Comments on: More facts about the Palin Legal Defense Saga

By: ValleyIndependent

ValleyIndependent — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 21:59:16 +0000

ITK7, the sign she’s flashing in the picture in your link is “I love you” in American Sign Language. This Alaskan is often offended by Palin, but not for what I see there. Am I missing something?

By: ValleyIndependent

ValleyIndependent — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 21:52:26 +0000

You hit the nail on the head, fishingmamma. “If she were to act in an ethical manner” she wouldn’t need a legal defense fund. The fact is that she has acted unethically in the past, and apparently intends to continue to do so. Too bad that fact is lost on her followers.

By: Jen

Jen — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 16:03:34 +0000

Why didn’t the ADN do an article that investigated the amount of Palin’s legal bills? As usual, ADN just took it for granted she was telling the truth. It is time ADN got on the stick. It is absurd the paper responds in any way to her Facebook and Twitter missives. The paper has lost its way regarding Palin. The editor has lost all journalistic integrity.

It was obvious when she quit last summer there was an iceberg in her path to riches and her lackluster performance as a governor was increasingly exposed. The Wayne Ross debacle must have really smarted, and she was totally incompetent regarding Native issues. It will be really interesting to see how this goes down in the Alaska history books!

By: Jen

Jen — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 15:48:48 +0000

Extremely good point. I think what we are seeing is the bullshit appeal to “common sense” thinking. I am so tired of this crap. “Common sense” is the most absurd phrase. Whose “common sense” are we referring to? Nitwit common sense.

By: Kat

Kat — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 10:45:50 +0000

Many thanks AKM & Diva! You always bring us da facts.

By: beth

beth — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 04:43:57 +0000

If you recall, the fund was (is) a “legal defense fund” in name only.

The collected monies could (and can) be used for ANYTHING: [to cite Linda's excellent article] “…basically anything and everything, short of overt criminal activity. This includes legal expenses, of course, along with everything else under the sun. It also covers her family and staff, as well as ‘any other person determined by the Trustee’.” beth.

By: Zyxomma

Zyxomma — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 04:38:06 +0000

Thank you, Linda. Excellent reporting as always.

By: beth

beth — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 04:34:10 +0000

For as bottom-line conscious and mega-lawyered-up as BP is, does it *not* cross the minds of ANY of these nitwits that *IF* there’d been even the teensy-weensiest, itty-bittiest hint of ANY *non*-legal activity on the part of POTUS and/or his administration in all of this, that BP *wouldn’t* have been all over it like lies on $arah and that they’d *not* be raising holy hell about the illegality of it?

Do ALL of these nitwits think their ‘knowledge’ and ‘understanding’ of the law is bigger, better, stronger than the, what, hundreds if not thousands, of *real* lawyers BP has on its payroll and/or on retainer? Do ANY of these meme-parroting nitwits stop –even for a nanosecond– to *think* before they spout off their nonsense? beth.

By: beth

beth — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 04:16:31 +0000

nope — the ‘instructions’ didn’t translate onto the site. I had wanted to underline “She” and “the governor herself”, in the quoted sentence. Alas and alack. b.

By: beth

beth — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 04:14:56 +0000

“She surprised him with a *personally* written thank you note from the governor herself.”

Aha! So $P does have a split personality…just as we’d all suspected all along, eh? beth.

–gads, I hope the ‘instructions’ I put in for underlining words, works! b.–