So, because she’s a public figure, Sarah Palin can’t raise money to defend herself against frivolous ethics charges filed against her because she’s a public figure?
As yet another piece of evidence to show just how biased the MSM have become against outgoing Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, take a look at the first sentence of an article which Yahoo! featured earlier in the day as one of its news headlines, Investigator rules against Palin in ethics probe:*
An independent investigator has found evidence that Gov. Sarah Palin may have violated ethics laws by trading on her position in seeking money for legal fees, in the latest legal distraction for the former vice presidential candidate as she prepares to leave office this week.
Emphasis added. “May have”? So, they lead with an article where there’s just speculation. Wonder if Yahoo! ever ran an article focusing on the attempt of that good woman’s adversaries to create legal distractions for her by filing frivolous ethics complaints–and her need to retain lawyers (who don’t come cheap) to defend herself. You know, offering a headline which was sympathetic to the Governor.
When AP reporter Rachel D’Oro writes that “most of” the ethics complaints “have been dismissed,” she doesn’t point out that this is the only one which might possibly stick.**
So, here’s the nub of the latest compliant which “may have” merit: Kim Chatman is upset that Palin was misusing “her official position” to accept gifts for a legal defense fund to fight the frivolous complaints. While it’s okay to file ethics complaints about her supposed misdeeds, it may not be okay for Palin to raise money to clear her name:
An ordinary citizen facing legal charges is not likely to be able to generate donations to a legal defense fund, [investigator Thomas Daniel] wrote. “In contrast, Governor Palin is able to generate donations because of the fact that she is a public official and a public figure. Were it not for the fact that she is governor and a national political figure, it is unlikely that many citizens would donate money to her legal defense fund.”
And were it not for the fact that she is a national pubic figure, it is unlikely that many citizens would file frivolous ethics complaints against her.
The AP didn’t tell us that Mrs. Chatman is a busybody obsessed with complaining about Palin.
So, once again, we have the media making much of a (at most) minor indiscretion. While the headline makes it appear Palin is guilty of some major ethical lapse, the story at least does provide some balance. Maybe it was because of that balance that Yahoo! decided to remove it from its home page:
John Coale, a Washington lawyer who helped set up the [Alaska Fund Trust], called the probable cause finding “crazy,” adding that if upheld, it would mean that no governor could ever defend themselves against frivolous ethics complaints.
“If this complaint is true, there’s no way to defend yourself” as governor, Coale said. “Anybody can keep filing ethics complaints and drive someone out of office even if you’re a nut.”
Coale said that unlike other states, Alaska’s governor has no legal counsel’s office to defend the governor from allegations brought against the governor in her official capacity.
*In the past such headlines have also included stories about her ex-son-in-law-to-be, causing me to wonder if Yahoo! had ever featured stories about the ex-in-laws (or ex-potential in-laws of an other political candidate).
**UPDATE: I wonder if Yahoo! ever featured stories each time ethics charges against Governor Palin were dismissed.
14 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
I think it is in part that those on the Left do not have to defend themselves because they are never wrong, guilty or held to normal standards while those on the Right are not allowed to defend themselves according to the fair-minded elites of our country.
Comment by Not Always Right — July 21, 2009 @ 9:54 pm - July 21, 2009
The title of this piece is a perfect example of the irony and paradox that is leftism. They truly are their own worst enemy.
Comment by Moogie — July 21, 2009 @ 10:15 pm - July 21, 2009
Isn’t this the same fund that Palin sought and received approval from Alaska’s Dept. of Law to make sure that everything was law abiding.
So if the Dept. of Law approved this how is it against ethics? It would seem that she was conscientious in ethics by seeking approval first.
Besides, this is just one person’s opinion. It is not a ruling or an official finding. This report goes to the personnel board for consideration only. Palin’s attorney can rebut the report with law and information. Then the personnel board makes a ruling.
Plus, this Daniel guy works for a law firm that deep democrat ties and has represented Obama. I would call that a conflict of interest!
Comment by Firelight — July 21, 2009 @ 10:22 pm - July 21, 2009
The press put so much time and effort into smearing Sarah Palin they just plum don’t have time to look into Barack Obama firing an Inspector General to protect his cronies or the evidence that Obama’s “science czar” is a genocidal loon.
Comment by V the K — July 21, 2009 @ 10:55 pm - July 21, 2009
#3
And what about Rahm’s brother who thinks age discrimination is o.k.?
Wait, didn’t Clinton have an ongoing legal defense fund for 8 years? Don’t tell me neither of them didn’t use their position to personally “enrich” themselves.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 22, 2009 @ 12:11 am - July 22, 2009
Palin’s twitter said that the report is incomplete and not the final report. In essence the Associate Press jumped the gun to get a story out about the guv. that they can present in the most negative light possible. The original post is right. How ridiculous is it that a person gets assaulted because they are a public figure, but they is ridiculed for setting up a defense fund whose contributors contribute because they are supporting a public figure. The unhinged Dems have no conscience and deserve a fate worse than death – whatever that is, for harassing this fine woman.
Comment by Jayne — July 22, 2009 @ 12:18 am - July 22, 2009
TGC you beat me to it.
The difference is the Clintons are democrats.
Comment by Leah — July 22, 2009 @ 1:32 am - July 22, 2009
Over at Conservatives for Palin, the investigator is quoted as saying that the usual formal hearing should not be necessary as neither Sarah nor her lawyers have accessed any of the money. And he has recommended that she file with the state for reimbursement of all the legal expenses for the complaints that have been settled in her favor.
Comment by Bill — July 22, 2009 @ 8:35 am - July 22, 2009
Well the difference is that the state law in Alaska was never meant to handle this kind of ethics abuse. Apparently Gov Palin can request the state to reimburse her, but the law doesn’t account for the high road. Her Twitter indicates they’re still trying to confirm that the LDF is possible.
My personal thing is, you’re telling me I can’t spend my money how I want (to defend Gov Palin)
Comment by The_Livewire — July 22, 2009 @ 8:56 am - July 22, 2009
I just read the PDF. It’s a catch 22, especially in this lawyer’s over-broad interpretation. Palin’s attorneys should have an easy enough time with this. The main reason for this law, or any other law of this nature, is to prevent under-the-table gift giving, otherwise known as bribes, kinda like This. Clearly, unless there is evidence that Palin was taking money from the fund to buy motorcycles or fancy jewelry, I predict this will go away in a hurry.
Comment by Sonicfrog — July 22, 2009 @ 12:12 pm - July 22, 2009
TGC
You took the words out of my mouth. He sure did!
Comment by Roberto — July 22, 2009 @ 12:31 pm - July 22, 2009
[...] So, because she’s a public figure, Sarah Palin can’t raise money to defend herself again… [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Lawyer Investigating Palin donates to Democrats, has ties to Obama campaign — July 22, 2009 @ 4:46 pm - July 22, 2009
[...] tell us that Thomas Daniel, the investigator who thinks that outgoing Alaska Governor Sarah Palin may have violated state ethics law in raising money to defend herself against frivolous ethics charges, cut [...]
Pingback by Democrats, Obama Supporters Behind The Hit Jobs On Sarah Palin « AConservativeEdge — July 22, 2009 @ 9:16 pm - July 22, 2009
Didn’t the Clintons do the same thing to defend Bill against all of the “frivolous” complaints against him? As I remember, they were so “frivolous” that the man was impeached. If not for the question of a backbone, he would have been voted out of office by Congress.
Comment by Southern Yankee — July 23, 2009 @ 1:33 pm - July 23, 2009