From the Globe and Mail:
The case against a man charged with hacking into Sarah Palin's e-mail went to a federal jury Tuesday in eastern Tennessee.
The jury of eight men and six women started deliberating in Knoxville after getting instructions on the charges against David Kernell, 22.
After Mr. Kernell chose not to testify, defence attorney Wade Davies told the panel Monday in a closing argument that his client pulled a prank and guessed his way into Ms. Palin's e-mail. He said Mr. Kernell as a 20-year-old college student made “some stupid decisions” but had no criminal intent.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Greg Weddle told jurors Monday that Mr. Kernell set out with a plan to derail Ms. Palin's campaign when she was the Republican vice-presidential candidate in 2008.
Convictions on the identity theft and three other felony charges carry a maximum possible 50-year prison sentence.
Now it is up to a jury to decide if Wade Davies did enough to protect his client.
Update: A moment of clarification.
Look I am not saying that David Kernell should not face some punishment.
He done did it, bad on him.
However the prosecution put Bristol and Sarah on the stand to convince the jury that there was some real harm done to the family. And to dazzle them with their celebrity.
So in my mind cross examining Sarah and Bristol with the facts eagerly testified to by Sherry and Mercede Johnston, as well as the Alaska Bloggers, and others in the know, which demonstrated that there was NO real loss of contact because Bristol had at least two or more other phones at her disposal, And that Bristol could not have truly been afraid of attack because she had around the clock Secret Service protection, and ex-hockey brawler Levi Johnnston literally grafted to her side. And that what resulted from Kernell's invasion of her privacy was really no more than a temporary nuisance, just most college pranks, would have served the interests of his client.
And of course catching one of the Palins perjuring themselves could not exactly have hurt either, and we all KNOW that Sarah cannot stand to tell the truth for a very long without Palinizing it.
So if Kernell gets off, or receives a reasonable sentence, then no harm, no foul.
But if they throw the book at him, then I think we are justified in suggesting that Davies had more in his arsenal that he could have used to damage the credibility of the government's witnesses. And that perhaps he should have used them.
The problem as I see it, having recently served on jury duty for a criminal case, is the question the jury must answer: Did Kernell or did he not, enter Palin's email account without her authorization? The answer is yes. Sadly, none of Palin's lies or her own behavior will be considered admissible or relevant. All we can really hope for is a reasonable judge who will ensure the punishment fits the crime,(ie, Kernell must endure our throwing a parade in his honor?)
ReplyDeleteI'm hoping for a mild sentence. The kid committed a crime by accessing the email, but he hardly "hacked" his way into it. He never would have known about it had Sarah not been stupid enough to use it for state business.
ReplyDeleteThis entire case is a like a poster child for how NOT to secure your email accounts. This does not excuse his crime, but I feel like he's on trial for embarrassing Sarah Palin with her own stupidity, not for accessing the email account.
The real sin, IMO, is not turning the account over to you or Mudflats instead of his buddies. The whole problem that is Sarah would have gone away a lot sooner if he had, you know?
"No criminal intent" doesn't matter.
ReplyDeleteSuppose I leave my car in the driveway with the e-brake on and it rolls across the street and hits a kid.
Hope I'm wrong, but I fear the Curse of $P is upon this young man.
ReplyDeleteI was there for two days of testimony. I saw the FBI forensic computer guy testify and I saw SP testify. I've read a lot of nonsense about what was said or done in the courtroom and I wanted to give my impression.
ReplyDeleteDavies seemed competent. He did what he could to show that his client was hardly a criminal mastermind. There were several ways that Kernell could have done more to hide or destroy his computer. He made a tactical decision to softly cross SP and then get her the hell out of the courtroom. The jury was clearly sympathetic to the disruption this caused in her life. They also were laughing at her jokes made at Davies expense. The prosecution showed her as a concerned mom first and a candidate second. It may have been staged court theater, but the jury was eating it up. The gallery of a pretty large courtroom was filled.
Palin was nervous. She warmed up when they went through pictures of her kids. The questions seemed to be geared mostly to show the impact on her as a victim or the crime, not to prove any major element of the crime.
The real star of the prosecution was the computer nerd. Although dry, he showed pretty thouroughly, with a second by second timeline how kernell guessed the password, chatted about it, gave it away, and then panicked, researching whether what he did was criminal and then trying to erase his hard drive. It seemed he got tripped up by a piece of spyware he had that made secret logfiles, screen shots, etc. of his activity. Because it didn't show up in his directory, he never deleted it.
There wasn't any entourage. She had Todd and a few lawyers there. She had a lot of marshals and FBI for security. They handle security for all federal witnesses.
There was a ton of press in the courtroom. After SP testified They literally chased her out of the room and down the hall.
If anyone has questions (at least about those two days) I'd be happy to answer them.
I hope there is a lot going on that we don't know and that this young man gets a fair shake. As usual, with anything to do with Palin, you always have to expect the worse.
ReplyDeleteThe jury will judge as guilty, but hopefully they will be able to state what they think the sentance should be. It's up to the Judge to decide the sentance; usually he listens to the defendant's lawyer and takes into consideration the accused' criminal history and any other relevant background info. Unless the prosecution (or someone with political clout) really pushes for a harsh sentance, I would expect a resonable judgement such as 180 days community service plus probation and maybe other restrictions. I would be extrememly surprised if any significant jail time was ordered. - Hedgewytch
ReplyDelete@ Anonymous at 8:20 AM
ReplyDeleteIt's so nice to get a clearly honest analysis of what really happened in the court room.
The story of an entourage of 25 sounded a bit excessive, but of course on this blog Gryphen posted it and the readers ran with it. If it's on the internet it must be true!
I hope the jury turns this into a misdemeanor. Obviously, David did not use the email account, which would have made it identity theft. The judge could give him probation and community service. This is what I want to happen.
ReplyDelete"Now it is up to a jury to decide if Wade Davies did enough to protect his client."
ReplyDeleteI strongly disagree with some of the comments concerning this trial that have been made.
Particularly statements concerning the actions
(and alleged inactions) of Mr. Kernell's attorney Wade Davies.
First: AFIK Mr Kernell has ADMITTED to committing certain acts having to do with gaining unauthorized access to one of Sarah Palin's email accounts.
Second: The jury has been charged essentially to decide if the state has proven the necessary elements of the offenses it has charged Mr. Kernell with. AFIK there were four separate charges. The jury is to make this determination on each charge separately.
Third: The state has presented it's evidence to support the elements of the charges, which AFIK includes statements of ADMISSION made by Mr. Kernell.
Mr. Kernell is in this position because of his actions, and is to a considerable extent the victim of circumstances (in most similar cases someone doing what he did would not be facing these charges). On the other hand it was not a coincidence that Mr. Kernell made the ill advised choice to access this particular account belonging to Sarah Palin.
The Jury will decide if the state proved it's case (with the help of Kernell's own admissions
as to what he did). If the state HAS in the jury's eyes proves it's case then Mr. Kernell will be convicted.
If this happens,it will have little to do with Mr. Davies failing to do what has been suggested here and at other sites: that Mr. Davies focus on discrediting the testimony of certain witnesses that testified. As much as that might be satisfying that is not the way to defend this case given the evidence and the circumstances.
It is unfair to Mr. Davies to put it in the terms used. He may succeed or he may fail in his defense, but it won't be because he didn't turn this into more of a circus than it already was.
Mr. Davies does not deserve this criticism.
8:20 AM Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"They also were laughing at her jokes made at Davies expense."
Seems to be a standard for her ....no respect for anyone yet her sense of entitlement is as huge as her ego....
"Now it is up to a jury to decide if Wade Davies did enough to protect his client."
ReplyDeleteNo, now it is up to the jury to decide whether the evidence presented fulfills the legal elements of any of the crimes alleged, and whether any of the defence's evidence constitutes a defence to any of the crimes alleged.
The lawyer did everything he could to protect his client.
Thanks, anon 8:20. How disgusting that Sarah made jokes on the stand at the expense of this young man who faces up to 50 years in prison for a non-violent, ultimately victimless crime. Although, I'm not surprised. Always the showwoman, that Sarah.
ReplyDeleteOK Anonymous at 8:20 AM, here's my question:
ReplyDeleteHow did the testimony of the FBI guy who testified for the defense go? What did he talk about specifically, and did it help the defense, in your opinion?
Thanks
Isn't David's mom a Lt.Col.? Nothing to do with anything, but...saw a photo of her with him, she's
ReplyDeletevery attractive. It's so ironic that it's a
piece of work like Sarah P. - with all she's gotten away with, who pontificates about 'consequences
for bad behavior,' re this kid's half-baked prank.
I'm really anxious about his fate.
Sharon TN
Thank-you Anonymous 8:20AM for the first-hand report. I'm hoping that those who "laughed" at Palin's jokes in the courtroom, in their hearts, they really thought Palin was being very stupid/frivolous about something that is not a joking matter.
ReplyDeleteI believe Mr. Davies did the best job protecting his client! Making it a circus, would have been detrimental. I'm sure the jury will deliberate on all the charges, and send the identity theft/fraud one out the door, there just isn't any supporting argument for that charge, which is the most felonious. The judge has spent years "reading" people, I would love to hear what he thought of the Palin tribe. :-)
ReplyDeletebri$tol said she had so many calls and messages out in da woods how could he get anything less than hard time, and since it exposed also too the rumors of the dee-vorce and the babygate stuff he should probably die twice.
ReplyDelete@Anon at 8.20.
ReplyDeleteI would be interested to hear about what sort of jokes she made at Davies' expense.
Also too, thanks for the first hand report.
She should have been held accountable by Alaskans for all of her criminal actions in your state but, no, you've allowed her to get away with all of it.
ReplyDeletePerhaps those who laughed were really laughing at all the clown makeup.
ReplyDelete""No criminal intent" doesn't matter"
ReplyDeleteThat may or may not be the case.
That depends on the actual law that establishes the basis for the charge (four different charges in this case). To prove some charges 'criminal intent' must be proven, in others not so.
If Mr. Davies brought it up in court, there was a reason he did so.
Example: Run over a drunk pedestrian dressed in black on a rainy night lying on a dark highway- speed limit 70 mph. Criminal intent on the drivers part?
Example: Run over your estranged spouse in broad daylight in the front yard of your house, in the midst of a domestic dispute. Criminal intent on the driver's part?
Whether or not criminal intent is even a part of the discussion depends on the actual charges
filed against the defendant. Or may determine the charges filed by the prosecutor.
Thanks anon 8:20, glad to have your report on the scene.
ReplyDeleteThe kid broke the law but I hope it is a soft sentence.
Davies was shrewd in trying to limit Sarah's grandstanding on the stand, when she is in front of an audience she gets more confident and even more snarky. The crowd eats it up. It's like there is this invisible "laugh" and "applause" sign blinking above her - or written invisibly on her palms to flash to the audience. Poor man's laugh / clap track.
If Kernell goes to jail, Peebots will see it as victory for the queen. Many others will believe that it was her testimony that put him there.
ReplyDeletePOST: Now it is up to a jury to decide if Wade Davies did enough to protect his client.
ReplyDeleteRESPONSE: I don't believe the verdict is the litmus test as to whether Davies did his job. There are things that a lawyer can do that increases the likelihood of acquittal, and increases the likelihood of a stiffer sentence if there's a guilty verdict.
In this particular case, I'm not sure what the legal language is as to whether he committed a crime. Was mens rea required? Did he have it? Is damage to someone important (that's usually important in a civil trial, but not as much in a criminal trial. Doesn't matter as a matter of law if the bullet hit the leg and caused a minor injury, or the heart and killed the vic, it's still attempted murder.)
But what the kid did was stupid and wrong and if it was illegal, it may be a better strategy to behave during trial so as to minimize the sentence rather than piss off the judge.
WaPo:
ReplyDeleteToday, PalinGates published a lengthy attack on me, including a screenshot of a friendly email I sent them before I went on the show, after my own reporting had convinced me that their first post was mostly baseless. Here's their take.
David Weigel was not in the courtroom - but Jamie Satterfield was. Yet, David apparently did not take very seriously what Sarah Palin actually said in her testimony in Knoxville. I cannot see how he "debunked" the accusation that Sarah might have committed perjury.
And here's what I actually said.
We need to see the transcript, but it doesn't sound like she actually trapped herself in anything here. The defense attorney, Wade Davies, was prohibited from taking this much further than the questions about what -- the e-mails that were sent, that were asked about previously. She stuck to saying that it was political e-mails, e-mails about the governor`s mansion.
The e-mails that you were talking about didn't really come up. So the people I talked to inside the courtroom say maybe she could have fudged the words a little bit less, but this doesn`t seem to be a problem for her.
I think it's pretty clear which of us was looking for the facts and which of us is trafficking in innuendo. There is just no case for accusing Palin of perjury.
thought Palin was being very stupid/frivolous about something that is not a joking matter.
ReplyDelete======================================
You mean like defendant David Kernell telling reporters that Bristol was "not his type?" Perhaps Bubba the yard boss will do better.
The kid's prank was a lot more harmless (with all the security protection offered by the Party and alternative communications options out there)than what Track and Willow have committed. Bristol talks about her 'consequences' every day, in fact, makes hay out of it on the cover of magazines and commercials.
ReplyDeleteBut her new spin that he was out to derail her national campaign. . .uh, Sarah didn't need help from anyone on that end. That's the one thing she was qualified to do, sink her own ship.
How is it the Palin's get rewarded for their bad behavior? Or never called out on her revisionist history in her activities - her slim record is there and she had constantly flipped on the issues or actions.
MSM, you had an opportunity to take advantage of her flingin those doors open again to investigate her skeletons - what are you, dead fish going with the flow?
Thank you Anon 8:20AM
ReplyDeleteI am curious if the prosecution had proved that Kernell's intent was to derail Palin's VP campaign? Had Kernell been a member of say a college political club such as "Young Republicans/Progressives/Democrats etc". would that have changed the tone....malicious as opposed to prankster?
Davies had cross examined Palin regarding security issues re: home/children once her email/phone/cell phone became public. Did Palin not admit that the Secret Service was on her property? Was there any courtroom reaction?
It is probable that Davies had no idea how dangerous and corrupt SP was (and IS) until he saw the evidence e-mailed by Gryphen. I trust in his expertise and acknowledge that the facts sent to him (by Gryphen and others) would not have any bearing on the case.
ReplyDeleteBUT - Davies is a well-connected and respected attorney (in a red State!) and now he knows who the real SP is.
That is how the truth is spread - so, good work Gryphen. Keep it up - the populace is learning about the law-breaking, lying, and misdeeds of the grifter/dingbat from Wasilla.
I think he should walk...community service only.
ReplyDeleteHe probably couldn't believe he actually could get in that easily by guessing(and that IS NOT hacking in the IT world). She should be held accountable for having that easy of a password for an email account that had state business communications on it...
This is anon 8:20.
ReplyDeleteThe joke was when Davies said where she and Todd met wasn't really a secret - she said "it wasn't a secret to me." She seemed surprised by the absurdity of the question. I don't think she was actually trying to be funny but it got yucks. If the joke was on anyone it was Davies, not Kernell.
If you've ever been to the south, it's not odd to see women in midday wearing a lot of makeup. Plus she had to have known there were TV cameras there. It didn't seem excessive.
Kernell's mom was there in the front row. There was a row reserved for his family. She wasn't wearing a uniform. She looked sad. When SP talked about how some of the pictures were hers as a mom to decide when and if to publish and she felt that was taken from her kernell's mom got a pained look on her face. It seemed like a mom/mom thing.
I left right after SP (the feds rested) and didn't see the defense witness.
You do the crime, you do the time. 24 or 42 makes no difference. At age 7 most of us know right from wrong. There is too much coincidence in this case not to presume malicious intent. The jury will decide. His attorneys gave him bad advice. The could have copped out early on, instead ego and a show-boat trial was ordered. Stupid, waste of a young mans life and his families money. Send a message to stop cyber-crime. What this guy did was un-ethical, immoral, and I hope we soon see it was illegal.
ReplyDeleteJust watched the Keith Olbermann clip and a single phrase jumped out - the Republican columnist providing 'expert views' on this case made the statement "...Wade Davies was prohibited from persuing Sarah's testimony [on her emails]..."
ReplyDeleteFirst - why would we be hearing this as an offhand [matter of fact] comment? Where did this guy get his info?
If there was a judgement called preventing Atty. Davies from conducting a thorough cross-exam, that would completely explain why he didn't cross examine Sarah or Bristol at all. I'm anxious to read the actual court transcripts on this case.
In the meantime, any one else struck by this comment?
-OzMud
"You do the crime, you do the time."
ReplyDeleteUnless you're a Palin. If you're a Palin, you can vandalize school buses, making kids miss a day of school, and choose to go into the military. If you're a Palin you can vandalize a house to the tune of $20k-$30k and get your mother to do a back-room door so that only half of the kids (the ones who are boys, not girls) get penalized. Even if it was your idea. If you're a Palin, you can get take your young child with you to burglarize a house and have most of your sentence commuted.
Consequences are for other people.
Bristol is an adult but her testimony under oath appeared to be mostly fabricated. Did anyone help her prepare her lies under oath? Did any other Palin set her up with those who helped her lie under oath?
ReplyDeleteIt may only speak to the bad parenting of both of the Palin parents, but it is huge that someone considered to be a victim would be re-victimized by using her to lie under oath. Someone must get to the core of that. Did Bristol perjure and if so who assisted?
Thanks for the answer Anon at 8.20.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone wants to be reminded of background on the case, check out Wired's timely coverage beginning here
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/10/tennessee-stude/
and the several stories at the bottom of that page under "See Also"
Seems to me this jury's decision can have a large impact on cyber-law regardless of the outcome, and that proving criminal intent or not is directly relevant. You can read what Kernell posted at the time, and some then-current legal opinions of how the incident might be handled.
"The joke was when Davies said where she and Todd met wasn't really a secret - she said "it wasn't a secret to me."
ReplyDeleteNo wonder people laughed. Palin showed she didn't understand that you pick a secret question that only you know the answer to. What an idiot. I think you misunderstood if you think it was at Davies expense. They were laughing at Palin.
Jury is not returning verdict today--they will be back tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteJust read at Knoxnews.com: Jury to resume deliberations Wed. Asked judge for clarification on legal defn of "access to computer."
ReplyDeleteThis is anon 8:20 again
ReplyDeleteThe e-mails they couldn't get were one's that were never produced, not the ones in the public domain. Davies didn't have a real good reason why he needed e-mails that his client never accessed. I don't think that had anything to do with Davies not wading in for a vigorous cross. I know it may be tough for some of you to believe but SP was owning that courtroom. Knoxville is Republican bible belt TN. There was a juror wearing a camo hunting shirt. You get the picture.
I had to educate myself on Palingates re the perjury issue a little. I don't think she came close. I wasn't taking exact notes but she was asked a series of questions about how the yahoo account was set up, why, etc. She said that it was set up so she could communicate with her friends and family and not use a state server or blackberry. She said the state AG had issued an opinion saying this was they way to do it. She said that she was travelling constantly and rarely in a spot where she could use a laptop or a desktop for e-mail. This was especially true after the campaign started. She said that sometimes people from the state contacted her on the "red" blackberry (the personal one) and she used the Gov. mansion staff e-mails as an example. She didn't say that was the only one.
The jury has gone home for the night with no decision. http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=120079&catid=2
ReplyDeleteEvidently they are seriously considering this case.
No verdict today.
ReplyDeletePrior to going home for the night, jurors had asked the judge guidance on the legal definition of "access" to a computer. He told them to refer to their instructions.
No verdict until tomorrow?
ReplyDeleteI guess this is not so cut and dried after all.
Oh well, if you learn one just thing while trying to expose Palin it is patience.
"guidance on the legal definition of "access" to a computer."
ReplyDeleteSounds like this jury is considering things carefully. It seems like the jury has picked up the same nuance that's been discussed here and elsewhere: is it "unauthorized access to a computer" when you use your own computer to access someone else's yahoo mail in the cloud? Makes you wonder if they have been looking at the legal definitions of "identity theft" and "wire fraud" too, that are the theft of money, not just inconveniencing someone. It's not illegal to possess someone's personal information, it's illegal to use it to steal money. I think young Kernell has reason for hope.
The Palin's testimony was used probably to show the degree of distress and upheaval the hacking caused. Considering that it was a nuisance for a few days, and no one was hurt or distressed, wouldn't that reduce the sentence?
ReplyDeleteWhat SP should be thankful for is that nothing from her usage of that account caused any harm, or embarrassment to SOA employees, or gubernatorial staff. Instead of heaving a sigh of relief and feel sorry for the kid, she takes the opportunity to exploit it and make herself look like a victim again.
Hang in there Gryph.
ReplyDelete**This web page at www.wbir.com has been reported as an attack page and has been blocked based on your security preferences.** THAT IS WHAT I GET WHEN I TRY TO ACCESS WBIR!
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone else get the attack page block?
anonymous @2:01
ReplyDeleteI got that too..but it's just really annoying spyware advertising at WBIR. Just don't click on anything there...or better, just don't go to WBIR
I have patience but things Palin sure test it. Also, Anon at 8:20, thank you for posting your observations here. It is good to get reports from the 'Frontline'... wherever that may be.
ReplyDeleteNo one else appears to give a rip about this kid
ReplyDeletebeing railroaded except us & his parents. After
meticulous parsing of all the legalese, Palin
'owning' the whole scene, her & Bristolina exaggerating & fibbing (we're prohibited from saying
the 'L' word)like crazy, the male reporter outside
happy as a bed bug & obviously enamoured with interviewing visiting 'royalty,' it's not an unreasonable to suppose that the jury members will face a furious backlash should they fail to convict David Kernell. Alas...alas...where hath justice flown!
Sharon TN
Enough already. Leave the Palin children alone. Bristol probably said what she knows to be true with small embellishments. Not what this is about.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous @ 2:01 I accessed the WBIR page just fine. It was when I tried to read the article about the trial that I got that 'attack page' message. Weird.
ReplyDeleteSarah Palin e-mail hacking case in jury hands; jury deliberates David Kernell's guilt or innocence
ReplyDelete(from the blocked news website) Updated: 4/27/2010 6:35:23 PM Posted: 4/27/2010 10:50:50 AM
Listen To Article (25) Recommend (1) Print Email Larger Smaller
The jury has gone home after a day of deliberations in the case against David Kernell, a former UT student accused of intruding into vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's e-mail--committing four felonies in the process.
The jury received instructions and began deliberating at 9:45.
They broke for lunch for about an hour and 15 minutes, when the judge instructed them not to discuss the case.
About 4:20, lawyers gathered in the courtroom to listen to Judge Thomas Phillips read a question from the jury.
"Regarding Count 3, Element 4, on page 21 of the charge, does 'access' mean logging on to the account or other actions during that particular session?" the question read.
After discussing the matter with attorneys, the judge called the jury into the court room.
"It is up to the jury to determine what 'access' means," Judge Phillips said.
The jury went home for the day at 4:45 Tuesday afternoon and will reconvene at 9:00 Wednesday morning.
Previous: Jury deliberates David Kernell's guilt or innocence
A jury of 6 men and 6 women is now deliberating the guilt or innocence of a former UT student accused of answering Sarah Palin's security question to gain access to her personal e-mail account, snooping around, and posting account details so that others could use the account.
David Kernell is accused of searching for information online to find the answer to Sarah Palin's personal e-mail account, gov.palin@yahoo.com, while she was Sen. John McCain's running mate in the 2008 presidential election.
He is accused of accessing the e-mail address, changing the password to "popcorn," and browsing the e-mail. Prosecutors say he then posted that password online under his Xbox screen name "rubico" so that others could use the account.
Witnesses for the prosecution, including Sarah Palin and eldest daughter Bristol Palin, said that resulted in them receiving harassing phone calls and abusive e-mails being sent to people in Palin's address book.
The defense has presented the case as a young man engaging in a prank due to curiosity, rather than a crime. The prosecution has presented the case as an attempt to derail the campaign, a sort of political espionage.
The jury decides whether the prosecution proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge decides the sentence.
The jury began deliberating around 9:45, then broke for lunch around noon. The jury will continue deliberations at 1:15.
Charges, possible sentence
Count one: identity theft
Maximum 5 years in prison
$250,000 fine
3 years supervised release
Count two: wire fraud
Maximum 20 years in prison
$250,000 fine
5 years supervised release
Count three: unlawful computer access
Maximum 5 years in prison
$250,000 fine
3 years supervised release
Lesser included misdemeanor offense on count 3 carries a maximum of 1 year in prison
Count four: obstruction of justice
Maximum 20 years in prison
$250,000 fine
5 years supervised release
Yesterday we learned that another “ethics” complaint that was filed against Governor Palin was dismissed as baseless. (If you are counting, the Governor is 26-0-1 regarding such complaints or suits, with one still pending). Only this complaint was actually filed after she left office, and alleged that the mere existence of the Alaska Fund Trust (the legal defense fund set up for her to help defray the costs incurred during the Troopergate fiasco and related machinations that followed in its wake) was violative of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act as well as its solicitation or receipt of contributions. The raison d’être of the legal defense fund was inexorably linked to Governor Palin’s nomination as the Republican candidate for Vice President and the post-nomination political tactics arising therefrom; thus making the nomination sine quo non for the fund. In a detailed opinion, the complaint was dismissed as lacking a factual or legal basis. Last June, upon learning that a complaint against the Governor’s Anchorage Office Director was dismissed as baseless, Governor Palin’s then Chief of Staff Mike Nizich said, “This is not about holding the governor or state employees accountable. This is pure harassment.” That still rings true today.
ReplyDeleteWhen I discussed this with Governor Palin, she had an interesting take: “My reaction upon reading the opinion in this matter was not what I expected. Though I’m always pleased with the results of these investigations that prove the false allegations wrong, and I appreciate the detailed reasoning set forth in this recent opinion, I was primarily disappointed that the State of Alaska, the Attorney General’s office, and others, still have to spend time and resources addressing the abusive onslaught of frivolous complaints directed against me—even after I left office.”
At times (indeed, as recently as Sunday in a magazine cover story) people allege that the “real” reason Governor Palin stepped down was to “make money” (citing primarily her best selling book). As this most current complaint again emphasizes, Governor Palin stepped down for the right reasons—she did not want to see her state government continue to get bogged down with inane “ethics” complaints that were transparently political, plainly partisan, and diverting state resources. The voluntary relinquishment of power for the greater good is normally praised as an example of true leadership—just review any biography of George Washington—and it should be in this case as well. But for those who seek power for the sake of power, a selfless act is confusing, so a new narrative is created, such as the “profit” motive now being asserted with renewed vigor. Rest assured Sarah Palin had obtained approval to write her memoir while still in office without running into any conflict with the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Her financial future from her best selling book, though unknown then, would not have altered much whether she stayed in office or resigned, except the number of “ethics” complaints did dramatically decrease, so any legal fees associated with such complaints decreased concomitantly.
Let this latest dismissed complaint serve as a reminder for one of the real—and stated—reasons for her voluntary relinquishment of office, an office she campaigned for diligently, tirelessly and effectively. It stands as a marker that occasionally, every so often, there are public servants who can recognize the difference between self-interest and public interest. Sarah Palin is one such public servant.
- Thomas Van Flein, personal attorney for Sarah Palin
"Bristol probably said what she knows to be true with small embellishments"..
ReplyDeleteUM....I am SURE bri$tol KNOWS that Wasilla is NOT the woods, cell phone #'s can be swapped, e-mail accounts can be swapped. IN MINUTES!!!! She could have made a new bri$tol e-mail account, called $arah and told her to use that to contatc her while it took 2 hours to get a new phone #..SARAH SAID THEY LIVED IN CIVILIZATION when Katie asked what she read. Best Western is 1/4 mile away. Meth ridden pool hall also too.
You copy and paste people need to grow a brain. You add nothing to the conversation as we've all read all that there is to read regarding the posts on this blog.
ReplyDeleteTell us what YOU think, not what you can Google....
Just sayin'; you're making it very boring.....
if he is indicted, he has an excellent case for a retrial.
ReplyDeleteI'm crossing fingers for a mistrial
"Regarding Count 3, Element 4, on page 21 of the charge, does 'access' mean logging on to the account or other actions during that particular session?" the question read.
ReplyDeleteDoes this judge know zip about what 'access' means in this area of the law?
These questions need to go to a higher court.
Anon 8:20 @ 11:53 - wow, we get so caught up on vilifying that horrible woman but this exchange you talk about helps me remember there might very well be a very authentic, normal human thing about her.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe her momma bear persona for a minute, at least the way she see's it, but this seems a poignant moment.
Thanks for that. It's the only grudging respect I'll give Sarah for the moment.
I am angry...really angry that Palin wasn't allowed to be cross-examined in depth!!
ReplyDeleteShows again how she is able to get away with murder.. She is enabled by the media and courts.
PRIOR POST: if he is indicted, he has an excellent case for a retrial.
ReplyDeleteRESPONSE: What would be the basis for the retrial?
PRIOR POST:
ReplyDeleteDoes this judge know zip about what 'access' means in this area of the law?
These questions need to go to a higher court.
RESPOSNE: Not sure if you were implying this, but the only way for the appellate court to go to the higher court is for a specific case to be taken up on appeal. With the exception of declaratory judgements not applicable in this case, appellate courts don't make decisions absent a specific case.
And it would never happen that an appellate court would issue an opinion without someone submitting the issue to them.
anon at 8:20 said "She said the state AG had issued an opinion saying this was they way to do it."
ReplyDeletemore proof of SP's revisionist history - the AG said a private yahoo account is not secure and IS NOT the way to do it.
Flea bag states SP did not step down for the money. However, we KNOW that she did. She questioned whether or not she could sell a book while she was governor and was told NO. She stepped down so she could have her plastic surgery and have someone write her book so she could collect millions.
ReplyDeleteanon at 5:15 - I've served on a jury that made a similar request for clarification of a similarly common word from the judge - who gave us the exact same answer, and a dictionary.
ReplyDeleteIt took us more than a day of discussion to come to agreement.
Anonymous at 11:33 PM said...
ReplyDelete"I am angry...really angry that Palin wasn't allowed to be cross-examined in depth!!
Shows again how she is able to get away with murder.. She is enabled by the media and courts."
The trial was not about her, or about her lies. The trial was about Kernell. Her lies were not relevant. She did not "get away" with anything because she was not being accused of anything. She was not "enabled" by the court because she had nothing to lose.
Personally, I think that there should have been another witness from Wasilla who could clearly show that Bristol was not in any danger because the house was not "out in the woods." And, someone who saw the Secret Service there should have testified that poor dear Bristol was safe. That would have shown that Kernell's action did not significantly damage Bristol.
Remember -- the trial's about Kernell, not Palin.