Comments on: Alaska Fund Trust – Who Knew?

By: Patrick12344

Patrick12344 — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 00:20:27 +0000

I have collected the screenshots of Sarah’s handwriting and other documents regarding Sarah’s “thank you notes” and organised it in a slide-show on my flickr, easy to watch:

http://tinyurl.com/kocl7h

By: Shannyn Moore: Palin Caught In A Naughty Monkey Trap | www.webhostservices.biz

Fri, 24 Jul 2009 09:37:17 +0000

[...] “IF THERE WERE A JAR, IT WOULD BE OPEN AND TRANSPARENT!” [...]

By: PepperzMom (GA)

PepperzMom (GA) — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 02:17:35 +0000

317 AKPetMom Says: July 22nd, 2009 at 10:32 PM

OK, looks like my friend DID make the Fund Trust website…that’s what he does and he’s as liberal as anyone I know. He builds websites and makes commercials for a living.

Doesn’t mean that he is complicit in any of this tinfoil hattery that is going on here.

God, I’m really disappointed that he’d take business from the barracuda, but hey, everyone has to make a living.

Sorry Big Slick #255
——–
318 Jackie Says: July 22nd, 2009 at 10:35 PM

Ak Pet Mom – at least a good guy made some money off of her!

Hmmm – are either of you sure he was actually PAID, given the grifter aptitude surrounding SP & crew???

By: PepperzMom (GA)

PepperzMom (GA) — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 02:09:46 +0000

You know, something is really off with this whole Daniel finds a problem this time and it’s in the open, supposedly because of a leak from the Board itself.

I have to wonder…how many other Daniel reports did find a probable cause, but the Board refused to proceed further by ‘dismissing’ the charges?

So, my questions to everyone are:

1. Have any of the other investigator’s reports been released?
2. Is there a mechanism in place for investigator’s reports to be requested by some type of citizen’s request?

I seem to remember that somewhere around here, if not other AK based blogs that there have been discussions over whether the ‘public’ could request information on closed cases. So if the answer to #2 is a “yea”, I’m up for contributing towards the inevitable high cost of securing those reports. Just spread the word on where to send the $$.

By: ValleyIndependent

ValleyIndependent — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 00:34:09 +0000

My apologies if someone has already posted this link:

http://frontiersman.com/articles/2009/07/22/breaking_news/doc4a67b600a8653585675678.txt

Looks like the realists could use a little help – the bots are out in full force and their tin-foil hats are on tight. There’s even the usual comment about who is paying the anti-Palin bloggers. I sure wish they’d figure it out and post contact info so I could apply for my check.

By: Marnie

Marnie — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 00:00:15 +0000

Is the fact that, were she not governor, these ethics complaints would not have happened make her association implicit?
She created the necessity of the complaints becasue she is governor. The complaints necessitated the legal expendatures. The legal expendatures necessitated the fund.
That’s a straight line logical association that is reasonably predictable, especially once the first complaint occurred, with its expenses.

By: Bystander

Bystander — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:26:04 +0000

Sarah’s defense “the Fund was completely legitimate, but I had no knowledge of it” reminds me of the old story by lawyer “Racehorse” Haynes on the three defenses in a dog bite case:

1. My dog doesn’t bite.
2. My dog was asleep in my bedroom and couldn’t have bitten the Plaintiff.
3. I don’t own a dog.

By: beth

beth — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 20:53:39 +0000

JHop @ 438 Says: “… but i don’t think she could sue for defamation. they haven’t defamed her or even damaged her.”
——-
JHop: Wouldn’t the ‘damage’ be that they (AFT) had ’caused’ *another* pesky frivolous ethics charge? And didn’t scrutiny brought about *by* that frivolous ethics charge cause [some] people to have a negative view of her Sarahness and of her Sarahness’ family and associations?

At the very least, couldn’t/wouldn’t AFT be held culpable as a material party to instigating/giving birth to [for want of better terms] the frivolous ethics charge? Seems to me, (according to the huff-puff indignation and spin coming out, now) her good, ethics-loving, ethics-always-following name *has* been -in the mind (-singular-) of both her and her ‘fans’- been defamed. No?

Now, whether SP et.al are logical (and/or reality-based) enough to figure out that the ethics charge is as a *direct result* of the AFT and *her* role in/with it, or not, is another matter, entirely… beth.

By: Bystander

Bystander — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 20:27:41 +0000

Sarah was shocked, shocked I tell you, to discover the Fund existed a couple of days ago. My God, Sarah and Kristan how dumb do you think we are?

By: JHop

JHop — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 20:02:43 +0000

ds55 Says:
July 23rd, 2009 at 11:54 AM: SP probably paid out money from the AFT already. I’d bet she has at least promised payouts.

good point, i agree.