Media Malpractice and the Associated Press Story About the Legal Defense Complaint
The Associated Press story about the leaked report on the legal defense fund complaint is a clear example of media malpractice.
Rachel D’Oro erroneously reported that Gov. Palin was found in violation of the Ethics Act. That is completely false. The leaked document was a preliminary report -- the first part of a long process.
Gov. Palin’s own attorney stated:
“The resolution of the Trust Fund is not final. I have been working with the investigator regarding supplemental information. The matter is still pending. Whatever you have seen was released in violation of law. There has been no Board finding of an ethics violation and there is a detailed legal process to follow before there is a final resolution.”
Only the Personnel Board can make the final determination about whether the Ethics Act was violated. There was no violation because the governor has not taking any money from the legal defense fund. No funds have been dispersed because they were waiting for the resolution of this issue. Therefore, Gov. Palin can not be charged with something she hasn’t even done yet.
Here’s what Thomas Daniel, the independent investigator contracted by the Personnel Board, stated in his report:
In addition, my role as independent counsel for the personnel board is only to decide whether there is probable cause to believe a violation of the Ethics Act has occurred – not to reach a definitive conclusion. See AS 39.52.320. The ultimate determination of whether the governor has violated the Ethics Act can only be made by the personnel board after a formal heating and a report by the hearing officer. See AS 39.52.360-370.
In sum, I find probable cause to believe that payment of the governor’s legal fees by the Alaska Fund Trust will violate the Ethics Act prohibition against a public officer accepting gifts intended to influence performance of official duties.
[...]
I can recommend that corrective action be taken to resolve this complaint without the necessity of a formal hearing on the matter. See AS 39.52.330. My recommendation is that the governor should refuse to accept payment of her legal fees and costs from the Alaska Fund Trust and withdraw her authorization for the trust to be recognized as her “official” legal defense fund. I also recommend that she seek reimbursement from the state for the cost of defending the ethics complaints that have been dismissed.
I also recommend that the legislature consider amending the Ethics Act to require the state to reimburse a public official for reasonable legal fees and costs incurred to defend against an Ethics Act complaint that is dismissed. [emphasis added]
In other words, Daniel is not finding the governor in violation of the Ethics Act. Only the Personnel Board can make such a ruling, and Daniel actually recommends that no ruling is necessary. Gov. Palin has not accepted one dime from the legal defense fund yet. How can she be in violation of the Ethics Act for something she hasn’t even done yet? You can’t charge her with a violation for a future act! The language Daniel uses is future tense “will violate” -- not violated.
He even recommended against having it go to the board for a hearing. Instead, he suggested that the governor simply refuse to take any money from the Alaska Fund Trust.
So, please note, the Associated Press story is totally wrong. Gov. Palin has not been found in violation of the Ethics Act. The Daniel report states that she could be in violation if she accepts the money. But the key word is “could be” -- because Daniel does not have the authority to make that ultimate decision, only the Personnel Board does. The next step in this process is for Gov. Palin’s attorney to respond with his own motion. This is a long process.
Kim Chatman broke the law by leaking this report to the press. In fact, Daniel explicitly warned her not to violated confidentiality. On the final page of the report, he wrote in bold (yes, the bold below is in the original):
Notice of this decision will be communicated to the governor and to Ms. Chatman. However, this decision is confidential pursuant to AS 39.52.340, unless confidentiality is waived by the governor.
So, Chatman broke the law, and the governor’s attorney stated this:
“All options are open in terms of legal remedies. It is a clear violation of Alaska law that Mr. Daniel explicitly reviewed with Ms. Chatman prior to her illegal actions. We will be contacting the appropriate authorities for review and action.”
Thomas Van Flein
Private Attorney for Sarah Palin
Chatman is claiming that she didn’t leak it, but there is no one else who could have. It wasn’t the governor or Daniel.
The reasoning used by Thomas Daniel in his decision is rather laughable. He can't claim with a straight face that the ordianry Americans from around the country who donated in small amounts (ranging from $5 to $150) were seriously trying to influence the governor of Alaska. So instead, Daniel speculates vaguely about the motivations of the legal defense fund's trustee, Kristan Cole, based solely on her background as someone who has been appointed to volunteer boards by Gov. Palin (please note that Ms. Cole served on volunteer boards during the Murkowski administration too).
Daniel wrote:
The relationship between Ms. Cole and the governor could cause a “reasonable person” to conclude that the payment of the governor’s fees is intended to influence the governor’s performance of official duties, actions, or judgment. I cannot read Ms. Cole’s mind and therefore it is possible that her formation of the legal defense fund is entirely altruistic without an expectation of anything in return. But as explained above, the standard for interpreting this section of the Ethics Act is an objective one. The circumstances around the creation of the trust fund suggests that the organizers expect “that when policy decisions are made in the future, the [governor] will be favorably disposed to give more weight to the [their] viewpoint.” In addition, my role as independent counsel for the personnel board is only to decide whether there is probable cause to believe a violation of the Ethics Act has occurred – not to reach a definitive conclusion.
If that is the standard for considering people's motives, it seems fair that we also consider Mr. Daniel's background. After all, we're simply applying the same standard, and we are not making any judgements. For all we know, he might have issued a fair and honest decision when he concluded that it might be a violation of the Executive Ethics Act for the governor to accept funds from a legal defense fund that was carefully vetted by attorneys throughout the country who are experts in such funds. I cannot read Mr. Daniel's mind and therefore it is possible that his decision was completely unbiased. But a “reasonable person” could conclude that an investigator who is a lifelong Democrat, who has given large sums of money to Democrats, and whose law firm, Perkins Coie, “serves as the counsel of record for the Democratic Party and its candidates,” is biased.
It should be noted that the two boards Kristan Cole was appointed to, the Royalty Oil and Gas Development Advisory Board and the Agriculture and Conservation Board, are unpaid volunteer boards. Her only compensation for these rather thankless jobs is "Standard Travel and Per Diem," which ironically is the only compensation the members of the Personnel Board receive. According to Ms. Cole's press release, she has not even accepted the standard per diem and travel compensations for the boards she is serving on. She hasn't received any compensation for her work in any way. It's interesting to note that Daniel acknowledges and ultimately disregards the possibility that Ms. Cole established the legal defense fund for purely altruistic reasons, but he fails to mention that Ms. Cole is a lifelong friend of the governor. Establishing a legal defense fund is the sort of thing a friend does.
These are the facts. But you won’t see them in the Associated Press story. Instead you will read that Gov. Palin “violated” the Ethics Act.
See what I mean? Media Malpractice. This is shameful reporting. It's sloppy, biased, hack journalism.
Posts
208 comments:
More like Media Crimes
Great job RAM on showing just how biased and intellectually lazy these individuals are. She has not violated ANYTHING! Sadly, most people (especially those with PDS) will only read the headline and not figure out that there was no illegality found here. Another attempt to pain the Governor in a negative light.
Rachel D’Oro should be fired for her media crime.
Awesome! Thanks for the facts!
Rachel D'Whoro should lose press credentials.
It's outrageous and the reporter should be fired a la Roesgen (sp?).
I'd like to see the Personnel Board subpoena Daniel, Chatman, and D'Oro as part of an investigation into the leak. Put them all under oath, and watch the fun begin. The fact all three are essentially 0bama operatives, we may unravel the entire smear machine.
I wouldn't give Daniel any credit for recommending that the issue not even be suject to a Personnel Board hearing, he's just trying to get Palin to not take the money, and spend her own money instead or stick the state with the bills. Neither of these options are good, would drain her financially, or be seen as costing the state a bunch of money, something she doesn't want.
I think the PB will find in her favor, and she will be free to use what is in the fund now, and still continue to raise more money to fend off even more complaints over the next 2 years.
I went to Rachel D'Oro's facebook page and sent her a message on Tuesday night I don't remember everything I said but here is the gist of what I sent to her:
You call yourself a reporter? You make me sick trying to derail Gov Palin days before she steps down as one of Alaska's greatest governors they have ever known. You don't want to talk about how your god Obama's stimulus package is failing and his approval ratings are nosediving so you try to distract gullible people with a false report on Palin to take the heat off the Dear Leader. It is amazing to me that you keep attacking a woman who I keep hearing over and over from your ilk is that her political career is dead and over. You and your ilk will not win forever. Your time is coming to an end just like Obama. He will be another failed one term left-wing president just like Jimmy "Malaise Speech" Carter was. We will not tolerate you and your peers attacking Gov Palin and her family anymore. On July 27th you had better be afraid.
Pretty good if I do say so myself what do you guys think?
"I'd like to see the Personnel Board subpoena Daniel, Chatman, and D'Oro as part of an investigation into the leak."
Yep. This kinda of nonsense must be investigated and dealt with. Palin should exercise ALL legal options.
A little help here folks, please? How did this thing land in Daniel's lap for review anyway?
Do the complaints, as they come in, randomly get sent out to various groups for review?
How would one who works so closely with Obama and the DNC get in the middle of this anyway?
Thanks for your help and patience on this.
Fox within 24 hours of the story breaking reported "Governor Palin has been implicated in an ethics probe" (or words to that effect).
Great job again, RAM.
Excellent job, RAM.
D'Oro must go
sarah rocks
OK. D'Oro cannot go because with AP she is actually freelance. That said she can lose media credentials which is death for a journalists.
The media hate machine is working 24-7 to discredit the Palin family.
Has anybody even contacted the AP about this besides myself?
If possible, I'd like to see legal action taken against D'Oro for defamation of character. If that is not possible due to Gov. Palin's status as a public official, she definitely needs to be fired as she is not even pretending to be objective. A woman like that belongs on MSDNC. She would fit right in with KO, Matthews, and Maddow.
RAM, you going to shoot this over to Amanda Carpenter? She's been doing a good job of trying to get to the bottom of this...I think this would help.
Already done, Liv.
Great work RAM!! Like you told Harry Reid not long ago.."I have a gift Harry". So true. Oh wait, that wasn't you. Well im saying it now. RAM you have a gift. This was a blatent partisin hack doing her part to throw a grenade at Governor Palin. The original headline, the total misrepresentation of the actual truth of the story. D'Oro was able to get out what she wanted reported, and as an AP release it quickly spread throughout the media. It is very dissapointing that some in the media just repeated this headline, and underlying theme that it created. To me, and any other reader without an agenda the leak was the bigger story, not the ruling by Daniels. Did anyone look at this and ask why is this even out in the public yet, and why is that so? Who is behind the leaking of confidential information. No, they had a Palin hit piece at their fingertips and could not help but run with it. Typical partisin hacks in the media.
chspats...nice post on D'Oro's facebook page. If she has a soul maybe it got to her a little. I doubt it. Good job in any event.
Here is what I think is going to happen. This case will be dismissed by the Personnel Board for the following reasons:
1. There is no proof that Gov. Palin had any personal involvement in the establishment of the Trust or the collection of funds for the Trust while serving as Gov.
2. No funds have been distributed.
while the Gov. was serving as Gov.
3. This case was filed prior to any known violation of the ethic rules THEREFORE, the filing was untimely..result.. no harm..no foul.
Case dismissed.
Sarah will be out of office and will establish a new Trust Fund with more liberal rules and will have her attorney fees paid in a short span of time. The funds in the Trust funds will be distributed to the new Trust Fund.
She will be able to transfer the funds because there is no proof or hint of proof that any person contributing can or could gain favor with the State. And, the Personnel Board ruled there was no involvement while Sarah was Gov.
Since the original complaint was untimely future complaints cannot be filed on this subject, because Sarah will be out of office and no violation was found while she was in office regarding the Trust.
Wouldn't a "reasonable person" conclude that the erroneous report was the goal of expressing even a flimsy doubt that there may (possibly... conceivably... if you really, really use your imagination) be (some sort of a hint of a shadow of something resembling kind of) a violation of the ethics act?
After all, every single complaint has been deliberately made public before a conclusion was reached; it would seem "reasonable" to conclude that publishing an inconclusive (yet conveniently potentially damaging) review is the point of this whole farce, as a substantial conclusion in the anklebiters' favor is evidently out of reach.
Rebecca,
What proof do you have that Chatman leaked the confidential report? Just curious. If she leaked it wouldn't that be cause for the whole thing to disappear?
Some criticism on your argument here. On the one hand you make the solid argument that Daniel didn't find Sarah in violation and that he actually recommended no ruling by the Personnel board is necessary. Great observations! But on the other hand you then label his reasoning on other aspects of the report "laughable" and then go on to allude that since he is a "lifelong democrat" and works for Perkins Coie, he is biased.
Seems like a strange way to bolster a point you made earlier, by defaming the person you hold up as making a good argument.
A "reasonable person" could conclude that this is just ANOTHER attempt by the Democratic Machine to harrass and destroy Gov Palin.
And a "reasonable person" could conclude that Democrats are such amoral politicians that they assume everyone can be "bought" by grassroot donations of less than $150.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6eMxBk1ms8
good video on media crimes.
RealAlaskan - No it is only the legislation that has the leak clause. Remember legislators make law and always do so to protect themselves.
Oh you are using a straw man within a write up. An individual can make solid points within an argument but be way off on others.
An example - Health Care in America needs reformed. Valid argument.
Government needs to takeover Health Care - Laughable.
Obama uses both in speeches and is right on one of them but wrong with his conclusion.
Hey RealAlaskan,
How about the fact that Daniel's firm represents President Obama's campaign committee?
You know that has to be that firm's biggest client...Don't you think by pointing out who Daniel is, it serves the reader in regards to his point of view?
Well done RAM...I think you did a great job.
It is obvious to us that are conservative to see what Daniels wants is for the Personnel Board not to hear it and Gov. Palin not to be able to use the funds. He can't have it both ways. He doesn't get to say what she does or does not do..he just makes recommendations to the Personnel Board.
If the Personnel Board doesn't hear it..then who is to tell Gov. Palin she can't use the funds?? Not Daniel.
What most of us read into his report: Let's hang over Gov. Palin's head that the Trust was unethical and you can't spend the money, but no charges....DUH. Who would want that hanging over their head???
Ok. you explain to me what is the difference in taking money in a Trust then taking campaign contributions. Are they to be deemed unethical in the future? Will complaints be filed for the acceptance of campaign funds in the hopes of gaining something from an elected official? Isn't that what Daniel's is saying??? Daniel says the Trust gives the impression of someone wanting something from an elected official. If that position is also taken by the Personnel Board sounds like a lot of ethical complaints may be filed in the future.
Also, Daniel's firms have done numerous Trust for other Dem. Pols. Duh
There is one other possiblility as how the report could have been leaked. Someone at Perkins Coie may have gotten access to Daniel's file and covertly made a copy of his report.
Daniel should have known how sensational his report would be to the media. If his report and the computer file of his report did not receive heightened security protection at his firm, he may be facing a bar complaint for his own breach of professional responsibility.
I'm glad you have a big voice RAM and can finally get some of this info published where more can read it. I started emailing and posting to this blog as the story was breaking, but was getting extremely frustrated as wrong information continually circulated. The facts were very easy to find in this case.
Please keep using you platform to push against government controlled healthcare. I am a nurse practitioner in family practice and the ideas being pushed out of Congress have huge implications for the families that I care.
Congress needs to wake up and realize that healthcare is not a political campaign. It's not as easy as looking at the latest polling data and making a judgement call. "Evidence Based Practice" is the term used to refer to medical models that base medical decisions on evidence and outcomes.
This is a great tool is assisting with medical decisions, but should never replace sound medical judgement. The best medical care is patient centered care, which puts the individual first and considers the "evidence based practice" in the decision making process. It should never be the other way around. Not in America.
Did I miss something? Is there evidence that K. Cole leaked this?
I agree that the AP should have done more homework about this situation, but let's face it: it serves their agenda to slam Gov. Palin.
YIPPEE! Just one more day and Sarah won't be GOV. Palin, but instead a free citizen!
Just watch her TAKE OFF! It'll be great....
@BettyJo
I can't imagine the guv and VanFlein would be publicly implicating Chatman without evidence that it was her. Releasing that evidence could jeopardize any criminal proceedings that might take place however. If Sarah says it was Chatman, I'm gonna believe it was Chatman until proven otherwise. And, no, Chatman's word isn't proof enough.
Juju - excellent analysis.
I'm also wondering if the Personnel Board will use this logic in dropping the case (if they even take it at all):
Daniel said the trust funds, if USED, MAY be regarded under the ethics rules as an attenmpt to INFLUENCE the governor's decisions.
Since no funds have been used to date, and since after July 27th Sarah is no longer governor, her use of the trust funds after that date can in no way influence government decisions on behalf of those who donated.
In legal terms: the question is MOOT.
Next case!
Let's compare this with the Ruedrich and Renkes cases, there was actual proof that they were profiting from their office, and
yet the state party in the first instance still kept him in power.
The party still stuck up for Murkowski and would have preferred
that he stay on the ballot.
Ironically, if Sarah had not been the candidate, the state would probably be in GOP hands. That is still a concern,IMO, but for the
reasons we've long discussed, the option she chose
Breaking News:
"Harry Reid: No health care vote in Senate until fall"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090723/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul
Que Waterloo!
Hey guys here is a pic of kim chatman enjoy!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2299277/posts
Right on. Moot case. Unfortunately, I have been involved in several lawsuits. One lasted for six years. It is amazing the things that mean little in the total picture and you can think they mean so much.
The reason they think Chatman is the leaker..my belief: Daniels called Palin and Chatman and reviewed his recommendation with them. PERIOD..TWO PEOPLE. The results were leaked. WHO LEAKED IT PALIN..OR CHATMAN???
Then within a day or two the actual paper work was set to the Personnel Board, Palin and Chatman. The leaking continued.
Guess who leaked it. She hasn't denied leaking it...just denied leaking it to the news. It is one thing to think you don't care what people are saying..but, when you have to go to court or answer questions by another attorney..you start getting very nervous.
RAM, you're terrific and your points here are very well taken----but in a piece where you're calling out "shameful reporting," don't you think you need to cite EVIDENCE for basically charging just one person with a crime?
No offense meant by me against you, whatsoever----but you only mention circumstantial evidence against ONE person. BettyJo is right that there might be OTHER people involved----and who knows? Perhaps someone on the Governor's staff leaked this, too (which, if it was with Palin's permission, would NOT be an illegal act).
I am NOT saying ANY person on Gov. Palin's staff leaked this----but I AM saying that circumstantial evidence could equally be concocted against her staff, as against this Kristan Cole person.
Let's stay consistent here, okeedokee!?
I am terrible with names: I meant CHAPMAN in my last two posts, not Cole. Sorry!
Let's see if Chatman files a lawsuit against Palin for stating she (Chatman) was the leaker. I don't think that will happen and I don't see her coming out an saying much right now either. I am sure her fans are encouraging her to file something against Palin...I don't think that will happen.
I would be willing to sell almost everything I have as a donation if Sarah would sue the most egregious ankle biters and AP for their actions. Any of the MSM would do but AP is so ubiquitous and so blatant that it's my favorite choice and now they've laid themselves wide open.
I have a feeling that this may be some of the reason Sarah resigned; so she can go after these trolls and teach them a lesson.
I have noted many times before on many other blogs that the conservative movement(or commonsense government if you'd rather) will not make any real headway until the MSM is forced back into it's role of reporting and not editorializing. And back into investigation of all suspicious activities no matter the party or person involved.
mountain mama - Cole had never seen the report so you could rule her out. Somebody would have had to leak it to Kristan Cole.
I stated earlier this could be a bait to get Chatman to sue. Sarah would have a right to defend herself and could subpoena for phone, E-Mail etc. Chatman could not withhold from the defense evidence. The only way would be if criminal and she would have to plea then almost completely ending her case.
Juju
I think you are brilliant!!! Love your assessment.
RAM
all of you at C4P keep us informed and almost always first. I only come here now for updates on Sarah.
I think that there has to be MUCH background information and evidence for Van Flein to put his professional reputation on the line in not only implicating Chapman as the leaker but in tying the WH to the ethics attacks.
I just can't wait until July 26th!!!
Oh might I add if nobody has noticed this Van Flein is as sharp as a tack. The GOV got the cream of the crop when getting him as her lawyer.
Thanks Firelight.
I am waiting for REAL AK. to respond to my question:
What is the difference between the Gov. being influenced by a Trust Fund and an elected official being influenced by campaign contributions?
juju said:
Let's see if Chatman files a lawsuit against Palin for stating she (Chatman) was the leaker. I don't think that will happen and I don't see her coming out an saying much right now either. I am sure her fans are encouraging her to file something against Palin...I don't think that will happen.
you probably won't hear from Ms Chatman any time soon. FYI her father passed away the other day.
if only they had a loser pays system.
>>I can't imagine the guv and VanFlein would be publicly implicating Chatman without evidence that it was her.
Given the fact that the AP report had direct quotes from Ms. Chatman, didn't she in effect go public with the confidential information VERBALLY? Don't know if that is the same as handing someone the report.
Pec: I think you might be right...this is bait. But, I do believe there is some type of timeline we are not aware of like when phone calls were made explaining the report and when the actual report came out. The phone call was only made to 2 people.
Later the paper work came out and there was not enough time for it to be seen and/or leaked by staff,etc. before it was in the hands of the newspaper and only two people could have done that Palin or Chatman. Palin knows she did not leak it.
Jake - the media will never go back to its job of objective reporting (if it ever was objective).
What we've seen is the balkanization of the press. It's broken into smithereens of partisanship.
And I say, the sooner the "objective" model and perception dies, the better.
People are already tuning out the so-called "objective" media sources because they know they're all radical leftists who only pretend to be objective.
What desperately needs to happen is an conservative media revolution with its own wire service, and online news broadcasts. That's already happening to a certain degree and the dinosaurs know it. They are losing power.
But there's about 20% of the people out there who aren't very political and still get their news from the dinosaurs, and that's where the battle really is.
And that's why I think the media will start being nicer to Sarah in an attempt to capture 50% of the people in this country who love her.
The press has already shot its wad. They've blown their credibility on Obama.
I honestly don't think they can do much more harm to Sarah -- although they'll continue trying, no doubt.
I don't see anyone suggesting that the Personnel Board may be responsible for the leak. That is who the memorandum was addressed to. Why would someone who wasn't copied on this be considered as the "leaker?"
Doesn't this case become moot once the Governor's resignation is official? Won't the whole thing be dropped at that point?
Once a private citizen, is Sarah not free to accept the entire contents of the fund to pay her legal fees?
Yes, the original report by the AP quoted Chatman regarding the report.
I never got a thank you note for the trust fund.
juju said:
"Later the paper work came out and there was not enough time for it to be seen and/or leaked by staff,etc. before it was in the hands of the newspaper and only two people could have done that Palin or Chatman. Palin knows she did not leak it."
July 23, 2009 2:59 PM
juju, Daniel's report was dated Tuesday, July 14th. The story broke this Monday, July 20th. That is 6 days for a whole lot of leakin going on.
Did you get it from the fund or SarahPAC?
Chatman is the leaker. Plain and simple. She either passed it to D'Oro herself or gave it to someone else to give to D'Oro. Either way, Chatman broke the law by passing along confidential information.
Real Alaskan - Sarah can sign a Thank You card and have nothing to do with the running, set-up etc of a trust fund. All of this could be an idea of Kristen Cole. Now you could argue that Kristan did expect Sarah to sign the card. Fair enough. That is a long way from the operations and decisionmaking of a trust.
Heck I have signed get well cards at work before and hardly knew who the card was for.
Good write up RAM. I posted on an open thread earlier this week that anyone in my profession would have been stripped of their license and have to find a new career. The state of the media is beyond disgraceful.
Oh I always assumed the card came from the Defense Fund but come to think of it the card did not say that. Could have been SarahPac. Either way no more ties the Governor to the fund than me signing a get well card in the office I work in.
Betty,
No way Daniel would have leaked it or anyone in his firm. No one would risk being disbarred. It was Chatman. She was interviewed. She has a history of leaking.
The leaker was Chatman. She is the one who was quoted in the D'Oro story. Daniel could be disbarred for leaking that document. Kristan Cole didn't have a copy of it. The only people with copies of it were the governor, Daniel, and Chatman. The Personnel Board certainly didn't leak it. Chatman did. She has broken confidentiality in the past and flaunted the fact that nothing will happen to her in doing so. Well, I hope they are exploring all legal options now. I think someone should finally throw the book at her.
RAM, I'm not saying Daniel would leak it. You're exactly right in that he would not risk being disbarred.
But can you vouch for every employee at his firm? Secretaries and file clerks can't be disbarred.
There is no doubt in my mind that everyone who worked at Perkins Coie knew that Daniel had been hired as an investigator. Office gossip thrives in large firms.
RAM: how do you know Chatman had a copy of this report? It was not addressed to her.
Betty,
Remember Occam's Razor - the answer is almost always the simplest explanation. Chatman leaked it. Look what she told Rachel D'Oro in the AP story. She said she was outraged that even after receiving this report Gov. Palin was still accepting donations via the Alaska Fund Trust. That right there gives you Chatman's motive in leaking the report. You are overthinking this.
RAM: motive does not give proof. There are many motives in this story.
sandra,
I realize that we need to use small words in speaking to you because you're brain is not functioning on all cylinders (hence, your belief in Trig Trutherism), but really that question/supposition is beneath even your limited grasp of logic.
RAM - Good catch on Chatham's answer to D'oro. Chatham had to see it in order to know about it.
Oh and as far as the Secretary, lawyers are responsible for what happens in their office. If the info is confidential they best not let the Secretary see it. My brother has worked confidential items and nobody was allowed to know what he was doing.
I think your right. The Palin camp is trying to bait Chatman into suing. I'm sure they would love to sue Chatman but it would look bad for Sarah to do so. The press would characterize any suit Sarah launches in the future against these anklebitters as "big bad Sarah beating up on these small little people". However, if Sarah is sued she can launch a vigorous defense through discovery. That would bring into discovery everyone who has collaborated with Chatman (Royal, all the Alaska lefty bloggers, etc.) as well as the press (D'Oro). In discovery everyone is under oath (subject to perjury) and all documents and records can be subject to subpoena (cell phone and land line calls, emails, the court can order annonymous bloggers to be identified, identification of those contributing to these bloggers through paypal accounts etc.). It could open up a real Pandora's box on the left.
If Chatman sues it would be interesting to see who would represent her - and who would be paying them. As for Sarah's costs, I'm sure there are a number of young conservative lawyers who would love to pitch in on a voluntary basis.
Hey guys, my question would be -- knowing nothing about legal defense fund law personally -- how is it actually spent?
What if Sarah raised $2 million for the fund, and there were only $1 million worth of legal bills?
Could she roll that over into her PAC? Would it go to the state to reimburse state costs? Would she have to return it, and who would get their money back? Would they pro-rate it?
And what's to prevent a dishonest law firm from jacking up their bills to access the funds?
Is it a perpetual fund that can only be used for legal bills?
I thought Cole's point about wanting it to be an "official" fund was important. Someone could set up a bogus defense fund, draw in contributors, and walk off with the money in a scam.
So, we know this whole ethics complaint is bogus, but it does raise some questions in my mind about the process.
Gosh I'm learning so much about our governement and how hard it actually must be to be an honest politician.
And look at all the waste in gov't. $500,000, if the state has to pay, could be so much better spent on schools and roads and fire fighters and cops.
Ridiculous.
Sandra/RAM - Chatham can sue the Governor and Kristan Cole for defaming her character. As I said but only if she wants to take the bait. Sarah and Kristan can defend themselves that means they can subpoena all Chatham's phone records, emails etc for their defense. The bait is on the hook for Chatham right there for the picking.
Chatman is in trouble. She knows she's in trouble. You can pretend all you want that it wasn't her. Ironically, your pretending implies that you realize it would have been wrong for her to leak the report. That's at least an admission that doing so would be illegal.
You anklebiters are such hypocrits and cowards. If Chatman hadn't been called out and confronted with the possibility of legal action, you would have had no problem with her leaking the report.
Real AK. Go back and re-read the report. Funds might influence the Gov. is exactly what Daniel says that makes the Fund unethical. He even states that Cole might benefit.
I never saw anything in the report about Trust Funds rules. If it was in there please let me know. Daniels just referred to taking of financial gains (money) and they could influence the elected official. I think the same thing applies to campaign funds.
Like I said in an earlier report. There are many things in a law suit that seem important that aren't. Palin is telling the truth. Signing a card is nothing. It is not setting up the fund, telling how and when to distribute funds (nothing was distributed).
You have to watch very carefully the way people are wording their comments. Just "one" little word and it takes a new meaning Like Chatman saying she never told the reporter. That may be true, but it doesn't mean she is not the leaker.
I am sure Sarah and Cole were both coached by their attorneys on what and how to say what they have to say. You may think you know something and you don't know the fine lines of it. Sarah probably told her attorney everything she knew about the Trust Fund and he determined she could truthfully say she was not involved in the set up or distribution of the Fund.
From the 14th to the 20th. is only 4 working days. Means very little to attorneys. I don't think you should believe lies are being told.
No way would Sarah or Cole risk that. This is too important. You are not thinking like a legal minded person is. You have no proof of that...you just are not listening or reading carefully what is being said.
Chatman won't sue. Gimme a break. She knows she leaked it. She doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. She's just hoping it will all go away.
And M03, the legal defense fund money can only be used for legal fees. Check the AFT's FAQ for more info.
RAM: An ad hominem cannot replace an answer. How do you know what Chatman knew? You can use big words.
The AK Personnel Board needs to investigate this. Call Daniel and Chatman to testify. Put them under oath.
As previously mentioned - a "reasonable person" was realize that Occam's Razor should apply as to who leaked the information.
Who had the most motivation to make Gov Palin look bad? A lawyer who is accountable to a board and his firm? Or a proven anklebiter and her coven of shrews?
Sandra - Tell Chatham to sue. Nobody is stopping her. Her character has been defamed if sahe did not leak the story. We on this page highly encourage her to sue the Governor. I think I would even pay set up a legal fund for her to sue the Governor. Just remember the defense cannot be denied any information for their defense.
Right on, PEC. Go on, Chatman. Please sue the governor! Do it! Defend your name if you weren't the leaker! Do it!
I don't think this is a personal board issue. More of an AG issue as a law has been broken.
Lack of proof has NEVER stopped the anklebiters from making false allegations - what the big deal if someone here alleges that Chatman is a lying POS?
I am making a straight forward deduction here. There is no way Daniel or the governor leaked the report. Who does that leave? Hello!
I hope Sarah sues Chatman. I am not so sure something hasn't been done already or is in the works. There will have to be something done to stop this petty s**t. Sarah knows that they can keep filing complaints for 2 years. Of course that would only apply to things she did while in office. But, it is a pain in the butt and an expense. When she has something "hands down" like knowing Chatman was the leaker, she should go for it.
I would venture to say some of the trolls know Chatman was the the leaker and they know who she leaked it to. Like I said, it is one thing to brag about doing something but when you are under oath and you lie...you can be in deep trouble. Attorneys and judges just know when you are not telling the truth by looking at you. And, you past performance tells them a lot. Chatman has bragged in the past about things.
sjk - Set up the legal fund for Chatman. We all will pitch in for her fund to sue the Governor. Just remember you cannot hide subpoenaed evidence from the defense. sjk/Sandra get with Celtic Diva we will help with the Chatman sue the Governor fund.
PEC: why would I want Chatman to sue? My question was how do we know the Personnel Board (or one of the members) didn't do the leaking? We may never know because a reporter cannot divulge sources.
If I were Chatman and I were telling the truth that I didn't leak anything, I would sue Palin.
Rusty: There is no way that anyone would ever ever think ill of the Gov. suing any of the ankle biters especially those that have filed the petty complaints. Not any reasonable person that is.
When a gov. works 3 years and her total salary for 3 years is half of her total legal bills caused by peety complaints plus the cost to the State. Guess who looks bad??? Not the Governor.
spammers
Ram or any of us don't have to prove anything to you ankle biters. We just use "common sense" and the proof is right before your eyes. LOOK...SEE ... IT??
MO3 - If you check the fund's agreement, item 10 (page 8) basically says that if the fund is terminated, outstanding funds will be distributed to a charity.
Not sure we'll reach the day that Ms. Palin no longer needs the fund, but it does have a 10 year expiration date.
http://www.thealaskafundtrust.com/site/downloads/alaska_fund_trust.pdf
Wow, now some of the supporters of these characters want proof? NOW THEY WANT PROOF?!
After believing all of the numerous frivolous ethics complaints, smears and slanders hurled at the Governor and her family, falling for every lie printed about her in the media without ever asking for proof from the MSM and their ethics-challenged buddies, they have the nerve to come onto this board and demand proof now that one of them may be in trouble?
Betty,
Does Alaska recognize the reporter shield privilege?
Knowing that there is a fund does not mean that Palin was involved in the fund. Signing thank you notes does not equate to actively participating in the fund. sheesh, if you're so broken hearted about it maybe you should ask for your money back.
Sandra - Sorry to rain on your parade BUT a court can subpoena computers, phone records etc from the media if a law is broken.
Actually if you read what Chatman said she did offer proof (as noted earlier) and Chatman has done in the past (probable cause more so than this loony lawyers probable cause). I really am not too worried. Any takers that the personal board rules with the Governor in this?
sjk please shut up and go away.
katiejane - Amen
Real Ak. I am sorry I still don't understand the lies you think Sarah and Cole made. Guess I am a slow learner.
RealAlaskan: If you look at the actual set up of the trust (not just the abbreviation on the website) you will see that the funds can be used for other than legal fees if the trustee (Cole) approves.
Wow. Diva is attempting to connect the misplaced dots with her giant disturbed crayon & has decided that Palin resigned because she knew that she was going to be found guilty of violating the ethics act if she used the money from the AFT and so she was like "lol if I quit I can use it" even though she can't use it for two years and and and... yeah. Her version makes even less sense than that.
Is it possible that she's realized how pathetic and obtuse her life has become and is now actually just trolling her own website ready to pull out the "LOL JUST KIDDING GUYS actually, you can just go home." Because I truly do not believe that any even semi-functioning person is capable of the level of dementia that has just been reached.
Look, people, it would be a great moral victory to have discovery in such a lawsuit, but we still come to the tricky question of how do you fund it, the issue was breached
in a different context, in a Civil Action. We thought the AFT was a sufficient solution to the problem,
but it's not if people have unlimited time to pursue these complaints. The board for a whole surfeit of reasons, will probably
dismiss this complaint
Can someone ban this sjk idiot. Hey SJK, If ObamaCare goes into effect, I hope your healthy enough to survive it. Stop obsessing about Sarah Palin, start obsessing about what Obama is doing to this country!
Sandra, trustees of trusts generally have extraordinary duties---BUT they also have extraordinary responsibilities as they are held under a fiduciary duty as outlined in the state code.
sandra, please enlighten us as to what other uses the funds can be used for. I had no idea you were now a legal expert.
Last night I couldn't have the report on the ADN and Andree's blog or whatever it is called was taken down. Just wondering if that had something to do with something.
sjk is banned. The demon's comments are deleted.
Begone, demon! The power of Christ compels you!
have=find
Sarah Palin can use my money to buy toilet paper if she wants to.
I do not care.
People -
RealAlaskan is a troll. S/he has come on here now, at least 3 separate times, playing the "oh I'm so disappointed in Sarah Palin. I was a supporter and now I am not" card... yet s/he keeps coming back.
S/he clearly knows about some thank you cards... unfortunately, s/he drew the wrong conclusion because the cards went out in February and March for donations to SarahPac. Sorry RealAlaskan, your gig is up. You lose.
ditto Rachael
Here's why I predict no lawsuit will occur:
Palin needed to get away from the small-ball Alaskan style d-bagging to promote her national/Alaskan initiatives.
Putting forward a lawsuit would only bring her back to this small-ball politics that she wanted to get away from and move on to a different stage.
Rachael said...
Wow. Diva is attempting to connect the misplaced dots with her giant disturbed crayon & has decided that Palin resigned because she knew that she was going to be found guilty of violating the ethics act if she used the money from the AFT...
===
Diva really has lost it completely. The Daniel report is dated July 14th. Palin resigned on July 3rd.
*face palm*
RAM,
Dates aren't real. Time, in fact, is not real.
RAM - Dern my threads with the Demon was going pretty good. Once they start changing the story you know the case is weak.
RealAk,
The first time I read Cole's statement, I did cringe a little because I internalized it as Kristen saying that the Governor didn't know anything about the Fund; from its creation to its progress to this issue.
So yes, while I didn't think she was lying, I thought that that particular statement would be trouble for Sarah, as this story moves forward.
However, I went back and reread it; it's carefully crafted and worded and now I can see that my initial comprehension was incorrect. Read this part again:
"I want to be clear on a point that has been misrepresented: The Governor is not and was not involved with the Trust. The Governor has never worked on or with the Trust. The Governor has not even accepted or requested one penny from the Trust or quite frankly anything of me. And I have never expected anything from her. Really it’s quite the contrary; as I, and many other caring folks across the country have only sought to help with this legal burden.
The first and only time I have spoken with the Governor about the Trust was yesterday to alert her that I was responding to this violation of the law and leak of preliminary and confidential materials from the complainant."
Reading it once, I think "hmmmm.... that's incorrect because she had to have known that the Trust was being created, as Greta's husband said they spoke about it.
Reading it again, all it says is she wasn't involved with nor did she work on the trust. All of that is extremely plausible. And yes, it's plausible that she and Kristen didn't speak about its progress; perhaps she got updates from other people who worked on the trust.
So, I learned that I need to get better at reading comprehension. :)
Kim Chatman is a Trig Troofer
http://twitter.com/kimchatman/status/2725459033
Diva is clueless and they are reaching for straws. Sarah never took money so she could not be found guilty. The worse was the money would have to be returned. Van Flein knows the Gov is his bread and butter. He could wait a year plus before getting paid. With Diva's logic there would have been no more cases.
btw @celticdiva is on twitter with @shannynmoore
RAM rocks!
RAM: I am certainly no legal expert, but the funds can be used for family members, etc. up to $13,000 a year for anything connected to the governor's duties. It doesn't have to be legal.
My field is nutrition, but I come here as a concerned citizen. You have obviously looked at my profile and know I am not an attorney. I am very good at reading, however.
People, seriously, can we all stop with this nonsense about Kristan lying. I have talked to Kristan, she is a wonderful human being and NOT a liar. The site was created to HELP Sarah, it was properly vetted and everyone said it was fine to run. Remember 1998, Bill Clinton had a defense fund where over TWO MILLION BUCKS were made. No one said ONE DAMN THING. And as far as Celtic Diva is concerned, I can give a rats behind what that hobbit has to say. To suggest that Sarah resigned because she was gonna be found guilty due to this defense fund is the most laughable thing I have ever heard in my entire life!! Come on, we are all smarter then that, if that is the reason why she resigned that is the poorest excuse of a reason I have ever heard. Wake up people, she was bleeding money, she couldn't do her job anymore without DNC members filing ethics complaints against her. I dare anyone to do your job while you have complaint after complaint made against you, you would resign too. Get a grip people, Sarah made it PERFECTLY CLEAR why she resigned, or does she need to bring out the sock puppets to explain herself
Guess what, sandra, we have an attorney as a contributor now. Liv, would you like to educate sandra or is it a hopeless cause.
juju:
I said the PRESS would characterize Sarah as beating up on the anklebiters - not reasonable people.
Liv Hoffman;
You are correct about trustees being given broad powers under trust law (in all states). I have been the trustee of two estate trust funds in the past as an executor (not in Alaska ) and as trustee you are given very broad powers to buy, sell and invest in assets. But it is conditional upon all actions being taken to preserve the value of the trust and to be in the best interests of the trust and its beneficiaries. The powers are broadly worded because it is impossible to anticipate all of the events and circumstances a trustee might encounter and have to take action on over the life of the trust. However, the trustee knows they can be sued for mis-administration, so trustees always document every action they take to be able to prove at a future date they were acting in the best interests of the trust and beneficiaries of the trust.
So the broad powers given the trustee of the Alaska Fund Trust are normal and consistent with trust law.
Regardless of who leaked this document, this is a serious case of media malpractice! A few simple facts:
1) This document is confidential. Nobody except those whom it was addressed to should have had access to it, meaning it should not have been published in the press.
2) The personnel board makes the final decision. The wording and misrepresentation of the AP's presentation of this implicates the Governor based upon the investigator's statement.
3) Even if the personnel board takes accepts the statement of the investigator, the Governor is not guilty of violating any ethics laws as she has not accepted the money.
Pointing fingers at who leaked the report is a separate story. The greater story is the fact that the press jumped on this story prior to the personnel board actual decision and willing referenced a confidential document. This AP story is the ultimate ethics complaint!
Although Ellen Goodman has been less than favorable to the Governor, she makes an interesting point when she says. "in journalism, there has always been a tension between getting it first and getting it right".
With Rachel D'oro, it seems there is no such tension, it's all about getting it first and nothing about getting it right.
Sandra - Sorry, you defintely are not a lawyer. No she cannot use for family members to the amount you gave. Read Alaska law. You are thinking of the gift law of the Fed Tax system. Totally different. If what you are saying was true then this loophole would be used by every politician like Obama all the time.
Sarah knows that they can keep filing complaints for 2 years. Of course that would only apply to things she did while in office.
****************
The statute I saw related to this said 2 years from DISCOVERY of violation, not 2 years afer leaving office. I could have read it wrong - or seen the wrong statute - but it could be a lot longer if I'm right.
Also, RealAlaskan if you're worried about the money not being spent, go back and think about who Sarah Palin is. If you ever believed in her character, you'd be able to accept that she didn't take the money when it started coming in because she was trying to be ethical. This complaint was filed in May. Accepting funds from AFT before the complaint was resolved would have been stupid. She was respecting the process. Let it go.
"1. There is no proof that Gov. Palin had any personal involvement in the establishment of the Trust or the collection of funds for the Trust while serving as Gov.
2. No funds have been distributed.
while the Gov. was serving as Gov.
3. This case was filed prior to any known violation of the ethic rules THEREFORE, the filing was untimely..result.. no harm..no foul."
The governor, of all people, has the responsibility to know the ethics rules - please - bad argument. And Palin clearly knew about the trust fund, as verified by her thank you notes to those who donated. Didn't some of you receive those thank you notes? In addition, there were numerous requests from Meg Stapleton, who serves as a spokesperson for Gov. Palin and SarahPac asking people NOT to donate to a fund someone set up in the lower 48, but to wait for the 'official' fund that was then linked from the SarahPac site. You may disagree that she violated any ethical boundary but these are not arguments that support your claims.
It is of interest that if you check the actual document on the fund linked from the Trust Fund site, not just the language on the site itself, you will see that the funds are not restricted to legal expenses, which is interesting since that has been its stated purpose.
Don't worry - I won't be back to argue. - but I am sure you can come up with more cogent argments in support of Governor Palin.
Real Alaskan and the rest, Cole told the ADN in April that Palin had no knowledge of the Trust and you can bet that one of the things the Trust's attys told everyone involved was to make sure that Palin kept 'hands off' until it was clear that the Fund was legal and ethical.
Obviously they were preparing for a scenario where they Trust was found to be in violation so that the money could be refunded and Palin could stay clear.
That's why she hasn't touched the money even though interest and penalties on the legal bills are, no doubt, adding up.
Can anyone prove that Palin approved the Fund or had any involvement? No.
Everyone keeps speaking of this "language" in the AFT documentation that states the money can be used for non-legal expenses. Please show us this wording. Give us the proof.
real alaska - Ask for your money back. There it is easy and you can sleep at tnight then.
PEC: I will go back and read it. Thank you for explaining how I got confused.
But I am still wondering how we know the Personnel Board is not the source of the leak.
As for the leaker, my bet is that Palin will resign this weekend as scheduled and then lawsuits will be filed against Chatman and Moore on Monday. Hell, they might even seek to get an injunction against them and McLeod to stop harrarassing and defaming Palin.
Daniel can be subpoened to testify that he had the only copy of his report other than Palin and Chatman. Once that happens, then the Judge can force Chatman to testify or be jailed for contempt.
John at 30 - Bingo. There could actually be even more after the 26th. Why would ADN take McCleod one of their favorites off their site? That is very weird. Something may be brewing.
Amy Jones,
Nowhere in her statement does it say the Governor did not know anything about the trust; it says she wasn't involved nor worked at or for the trust. I ask that you read it again, and really comprehend the text:
"I want to be clear on a point that has been misrepresented: The Governor is not and was not involved with the Trust. The Governor has never worked on or with the Trust. The Governor has not even accepted or requested one penny from the Trust or quite frankly anything of me. And I have never expected anything from her. Really it’s quite the contrary; as I, and many other caring folks across the country have only sought to help with this legal burden."
Pretty straight forward. Nowhere does she say "The Governor did not know anything about the trust". Find me where she states that, and I'll grant that you have a point. Too bad you're going to make a hit and run statement without acknowledging that on this particular point, you are incorrect.
sjk - By your actions we can tell Christ doesn't mean anything to you. Maybe he could help you with your bitterness.
sjk: "Christ doesnt mean ANYTHING TO ME, except a day off in December!"
Explains a lot, if you ask me.
O/T
i'm so happy that dispite all these hit piece & lies, there still a lot of blogs advetising ONLY the guv's PAC and AFT in their sites; Tammy bruce, Motivation truth, and another black conservative. hope other blogs will follow. =)
Hey sandra,
I'm a salesguy not a nutritionist, but I would reccomend that you eat more fish, as fish is brain food, and your posts reveal that you are famished.
The whole point of BANNING someone is making sure they can't get back in and start posting again. Please BAN this idiot sjk, it's not hard, just ban their IP address
Why don't these confidential reports have number codes on them indicating which report belongs to who? It would be so much easier to trace the leaker if they had recorded and put different codes on each report that was sent to the gov and the complainer.
I actually think it's Kim Chatman as well btw.
someone leaked it.
Chatman has shown past behavior that would lend very strong support to RAM's argument.
I'm convinced she's the one.
The board will publish a decision that will vindicate the Guv, and there is a good chance that the funds will still be usable, and not have to be transferred to a new fund.
This whole thing is nothing but another in a long line of panic moves by the anklebiters to try to attack the Guv while Obama is struggling as POTUS. There is a thread that probably leads back to Rahm and Axel, but there are probably several links in the chain so it will be difficult to ultimately prove that.
However, it is reasonable to believe that that is what is happening based on the past behavior of Obama, Axelrod, Rahm, the Alaska Dem Party, bloggers, and others that are part of that machine.
Let's face it, the Guv is THE greatest force threatening a second Obama term.
If I were them, Piper would be doing juvenile time for selling watered down lemonade and playing hookie.
Those Palin kids, such troublemakers.
Oh, the scandal. :(
Sarah Palin is quite possibly the cleanest governor this country has seen in 50 years.
She keeps it up and she'll get the nickname: Mrs. Clean
Hey, I know. Maybe no one leaked the report. Rachel D'Oro broke into Daniel's office and stole it.
Could the AFT release the funds tomorrow to buy up every kegger in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska and host one hell of a picnic in Fairbanks?
Sounds like a lot of people in Alaska will need some libations come Sunday. They could also use it as a way to weed out the TrigTroothers and AnkleBiters who will be there. The TT's and AB's will be the ones lined up 3,4,5 times for the free beer.
RealAKn said:
"There is no denying Sarah was involved in setting up the Fund Trust. Her name is all over it and she gave permission and all."
Um. Having her name on it does not mean she was involved in setting it up. Seriously, do you think candidates are involved in those "Citizens for Bill Clinton" organizations? Of couirse not, bc it's illegal if they are. She deliberately stayed out of creating the fund because it would be illegal for her to be involved. Come on now, use your head.
30 elected officials in NJ got carted off in handcuffs today by the FBI after a two-year investigation by the FBI/IRS.
This w/end the MSM will still be worried about a possible ethics violation by Alaska's governor.
PEC and RAM: I was wrong about the $13,000. That does have to do with the donations. However, in the memorandum on the AFT document (linked by this site) number 5. indicates that the funds can be used for other than legal expenses. There is nothing worng with that because they couldn't forsee all the possible problems in the future.
DanO: I don't know if fish is necessarily good for the brain, but Alaskan salmon is great for the circulatory system.
"The power of Christ compels you!"
Make sure you don't say that anywhere near O. It would make his head "spin". RAM On Fire!
"The governor, of all people, has the responsibility to know the ethics rules - please - bad argument."
Hey Amy, what about a president's obligation to know what's in a Health Care bill (and a Stimulus bill and a Cap and Trade/Crash and Burn bill, etc.) that he's going to shove down our throats unseen?? I think he got his own Sec of Defenses name wrong too--that "Bill" Gates guy...how about Barney Frank's obligation to know what's going on in his own basement with male interns? (still want to go here?).
The Guv's so ethical that she set up this fund when she could have let the people of Alaska pay. Others would have considered it chump change.
Now take what's left of your dignity and get out of here! Just kidding Amy....sort of.
This is a non sequiter. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a politician setting up a legal defense fund. It happens all the time. I will NOT engage in this stupid argument. Even if Sarah Palin was talking to Kristan Cole about it 24/7, it would not make a damn difference. There is nothing wrong with having a legal defense fund. The governor did nothing wrong. Read the report. These people are changing the topic because I destroyed their false argument that Sarah Palin was found to have "violated" the Ethics Act.
Pathetic.
RAM said at 5:24 pm: "Hey, I know. Maybe no one leaked the report. Rachel D'Oro broke into Daniel's office and stole it."
BINGO! :>
Yes, Chatman is the obvious suspect. But is she that stupid to leak it? Because she must know she would be everyone's #1 suspect.
I had to be gone for an hour or so...wow...more trolls. They are sounding more desperate then when I left.
Yep, I will bet you Sarah will file a law suit on Monday. She is not going to risk having this kind of petty stuff go on and on without trying to stop it. They will request e-mails, computers, etc. all kind of accounts from lots of people. And, there will probably be more people involved then what we all know of now.
You know the ankle biters have been e-mailing each other.
The major problem with the ankle biters and their lack of understanding of statements made by Palin and Coale is that their attorneys coached them on what to say based on the facts. You trolls are just too use to hearing all the garbage you hear in your little hate blogs...you have lost touch with the real world and reality.
RAM, good job. It amazes me that people are spending so much time on this thread overanalyzing poor Kristen's statement and also how this leak came about.
Wow...people need to take a valium or something. I think Sarah's lawyer has it under control. There isn't a lawyer in the country who thinks she did anything wrong unless they are being paid by the DNC and then they are lying.
On a slightly different topic, I just received a letter from the FCC regarding my complaint about Letterman. They will investigate my complaint and determine if obscenity, indecency or profanity laws were violated. If it appears a violation has occured, the Enforcement Bureau will start an investigation.
So, you see, the wheels of justice turn slowly....very slowly, just like Obamacare. By the time they determine you have had a heart attack you may be dead in which case they will have saved a lot of money. Do they pay for funerals?
Hey Trolls: Have you ever heard of the Pres. and high officials having to put their stocks, bonds, etc. in a TRUST fund after they are elected.
That doesn't mean they don't know anything about the TRUST or who is running it. It just means they can't get to it, can't use it, and can't tell the Trust person what to do. You are grasping at straws...Palin has out smarted you all again.
I think I might...just might...be seeing an iceberg coming....hmmmmmm
Is it possible to ban the troll RealAlaskan ?
Wow...I wonder if these trolls know how stupid they sound. None of them have probably been involved in a law suit or had to hire an attorney for anything. They are grasping at straws and I am loving it.
I don't care what they are saying on their blogs today, tomorrow or when ever. But, I bet you there are lots of them trying to remember everything they ever said about Gov. Palin and hoping they are not going to be a part of any law suit.
juju: what does being involved in a law suit have to do with questioning? Are you implying that we should be sued for asking questions?
Patty Hewes: Codes
This has been used in the past by lawyers preparing very sensitive confidential documents going to only two or three parties where leaking might be anticipated. But the leaker simply "white outs" the codes on the photocopy they leak.
However, I have heard that some lawyers have been more subtle. If a confidential document is only being provided to three parties for example, what the lawyer will do is prepare three separate Word Documents of the report for each of the parties. Deliberate typos are then inserted into the body of the text on each page. For example, in the report going to party A a word is deliberately mispelled in the fourth line of each page. For the report going to party B a misplaced coma is placed in the sixth line of each page, and so on. That way when a copy of the leaked report is obtained it can be ascertained which party leaked the report. The code is so subtle and imbedded no one would know about it except the lawyer who prepared the document.
The lawyer preparing the report then has a witness swear an affidavit that they have seen and verified the code that has been implanted into each of the reports sent to the different parties. The lawyer will often inform the parties that a code has been implanted in the text, to prevent them from even thinking about leaking the document.
I wonder if Daniel might have done this knowing that the report might be leaked - and he wanted to protect himself. If this is the case, all that has to be done is require D"Oro to surrender the photocopied report she was given.
Clearly your understanding of involvement and Kristan Cole's understanding of involvement are different. Perhaps when Kristan told y'all that the governor was setting up a fund she MEANT that Governor Palin had finally relented and decided she needed help dealing with the bills. Knowing being involved would appear improper she acknowledged that something was needed and let it go at that. After all, a lifelong friend was to be the trustee. If this scenario is the reality, the Ms. Cole didn't lie in her press release. She also didn't lie to you. Just a thought.
is it true that Rep. Young has defense fund too?
These allegations concerning the "thank-you" cards are complete fabrications. I received a card in May, 2009 after I donated to SarahPac and before (I say again, before) I donated to the AFT.
Of course Gov. Palin knew about the AFT; so what? How is that an ethics violation? Read the trust document: she has no control over the funds. Even that idiot Daniel says there is no ethics violation unless and until the trust pays one of her bills. Even that white-shoe hack didn't claim that her knowing about the trust or even being involved with its creation was unethical.
Full disclosure. I have been a practicing attorney for many years. I am a civil litigator in federal court, trial and appellate. The reason I am so hard on QC Daniel is because his report to the personnel board is the worst piece of legal reasoning I have seen in many a year. It reads like a failed 1st year attempt to get on the law review. The board should demand their money back. First rule of statutory construction is that a stature cannot be construed to create an absurdity. And that is exactly what he does. I, for one, would love to see him try to make his ludicrious arguments to a court.
On another note. I am sick and tired of people who post on here claiming to have some special connection to Gov. Palin and then getting all upity when someone else refutes their arguments or accusations. I am tired of their "inside baseball" critisims of every dad gum thing connected to the Gov. or Alaska. They are all over RedState and they are insufferable. Even if these people actually do live in Alaska, that does not give them some kind of special immunity.
Notice how they suddenly appeared after Trustee Cole issued her statement, now claiming to have some special connection to her too. What hooey.
I don't know Gov. Palin and she doesn't know me. I don't even know what Trustee Cole looks like. But, I do know how to read a statute and I do know how to read a trust document and I know a lying liberal media gossip monger when I see one.
Apologize for the length
Moon816, yes Young has a legal fund - but that is different, like Clinton, since he holds federal office,
And Real Alaskan has a very thin point .... Daniel held that the Trust Fund _might_ violate Alaska law if Palin was involved with it since, by extension, folks donating to the Fund were donating to her. That means, according to Daniel, that Palin was using her position to enrich herself since no one would donate to John Smith, private person, who had a stack of legal bills.
Daniel's position is far too narrow - if you take that view, then no politician could accept donations or gifts of any kind.
I am not an attorney but my take is that if Palin is not directly soliciting money for the Fund _as Governor_ and if the Fund then makes a lump sum gift/donation to her, as long as she reports it, she's legally and ethically in the clear.
Just what is the penalty for leaking?
Fine?
Jailtime?
I mean some of the trolls posting here might be called into court and be questioned or have to answer questions presented by Palin's attorney. I have been there, done that, and it isn't fun. You have to watch every word you say and answer every question truthfully. The attorneys know how to re-word the same question and can trip you up if you aren't careful. And, then they read the transcript back to you and what you said an hour ago you might not be saying an hour later.
Also, I would bet anyone if Palin does sue Chatman and then she gets info that she has been talking to others, she will not be the only one called into court and someone is going to blow the whistle on who leaked before they have to hire an attorney themselves and spend hours in court and lots of money.
Palin will be free of State business and can have a trust fund and collect millions of dollars to pay her attorney, so time and money will mean nothing to her...justice is what she wants.
Vadm, good on ya!
juju: It seems that the best thing to do is to tell the truth and not answer more than the question put to you. This should not create any great stress. However, it may take time away from other things you would prefer to do.
If you tell the truth, you don't have to tax your memory.
Jeez, RealAlaskan...
Please look up the definition of "involved". There are many meanings to the word, but it seems to me that Cole was saying that Palin was not "involved" in the operation of the fund. P. E. R. I. O. D.
Nit-pick it to death, but she wasn't lying.
Vadm:
I'm not an attorney, but I had the same questions regarding Daniel. My concern is not so much the leak, but how his report tries to appear that he is being fair to Palin, while skewering her, at the same time.
I still think it was about finding something that would show an impropriety by Palin. Out of all the characters in this little show, he's the one I have the most doubt about.
I still say it should be construed as a conflict of interest considering the firm he worked for, and the direct connection to the DNC & Obama.
Our old pal at Mudflats has an analysis of who knew when and even she can't connect Palin to the Fund.
http://www.themudflats.net/2009/07/22/alaska-fund-trust-who-knew/
Lotsa 'must haves' and 'this looks funny' but no proof.
There isn't any.
Don't these folks think at all? Palin needed help paying legal bills due to ethics complaints........so she was going to put herself in the position of being liable for even more ethics charges when she knew people were looking up her nose with a microscope?
We have heard that the legal expenses have been taken care of. The best thing to do would be to refund the money and move on with her new life. Sarah doesn't need this garbage hanging around.
Randy Evans, says
As to the present set of allegations, Evans says b.s.
This is the gold standard in legal defense funds. It parallels the funds created by John Kerry, Dick Gephardt, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Senator Ted Stevens who's from Alaska. It meets every provision for both the IRS, federal election laws and the laws of the state of Alaska."
The seven key words "the laws of the state of Alaska"
RAM states something as a fact.
But RAM fails to state any proof. There ia no link. There is no proof. There is only a bald assertion.
RAM said:
"Kim Chatman broke the law by leaking this report to the press."
and
"Chatman broke the law"
"Chatman is claiming that she didn’t leak it, but there is no one else who could have. It wasn’t the governor or Daniel."
RAM does not provide proof, or even evidence. Why?
....
RAM said:
"These are the facts. ..."
Are they?
RAM, do you have any proof, any evidence, any basis at all?
I note that none of the above was stated as an opinion. It is stated as fact.
Vadm Collingwood said,
"Full disclosure. I have been a practicing attorney for many years. I am a civil litigator in federal court, trial and appellate. The reason I am so hard on QC Daniel is because his report to the personnel board is the worst piece of legal reasoning I have seen in many a year. It reads like a failed 1st year attempt to get on the law review. The board should demand their money back. First rule of statutory construction is that a stature cannot be construed to create an absurdity. And that is exactly what he does. I, for one, would love to see him try to make his ludicrious arguments to a court."
Nicely said
Vadm, that was a superb smackdown. Hat's off to ya', sir!
I was wondering how Daniel is feeling now that his report is being peer-reviewed. Something tells me that it will never end up in the Law finder.
First you need to get it though your head that Ram doesn't need to prove anything to you. She probably knows things that none of us know. Can you prove that she isn't
Guess who Celtic Diva's attorney is::
None other then Mr. Daniel.
This just keeps getting better.
RAM seems to admit that she did not know that her assertions of "fact" were true.
From RAM on this thread:
R. A. Mansour said...
Chatman is the leaker. Plain and simple. She either passed it to D'Oro herself or gave it to someone else to give to D'Oro. Either way, Chatman broke the law by passing along confidential information.
July 23, 2009 3:19 PM
R. A. Mansour said...
Betty, No way Daniel would have leaked it or anyone in his firm. No one would risk being disbarred. It was Chatman. She was interviewed. She has a history of leaking.
July 23, 2009 3:25 PM
R. A. Mansour said...
The leaker was Chatman. She is the one who was quoted in the D'Oro story. Daniel could be disbarred for leaking that document. Kristan Cole didn't have a copy of it. The only people with copies of it were the governor, Daniel, and Chatman. The Personnel Board certainly didn't leak it. Chatman did. She has broken confidentiality in the past and flaunted the fact that nothing will happen to her in doing so. Well, I hope they are exploring all legal options now. I think someone should finally throw the book at her.
July 23, 2009 3:28 PM
sandra said...
RAM: how do you know Chatman had a copy of this report? It was not addressed to her.
July 23, 2009 3:35 PM
R. A. Mansour said...
Betty, Remember Occam's Razor - the answer is almost always the simplest explanation. Chatman leaked it. Look what she told Rachel D'Oro in the AP story. She said she was outraged that even after receiving this report Gov. Palin was still accepting donations via the Alaska Fund Trust. That right there gives you Chatman's motive in leaking the report. You are overthinking this.
July 23, 2009 3:37 PM
R. A. Mansour said...
Right on, PEC. Go on, Chatman. Please sue the governor! Do it! Defend your name if you weren't the leaker! Do it!
July 23, 2009 3:59 PM
R. A. Mansour said...
I am making a straight forward deduction here. There is no way Daniel or the governor leaked the report. Who does that leave? Hello!
July 23, 2009 4:02 PM
A:
If RAM is wrong, then let Chatman sue the Gubbernor for defamation!
As a matter of fact, doesn't Diva have some of that Six Grand left over she was going to use to pry into Sarah's yahoo mails? Diva can help out!
Discovery, baby! Discovery!
Real Alaskan -
Here is my viewpoint. I don't think Kristen is saying that Sarah had no knowledge at all about the trust. I think she is saying that the internals and details were not given to Sarah.
Here is my thinking:
John Coale - Sarah you should set up a legal fund to take care of all this frivilous $%@%.
Sarah - can I do that? Is it legal and ethical?
John Coale - yes, Ted Stevens has one and almost all politicians in Washington have one. They are legal and can help.
Sarah - It would certainly help the citizens of Alaska not to have to pay for these ridiculous partisan attacks. I will not bill the state.
John Coale - I know the very best attorneys who handle this stuff all the time and they will take care of it. I like your friend Kristin, she is smart and trustworthy. Would it be ok to ask if she would serve as trustee? Trustee is an important job and a poor one could hurt your image. I trust Kristin to understand this.
Sarah - Yes, just make sure that every I is dotted and T is crossed. I do not want this to cause any problems and I don't want to violate any laws. I want the Department of Law to approve it and vett it. As for Kristin, I trust her and can leave it in her hands to handle.
Kristin - I will accept the position. Sarah don't worry about a thing. It is best that you stay completely out of it and I will make sure everything is perfect. I am honored to do this for you.
Sarah - I trust you thanks. I agree that I won't be involved at all and will leave it to you to handle it but if this fund it set up I want to make sure that people are thanked for their generous and kind donations.
Kristin - Of course, that is appropriate etiquette. You have enough to worry and I want to do this to help you.
Later some time - I can't go into details but the trust is up and running and everything is proper.
Conversation done.
Obviously I am not there but I can completely see this as a likely scenario.
I really think Real Alaskan that you obviously want to read something sinister into the situation because I think you are grasping at straws.
If I am the honored guest at a party I a may know that it is happening, i will know the date and type of dress. Someone may even ask me my favorite colors and I might be excited and pleased to have a party in my honor. However, that doesn't mean that I planned it, did set up/clean up, cooked, decorated, paid, or knew anything about the intricacies of the party.
I think you are reaching because you want to believe something bad or have a grudge.
section9 said...
A:
If RAM is wrong, then let Chatman sue the Gubbernor for defamation!
July 23, 2009 7:41 PM
No. It isn't about "wrong" or suing a third party.
If RAM's statements are false, the cause of action is for defamation and the defendant is RAM.
RAM said it. RAM published it. RAM is responsible for it.
A...
Weren't you banned a little while ago?
This stuff is so noxious. The Indian newspaper here had a big photo of Sarah and a small paragraph stating that she violated ethics act by accepting donations. Just that. Not even a story. of course, there won't be a retraction or anything. See the damage this is doing.
Juju: I think you are mistaken. Daniel was the investigator in the complaint about the Arctic Cat jacket. I don't think he would also have been her attorney.
"A",
Here's a statement of fact for you: You're an idiot.
sandra,
Go to the top thread; juju explains it there. Here is what juju found on Celtic Diva's blog:
"The reason I'm so sure of this is I have the emails between my investigator and Van Flein for my own (Arctic Cat) complaint, as well as the emails my investigator sent me. There is a constant dialogue that goes on, giving the Governor every opportunity to protect herself. I know this because of my experience with my investigator who, by the way, was Tom Daniel."
NOW IS THAT PROOF OR WHAT...THIS IS SICK..IT IS VERY STRANG...
Diva says that the investigator is the actual person that makes a determination with regards to Sarah violating the ethics rules.
And she indicates the Personnel Board just rubber stamps what he says.
Why would she have the e-mails between Van Flein & Daniel? Something is VERY wrong there.
Yogi41:
That was what I read about the relationship of Diva and Daniel. That does not say that Daniel was Diva's attorney. Thank you for copying the original.
A:
As you point out RAM has quite clearly and unequivocaly stated that she believes Chatman leaked the report. What is your problem with this? She doesn't have to prove anything to you. You are not a party to this. If its not true then Chatman has every right to sue RAM for defamation. Now move on to something else.
CD states that he was her "investigator" during the Arctic Cat jacket. She also in his blog states that these titles are interchageable.
Here is more that I copied. I have the rest in my word perfect. It is too long for here
Her response? She sat on it...and sat on it...and sat on it...for a week. I believe she had every intention to continue to sit on it until after Sunday. And then, I STILL believe she has EVERY INTENTION to start spending that money AS SOON AS she steps down, even though it will be considered a violation for up to two years, according to the Act.
Finally, let's put that "ethical Sarah" fantasy to bed right now. They (Palin, Van Flein, Cole, Stapleton) are claiming that of THEIR OWN ACCORD, they decided not to spend a dime of that money.
Bullshit...
Investigator, attorney, these titles seem to be inter-changeable. Daniel was investigating for Diva in the Jacket complaint. Investigators with law degrees don't work for free....do they???
Rusty said...
A:
"As you point out RAM has quite clearly and unequivocaly stated that she believes Chatman leaked the report."
No. Reread RAM's post. RAM stated something was a fact. There is a difference between "I believe X" and "X is true."
And, statements of opinion are not defamation. False statements of "fact" can be.
Opinions should be identified as opinions. Facts should be supported.
The post by RAM contained unsupported statements claimed to be facts. If these are facts, they should be supported with links. They weren't.
The smell of this is about to make me hurl! Something is very wrong with this Daniel guy.
Rusty: You may be right..but, she doesn't have to prove it to you or to me.
A said...
The post by RAM contained unsupported statements claimed to be facts. If these are facts, they should be supported with links. They weren't.
Welcome to the internet.
Damn... you made your point. Let it go.
So Daniel decides whether Sarah is guilty or not but my god, he is from PERKINS COIE! How did Sarah end up in such a vicious trap. Who CHOSE Daniel and appointed him?
**Brian Davidson, July 23, 2009 8:28 PM
A said...
The post by RAM contained unsupported statements claimed to be facts. If these are facts, they should be supported with links. They weren't.
Welcome to the internet.
Damn... you made your point. Let it go.***
No he didn't. RAM stated facts, and drew logical (and probably correct) conclusions. A is incorrectly implying RAM stated logical conclusions as facts.
He's suffering from blonde moments. Maybe he/she is Ms Moore?
FYI:
Mr. Daniel is the same investigator who reviewed the Artic Cat complaint.
Catherine: Thank you. No one seems to listen to me. He would not be Diva's attorney in this matter. Maybe previously, but not here.
People bring up weird comments and disappear. They should apologize or hang in to explain.
Maybe this is an alternate universe.
Again, no one said Chatman leaked to the media. She leaked to SOMEONE who leaked to the media.
No, BettyJo has rightly urged more caution here.
I've been a Palin supporter for over 16 months, and am on the "Palin for VP" team. In other words, I'm NO troll here, so keep calm about what I'm writing:
I love it that SO many bloggers here are incredibly supportive of Gov. Palin. And I find it positively atrocious how other people (who are trolls) viciously attack Gov. Palin without reason, out of pure jealousy or lust for power.
RAM correctly noted that the AP committed media malpractice by jumping to conclusions about the merely-preliminary report written by Thomas Daniel about Gov. Palin.
But RAM ruined her own point by committing a similar error. Out of laudable loyalty for Gov. Palin, RAM has ALSO inadvertently jumped to conclusions, by identifying WITHOUT CONCRETE EVIDENCE the leaker of Daniel's report as Kim Chatman.
Even if previous threats and current circumstantial evidence point to Ms. Chatman, this evidence remains just that: circumstantial.
The fact is that any number of staff members of the several offices involved could have leaked the report to the press (AP).
RAM's main point----that journalistic malfeasance occurred----was rather ruined by her own bias, revealed in this particular article. Other RAM articles have been spot on, but this one is deficient in this regard.
RAM also inadvertently abuses the principle, Ockham's Razor; it's commonly misunderstood in this manner, btw.
Typically scientists and philosophers utilize this principle----but it is inappropriate in the extreme to apply this principle to assessing circumstantial evidence in criminal cases!
Read at http://math.ucr.
edu/home/baez/physics/
General/occam.html. ---
"Occam argued FOR empiricism [ie. relying on experiment and observation, or in this situation, acquiring solid evidence], not against it" ---
and this principle is used "to separate theories that would predict the SAME result for all experiments."
[caps are mine]
See? Using Ockham's Razor is utterly inappropriate as a principle to determine which possible party to a crime is guilty.
Okay, Palinistas!?
Now, back we go to helping the search for hard evidence concerning who are the truly-guilty parties in the leaking of this report----and sending their rears to jail!
(And RAM: I'm completely with you in supporting Gov. Palin, and I love your articles. This one just had a big issue.)
This discussion about Ram's article touches on a point I made the other nite.
Sometimes we're guilty of doing exactly what we accuse others of doing. And it happens very easily and naturally.
I love Sarah to death, but she publicly accused Chatman of leaking (Guv posted it on Twitter).
Well, that is exactly what happened to Sarah. Accusations were published about her before there was due process.
Sarah is not under mandate to keep quiet about her suspicions but prudence might suggest that she condemn the act of leaking without identify the leaker.
Otherwise, she's rushing to judgment -- the very thing that has been done to her.
Just trying to call it as I see it.
p.s. Obama rushed to judgment last nite and it was very unbecoming as well.
Post a Comment