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?
What do they need to do to bring it into line with ethics rules?
I like Palin a lot, but I’ve made the remark a time or two that she was a little more “populist” than I am, and the ethics rules were among the things I had in mind. If ethics rules can be used to paralyze honorable people then the rules are wrong. But until that happens, they’re a crowd pleaser. Similar to McCain’s vaunted “campaign finance reform” which make it even more difficult for normal people to run for office while making even more cover for machine politics.
I hate seeing what they’re doing to her, but ethics rules are like mom and apple pie. Its going to be hard to come out against them. Repubs aren’t going to mis-use them to hamstring their opponents, and Dems will. But if you come out against the ethics rules you’ve painted yourself as being against ethics, and no one wants to go there.
My advice is free so take it for what it's worth. We have 5 months to the election where we have an excellent chance to throw-out the National Socialist Party. Wouldn't all this effort be better directed to achieve that rather than bitch about Palin on a daily basis? You'll still have two years after that to cast as many stones as you wish.
What is the specific litmus test that qualifies one to be the POTUS? As far as I'm concerned, your opinion is no more valuable or useful that any other in this aspect.
In my singular and also useless (to anyone but myself) opinion, she is as qualified as any other candidate that has actually won the election for POTUS in the last 100 years, but again, that's just my opinion.
She may not be perfect, but aside from perhaps George Washington, no candidate could be considered “perfect”, IMO. Mrs. Palin has the mindset that this country needs at this point in time, and although she has made some questionable endorsements as of late, she is still head and shoulders above the rest of the crowd on the right who actually have a shot at winning in 2012.
That said, it's still a long way out from 2012 and we still do not know who will throw their hat in the ring.
Bob,
From now until November 2012, the left will be working hard to pick the GOP Nominee like in years past.
With friends like you who needs enemies.
E01
Vanity post of over 900 words seems like a nut with PDS to me.
Your argument is fine, except that Sarah Palin had nothing to do with the defense fund, never asked for it, never touched it, and didn’t make any of the decisions about it.
That was a smart move on her part, because it seems the people who did it hired 7 lawyers who either didn’t know what they were doing, or were overridden by the people making the decisions.
SO I don’t see any point in blamine Palin for this, or saying this contributes in any way to a perception about her.
It does reflect poorly on those who were involved in the fund, but that’s not Palin’s fault, especially as she did a good job keeping out of it.
Perhaps.
But I can think of DOZENS of other similar issues revolving around defense funds, PACs, advocacy groups, et al. These are not simple things.
She was a Mayor and a Governor yet she isn’t ready for the oval office. I think that pretty much knocks out anyone who wants to run for President.
You are wrong about that. “She” is doing nothing. The legal defense fund in question is returning every dime they collected, as part of their settlement to avoid a court case. So you were wrong twice.
There is a new legal defense fund set up, and the old fund is encouraging the people who gave to their fund to send money to the new fund. But none of the money in this fund is going directly to the new fund.
Bob,
You’re a one trick poney. Doesn’t matter to me if you defend Palin or criticize her. She isn’t right on everything and she isn’t wrong on everything but she’s right on the issues I (Assume) you care about 99.7% of the time so start a new thread listing all those things you and she agree on.
People are beginning to think you may value Obama’s “experience” over Palins....let’s see a thread from you about Obama and the slimy Blago trial/connection and how he has only himself to blame.
Or how Mitt Romney has only himself to blame for the MA Healthcare Debacle or how Mike Hucklebee has only himself to blame for letting killers off the hook who go to other states to kill again has only himself to blame...........or Newt Gingrich.........get my point?
The firm is counsel of record for the Democratic National Committee, and other political clients include nearly all Democratic members of the United States Congress, as well as several Presidential campaigns, including those of John Kerry and Barrack Obama.
You might also want to read this from Sara Palin’s former spokesperson Meghan Stapleton:
Quote:
"First off, let’s keep in mind that this is about a legal defense fund. According to the Summary of Findings in the decision released today by the Alaska Personnel Board, nothing illegal and nothing unethical occurred because not a penny has been distributed. Governor Palin did nothing wrong. And in fact, everyone is in agreement that Governor Palin acted in good faith. Now, let me explain how we got here.
It is no secret that Governor Palin has been subject to political and legal attacks on an unprecedented scale. Since these attacks originate from her opposition, sometimes it can be a badge of honor to be the focus of such irrational hatred. But there is a cost to all of this.
Last year, those who willfully and excitedly violated or abused Alaska law showed they would do it again and again to either bankrupt Governor Palin or paralyze her success for Alaska. Governor Palin had a choice: plead guilty to things she didn’t do so that she could focus on the state and save money for the family – or defend her good name and reputation. She chose to fight back. In the end, Governor Palin and her attorney, Thomas Van Flein, successfully defended against well over two dozen complaints, lawsuits, and allegations. Time and time again during and after the 2008 Presidential election cycle, independent investigators proved that Governor Palin’s actions were sound, her judgment was proper, and her intentions were honest. In fact, the Personnel Board, the ethics board for the Governor of the state, never even had to take up a case as each was dismissed before making it to the next level.
But it did cost the Palins financially.
Seeing this nonsense, it was suggested to me from both sides of the aisle that one way to deal with the substantial financial cost these tactics were inflicting, was to create a trust fund for legal fees – just like all the other legal defense funds for prominent politicians who are targets.
As reported in the Wall Street Journal, “Such funds have become increasingly common as scrutiny of politicians has intensified.” (“Palin Backers Set Up Legal-Defense Fund”, Wall Street Journal, p. A-3, April 24, 2009)
When I approached Governor Palin with the idea, she had one primary directive – if it can be done lawfully, then I will support it. She also asked that, if possible, we keep it Alaskan.
One might think that creating a trust fund to collect money to pay legal fees should not be that complicated, but it turns out, it is exceptionally complicated. You should know that as many as seven lawyers were involved in the process; some of whom were and are nationally prominent experts in creating legal defense funds, in evaluating federal and state election laws, state trust law, federal and state tax laws, state reporting requirements and state ethics requirements. It is a sad commentary on public life today when the legal system can be used as a political weapon against an elected official, and it takes a battalion of lawyers to figure out how to fund a defense and counter-attack.
In any event, the legal team concluded that the fund they had created was lawful in all respects. I relied in good faith on that advice and advised Governor Palin of that advice.
Ultimately, the Alaska Fund Trust was borne, and within a day or two, a complaint was filed against it challenging its legality. (And like everything else, the public knew because someone – likely the complainant – violated the law and publicly released the accusation.) And so started another prolonged legal battle – this time to determine if the legal fund created to defend Governor Palin against frivolous ethics complaints was itself ethical. Quite a circle really. We made it clear that no money would be paid out on until the matter had been resolved.
Thus, to this very moment, the money received was frozen and no one, not the Palins, not the Palins’ attorney, no one ever received a penny from the Trust on the Palins’ behalf.
The Personnel Board initially appointed an “independent” investigator. That investigator, we later learned, had connections with, and was associated with President Obama. The Personnel Board had hired President Obama’s personal law firm as an “independent” investigator to review whether a fund created to raise money to eliminate a debt incurred as a result of Governor Palin’s opposition to President Obama was appropriate. We objected to both the illegal leak and the blatant political influence, and a new investigator was appointed.
The new investigator spent considerable time reviewing the old information and collecting new, but I think it proved to be too difficult to reverse an already-public decision. He concluded that the Trust fund violated Alaska law in two respects. His biggest heartburn was that we used the word “official” on the website. And he was distressed that we turned down an offer from a former White House Special Counsel to serve as trustee and instead chose an Alaskan whom Alaskans would recognize – Kristan Cole.
Kristan sat on several state boards as a volunteer public servant. The investigator concluded that because she sat on such boards, Governor Palin as governor was technically her boss, and therefore she should not be the trustee of the fund. That is his conclusion and we respect that. The law is not clear on this aspect, and not one member of the legal team saw this as an issue, but again, we respect the conclusion here and it is not worth the time or money to dispute that. But we do want to thank Kristan for taking on that otherwise thankless task. What is it they say about no good deed?
The other conclusion needs context. There was a point where it appeared that people around the country wanted to start legal defense funds for Governor Palin. The support and good will the people of this country have shown to the Palins is inspiring. But a concern was raised whether all these other potential funds would comply with various laws, including donation limits, limits against contributions from lobbyists or contributions from foreign nationals. So we used the word “official” in the website to distinguish the Alaska Fund Trust from ones we were not sure would be compliant. In our view, that was a solid and common sense reason to use the word “official,” but the investigator believes that it made it appear that the website was sponsored by the State of Alaska, and thus would be a use of Governor Palin’s ”official” office to raise money. We are not terribly persuaded that really would be the case or that any member of the public could be confused, but we respect the investigator’s evaluation of this point and it is not worth fighting about. Again, Governor Palin’s prime directive was simple – if this fund could be set up lawfully, she would support it. If not, it would not have her support.
So Governor Palin has reached a point where she decided to agree to resolve this matter with the investigator rather than spend time and money fighting an ethics complaint about a fund that was created to reimburse her for the money she has spent fighting bogus ethics complaints drawn up by insiders and outsiders violating and abusing Alaska law. Really, this is simple pragmatism and common sense.
As you know, we love a good fight, but we must pick our battles carefully. As a chief executive, Governor Palin makes the calls, and she knows that this battle, though important to her personally, does nothing for the country. She has bigger battles to fight, battles to restore our strength internationally and stand by our allies, battles to stop the downward slide of our economy, and battles to take back control of Congress.
However, I know and you know that no public official should ever have to bear the financial brunt of these attacks. And Governor Palin can lawfully raise money now through a brand new – not official but let’s call it “real” – legal defense fund without any risk of offending an investigator or state law. And such a fund now exists at http://www.sarahpalinlegaldefensefund.org/donate.php.
Thanks to everyone who contributed to the Alaska Fund Trust. Your heart was in the right place. And Governor Palin and her family have been overwhelmed by your generosity. If you want to, you can contribute to the new fund. In the meantime, we will try to contact you to get your donation returned from the old trust.”
Ah, but on two weak technicalities----and Petumenos then painfully admitted that Governor Palin had acted in complete good faith throughout the process and on the advice of seven attorneys from three law firms who told her that the Trust WAS legal.
Read the documents for yourself and not just the ADN story:
Findings of Independent Counsel, Consent Decree, and Settlement Agreement
Whatever. There are bigger fish to fry apparently you just want to fry one of your own. Can you stay focused. GEez. WHos is the enemy here.
Mo. My conclusion is you are a nut with PDS.
She took the advice of her lawyers on setting up the fund within the law. That advice has now been ruled incorrect.
Exactly!!! What I was getting at! I wonder if Bob could feel comfortable enough over at DU, Huffington, Firedoglake or Moveon. It’s a scary thought but he could place in their top 5 Palin bashers.
Let’s get back to a “president” who hates us and what’s to see us all JOBLESS!!!!!
What a bunch of commie crap. The “investigator” Tommy Daniel,is a partner with Perkins-Coie, Dunham’s law firm, and a “plant”. He was found out and removed. Once you understand that part, you might expand your brain to realize the scam of Dunham’s useful idiots didnt work.
what part of “no finding of any wrongdoing on Governor Palin’s part” do you not understand?
FWIW, an independent investigator’s finding is no proof of anything. It’s akin to a DA’s filing charges. The matter would’ve been taken up for a hearing by the Personnel Board but Palin preferred to reach a settlement rather than drag it out in a hearing which would’ve turned into a circus. While her chances of prevailing at the hearing were quite high IMO, what she did was a smart move. This publicity will likely lead to many more contributions to the new fund.
But in regards to your post - it is not reasonable.
The “independent investigator” pretty much regurgitated the talking points of an earlier Perkins Coie document - a firm that is counsel of record for the Democratic National Committee.
Local and national "news" types have followed this - the posts to internet version of the story are a mixeed lot for example.
So, while no fan, I see that she did nothing wrong. You, of course, are entitled to any opinion you wish to hold.
Not to the Palindrones.
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.