courtesy of DennisZaki.com
Yes, it happened and after the last two weeks, it's no great surprise. Once again, we have a lawyer/investigator who based the determination VERY narrowly. This time, Mr. Daniels claims that there needs to be direct proof of financial benefit. (i.e. can I prove that someone put cash in their hand and said "now wear the jacket.")
However, according to the Executive Branch Ethics Law, I don't have to prove that. In its definitions:
"benefit" means anything that is to a person's advantage or self-interest, or from which a person profits, regardless of the financial gain, including any dividend, pension, salary, acquisition, agreement to purchase, transfer of money, deposit, loan or loan guarantee, promise to pay, grant, contract, lease, money, goods, service, privilege, exemption, patronage, advantage, advancement, or anything of value
Advantage, advancement or anything of value -- The Davis/Palin Team already has an advantage over most of the other competitors and that includes others who have won before:
"Some Iron Doggers have spent upwards of $30,000 to finance a once-in-a-lifetime run into the wild heart of Alaska. Tapping their credit cards, they've shelled out $10,000 each for a 2009 snow machine, $10,000 more for an identical training sled, $2,500 for the race entry fee and a few thousand more for trailing airplane support. Palin and Davis, in contrast, have spent almost nothing. They are prodigiously sponsored, with their names monogrammed in script on their matching Arctic Cat jackets. (Palin even has the names of his five kids and his wife, SARAH, THE GOV, appliquéd on his snow machine hood.)
In my complaint, the point was never about who gave her the jacket or how she got the jacket at all. The point was that the Palins DERIVED BENEFIT from her WEARING that jacket based on the influence it had on Arctic Cat ALONE! Sarah Palin wearing that jacket WHILE ACTING AS GOVERNOR through international media coverage gave Arctic Cat free exposure to hundreds of thousands if not millions of people.
The proof of that "benefit" is how the Arctic Cat reps the Palins on their website anytime the Palins give them exposure.
If you didn't get a chance to see SNL, be sure to check out the great National coverage we received here. You'll find this clip alone has been seen by more than 2.3 million people! We hope that you share in our excitement over the publicity we've received in the last week. We're proud of our brand and even more proud of you, and your commitment to sharing the Arctic Cat passion.
I find that to be pretty solid evidence that Arctic Cat has been influenced enough to effect decisions in the future (whether overtly or subliminally) regarding Todd Palin. If Sarah Palin was a private citizen, that would be great. However, she's not and at this event she was acting as the Governor of Alaska.
According to the Ethics Act definition of "benefit," that's enough.
In this report, I found one issue glaringly absent from Mr. Daniel's interpretation of the ethics law:
(A) A public officer may not use, or attempt to use, an official position for personal gain
So, Mr. Daniel's acknowledges that it's conceivable that the Governor wore the jacket because she believed doing so might result in financial gain in the future...doesn't that qualify as "an attempt to use?" If that doesn't, what does? Wouldn't this have been reason ehough to require a hearing and call witnesses or do we now only accuse someone of a violation if they confess to it?
Well, folks, the issues around Arctic Cat are not over.
-- I await breathlessly the answer to APOC's questions regarding her Financial Disclosure form.
-- I'm also still waiting for the final tally on how much the revised records request will cost
As soon as I decide on my next step, you guys will be the first to know!
*******************************UPDATE*************************
Here's the AP story by Rachel D'Oro, where Thomas Daniel says something very interesting:
The Arctic Cat sponsorship was valued at $7,500 in 2007, according to Palin's financial disclosure for that year. Daniel said the value of the 2008 sponsorship is not yet available...
It's not available? Palin's Financial Disclosure form for year 2008 was LONG AGO available:
Arctic Cat-----Discount on Snowmachines
That's all they wrote. Because there was no amount written down next to the name, that means the worth must be UNDER $1,000.00!!!!
Does that make any logical sense the year AFTER he won the race?
*********************************UPDATE******************************
Again, my complaint WAS NOT about where the clothing came from...that's a completely different issue. However, I did want to pass on Lawyer Tom Daniel's reply to my email question about the embroidery on the jacket -- the claim is that Scott Davis's wife did the embroidery on both of them.
She is on the right and you can see that her jacket is monogrammed as well.
I have a mother-in-law who is an amazing quilter and seamstress. She does NOT have equipment that could sew through material that thick. Either Davis's wife does that stuff all of the time and has professional equipment or she did them by hand.
Of course, no one is talking about where Piper got her outfit.
Or where Sarah's matching pants came from:
|
