That’s the one thing Bobby got right.
“yes, I am a Palin critic because I don’t think she is ready for the oval office. Sue me.”
Nuff said! Why sue someone who has just discredited their own rantings.
That’s what I was thinking, he’s absolutely nuts. I haven’t even seen PDS this bad on the left! And he’s obsessing over something that hasn’t and may never happen. Sheesh!
Cindie
“...but it sure sounds alot like the hit jobs the media have been putting on her for the past 2 years.”
::::::::::::::
Yes, and another reason I will not listen to Bill O’Reilly of FOX any more. On balance, I don’t think she is ready for the White House, but look at what we have now and what this America-hating dictator is doing to America. What could be worse? A patriot that loves America and its greatness and freedoms and gives a hoot about the American public and its desires?
If anyone needs to be picked apart, it is Obama and his Marxist lawless ilk.
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.