So Sarah already owns a personal Blackberry. But she also needs an account for that. Now it could be that was being paid for by the state. Or maybe SarahPac or something. What is that? $60 a month through Verizon? AT&T? It could be Sarah is still arranging for who is going to pick up the bill for her new account and can’t use her Blackberry until the details are worked out.

And those attacking Gryphen better be very careful. He already made the decision to quit his day job. But calling and writing his place of employment to accuse him of pedophilia? That’s not free speech. That’s slander and libel. And Gryphen could have sued if it had resulted in him losing his employment.

You can sure tell a lot about a leader by their followers, can’t you.

They accused David Letterman of pedophilia and being a pervert too.

Quiet time? No. A very l-o-n-g time-out, with no milk and cookies to boot!

Have a great day!

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.”

the Alaska Public Offices Commission has refused Palin’s request to keep secret the discounts that come from her husband’s Arctic Cat sponsorship. 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.”

As for Gryphen, he did not commit libel. And if Sarah Palin wants to try to sue him for defamation, she’ll have to not only prove some sort of damages (and be deposed) but she’ll have to stay married to Todd for the rest of her life. I don’t think that’s gonna happen.

The goods on Levi and Sherry Johnston may come to light sooner.

The article is not malicious, even if Van Flea wants to name it such. It is just a reporting of what Gryphen believes to be fact from what he calls impeccable sources.
__________

Two parts:

1) “intimidation” is not an valid cause of action. further, since The BitterTwitterQuitter is no longer the governor, there is no valid 1st Amendment claim. Review your Bill of Rights if you are unclear on why.

2) Gryphen is not a journalist and does not enjoy the protections of a real journalist. He doesn’t even enjoy the protections available to gossip rags. Those rags get sued all the time for getting it wrong. He printed something he claims was told to him by an “unnamed source.” Whether he believes it to “be fact” is irrelevant. As irrelevant as what the birthers believe to “be fact.” What he believes is, frankly, not the point. That he may have printed something which may well be false is.

It seems to me that people are willing to give him a pass, or to make excuses for him, because he’s “on our side.” I’ve liked hanging out here with ya alls because most of the folks here tend to stick to facts and follow the truth with integrity. I hope that never changes. Straying from the course will simply result in a group that resembles p’land. I’m not gonna stick around should that happen.