Ironic Quote Of The Day: Sarah Palin Edition

“Leaders are expected to give good speeches, but leadership is so much more than oratory. Real leadership requires deeds even more than words.”

—- Sarah Palin
FILED UNDER: Politicians, Quick Takes, Sarah Palin, US Politics
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. Jay Tea says:

    Doug, do NOT make me compare Palin’s accomplishments during her abbreviated tenure as governor vs. Obama’s legislative record… you will NOT like the results.

    J.

  2. Alex Knapp says:

    Doug, Doug, Doug,

    Lest you forget, when she was an Alaskan politican and had the opportunity to use corruption charges against her political enemies to advance herself politically, she bravely did so! And as Mayor, she bravely ran the finances of Wasila into the ground by pursuing an unnecessary hockey stadium! And as Governor, she bravely hired unqualified cronies to fill state offices! And she bravely quit being Governor when the going got tough!

  3. @Jay Tea:

    She. Quit. Her. Job.

    As far as I’m concerned, that negates whatever “accomplishments” she had in the half-term she served as Governor. Also, as others have noted, as Governor she excelled at working across the aisle. Now, she’s just a shrill partisan hack who rarely says anything of interest on the important issues of the day.

  4. Jay Tea says:

    Alex, are you saying that the people Palin charged with corruption were NOT guilty of the charges she brought against them? ‘Cuz history would tend to disagree with you. Unlike the BS charges that her enemies used to try to bankrupt her, her charges were solidly grounded and resulted in people being forced out of office.

    Which brings up an interesting point I like to make… Palin’s actually stood up against corruption in her own party’s ranks. Obama NEVER has. He’s a master of the “go along to get along” school of politics — and having come up through the Chicago machine, he’s had plenty of opportunities to show his allegiance to that principle.

    J.

  5. Alex Knapp says:

    Alex, are you saying that the people Palin charged with corruption were NOT guilty of the charges she brought against them?

    Nope. I’m saying there’s nothing brave about using corruption charges against your political enemies in order to benefit yourself. Once she was in office, Palin was a true Alaskan poltiician and believer in the spoils system for her cronies.

    Palin’s actually stood up against corruption in her own party’s ranks.

    When it benefitted her politically.

    Obama NEVER has.

    Jay, please name ONE act of corruption that:

    1) Led to a convinction in court or by an ethics board;
    2) That Obama was definitely aware of prior to legal action;
    3) That Obama had the opportunity to do anything about; and
    4) Obama failed to do anything about.

    Just one. With citations.

  6. Smooth Jazz says:

    “Ironic Quote Of The Day: Sarah Palin Edition”

    And your point is?????? I love it far left Liberals use “irony”.

  7. Smooth Jazz says:

    “Now, she’s just a shrill partisan hack who rarely says anything of interest on the important issues of the day.

    And YOU are a shrill partisan hack with a VERY acute case of Palin Derangement Syndrome.

  8. Kylopod says:

    >I love it far left Liberals use “irony”.

    SJ, I’m just curious–if Doug is “far left,” could you give me some examples of people you would class in each of the following categories?

    center left

    center right

    far right

  9. Jay Tea says:

    Inconvenient facts Doug doesn’t like:

    1) The bullshit ethics charges against Palin were threatening to bankrupt her family and incapacitating her entire administration.

    2) The folks she had worked with across the aisle not only did nothing while their allies worked to bankrupt Palin, but egged them on.

    3) There is a difference between legitimate ethics charges, like those Palin used to take down her fellow Republicans who were corrupt, and the bullshit ones that were almost unanimously dismissed (the sole exception being one she essentially pleaded “no contest” to because it was cheaper than fighting it). Kind of odd for a lawyer, to see no difference between, essentially, criminal charges that are dismissed or end in acquittals and criminal charges that end in convictions.

    I don’t think Doug has ever answered the old question: what would he have counseled Palin to do — stay in office while running up legal bills that added up to not only double her family’s annual income, but 40% of their net worth, and fight the challenge to her being allowed to have a legal defense fund and NOT be personally liable for those bills?

    Actually, yes. Considering how Doug argues that the debt ceiling is no big deal, at least he’s being consistent. Being hugely in debt is no big deal.

    J.

  10. Jay Tea

    I’ve never said that debt is no big deal, it is a very serious deal. Which is why it depresses me to see Republicans and Democrats behaving like partisan hacks rather than doing what needs to be done (and yes one of the things that must be done is raising the debt ceiling, deal with it)

  11. Jay Tea says:

    @Alex Knapp: I’m no prosecutor, with no subpoena powers, Alex. But here are a few things that should have smelled really, really bad to Obama:

    1) Tony Rezko.

    B) Slumlord Valerie Jarrett.

    III) Governor Rod Blagojevich.

    d) Tim “Turbo Tax” Geithner.

    And mayhap not on the “criminally corrupt” scale, but certainly high on the “despicable human beings” list, toss in William Ayers and Reverend Wright.

    J.

  12. Alex Knapp says:

    Jay,

    1) Tony Rezko.

    B) Slumlord Valerie Jarrett.

    III) Governor Rod Blagojevich.

    d) Tim “Turbo Tax” Geithner.

    Do you have any evidence that Obama was aware of their wrongdoings prior to legal action and failed to act? At all?

    but certainly high on the “despicable human beings” list, toss in William Ayers and Reverend Wright.

    If you want to go there, is it okay if I point out that Sarah Palin was married to a guy who belonged to an organization that advocates treason against the government of the United States?

  13. Jay Tea says:

    @Alex Knapp: As I said, Alex, gimme subpoena power (or, alternately, a press corps actually interested in doing their jobs) and I’ll find out.

    Actually, Geithner and Jarrett are still part of his cabal, so there goes that excuse. Blagojevich and Rezko? Obama — on those few occasions he was asked about them — pleaded ignorance and chose to stay out of the story entirely, not even “if true, they should step down.”

    Maybe if we mentioned that Tim Geithner has ridden on corporate jets on more than a few occasions…

    J.

  14. Alex Knapp says:

    So basically, you don’t have any evidence. You’re just making assertions. Gotcha.

  15. Mr. Grouchypants says:

    Maybe President Obama was just oblivious to any corruption going on around him. He attended Wright’s church for 20 years without realizing what a whackjob the guy was, so it’s not out of the question.

  16. MarkedMan says:

    I know it is “Accepted Truth” that Wright is some kind of monster, but I certainly haven’t seen any evidence he said anything worse than your typical Evangelical TV preacher. He said “G*d D*mn the US for it’s sins” while your average Evangelical says something like ‘Louisiana deserved for God to send a hurricane because they tolerated sin’ or ‘If the US continues on this sinful path, we will foster G*d’s retribution’. I’m just not seeing the difference there. Either all such statements are beyond the pale, or none of them are.

  17. Jay Tea says:

    @Alex Knapp: Not making accusations, just asking questions.

    But in the Geithner case, that all came out during his confirmation hearings. Obama could have pulled the nomination, but didn’t. So it’s clear that he thinks the guy who is in charge of the IRS shouldn’t be expected to obey the tax laws.

    And Jarrett? Thre words: “Grove Parc Plaza.” She ran the housing complex in Obama’s old Senate district, which even the Boston Globe said was uninhabitable — so bad, it had to be demolished.

    OK, let’s give Obama a pass on ignorance. He didn’t know that one of his closest advisors who was running the worst slum in his Senate district. He didn’t know that his pastor of 20 years was a race-baiting, America-hating demagogue. He didn’t know that the guy who helped him land a sweetheart deal on his house was one of the most crooked financiers in Chicago political circules. He didn’t realize that his neighbor, partner in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and writer of books he praised was the same guy who was an unrepentant domestic terrorist.

    That’s a hell of a defense there, Alex. “There’s no proof Obama actually knew these bastards were such bastards. He could have been a completely clueless idiot!”

    OK, you got him off from being convicted. Now explain how he’s STILL qualified to be president.

    J.

  18. Alex Knapp says:

    Jay,

    But in the Geithner case, that all came out during his confirmation hearings. Obama could have pulled the nomination, but didn’t. So it’s clear that he thinks the guy who is in charge of the IRS shouldn’t be expected to obey the tax laws.

    First off, I opposed Geithner’s nomination because he was in bed with Wall Street, but considering that Obama’s in bed with Wall Street there’s not much I can do about that. But Geithner’s mistake was minor, he paid his past due taxes. Done and done. Do you mean to tell me that YOU’VE never, ever in your whole life have made a mistake on your taxes?

    And Jarrett?

    I’ll give you Valerie Jarrett. One more example of the stupidity of contracting government services to private contractors. Chalk that up with privatizing prisons, trash collection, roads, schools, and all the other privatization disasters that conservatives and neoliberals like Obama have forced on us.

    He didn’t know that his pastor of 20 years was a race-baiting, America-hating demagogue.

    The man served his country as a marine and came back to be spit on by draft dodging white guys because of the color of his skin. He’s entitled to a little bitterness. Though I admit it would be better for him to take Christ’s example and overcome that. I have, however, read several of Wright’s sermons and more than a few of them are pretty damn inspiring. Have you read Wright’s body of work?

    Chicago Annenberg Challenge

    Run by the same Annenbergs who are long-time Republican donors and gave their money to the McCain/Palin campaign.

    I also note that you’ve ignored Palin’s acts: using her Yahoo account illegally for state business. She’s married to a guy who was an activist in an organization that advocates treason. She bankrupted her hometown as Mayor. The list goes on.

    Your case against Obama would be a lot stronger if you couldn’t make identical charges against Palin.

  19. Jay Tea says:

    @Alex Knapp: But Alex, your argument seems to be “Palin’s just as bad as Obama.” Are you sure you wanna go down that road? Wouldn’t you be better off making the argument that, in some way, BETTER than Palin?

    Obama has no problems with a confessed tax cheat enforcing the tax code. He apparently also has no problems with a far worse tax cheat (Charlie Rangel) writing the tax code. Go ahead and say that Geithner’s offenses were minor — they were STILL in the area where he was supposed to have such great expertise and be in charge of punishing people who did exactly what he did — and wasn’t punished for.

    Hey, how can I get in on the Geithner/Rangel loopholes? How much money do I have to give to Democrats?

    Is this the Change you were Hoping for?

    J.

  20. PJ says:

    @Mr. Grouchypants:

    Maybe President Obama was just oblivious to any corruption going on around him. He attended Wright’s church for 20 years without realizing what a whackjob the guy was, so it’s not out of the question.

    @Jay Tea:

    He didn’t know that his pastor of 20 years was a race-baiting, America-hating demagogue.

    For 20 years? Then there must be a lot more evidence of it than the minutes that you both have been watching… Wonder why there isn’t…

  21. Mr. Grouchypants says:

    Yeah, it was really unfortunate for President Obama, that Wright suddenly began believing in conspiracy theories about AIDS right in the middle of the campaign. I suspect the CIA was behind it somehow.

  22. Jay Tea says:

    @PJ: Wright was a major influence on Obama — even to the point of using a Wright sermon as the foundation for a book title and bragging about how he’d bought tapes of Wright’s sermons to listen to while in DC. Right up until other folks started noticing what Obama hadn’t noticed in two decades.

    Way to go, Barack.

    J.

  23. OzarkHillbilly says:

    I love these Palin threads, soooo entertaining!

  24. WR says:

    @Jay Tea: Actually, Jay, while we are all painfully aware that this is a talking point you like to bring up (almost as much as the Thatcher quote), it is anything but interesting. Perhaps now that this has been cleared up for you, you’ll stop acting on this misapprehension.

  25. PJ says:

    @Jay Tea:
    They noticed what? Except for the clip that has been shown again and again? Once more. 20 years of sermons and that all there is you can point at? A couple of minutes?

  26. Jay Tea says:

    How about the “CIA created AIDS” BS from Wright? Not quite as common, but still entertaining.

    Oh, and WR, calling something a “talking point” doesn’t magically make it untrue. Hell, often “talking points” become talking points because they’re true.

    J.

  27. An Interested Party says:

    It must really burn some people’s britches that even though Tony Rezko, Valerie Jarrett, Rod Blagojevich, William Ayers, and Reverend Wright were all tied around the President’s neck, he still won the 2008 election, and has a better than even chance of winning reelection…but hey, at least Sarah Palin is the subject of a Newsweek cover story…I mean, that is something

  28. WR says:

    @Jay Tea: No, and repeating something over and over again doesn’t make it true, either. Or convincing.

  29. Jay Tea says:

    @An Interested Party: And it’s even more remarkable that you are willing to excuse those sorts of things JUST because it irritates people you don’t like. You put the discomfort of your political rivals above the appalling associations of Obama, huh?

    Says a hell of a lot about you, sport. And it’s not flattering.

    J.

  30. An Interested Party says:

    @Jay Tea: It’s not remarkable at all, as I made no claims of excusing anything, although I will admit that I’m doubly amused by your ranting and raving on this subject as well as your constant whining about how many of your comments keep getting voted down…keep up the good work, sport…

  31. jukeboxgrad says:

    jay:

    The bullshit ethics charges against Palin were threatening to bankrupt her family

    This has been said many times, and I have asked the following question many times: do you have any proof of what Palin spent of her own money defending herself against those ethics charges?

    Even though I have asked this question many times, it has never been answered. But hope springs eternal. Maybe this time will be different.

    It turns out that plenty of money was spent by other people (link, link), so I’m skeptical about the idea that she ended up spending a lot of money herself. It sounds like typical Palinesque fiction.

  32. Jay Tea says:

    @jukeboxgrad: I never answered that one because I never saw it. But then again, if I had seen it, I wouldn’t have answered it, because it’s such a mind-numbingly stupid question, I’d have taken it as a joke.

    But I’ll presume you’re serious. You seem dumb enough to ask that kind of question seriously.

    Do we have any evidence that Palin actually paid any of her legal bills out of her own pocket? No. Largely because when they were settled, she was a private citizen and the beneficiary of a legal defense fund.

    Palin apparently postponed paying those bills until the establishment of a legal defense fund to handle them, as is often the case in such matters. Then the very existence of such a fund became the final bullshit ethics charge against her. At that point, the threat to her family’s financial health became dire: the bills had, at that point, added up to twice their annual income and 40% of their net worth. ($500,000, $250,000, and $1,200,000 respectively.) If she couldn’t use a legal defense fund, then — and only then — would your question have any relevance whatsoever.

    Instead of taking the chance that she’d be exonerated as she had in every prior matter (save the one she’d pleaded “no contest” to when it turned out to be cheaper to just pay the disputed amount rather than fight it), and seeing that there was no end in sight to the bullshit charges, she resigned and made certain that her enemies couldn’t deny her the protection of said fund. At that point, where the money for her legal defense came from became no one’s business.

    And your question lost even the slightest chance of having even a hint of relevance.

    Congratulations. You’ve taken my suspicion that you’re an absolute idiot on all things Palin and proven it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Feel better now?

    J.

  33. Jay Tea says:

    Oh, and if you’re playing that little game where you keep asking the same question over and over, hoping that people will get tired of answering, and then saying “See? No one will answer it,” don’t bother. Remember this answer, because I probably won’t repeat it.

    J.

  34. jukeboxgrad says:

    Largely because when they were settled, she was a private citizen and the beneficiary of a legal defense fund.

    Where is your evidence to support this claim? I don’t believe you. The largest matter was Troopergate, and most of the litigation regarding Troopergate happened long before she resigned. And was paid for by people other than her, as I have shown.

    Palin apparently postponed paying those bills until the establishment of a legal defense fund to handle them

    Where is your evidence to support this claim? Where does Palin herself even make this claim, let alone show evidence to support it?

    Then the very existence of such a fund became the final bullshit ethics charge against her.

    Where is your evidence that such a charge was ever brought?

    At that point, the threat to her family’s financial health became dire: the bills had, at that point, added up to twice their annual income and 40% of their net worth. ($500,000, $250,000, and $1,200,000 respectively.)

    Where are you getting your numbers?

    Remember this answer

    What “answer?” All you’ve done is provide more evidence of what we already know: you can’t manage to grasp that assertion is not evidence. This is the question I asked: do you have any proof of what Palin spent of her own money defending herself against those ethics charges?

    I highlighted an important word, since you seem to have missed it the first time. All you’ve done is repeat the same assertion, with some extra unproven details thrown in. When are you going to show a shred of proof to support the claims you’re making? When you don’t even try that tends to create the impression that you know there isn’t any such evidence.

  35. jukeboxgrad says:

    Oh yeah, one more thing.

    Then the very existence of such a fund became the final bullshit ethics charge against her.

    I had forgotten about it, but there was a complaint raised about her legal defense fund, and that complaint was investigated by the Alaska Personnel Board (a body indirectly under her control). Do you know what they found? They did not find that the complaint was “bullshit.” They found that the complaint was correct (pdf):

    … based upon these findings … Palin … agrees to the settlement provisions set forth below and agrees to abide by the following remedy in lieu of formal proceedings …

    The Alaska Fund Trust (the “Trust”) was created and administered as a result of the work and efforts of Governor Palin … The Trust, as written, is designed to confer a private financial benefit, as that term is defined by the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act (the “Ethics Act”), on Governor Palin … The Trust, and its website soliciting donations, if the funds were to be accepted by Governor Palin, would violate the Ethics Act by using the Governor’s official position for personal gain and because the Trustee, herself a public official, is providing a substantial private benefit to another public official through her role as Trustee of the Trust. …

    The Trust was formed and administered following the specific advice of counsel solicited by Governor Palin and her aides. Because of the good faith reliance upon the advice of counsel who were specifically retained to insure compliance with the Ethics Act, the violations were not knowingly committed. Nevertheless, actions must be taken, if possible, to correct the deficiencies in the Trust …

    So the trust did violate the law, but they let her off the hook because they decided she didn’t break the law “knowingly.” But she was required to make changes in how the trust worked.

    So here’s what’s “bullshit:” your claim that the complaint was “bullshit.” But I suppose in your world according to Palin, she should have been allowed to break the law, and it was wrong to complain that she was breaking the law.

    There’s a reason why ethics complaints were raised: because she did a bunch of things that were unethical.

  36. Jay Tea says:

    @jukeboxgrad: So, juke, you’re agreeing that she wasn’t corrupt, but ran afoul a poorly crafted law and was allowed to correct her errors without penalty — acknowledging that it wasn’t “corrupt.”

    The Trust was formed and administered following the specific advice of counsel solicited by Governor Palin and her aides. Because of the good faith reliance upon the advice of counsel who were specifically retained to insure compliance with the Ethics Act, the violations were not knowingly committed.

    And this has been my primary source for some time. Note how many of them translate to “this was BS.”

    As far as the dollar amounts you were so critical to hear about… here’s the legal bills, here’s the income, and here’s the worth.

    Note that she and Todd made all that themselves, starting out pretty much from scratch.

    Here’s the Wikipedia entry on her resignation:

    Palin announced she was resigning her office due to the costs and distractions of battling the ethics investigations launched against her, and described as “insane” the amount of time and money that both she and the state of Alaska had expended. She said the state had spent $2 million and she and her husband Todd would be spending “more than half a million dollars in legal bills in order to set the record straight.” The Anchorage Daily News reported that much of the $1.9 million cost cited by Palin consisted of the regular salaries of state employees who would have to be paid, regardless. However, the Governor’s spokesperson said that in order to respond to the ethics complaints, staffers from multiple state agencies had had to set aside their normal duties, state lawyers had been pulled off other cases resulting in “lost value to the state”, and “hundreds of thousands of dollars” had been spent on outside legal counsel and equipment. In addition to responding to the ethics complaints, the state attorneys had to review public records requests to determine what information to release; 238 requests were filed during the Palin administration, 189 of them after she was named as John McCain’s running mate.

    All entirely accurate and readily verifiable.

    Now, you wanna explain why you were so bent out of shape over “it never cost her a penny?” As I said, Lee, that has to be one of the most astonishingly stupid things ever asked.

    J.

  37. Jay Tea says:

    @jukeboxgrad: By the way, that was a fascinating link you provided. Here’s an example of just how corrupt Palin was:

    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.

    So, even AFTER she got the state to agree to pony up for her legal bills, she STILL tried to find ways to get her constituents off the hook. And here she tries to find other ways around the law:

    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.

    So she set up the defense fund under the guidance of three law firms, asking each to make absolutely certain that it was within the letter of the law, and they screwed it up. So the state said “you messed it up, but you did all you could to get it right, so no fine — just make it right.” Apparently Alaska is more reasonable than the IRS, which holds you responsible for any mistakes you make — even if you ask them for advice first, and they give you bad advice, you’re still on the hook.

    I understand your obsessions — really, I do. But don’t expect me to tolerate or respect them, let alone embrace them.

    J.

  38. jukeboxgrad says:

    So, juke, you’re agreeing that she wasn’t corrupt

    Where did I agree to that? Nowhere. You should stop making things up.

    but ran afoul a poorly crafted law

    Where is your evidence that the law is “poorly crafted?” Who else besides you ever claimed that this law is “poorly crafted?” If the law is “poorly crafted,” then what did she and/or her successor ever do to try to change or improve the law?

    You are doing your usual thing: inventing your own facts.

    was allowed to correct her errors without penalty

    Yes, which probably has a lot to do with her influence on the Personnel Board, and with her history with Petumenos: “The investigator hired by the Personnel Board is Tim Petumenos. In 2002, his firm handled the $15 million bond issue for Wasilla’s hockey complex, a pet project of then-mayor Palin.” I guess you probably think that makes him quite impartial.

    Aside from that, she was required to return $386,000 in donations. A lot of people would think of that as a kind of “penalty.”

    acknowledging that it wasn’t “corrupt.”

    Petumenos found that she broke the ethics law. So did a separate investigator. Most people probably think that breaking an ethics law is a kind of “corrupt.”

    this has been my primary source for some time

    You need to help me find the part of the article that documents what she spent. I guess you forgot that this is what I asked you.

    here’s the legal bills

    That article just presents an unsubstantiated claim made by Palin, that she owed “over a half a million dollars.” The article does nothing to substantiate that claim, and it does nothing to establish that she ever actually spent a cent.

  39. jukeboxgrad says:

    here’s the worth

    When you click through the links (including dealing with links that are broken), you discover that the underlying article doesn’t say this is “the worth.” It establishes the “least” she was worth. Which means that you are not in a position to make the claim you made (about legal bills being a certain % of her worth).

    Here’s the Wikipedia entry on her resignation … All entirely accurate and readily verifiable.

    Baloney. All that article does is quote Palin making this claim:

    She said the state had spent $2 million and she and her husband Todd would be spending “more than half a million dollars in legal bills in order to set the record straight.”

    This is no different than you making the claim. Just like you, the article presents no proof that the claim is true.

    Now, you wanna explain why you were so bent out of shape over “it never cost her a penny?”

    Do you understand the proper use of quote marks? I guess not. Where did I use those words?

    As I said, Lee

    Back here I established the silliness of that claim. Of course you responded by disappearing.

  40. jukeboxgrad says:

    So she set up the defense fund under the guidance of three law firms, asking each to make absolutely certain that it was within the letter of the law, and they screwed it up.

    There you go again, inventing your own facts. What you just described is not what Petumenos said, because it’s not what happened. Here’s what happened:

    Palin advisers created the Alaska Fund Trust in April 2009 to help her pay legal bills she incurred defending herself in the “Troopergate” investigation and a series of other ethics complaints. Palin’s personal lawyer, Tom Van Flein of Anchorage, “strongly advised” the trust be vetted by the Alaska Department of Law to make sure it was legal under Alaska ethics law, Petumenos wrote.

    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.

    “The prudent thing to have done in my opinion would have been to go to the attorney general in advance,” Petumenos told reporters on Thursday.

    Is that simple enough for you? She was warned (by Van Flein) not to do it, and she did it anyway. She was warned that the ethics complaint was “inevitable.” And Petumenos supported that complaint, requiring her to return the money. Still waiting for you to explain why you called the complaint “bullshit.” That was yet another example of you inventing your own facts. The complaint was valid.

    By the way, we know that she claimed “more than half a million dollars in legal bills.” We also know that her legal defense fund was able to collect $386,000 from donors before she resigned. It took only about three months to collect that much. So tell us again how this was supposedly going to “bankrupt” her? Even assuming zero further dollars from donors, she could have paid the difference of what she allegedly owed. How does a bill of $100,000 or $200,000 “bankrupt” someone who is worth at least $1.2 million? I need help understanding how that calculation works. Let’s recall this claim you made:

    At that point, the threat to her family’s financial health became dire: the bills had, at that point, added up to twice their annual income and 40% of their net worth. ($500,000, $250,000, and $1,200,000 respectively.)

    How is it honest to make that statement while neglecting to mention that she had already collected donations covering roughly 80% of the alleged “bills?”

    And here’s another piece of the picture that doesn’t fit. She resigned on 7/3/09. Here’s what Petumenos said about a year later (6/10): “As of March, the fund had spent $87,680 on legal and other expenses.” If she owed “more than half a million dollars” at the time she resigned (7/09), and had also collected $386,000 from donors by that time, why had the fund only “spent $87,680 on legal and other expenses” in the nine months after she resigned? Why not just use the money to promptly pay her bills? That is, if the bills were real.

    As is typical with Palin, when you look closely at the facts her stories start to fall apart.

    One more thing: as I have been predicting for a long time, I think she’s going to run, and I think she’s going to be nominated. So this issue is going to keep coming up. Getting your facts straight would be a good idea.

  41. Jay Tea says:

    @jukeboxgrad: Here’s the only one worth responding to. From the Chatam report, your own source, under Findings Of Fact:

    6. A decision was made in February of 2009 to use a defense trust fund, funded by private donations, to pay existing and future legal bills. Three law firms were retained to draft the Trust or advise Governor Palin with respect to this Trust.

    You wanna argue with your own source because I quoted it, be my guest.

    J.

  42. jukeboxgrad says:

    Three law firms were retained to draft the Trust or advise Governor Palin with respect to this Trust.

    You’re joking, right? No one denies that “three law firms were retained.” The problem is not how many lawyers she hired. The problem is that she ignored the advice she didn’t want to hear, just like you ignore facts you don’t want to hear. Consider these two statements:

    A) Three law firms were retained, asking each to make absolutely certain that it was within the letter of the law, and they screwed it up. They each told her it was OK, even though it wasn’t.

    B) Three law firms were retained. One of the lawyers told her it wasn’t OK, but she did it anyway because another lawyer said it was OK. (It’s unknown what the third lawyer said.)

    Can you comprehend that A and B are materially different? I guess not, because A is what you said, and B is what happened. I already cited the article explaining B. Here’s the text directly from the report, with more detail:

    Just prior to the launching of the Trust, the Governor’s personal attorney, Mr.Van Flein, who had represented Governor Palin in past ethics-related matters, was also consulted. There was not always agreement among the three law firms ultimately involved in providing advice, as to how to proceed. …

    There was disagreement amongst the attorneys as to one critical
    point. One of the attorneys, Mr. Van Flein, strongly advised that the Trust be submitted to the Department of Law for pre-approval pursuant to A S 39.52.210, as had been done twice before by Governor Palin with respect to other ethics matters, resulting in her ultimate conduct being found to be lawful.

    Governor Palin chose not to accept the advice of Mr. Van Flein, and followed instead the advice of another attorney who recommended against seeking the advice of the Governor’s ethics supervisor (the attorney general), who advised to simply contest the “inevitable” complaint when it came. In retrospect the advice to seek preapproval from the ethics officer provided to the Governor under the statute seems the better course, particularly when this was the first attempt at such a trust agreement in Alaska and ethics complaints were likely. Governor Palin was nevertheless following the express advice of one of her attorneys who told her the Trust complied with all laws and was indeed unassailable. The decision not to seek prior Department of Law approval, while contrary to Mr. Van Flein’s advice, was approved by another attorney.

    Let’s compare that to the phony claim you made:

    So she set up the defense fund under the guidance of three law firms, asking each to make absolutely certain that it was within the letter of the law, and they screwed it up.

    The plain meaning of your “they” (“they screwed it up”) is that all three “screwed it up.” That is, all three gave her bad advice, so it’s not her fault that she followed bad advice. This is your claim. Trouble is, this claim is fiction. Only one of the three lawyers “screwed it up,” and that’s the one she decided to follow. Her own lawyer told her not to do it (at least not without checking with the AG first).

    She knew she could not be “absolutely certain that it was within the letter of the law” because her own lawyer “strongly advised” her that she needed to ask the AG first. She decided to ignore that advice. So thanks again for yet another terrific example of how you routinely invent your own facts. And speaking of inventing facts, I guess I need to remind that the report also says this:

    it is a violation of the Ethics Act to use one’s public office to raise money for private purposes … Therefore, there is probable cause to believe the Trust violates the Ethics Act, AS 39.52.120(a) by using public office to secure a private benefit … the Trust itself, as ultimately conceived, violates the Ethics Act

    Palin violated the Ethics Act. The fund she set up was illegal. The complaint about this was valid. This is what you said:

    Then the very existence of such a fund became the final bullshit ethics charge against her.

    Why did you say the complaint was “bullshit?” You must have some important facts that Petumenos overlooked. You should let him know.