I find the notion that I have taken any action pertaining to the legal defense trust fund misguided and factually in error. I am informed that this fund was created by experienced attorneys in DC and was modeled after other similar funds established for senators and others. The fund itself was not created by me nor is it controlled by me.
Neither I nor my lawyer has received a penny from this fund, and I am informed the Trustee was withholding any action or payment pending final resolution with the Personnel Board. This is the hallmark of legal compliance and prudent conduct.
In short, I have not ‘acted' relative to the defense fund and it is misleading to say I have. I have no doubt that the Trust will welcome guidance by the Board, as do we all, but it is my understanding that this matter was not resolved and the complainant's violation of law has served to mislead the public and prejudice a fair review of this matter.
Sean Cockerham's Anchorage Daily News article sums up the day's developments nicely. Commenters to his article, and to various blog articles late today are interesting. I'll post two each from four web sites:
Here are two from Sean's ADN article:
from Bigsky6t4: WOW -- Kristin Cole KNOWS everything from real estate to milk production to oil and gas and how to manage a trust fund for her best friend. I bet she is also the friend who will get Bristol into "real estate after she graduates" as she told People
from Black_Mountain: The core of the problem seems to be the "official" appearance of the fund. The name itself- "Alaska Fund Trust", the use of "Governor", and the Great Bear/North Star symbol of the the AK flag do not give the image of a private fund...
Here are two from Conservatives4Palin:
juju: They cannot make her give the money back. They can fine her and maybe she is unethical. Well, let them say it, we know the truth.
from Hefmier: Eddie Burke also said on his radio program that Rachel D'Oro was at the Palin house when Sarah announced her resignation. A lady has made a claim that Rachel made a snide remark to her after Rachel saw the lady wearing a pro-Palin shirt. Rachel asked her "how can you support the Governor?" Supposedly a video camera recorded the event, so maybe there will be video implicating Rachel with intentional bias towards the Governor.
Here are two from The Mudflats:
from Aussie Blue Sky: Tamara, I believe you’re mistaken, and here is why: the complaint goes through the hands of several people before an outside lawyer investigates it. If Daniel had any discussion with Kim Chatman it would have been after he had filed his report on his findings. He may have just reminded her that it was confidential (also, too, Van Flea could have made that up - he has no problem making stuff up). In any event, Kim Chatman said on KTUU news that she was not the one who gave the findings to AP.
from Big Slick:
July 21st, 2009 at 8:53 PM
So it’s just like we have been saying from the beginning. This “trust” was a scam in its entirety and was designed for one purpose and one purpose only, to obtain as much money for the Governor and her family/friends as possible using the victimology she has perfected as a ruse to obtain the funds!
In a nutshell!
Here are two from DailyKos:
from wmholt: I've included the text from the report here, where it says that Alaska has no law allowing a legal defense fund to be set up for an Alaskan Governor.
To me, this is clearly malpractice. I wonder if Sarah is going to publicly blame Coale?
from entlord1: Hey but the law does not specifically forbid them either so that means if the law (in Sarah's World) does not specifically prohibit an exact act, then it is legal. Think of all the wonderful permutations that could result if this is the way the world really worked
image - Sarah Palin, big lunky guy, Kristen Cole