at least she is still kinda HAWT Investigator rules against Palin in ethics probe By RACHEL D'ORO, Associated Press Writer – 11 mins ago ANCHORAGE, Alaska – An independent investigator has found evidence that Gov. Sarah Palin may have violated ethics laws by trading on her position in seeking money for legal fees, in the latest legal distraction for the former vice presidential candidate as she prepares to leave office this week. The report obtained by The Associated Press says Palin is securing unwarranted benefits and receiving improper gifts through the Alaska Fund Trust, set up by supporters. An investigator for the state Personnel Board says in his July 14 report that there is probable cause to believe Palin used or attempted to use her official position for personal gain because she authorized the creation of the trust as the "official" legal defense fund. The practical effect of the ruling on Palin will be more financial than anything else. The report recommends that Palin refuse to accept payment from the defense fund, and that the complaint be resolved without a formal hearing before the board. Palin posted an entry on Twitter in which she said the "matter is still pending," a statement echoed by her lawyer. The fund aims to help Palin pay off debts stemming from multiple ethics complaints against her, most of which have been dismissed. Palin says she owes more than $500,000 in legal fees, and she cited the mounting toll of the ethics probes as one of the reasons she is leaving office. The investigator, Thomas Daniel, sided with Palin in her frustration with having to defend herself against a barrage of ethics complaints. He suggested that Alaska lawmakers may need to create a law that reimburses public officials for legal expenses to defend complaints that end up being unfounded. Palin's friends and supporters created the Alaska Fund Trust in April, limiting donations to $150 per person. Organizers declined to say how much it has raised, and had hoped to raise about $500,000. A Webathon last month brought in about $130,000 in pledges. Kristan Cole, the fund's trustee, said the fund has been frozen pending the personnel board's review. In his report, Daniel said his interpretation of the ethics act is consistent with common sense. An ordinary citizen facing legal charges is not likely to be able to generate donations to a legal defense fund, he wrote. "In contrast, Governor Palin is able to generate donations because of the fact that she is a public official and a public figure. Were it not for the fact that she is governor and a national political figure, it is unlikely that many citizens would donate money to her legal defense fund." The ethics complaint was filed by Eagle River resident Kim Chatman shortly after the fund was created, alleging Palin was misusing her official position and accepting improper gifts. "It's an absolute shame that she would continue to keep the Alaska Fund Trust Web site up and running," Chatman told the AP. At least 19 ethics complaints have been filed against Palin, most of them after she was named the running mate for GOP presidential candidate John McCain. Most of those have been dismissed, and Palin's office usually sends a news release with the announcement. The multiple ethics complaints include an investigation by state lawmakers over Palin's firing of her public safety commissioner in the so-called Troopergate scandal. John Coale, a Washington lawyer who helped set up the fund, called the probable cause finding "crazy," adding that if upheld, it would mean that no governor could ever defend themselves against frivolous ethics complaints. "If this complaint is true, there's no way to defend yourself" as governor, Coale said. "Anybody can keep filing ethics complaints and drive someone out of office even if you're a nut." Coale said that unlike other states, Alaska's governor has no legal counsel's office to defend the governor from allegations brought against the governor in her official capacity. Coale said he recommended creation of the legal defense fund, a common practice in Washington. The Web site for the Palin fund cites similar accounts created for Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and other prominent politicians.
She's attractive, and I think anyone who remembers the Clinton years should be leery of the words "independent investigator." By the way if attractive, ex-governors can still be competitve GOP Presidential noms, why not attractiver, and better informed, ex-Press Secretaries?
I don't like Palin - But all of the ethic's complaints (mostly frivolous) filed against her, and the associated cost to her and the state of Alaska, leave a pretty disappointing precedent for the future in that state. It is going to be a clusterfudge for a long time unless the changes made to the law are revoked or modified. In the end it is the same story. The only people who win are the lawyers. The irony is that she is the one who pushed the legislation that allowed the current situation to occur. While she had good intentions supporting the legislation it is a sign of continued poor judgment not to foresee the consequences wrought by the modification of existing laws. If the moronic public wants to pay her personal legal bills I don't have a problem with it. I continue to have a problem with her judgment, competence and motives.
The problem with this is that they are saying she used her position as govener to help her legal defense fund. this actually isn't a big deal, most states allow for something like this, a lot of politicians have these because they alway face lawsuits, and what probably will happen is that she just won't accept the money.
Be careful what you believe, many have stated, not without substantial evidence that the incremental cost to the state of Alaska is pretty much zero because of all her ethics complaints - the time and money expended on it is was going to be expended in the normal course of business anyway, so that excuse of hers doesn't fly. Second, Alaska is and long has been a hotbed of political corruption and bribery, which is how Palin got elected in the first place as a supposed reformer, it will probably do them some good.
Tell you what, Sam, you be careful what you believe. So your argument is that those people were going to show up and work 8 hours anyway so the cost is zero. My philosophy is that there is probably something constructive they could have done with that time than waste it on trivial bull****. I don't see how any of this is doing anything positive for the state of Alaska but I do see how it is doing many positive things for the slimy no good piece of crap lawyers.
First off, multiple ethics complaints were not found to be "trivial bullsh-t" - only one (of 18) was dismissed as frivolous (which is done in short order)...and only 3 were still pending when she quit. Not hundreds, not dozens - THREE. Second - my point stands about the incremental cost being not $2 million, but closer to $0 million. here's an example of the "costs" that were shunted aside, according to the Alaska Daily News: Don't lecture me about legal billing and actual costs - I know all about that - the incremental cost of this is freaking zero. Third - try not to obscure the larger point, which is that the most productive way to lower ethics-related complaint costs is to not commit ethics violations which the governor repeatedly did during her tenure. That's why she had to repay the per diems, was found to have abused powers during the trooper thing, etc.
Yes - they are mostly trivial partisan bull****. The costs to the state of Alaska are not 0 if it consistently takes manpower and time away from something that matters in order to tackle things that do not matter. Some of the complaints are valid, the majority are not. What was that golden rule again? etc. I like that. The majority of the complaints against her are trivial and have no business tying up the resources of the government. The few that have merit should be pursued. It would be difficult to limit the complaints by the method of not commiting ethics violations when the majority of the complaints are baseless partisan politics and would continue whether there were violations or not. If this were a democratic governor you would probably share my view. It further proves my point that those on the left and the right are partisan blind followers who refuse to be anything but homers rooting for their respective team.
The please be my guest and go into detail re: all 18, specifically enumerating your factual findings as to each one, and precisely how you made these findings. I guess since you are claiming they are "mostly" you're going to have to prove that at least 10 are frivlolous (thus far the state only found 1 to be this way - please, again, explain to me why your conclusion differs) Again, please provide some backing for this statement - I'd like to figure out the precise costs here - Governor Palin's method (to randomly assign a billing value to things) doesn't make any sense when there's no incremental cost, so if you're claiming there's an opportunity cost, you really should be able to quantify it. And how do you propose that this (the pursuit of meritorious claims) go forward? Perhaps a process, by which citizens file complaints, and a tribunal/finder of fact sorts the wheat from the chaff - such as the one that exists and that you are complaining about Again, backing for your speculation that 10 of these complaints are frivolous (I remind you again, only 1 thus far was found this way - you've got 9 to go) LOL, no I'm just not stupid enough to believe Palin's silly ramblings and bleatings - I acutally understand how budgeting and stuff like that works.
Your assumption that you are the only one who understands these things is a direct consequence of your inability to consider this issue in a non-partisan manner. Set the burden of proof at whatever bar you like - I do not live my life according to your set of rules. It will be very evident as these items are considered which one of us is correct. I look forward to revisiting this conversation when the verdicts are in. At that time I fully expect your argument for the results will be that partisan politics prevented a fair hearing. Go Team!
Please stay on topic, everyone. Yes, I would still tap-o. And I don't care about the politics of the girls I date.
Who really cares at this point? She is stepping down as governor. She is not a viable Presidential candidate. If Palin did something that violates Alaska law, she should be made to answer for it. If not, we need to all move on and look forward to her new sitcom on the WB.
It is amazing to me, but the poll numbers that I've seen indicate that she is still at the very least a viable candidate for the Republican nomination. See: http://www.gallup.com/poll/121715/Romney-Edges-Palin-Huckabee-Early-2012-GOP-Test.aspx and http://www.gallup.com/poll/121514/Americans-Political-Future-Palin.aspx
They've already been considered. 1 was dismissed out of hand as completely frivolous, many of the rest have been found to be lacking merit dismissed. However, the fact that 1 out of 18 complaints was found to be frivolous, is at odds with your initial statement that the complaints were "mostly frivolous" As far as costs to the tribunal - almost 2/3 of them come from one incident, which was very definitely not baseless: Tabling that - let's go back to your initial assertion that this whole ethics board, and this menial amount of expenditures is going to bring the state government to its knees, ? I see a state agency doing the job it was intended to do, at a pretty low cost in state government terms. I mean jeez, my budget here at work is several times that and I'm not even that important or have a particularly big team.
i am gonna go out on a limb here and say when most people say frivolous they would include something lacking merit not just the legal definition. Similar to when Eric Holder was questioned if he thought the right to bear arms was a fundamental right he said yes, then later said uh oh, nevermind, I didn't mean legally a fundamental right.
No offense intended Sam - but come back when you know what the **** you are talking about. http://www.adn.com/palin/story/838912.html 1) Pertains to the firing of the State Trooper. I believe she abused her power in this instance. The review concluded she violated ethics law but that the firing itself was within the law. Certainly not of the frivolous nature. 2) Concerns her alleged use of her office to get someone a job as a surveyor. Dismissed although one staffer was recommended ethics training so that they can learn how to better bend the laws in the future. Frivolous and partisan all the way. 3) Concerns her voicing an opinion about a mining ballet. Rejected and dismissed as well it should have been - again this was partisan and frivolous in nature. 4) Concerns #1 and the conclusion that she did not violate ethics laws in the matter of the firing of the trooper (although - as stated in number one - it is obvious she abused her authority in this matter. The fact that it amounts to a little family white trash squabble instead of something that seriously hurt the public of the state of Alaska is worth noting). 5) Again concerns the firing of the trooper. All aspects of the allegations were dismissed. 6) The guy asks to have a hearing to clear his name but the government says, "we don't have time for this bull****". 7) Charges that she violated laws against accepting public money by spending party money on $150,000.00 worth of $20.00 skirts. The Federal Election Commission determined that, as obvious as it may seem, campaign money is supposed to be used for campaigns. All dismissed. Frivolous and partisan. 8) Charged that she abused state trust by taking her children on trips. This is just stupid. Why shouldn't she take her children on state business? However, during the process it was discovered that out of 72 trips she took 10 that had questionable merit as state business. She paid it back. While the intentions were partisan and frivolous in nature it did uncover some questionable use of state funds. 9) Accused of meeting with reporters in her office. Dismissed. Frivolous and partisan. 10) Accused of helping someone else campaign for office. Dismissed. Frivolous and partisan. 11) Accused of using her image in an advertisement in a fisherman magazine. Dismissed. Frivolous and partisan. 12) Accused of ethics violations by a fictitious British soap opera character. As the State of Alaska could not find a resident by that name all was dismissed. Frivolous and partisan. 13) Filed by the same filer as number 2: Accusing state staffers of working on state time for the presidential election. Pending. 14) Filed by the same filer as number 2: Accusing state staffers of working on state time for the presidential election. Pending. 15) Filed by the same filer as numbers 2, 13 and 14 charging that she used state resources for partisan purposes. Dismissed as lacking merit. 16) Charged by a Democratic blogger with wearing the wrong coat at a sporting event. Dismissed. Partisan and frivolous. 17) Dismissed as lacking merit. Partisan and frivolous. 18) Concerns her raising public money to pay for her personal legal expenses. Was found that she may have violated ethics laws in using a public position to raise money for her personal use. As stated before - if the idiots want to give her money to spend for the purpose of paying for her legal bills then who cares? The fact that this may have crossed over the line just means that they will find another way to raise the money legally while having all of this cash to use for other purposes. That is even worse - but will be the final outcome of this complaint I'm positive that Sam had no issues with Clinton and Kerry using exactly the same tactic to pay for their legal fees. I personally do not have an issue with it either.
^ As I previously stated, precisely ONE (no. 12) has been dismissed as completely frivolous which is a legal term. The rest are not deemed frivolous, as an ultimate judgment was generally rendered on the merits of each one (to the extent they were finished)which is why you editorialized "frivolous and partisan" in after every single one above. When a complaint is dismissed as frivolous, it carries a legal connotation distinctly different from somethign dismissed on the merits (and may even open up the filer for sanctions), which is why you are editorializing, and why this statement of yours: ...is wrong. Finally - let's hear you address the second half of your argument, dealing with theircostly nature. Let's even assume that you're right, and all non-Trooper related complaints were frivolous - how does the minimal expenditure on these complaints square with your assertion that it is an incredibly costly enterprise?
