The vast majority of these ethics complaints were brought by a couple of people.
Kim Chatman, the one bringing what we would hope is this final complaint and a signed party to others, is married to a minority and was pissed off that Palin didn't publicly recognize "Juneteenth" during some prior year when she was Governor. I did not know what Juneteenth was and had to look it up. It is a celebration of the end of slavery. I thought that was Kwaanza, but it appears I was wrong. I hope Kim Chatman does not sue me or file spurious presumption of guilt ethics complaints against me just because I don't care to see yet another holiday on the calendar. It is celebrated for a day, a week or a month! Yay! More vacation days!
How about Andree McLeod - the self-described community activist (where have I heard those words before?) and one-time Palin ally (at least in bringing down another Alaska politician who actually was found to be corrupt) who is responsible for six of the 20 or so ethics complaints filed against Palin? The "falafal lady," generally held to be somewhat of a loony-tune, but oh-so-useful in being encouraged by Democrat lawyers to file away on a wide variety of spurious claims that have all been found without any basis in fact or law, had a personal rift with Palin in 2006, when Palin became Governor and McLeod was denied a job with the administration. Her modus operandi, in violation of Alaska State law, was to file these supposed to be kept confidential ethics complaints and then immediately leak them to the press for her own personal moments in the spotlight. To give you an idea of where this solidly dense citizen's brain tumbles, she was vehement in filing official complaints that female state employees were wearing too tight clothing and were emphasizing the size of their breasts. It was a generic complaint, not naming Palin at all, but could there have been some personal jealousy of Palin there as well? :awe:
Among the expensive nuisance suits that LL believes were indicative of Palin's wide spread malfeasance and abuse of office was that Palin wore a jacket with the logo of her husband's Iron Dog sled race sponsor. That she was bribed with chocolates and a kid's hockey stick at a dinner speech she gave. That she held a fish in a photo of the state fishing competition pamphlet. That she was interviewed by a national press reporter in her state office. That she responded to reporters' questions in the lobby of her office.
All very serious, very damaging accusations if you happen to be a left wing Democrat loon or a political operative. Of course, all were dismissed except by the loons who never could understand how crazy the presented cases were and much preferred to go with the spin. As LL does here.
Of course, defending against even spurious and unfounded claims costs money. Palin may have faced half a million in personal costs, but she was known and loved and many wanted to contribute to her defense. But she was not the only victim. Her staff, too, were named parties and they faced personal bankruptcy at the hands of these loons.
Having ONE WORD, "official," on a web site (the actual name of the legal defense trust did not have that word) is not the attorneys fault unless you believe that every aspect of your life and activities and the activities of your supporters needs to be vetted by the top attorneys in the country. I would blame the web designer that put in an extra word there. Oh yeah, I'm talking to you, you Linux lovin', cascading sheet stylin', Flashy, C+++++++ political hacks, you know who you are! But, oh yeah, it's Sarah, baby, keep paying those attorneys for protection from the loons, hon. 2012 is your year to party like it's 1999!
Ahem!
The use of the word "official" was to distinguish it as Palin's only legally vetted legal defense fund amidst dozens of others that sprung up without her approval or knowledge. The complaint was that it was deliberately meant to imply it was a State fund deriving from her office. Of course, nothing else in the site gave any indication it was a government trust, but, hey, that is why there was no finding of intended fault. Despite LL's insistence that there is a smokin' gun. Or at least maybe, pretty please, just this one time, that there is a fire, for all the smoke, even if it turns out that the smoke itself is nothing but hot air.
I do believe so.
Hey, if Palin cannot be imprisoned for eating a chocolate covered cherry at a speech, then why should Obama and Blago not get a pass for trying to suborn and corrupt the offices of the Governor of Illinois, the U.S. Senate and the Presidency of the United States? :awe:
Drizzle drivel make dizzy! OW!
Facebook
Twitter