In a piece by Justin Miller in "The Atlantic" yesterday titled "The Shoe that didn't Drop," Miller claims that there is no "scandal" that has influenced Palin to leave office:
The closest Palin is being examined is by an ethics investigator in Alaska who said it is probable she improperly used her position as a public official to collect donations for a private legal defense fund. However, the investigator suggests Palin simply not take money from the fund, and instead appeal to the state to handle these legal matters.
First off, Shannyn Moore and everyone else who talked about possible attention from the Feds NEVER SAID THE WORD FBI...they said F-E-D-E-R-A-L. So, when the FBI did it's Van Flein-influenced-denial of any investigation into Palin, that was a clever political ADD distraction. It worked, enhancing my theory that most journalists have ADD.
Last I checked, the IRS is a federal agency and I can attest to the number of emails I have received from folks telling me they reported the Palins to the IRS. Having been a Fed for 15 years, I can PROMISE you that those emails will NOT be ignored...mainly because it's no skin off their nose to check into the allegations.
Secondly, the bit about the "closest" Palin has been examined is by the ethics investigator who found that "it is probable she improperly used her position as a public official"...as if it's no big deal.
Huh? Misusing your position as a public official for financial gain is no big deal? Where does this guy come from?
As a little explanation to Mr. Miller, and an update to everyone else, allow me to point out some information from the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act (EBEA) I pointed out last week.
1) The portion that Mr. Miller summarizes from Tom Daniel's report, that "Palin simply not take money from the fund, and instead appeal to the state to handle these legal matters", was the remedy offered to Palin by Investigator Daniel. As we knew when this report became public, Palin and Van Flein had ignored the report for a week. Since the AK Fund Trust website is still up and accepting donations, we can safely assume that they have yet to accept that remedy. Since that remedy was offered on July 14th and today is August 5th, I would think the time for acceptance has passed, so:
2) Because, per the EBEA, "the subject of a complaint failed to comply with a recommendation for corrective or preventive action," Investigator Daniel SHOULD have sent/be sending a formal copy of the accusations to the Palins, which lays out the specific violation. We should know as soon as this happens because EVERYTHING FROM THAT POINT FORWARD BECOMES PUBLIC INFORMATION.
3) There are three possible replies to the formal accusation letter that Palin can make:
- Denial of the violation: This then results in a hearing which involves a hearing officer (judge) and a formal procedure. The only way for Palin to be able to claim "no wrongdoing" is if the issue is completely dismissed after this process. Because she ignored the remedy, that isn't very likely.
- Acceptance of the violation: Palin's case would then automatically be sent to the Personnel Board for the penalty phase.
- Palin "does not respond in a timely manner" (or ignores the charges): "The allegations are considered admitted." This means they automatically go to the Personnel Board for the penalty phase. I find this scenario to be the most likely because in my experience with the Palins, they have a difficult time with deadlines.
Unless the unlikely occurs and the violation is dismissed after a full, public hearing, Palin has lost her "meme" that "she has not been found to have committed any wrongdoing." Somehow, I don't find any of this to be a "minor" issue.
It's also not the only thing nipping at Palin's heels:
Arctic Cat
I spoke last week with Holly Hill, Executive Director of the Alaska Public Offices Commission. I was double checking that she had received all of the documents I had sent the week before. I asked if the response to Van Flein would soon be forthcoming regarding their claim that their benefits from Arctic Cat qualify as a "trade secret." I mentioned how concerned I was about how this might effect attempts at income secrecy from other public officials. Ms. Hill assured me that there were very many officials who had expressed concern about this upcoming decision as well. She also stated that it probably wouldn't be out until the next meeting.
Interestingly enough, it came out early and a big "thank you" to Sean Cockerham and Lisa Demer for covering it:
In one lingering issue, the Alaska Public Offices Commission has refused Palin's request to keep secret the discounts that come from her husband's Arctic Cat sponsorship.
and...
APOC is giving Palin until Aug. 17 to make public "information related to the dollar amount of the discounts from Arctic Cat," as well as any gifts received in 2008 that she has not reported, said Holly Hill, the agency's director. Hill found that the state law Palin cited in arguing for an exemption from the Arctic Cat disclosure "only protects information submitted under the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act, and does not apply in this matter."
Personnel Board: I turned comments into the Personnel Board refuting the Arctic Cat dismissal and have been watching and waiting for their next meeting. That's most likely when they will have a "hearing" on them.
Emails:
First, to start out with the "most asked" issue...I have heard nothing more from Linda Perez on the emails. My target date to start bugging them about it is August 24th although they have until September (the deadline). I am very, very eager to see what I'll get and I'll pursue this until the bitter end.
Next, Sean and Lisa covered Andree McLeod's email cases very well:
A judge on Tuesday heard arguments in a lawsuit by Anchorage activist Andree McLeod, who is seeking to ban the practice and is arguing it could hide information the public has a fundamental right to see.
and (emphasis mine)...
"This is not something between Andree McLeod and former Gov. Palin. This is a very serious public policy issue," McLeod's lawyer, Don Mitchell, told the judge Tuesday.
The heart of the case is whether private e-mails obstruct the public's right to public information, Mitchell said.
Mike Mitchell, arguing for the state, said many e-mails aren't public records anyway because they are too trivial. McLeod is trying to expand the definition of a public record, and not just for the governor's office, he said.
What do you mean "too trivial?" Who makes the decision on what's trivial and what isn't? Emails about emails could be considered "trivial" except, in this case, they are not. According to every Federal Law I understand, all information produced in government service is fair game.
Gifts
I have believed all along that these will be the bane of her existence.
APOC also said Palin needs to disclose all the gifts she received last year, rejecting her interpretation that she doesn't need to until after she gets around to actually opening the gifts.
Palin has told APOC "there are boxes of unopened mail at this point, even mail that was delivered in 2008."
Andree has an excellent pending ethics complaint regarding the gifts and I believe Palin will encounter significant trouble with APOC regarding them as well. I have a much more thorough post started on the gifts issue that I'll put out this week.
As you can see, it's a veritable rainstorm of shoes in the Palin camp these days. It would be foolish to dismiss them offhand just because they are not federal indictments. As we've seen in Alaska, federal indictments aren't always very successful.
|
