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.
you seem to forget the legal defence fund was pronounced ILLEGAL by obama lawyers. They sued and got the fund locked up
Oh the outrage of it all...lol
Who the h*ck are you, and why are you in my cereal? Didn’t I see you on Obama’s upper lip??
Bob J -
Rumor has it that the disgraced quitter governor Palin uses an iPhone!
You best get to investigating that scandal too, OK?
TROLL
Every attorney I ever used demanded payment up front. I’m sure all of us have 2 or 3 million dollars laying around to use until we’re reimbursed.
TROLL #2
100K is chump change for what she was up against
You bet it is. At least a year & a half.
I had no idea anyone was still following this farce.
This makes me respect her even more. The taxpayers of Alaska shouldn’t have been on the hook for these bills anymore than she should have been. She’s a woman of honor.
Bears repeating.
Nope, even the people bringing the suits made a point that the Alaska law did not allow the use of public funds for the legal defense of such allegations The law was instituted to isolate true violators from using public funds to pay for the defense of personal indescretions. Those who brought the suits knew this and used it as a means to drive her out of office or at the very least to provide a whipping post for the remainder of her term.
Their strategy in one sense was successful as they won the battle but lost the war.
It seems alot of people on FR have trouble supporting someone who clearly can do the job and would prefer to ignore Palin as being one of those people. Instead we get petty, childish posts nitpicking her as a person. No wonder we have a marxist in the WH...the majority of people have no clue, so-called conservatives included, at how much trouble we are in as a nation.
Treading mighty close to the land of ZOT.
*YAWN*
Look, it is just nonsense to allege that the State of Alaska would pay her legal costs for all time. If the leftist groups kept hitting her with lawsuits, eventually the state’s and Palin’s interest would diverge and the state would cease to fund.
All of that completely ignores whether or not Palin would be comfortable with the wasting of state resources to defend her from repetitive frivolous lawsuits. She obviously was not comfortable with how it was wasting her time in office to help defend these things.
Furthermore, it is just silly for anyone to forecast how things would have played out if she had remained in office. There are just too many divergent paths which would be impacted by each of her decisions and the decisions of her opposition. Not only is the writer trying to condemn her for the decision she made but also for things which might or might not have happened in the future.
Saying her decision to resign was wrong is an opinion anyone is entitled to hold. But using events which never happened as evidence is weak.
LOL! Good retort.
STFU!
Furthermore these same people saying she should have used state money for her defense are the same people who would have been screaming that she was wasting taxpayer money once she accepted it.
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.