FBI Says Sarah Palin is Not Under Investigation

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Sat Jul 04, 2009 at 11:20:47 PM EST
Tags: Sarah Palin (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Let's put the rumors to bed. The F.B.I. said today that soon to be former Governor Sarah Palin is not under investigation. No way. No how.

...[T]the FBI's Alaska spokesman said the bureau had no investigation into Palin for her activities as governor, as mayor or in any other capacity.

"There is absolutely no truth to those rumors, that we're investigating her or getting ready to indict her," Special Agent Eric Gonzalez said in a phone interview Saturday. "It's just not true."

Gonzalez added that there was "no wiggle room" in his comments that could exclude any kind of probe.

That's good enough for me. What's left? Money or just a bone-headed political stunt that will forever brand her a quitter. Take your pick. [More...]

Update: Via Politico: Sarah Palin's lawyer has issued a 4 page letter (pdf) explaining why there is no "HouseGate" or other investigation and informing bloggers and mainstream media he will be exploring legal options as to Alaska blogger Shannyn Moore and any mainstream media publication, including HuffPo, that republish the allegations.

To the extent several websites, most notably liberal Alaska blogger Shannyn Moore, are now claiming as “fact” that Governor Palin resigned because she is “under federal investigation” for embezzlement or other criminal wrongdoing, we will be exploring legal options this week to address such defamation.
This is to provide notice to Ms. Moore, and those who re-publish the defamation, such as Huffington Post, MSNBC, the New York Times and The Washington Post,that the Palins will not allow them to propagate defamatory material without answering to this in a court of law. The Alaska Constitution protects the right of free speech, while simultaneously holding those “responsible for the abuse of that right.” Alaska Constitution Art. I, Sec. 5. These falsehoods abuse the right to free speech; continuing to publish these falsehoods of criminal activity is reckless, done without any regard for the truth, and is actionable.

< Steve McNair Shot to Death | Children of the Incarcerated Paying a Steep Price >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

FBI Says Sarah Palin is Not Under Investigation | 62 comments (62 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

She very well could be (5.00 / 3) (#4)
by nycstray on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:15:07 AM EST

I have to wonder who is really the stupid one(s) when all is said and done. She might be able to advance her causes just fine out of office, and perhaps her children/family will be left alone.

Did she not KNOW as governor... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Dadler on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 02:03:42 AM EST

...that she'd be under greater scrutiny? Did she not KNOW when she accepted the VP path that there would be even MORE scrutiny than that? Come on, she's quitting because she tried to play hardball, did her best to play her own brand of the "politics of personal destruction" (that was her job, after all, in the mccain campaign), but she was out of her league and she lost, got blown out. Rather than take defeat like the tough person she says she is, instead of forging forward and doing her best for the state as she swore to do, she is quitting. That is certainly her right. But if she had just said, "My family and I can't take it, the stress is too much, goodbye", then I could have a smidgen of sympathy. But, instead, this pol who said all kinds of vile crap when it suited her purposes, would have us believe she is just a victim of terrible, awful, nasty people. People like her, that is. Hypocrite. Adios.


Good grief, Dadler (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Inspector Gadget on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 02:13:43 AM EST

You obviously don't have children, or don't give a darn what kind of emotional scars are created with the kind of abuse leveled on them. Sarah and Todd are able to handle what is delivered to them, but they have not obligation to AK or you to allow their children to be emotionally beaten up by an ill-mannered media.


agreed, except: (5.00 / 0) (#14)
by cpinva on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 03:34:38 AM EST

but they have not obligation to AK or you to allow their children to be emotionally beaten up by an ill-mannered media.

she insisted on using her children as very public props in her campaign., and
show me where the media has been ill-mannered, in regards to her children? the only thing that comes immediately to mind is the suspicion that their youngest, trip, was actually her oldest daughter's, not hers. that turned out to be untrue, but it didn't stop her from using the fact that he has problems, but she had him anyway, as part of her campaign.

she isn't a really bright person. that might (and apparently does) play to her (very small) alaska audience, and her fundamentalist base, but it doesn't play well to people who actually think.

i think her political career is toast, though i hope not. i hope she does run in 2012, and wins the republican nomination.


Every politician on the planet (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 07:50:03 AM EST

shows off their family, and plenty use them as "props" far more than Palin ever did.


: It would be difficult (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Fabian on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 08:51:51 AM EST

to find a single website that didn't have a picture of a politician's wholesome, all American family.
It would be almost as difficult to find a politician's wife who didn't play the expected role.
It's appalling that the public thinks that having a photogenic spouse and children is just as important as sound policies and solid ethics. I find it hard to blame the politicians, except when they use their family as a shield when they get caught. There's a reason that leaving politics to "spend more time with my family" is now a joke.

Don't know if you consider (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by MO Blue on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 09:51:38 AM EST

Huffington Post as part of the media but they certainly think they are. Even after Palin resigned, Erik Sean Nelson had a despicable Huffington Post article titled "Palin Will Run In On More Retardation Platform." Palin's son, Trig, name was in the tag line. Just an example of some of the creative writings of the so called "creative class" on Palin's family.


Quotes please (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 07:46:11 AM EST

What kinds of "vile crap" did she say? What "politics of personal destruction"?

People went ballistic when she sneered at community organizing and even moreso when she greeted an enthusiastic, flag-waving crowd somewhere as "real Americans," but that's pretty mainstream for ordinary Republicans.

I do not want this woman ever to hold a position that has any power over any aspect of my life whatsoever, but she is not the grotesque caricature she's been made out to be.


: HAHAHA! (none / 0) (#60)
by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:32:13 PM EST

Those are your examples of "vile"? You've got to be kidding me. George H.W. Bush was a heck of a lot "viler" than those cracks, and there were plenty of other people saying worse in this election season.
As for "the politics of personal destruction," you've demonstrated you flat out don't know what the phrase means.
You've proved my point precisely.
BTW, there were plenty of commenters here, Democratic voters virtually all, who wondered aloud why Obama would have palled around with a terrorist, "reformed" or not, like William Ayers.

Perhaps an apology to the Palins is (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by oculus on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:54:18 AM EST

appropriate.

A real one this time (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Inspector Gadget on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 01:45:29 AM EST

rather than the list of justifications they generally get.

As a mother who spent years making my decisions based on the impact they had on the development of my children, I have no trouble at all believing that Sarah Palin made this decision to get her children out of the way of crossfire. Nothing she did, not even "parading them onstage" the same way every other politician did theirs, justified the onslaught of attacks on the children. She showed her children courage and self-worth by defending them against the attacks, and now she's shown them what is her most important priority in life...they are.

I hope she does take any and every publication in every form of media to task if they dare to continue.


If she just wanted her kids (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by Jeralyn on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 02:19:37 AM EST

out of the crossfire, all she had to do was announce she isn't seeking a second term as Gov or any national office in the future. She'd be off the media radar in a nanosecond. The national media doesn't really care what goes on in local Alaskan politics.

If she plans to run for national office, or start some new national venture where she can effect policy or influence people, as she has suggested, the family will stay in the limelight.


Why the family? (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Inspector Gadget on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 03:16:33 AM EST

What other politician's family takes the kind of critical abuse her children do? People can leave her children alone.


Chelsea Clinton? (5.00 / 0) (#29)
by byteb on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 10:03:45 AM EST

Remember the jokes? Remember John McCain's horrible joke?

For that matter, remember eight years of Hillary bashing and her primary battle for the Presidential nomination?

I remember Palin's Newsweek interview criticizing Hillary for not being able to take the heat:
"When I hear a statement like that coming from a woman candidate with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism or, you know, maybe a sharper microscope put on her, I think, man, that doesn't do us any good. Women in politics, women in general wanting to progress this country. I don't think it's, it bodes well for her -- a statement like that."

or how about:
"I think she does herself a disservice to even mention it, really. I mean, you've got to plow through that. You have to know what you're getting into which, I say this with all due respect to Hillary Clinton and to her experience and to her passion for changing the status quo."

this one is priceless:
"It bothers me a little bit, hearing, hearing her bring that
attention to herself on that level."

If Palin really abhors the attention, she'll take the quiet path but with a book deal set I think the Sarah Road Show shall continue ad infinitum.


Try reading again (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by Inspector Gadget on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 10:10:03 AM EST

I did not ever say that ONLY Sarah Palin's family deserves to be left alone. My entire argument is on protecting all the children, so your pointing out what Hillary went through and the joke against Chelsea to me is really preaching to the choir. I supported Hillary through the primaries and took great offense to the attacks she endured. Even then, I think what has been thrown at the Palin's is much worse.

BTW - McCain didn't make up the joke...that one circulated through the email route long before McCain repeated it publicly...it was pretty old by the time he got stuck with the blame for it.


If McCain hadn't seen fit to repeat it, (5.00 / 0) (#34)
by byteb on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 10:23:39 AM EST

he wouldn't be stuck with the blame of originating it.

I did misread your first comment. Thanks for clarifying it for me.

I disagree that Palin has been treated worse than Clinton. Even thinking back to the primaries and the Presidential campaign, Michelle Obama was disparaged and attacked in horrible ways. I'm sure I could think of others who have endured the same or worse. Palin has a certain Dick (You won't have me to kick around anymore) NIxon quality. And just like Nixon, she'll crave and court the spotlight if it appears to be dimming.


It's always fun (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 10:49:42 AM EST

when "progressives" use the bashing of Chelsea(sp) Hillary Clinton as justification for bashing other people's children.

People should face facts. The bashing of kids is selective. If the only way to avoid it is to run and hide from politics, THAT is wrong.


: I didn't use bashing Chelsea as 'justification' (5.00 / 0) (#44)
by byteb on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 11:10:10 AM EST

for bashing other children of politicians.Rather, I was responding to a commenter who stated that no other politician's children has been attacked like Palin's ("What other politician's family takes the kind of critical abuse her children do? People can leave her children alone')
It's always fun when "progressives" attack others based on a false premise.

Oh, good, the mature (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by Inspector Gadget on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 10:11:12 AM EST

argument.


LOL (5.00 / 4) (#41)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 10:52:43 AM EST

If you want to talk mean spirited, read back at the Clinton RFK flap.

Hillary apparently was waiting in the wings for Obama to be assasinated....so say the Obama talking points memos.

Politics is blood sport. No one resists. But leave the kids out of it.


Except that was accurate. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by oculus on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 11:55:15 AM EST

: BS (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by squeaky on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:28:20 PM EST

And you know it. Were you paling around with terrorists because you went to Michigan state? And of course the quote states that Obama was supporting terrorist acts when they were happening.
Obama's distant relationship, certainly not an everyday relationship engendered by the word paling around, with Ayers happened when he was a respected member of his community, not when he was out doing so called terrorist acts.

The guy he palled around with (5.00 / 2) (#53)
by cawaltz on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:02:15 PM EST

was a domestic terrorist. Blowing things up or destroying stuff because you disagree with the government's decisions is terrorism. Sorry if you don't like that fact.

Heck, Ayers, even goes as far to admit and wish he could have inflicted more damage.


: 'palling around' connotes (5.00 / 0) (#56)
by byteb on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:13:25 PM EST

a relationship of frequent association and even friendship.
I never realized Ayers and Obama were so tight.

But don't you think her decision to resign (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by byteb on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:22:46 PM EST

has had the opposite effect....rather than deflecting attention, it has only increased the attention on Palin and her family?
If she really wanted to remove herself and her loved ones from the crossfire why not announce her decision not to run again for Gov and not to pursue higher office?
And why sign on for a book deal where I have a hunch she might just discuss her children?


She knew her teenage daughter... (4.25 / 4) (#12)
by Dadler on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 02:45:55 AM EST

...was already pregnant when she decided to step into the national spotlight. How is that looking out for the interests of your children? It is exactly the opposite. That's the thing about the right: they want to make all these "moral" issues front and center, but then when their own pitiful hypocrisy is exposed, they claim it is off limits. They cannot have it both ways. When you make "moral" issues, and the morals of others, so much the focus of your political game, then your own personal sh*t becomes defacto data. You'd think they'd have learned by now to ditch that part of their platform, but they keep on hammering nails into it, and their own political coffins.


: The New Liberalism? (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 10:51:09 AM EST

Where teenage pregnancy is "teh evil".

Send Her A Note (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by squeaky on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 11:56:54 AM EST

And a check, of course, if that will make you feel better.


Silly me. (5.00 / 5) (#15)
by lentinel on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 03:46:20 AM EST

I can't think of a reason why Palin would choose to remain a punching bag if there is no reason for her to do so.

Whatever her politics may be, she has drawn more attention and fire from everyone than has our president who is leading us at a snail's pace to nowhere.

I never condemned Roberto Duran for his "no mas" moment. Ray Leonard was behaving like an idiot in the ring.

So if this is Palin's "no mas", I say good luck to her.

Maybe people on the left will start to pay attention to the people who have real power in Washington. Our energies should be directed to those who would deny us health care. To those who want us to continue in our condition of perpetual war. To those who would continue to deny us our constitutional rights to privacy.

: I don't think her book deal (5.00 / 0) (#46)
by byteb on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 11:27:08 AM EST

with requisite book tour will lend itself to quiet introspection and a departure from the limelight (with all the postives and negatives the spotlight bestows).

: Bravo (none / 0) (#23)
by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 07:51:55 AM EST

Agree completely

She actually put up with more invective than McCai (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by Gerald USN Ret on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:10:29 AM EST

She actually put up with more invective than McCain.

For example, does anyone here remember David Letterman apologizing to anyone, much less to a politician.

Was that a first?

As for her children being fair game for an attack because they were with her many times, does that mean that Obama's children are fair game to attack?

Some of you need to look at yourselves.

Think of the children? (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by Fabian on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 06:01:28 AM EST

Reminds me of the diary at dkos pointing out the NYTimes had no problem using the word "torture" when talking about the official practices of Iran even while they used almost every euphemism while talking about the official practices of the oh-so-exceptional USofA!

I see a LOT of the same hypocrisy WRT politician's wives and children. A Republican? Ok-ay! Let's flambe Cindy McCain, attack Sarah Palin as a Bad Mother (the worst thing you can call a woman in this culture) but OMG! don't you dare say a thing about the divine Michelle Obama or the cute-as-a-button Obama daughters.

Let's just stick to criticizing politicians on policies and professional ethics and let Family Services deal with any reports of abuse or neglect.


: The latest slime hurled at Michelle Obama (5.00 / 0) (#45)
by byteb on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 11:19:52 AM EST

was recently when a chimp escaped from a zoo and some idiot Republican made a statement that one of Michelle's relatives had escaped or something vile like that.
It hardly caused a ripple.

Moving to New York (5.00 / 2) (#18)
by Sweet Sue on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 05:59:21 AM EST

Maybe Sarah will now move to New York, and run for the US Senate. That seems to be a popular move for people that want to "move up."

Well, yes, it worked for Bobby Kennedy.

Don't beleve an accusation until (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Repack Rider on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 07:49:08 AM EST

You see the carefully worded yet still sloppily written non-denial denial. Her lawyer confirmed for me [YMMV] that we will see a scandal eventually.

Everyone here who thinks that Palin resigned in order to protect her family from unwarranted accusations is naive.

She was never built for any job higher than small town mayor, and even that might have been a little too much for her.

Her own character flaws, pettiness, incoherence, corruption and ignorance coupled with arrogance and a sense of entitlement are the sources of her bad press, and you can't blame the media for her problems when she holds press conferences to expose them.

If anything, by treating her as a serious candidate instead of pointing out that she is barely employable for anything, the media enabled her insanity and helped inflict this empty dress on America.

The New Phyllis Schlafly (5.00 / 2) (#38)
by santarita on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 10:44:49 AM EST

If there's no corruption charges looming, then I think she's angling for becoming the new Phyllis Schlafly. She''ll become the head of the new Moral Majority. She's close to iconic now. The noble PTA soccer mom who fought the good fight for her family by going into politics and when it became apparent that politics is corrupt she resigned for the good of her family. She'll be the female version of Cincinnatus.

Why stay working at a frustratingly difficult job where everyone is watching your every move when you can become a well-paid spokesperson with celebrity status and no ethics scrutiny? She has a good fan base who will pay to read her books and hear her speak. And if, down the road, her fans want her to run for higher office, she'll indulge them. Of course anyone who votes for a person who quits their previous job has some screws loose.

I think (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 10:55:08 AM EST

Sarah Palin resigned to make the people who hate her very breath of being squirm.

And it worked really well. I'll bet she's laughing her head off right now.

Sarah Palin 1, haters 0

I don't see it (5.00 / 0) (#48)
by Repack Rider on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 11:37:26 AM EST

She quits, ends her political career, looks like an idiot doing it, confirms that she is an incoherent crazy, and that is some sort of victory?

Who are these "haters" of whom you speak? People who "hate" corruption, stupidity, and arrogance and point out that she displays all three traits? I don't hate her at all, I just hate everything she represents.

Hate the sin, don't hate the sinner.


Surely you jest (1.00 / 1) (#47)
by pluege on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 11:28:15 AM EST

you can't seriously think that anyone other than the loony wingnut base thinks sarah palin is anything but a total buffoon with no chance whatsoever of winning high office - winning the nomination for the rump republican insaneothon party sure. But you would have to have complete contempt for the intelligence of the 75% of Americans that aren't enthralled of the lunatic violentarian republican/conservative whackpack to think palin could actually win the presidency.

Squirm at the notion of a palin run for presidency - funny... very, very funny. By all means: run sarah run!


Um (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 11:50:01 AM EST

You obviously didn't read my mail. You may be too busy sqirming to read.

I didn't say squirm at the thought of a presidential run.

I said squirm, period. Squirm period.

And people are squirming.


: Elaborate (5.00 / 0) (#55)
by Repack Rider on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:09:51 PM EST

people are squirming.
Which people, and define "squirming."
Wait, I get it. It's the fingernails on the blackboard type of squirming when we hear her or GWB try to speak in their private language that no one else understands. Why did a merciful God permit such a sound to exist?
You are correct in that I find her ignorance and incoherence squirm-worthy, but that hardly represents a victory for her unless there is someone, somewhere who thinks these are positive qualities.

: Whaaat? (5.00 / 0) (#59)
by daring grace on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:29:21 PM EST

Who?
Where is this squirming occurring?
I might be squirming at the news of Governor Palin resigning if I was an Alaskan voter who put her in office and wanted to see her serve at least one full term, but other than that I can't imagine who you're referring to as now uh, squirming at her stepping down.

: No I laugh my ass off at palin the buffoon (5.00 / 0) (#65)
by pluege on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 05:15:19 PM EST

all the time - she is a complete fool with high entertainment value.
What I do squirm at is the notion that some would consider her anything but an ignorant self-centered, know-nothing buffoon. Granted, that describes most of what passes for republicans in office these days, and she surely is a poster child for their crackpot violent lunacy, but the 25% of Americans that go for that kind of thing and vote for them is really, really scary - that such a large number of people roam the streets without being under professional psychiatric care is something to be very afraid of.
Democracy is a participatory activity. But more important than just participation is informed participation. The ignorance and mental-midgetism it takes to be pro-sarah palin is just staggering.

Uh (5.00 / 2) (#54)
by cawaltz on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:03:48 PM EST

I don't consider myself a loony wingnut and I don't consider her buffon. I daresay there are more like me.


Maybe you ought to get (none / 0) (#63)
by pluege on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 05:03:41 PM EST

that checked out.


Nope (none / 0) (#66)
by cawaltz on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 09:28:11 PM EST

I'm perfectly comfortable not being a party ideologue.

Then again, I wasn't one of the folks who believed that Obama was going to go from Harry and Louise to Universal Healthcare or felt the guy who revered Reagan was really a liberal playing 11th dimensional chess.

I guess I must be a fairly sharp judge of charecter after all.


Or (1.00 / 1) (#67)
by squeaky on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 09:31:31 PM EST

I guess I must be a fairly sharp judge of charecter after all.

Or have an abundantly generous ego. lol...


: I'm not going (none / 0) (#68)
by cawaltz on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 10:24:28 PM EST

to apologize for being confident or right.
That's how I roll and all.
:)

Money talks (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by KoolJeffrey on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 03:58:44 PM EST

Of course this is all about the money. The Palins are not wealthy people. But we've seen how much they enjoy living the high life with their $150,000 wardrobe (Todd's silk boxers were my particular favorite).

Palin knows she will never be able to "study up" enough to become a serious candidate for higher office. And hanging around AK, waiting for your term to end, isn't very profitiable.

She is smart to capitalize on her celebrity now. Strike while the iron is hot. Instead of acting, she is using politics as a way to keep herself in the news, even if she has no intention of running for president.

With Sarah, there is no difference between politics and personal life. That's why her family is always with her. They will provide enough intrigue and scandal to last for many magazine covers to come.

All in all, smart move. I don't think she is intelligent enough to handle a TV talk show or radio show, but there will be enough scripted formats for her to perform in.

I have to tip my cap to her for accepting her limitations and realizing just how lucrative a job it is to be tabloid fodder. Her book and speaking tours will make enough money so that her relatives will never have to work again.

Now that's what I call family values.

If (5.00 / 1) (#64)
by CoralGables on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 05:14:46 PM EST

there was an investigation, wouldn't it be by Alaska's Attorney General and not the FBI?

17 months early (4.75 / 4) (#2)
by weltec2 on Sat Jul 04, 2009 at 11:44:43 PM EST

She abandoned Alaska. She cannot seriously consider this a wise move if she is considering running for anything in the future. He political career is dead.

That thing (4.50 / 2) (#3)
by eric on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 12:00:35 AM EST

released by that law firm is odd. It is on letter head, yet it isn't a letter, its a press release, sort of. And it has a footnote. It uses strange language like, "the left wing Village Voice". Followed by chip on your shoulder type language like, maybe that isn't the way they do it in New York. . .

ODD. That state is ODD.

The Creepy Corporate Cabal's Fav Tool: Blackmail (1.00 / 0) (#36)
by Talktruth on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 10:27:27 AM EST

I was a lifelong Democrat until last year, when I saw what the DNC did to "win" the election. And while I don't agree with her politics, it's easy to see that Palin is one tough cookie, and not a quitter. So for her to bow out in this absurd manner, and with only a relatively short time left to finish out her term as governor, it's got to be something HUGE that has made her step aside. And personally I think it's the same Creepy Corporate Cabal that got Obama into office that told her, in no uncertain terms, "Either you step down or we completely ruin your life."

The same thing may have been done to Hillary. She kept winning primary after primary, and the idiot Barack (his minions, actually) kept asking her to step aside. His thugs stole her delegates on May 31st, then there was the infamous Convention.

What a shady, shysty sham of an administration. Anybody who voted for it, if they're able to read, should be ashamed.

Wasn't there something (none / 0) (#9)
by Maggie Mae on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 02:17:50 AM EST

For some reason I keep thinking there's some law, in Alaska, that, as long as she's Governor, she can't earn money from speeches or the book; she'd have to wait, until she's out of office. I could be totally wrong on this. I don't seem to be able to find it. Every time I Google anything with Alaska in it , I get multi-links on her resignation.

There's also that possibility, that'll she'll get her own show on FOX. The idea is giving me a headache.

Ok, this is for a chuckle. (none / 0) (#17)
by Gerald USN Ret on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:13:09 AM EST

Fed up (none / 0) (#24)
by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 08:01:06 AM EST

She's just fed up, I think. It's not the children alone, though that figures into it. She's just not having any fun anymore and feels she can't get anything done from the governor's office, so why stay if all she's going to do is keep fighting off ethics complaints? (Far as I know, she's won every one of those that's been brought against her, except for the "troopergate" admonishment for allowing her husband to get too involved in it.)

Remember this is not a lifelong professional politician but a fed-up parent and taxpayer who stormed into the mayor's office in Wasilla to "fix" all that kind of stuff we all sit around the dinner table and complain about, then rode that into the governor's office.

Once serious opposition started to build for her and she wasn't the golden girl who could "get things done" easily anymore, she's discovered she doesn't have the stomach for the hard slog of governing.

Actually, I'm quite relieved!

: I would mostly agree (none / 0) (#73)
by CoralGables on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 09:09:27 AM EST

until you said this...

She certainly wouldn't be the first one to walk away from public office while the career arc was on the ascendancy.
If you are talking about a public office career arc, I would suggest rather than an ascending arc it had become more of a slope into the abyss.
If you are talking about an ascending arc of money earnings by way of cultish extremism rants to a fawning group of followers, then I agree.

I'm going with both (none / 0) (#25)
by pluege on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 08:07:26 AM EST

surely the lure of bundles of cash from the wingnut talking tour is irresistible to such craven opportunists as the palins (Alaska was draggin' her down).

boneheaded political stunts are palin's stock in trade (she is truly dumb as a stump with zero capacity for introspection or honest self-evaluation). Next trick: adopting joe the plumber.

Does anyone know.... (none / 0) (#43)
by EL seattle on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 11:02:12 AM EST

... if there's a web site that tracks and discusses things like defamation and libel issues issues and the ways that they exist (or don't exist) in the new media universe?

Palin's lawyer here says:
To the extent several websites, most notably liberal Alaska blogger Shannyn Moore, are now claiming as "fact" that Governor Palin resigned because she is "under federal investigation" for embezzlement or other criminal wrongdoing, we will be exploring legal options this week to address such defamation.

Personally, I'd doubt that there is actionable defamation going in Palin's case, but I don't know. I would like to know what the limits are for the sort of safe haven protections that blogs and internet sites have for certain types of speech at various levels.

For instance... as I understand things in the current environment, if there's an annonymous blog comment made that politician X is an "admitted nazi pedophile", the web site isn't held legally responsible for that statement even if it isn't accurate. But if the owner of the web site makes the same statement, they should probably be sure that it's accurate before they say it. And if a web site publishes a story as news that has an erroneous "admitted nazi pedophile" identification, the web site probably doesn't have the same broad free speech protection as it does for annonymous blog comments. (I think that my understanding is correct about the way this currently works, but I'm not a lawyer, you know?) And I'm sure that inaccurately identifying a politition as being a "well-known crook and embezeller" wouldn't be as problematic as making an error at the "admitted nazi pedophile" level.

Anyway, if anyone knows of a website or blog that's addressing these issues, I'd really like to know about them. I'm looking for something like Nikki Finke's Hollywood site, or Ben Sheffner's site.

Any leads or suggestions would be appreciated.

: I know this (5.00 / 0) (#49)
by Repack Rider on Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 11:43:16 AM EST

Be careful what you wish for, Sarah. There are a lot of bloggers who are repeating the accusations for the specific purpose of challenging her to "bring it on."
As the lawyers among them (IANAL) seem to agree, if she brings legal action, she can herself be deposed, and they are salivating at the thought.

She's already made millions from her VP run (none / 0) (#72)
by BobTinKY on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 08:39:26 AM EST

so why put up with the media spotlight on her family? I'd give her the benefit of the doubt and believe she really does want to get her family out of the spotlight.

Her public persona going forward will be talking about her views for large amounts of cash.