Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's lawyer is threatending legal action against those who defame her with accusations that her resignation came because she is under criminal investigation. The Anchorage Daily News reported this weekend that Thomas Van Flein, Palin's personal attorney, said the governor is not being investigated by authorities.
"I can say definitively I am aware of no criminal investigation whatsoever involving Sarah Palin. Zero, " Van Flein told the Alaska newspaper. You can read the complete story in the Anchorage Daily News by clicking here. (The Daily News is a sister paper in the McClatchy Company).
After Palin's surprise announcement Friday that she was resigning at the end of the month, rumors hit the blogosphere about the "real reasons" she was stepping down as governor. Van Flein then sent out a statement attacking "false and defamatory allegations" that Palin's resignation stems "from an alleged criminal investigation pertaining to the construction of the Wasilla Sports Complex," according to the Anchorage newspaper. Palin was mayor of Wasilla before becoming governor.
The FBI's Alaska office confirms that there is not a federal investigation of Palin, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Here's more on the Palin story from the Anchorage Daily News:
Rumors that Palin steered contracts for the 2003 construction of the Wasilla Sports Complex before leaving office as Wasilla mayor the previous fall, in return for work building her home about the same time, have been around at least since the vice presidential campaign last fall. They've resurfaced on many Web sites this weekend following her abrupt announcement she will resign from office in three weeks. Palin's house, almost 3,500 square feet with four bedrooms and four baths, is on a two-acre site along scenic Lake Lucille in Wasilla and is assessed at $532,500.
Van Flein wrote in his Saturday letter that the Palin family built the Lake Lucille house using Palin's husband, Todd, as general contractor. It said Todd "is no stranger to construction.""The Palins used a combination of personal savings, equity from the sale of their private home, and conventional bank financing to build the house, like millions of American families" Van Flein wrote.
I've always heard that if you are in public life you become fair game for just about anyone re the libel laws. What happened to that ruling?
You can see how this is going to go folks...The media is gonna be playing this song and "Thriller" to distract us while "The Obama Administration" keeps piling on the "Socialism" day after day. Should we be in opposition to our government's stance on Honduras? Why should we support a leftist who wants to be a dictator...maybe because one was elected here?
That's the way it should be Ron, with an exception. I've always felt that hounding celebrities for entertainment value is disgusting, and should be illegal. Sure they are in public, but it's disgraceful what the paparazzi and the media do to them. Now in the case where a sports figure or film celebrity, etc. does something illegal, that's another story. I'm referring only to the constant hounding for no other reason but to sell magazines or TV shows.
On the other hand, politicians are elected by the public and serve the public interest so to me that means they should be subject to media attention and scrutiny. What they do and say is, and should be of public interest. They answer to the public. Slander and libel are another issue.
Hi Ron Genini! Do I know you and Roberta Genini from the Bee letter section from way back? You are right; Public Figures are fair game (with limits) but what determines the public figure?
Yes, we've written letters to the Bee since the late '60s and were each featured in "Meet Our Letter Writers" ... I would say that any politician is a public figure and fair game. But, yes, there are some limits and they'd have protection against someone publishing a lie about them; the truth is a defense but lying isn't. So, to prove something - ah it gets horribly complicated, doesn't it?
The entire Palin story will come out, and all we have to do is to wait and see. But what is the definition of "sister paper" like The Daily News?
Making crap up about anyone sdhould not be fair no matter who they are. It should not be allowed for media or anyone to talk about another person without absolute proof. She should sue them for libel if fabricsted stories are being printed about her.
Jackie Krage, but what if that they are saying is not made up. Newspapers are very aware of libel laws. I go one step further. Even when accusations are true, people should have their privacy respected. But that can't be for elected government officials, especially those with White House aspirations. Government in a free country must be an open book. One can't have it both ways. I am a bit puzzled about people's reactions. They are willing to practically destroy a man because of adultery which is not nice but does not hurt anyone but the families involved. But when it comes to a woman accused of gubernatorial misconduct, of influence peddling, of abuse of government powers, all of a sudden everyone jumps to the conclusion that the poor female is being defamed. If her lawyer says "I know of no investigation of my client," he only says that he personally does not know. Do I personally believe everything the media is telling us. No I do not. But I have 100% faith that the media is not ignorant of libel laws. What the Palin people are doing right now is to attempt to squelch free speech. So even if the accusations against her are exaggerated, frustrating free speech is not going to work in her favor. Sarah Palin too has to let it play out and let the truth or untruth come out into the open.
15 ethics violation accusations brought against her...all found to be false.$2 Million in cost to the taxpayers of Alaska...$500,000 for the Palin's to defend themselves.Does that help bring understanding to what is being perpetrated against her and her family?
Now I'm not going to defend anyone or accuse anyone, but it seems to me Michael Jackson was also found innocent but people refused to believe it. Isn't that the same as what Sarah is facing?
Good point Scot here is a definition that fits;
hypocrite; a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
Scotty...I hope you didn't throw out your shoulder with that reach.If so...get some ice for you and "Just Rich"...then put it on your heads...that might help.
Scot,
And what's worse? People (i.e. Brian and the like) who don't realize they are hypocrites even when it is blatently obvious.