An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Stimulus

Quote Of The Day: Maureen Dowd’s Idea for a 2012 GOP Ticket »

FBI Denies Investigating Palin As Palin’s Lawyer Warns Media About Defamatory Material

Posted by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief in Media, Politics.
Jul 5th, 2009 | Comments

Did anyone really think soon-to-be resigned and former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin intended to go quietly into the political night? She never said that — and now some new legal news related event attests to that.

First, the FBI quickly shot down reports suggesting that Palin is being investigated on corruption charges. Meanwhile, Palin’s lawyer issued a stern warning to the news media that Palin will go after those who pick up and publish defamatory, speculative material from weblogs. Fading away, this exactly ain’t…

The FBI:

A day after Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin resigned, a federal official in her home state dismissed one potential explanation for her sudden and unexpected resignation: a rumored FBI investigation into the former Wasilla mayor on public corruption charges.

Despite rumors of a looming controversy after the Republican governor’s surprise announcement Friday that she would leave office this month, some of them published in the blogosphere, 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.” He added that there was “no wiggle room” in his comments for any kind of inquiry.

The FBI has been active in mounting corruption investigations in Alaska, some to see whether local, state and federal lawmakers illegally received favors, money or free construction work from businesses or people seeking favors.

Palin’s attorney:

Ratcheting up her offensive against the news media, Gov. Sarah Palin’s attorney threatened Saturday to sue mainstream news organizations if they publish “defamatory” stories relating to whether Palin is under federal investigation.

In an extraordinary four-page letter, Alaska-based attorney Thomas Van Flein warns of severe consequences should speculation that until now has largely been confined to blogs about whether Palin embezzled funds in the construction of a Wasilla, Alaska, sports arena find its way into print.

“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,” Van Flein warned, citing Alaska liberal blogger Shannyn Moore.

Much like Palin did in her Facebook statement Saturday, Van Flein savages the news media in his letter.

“Just as power abhors a vacuum, modern journalism apparently abhors any type of due diligence and fact checking before scurrilous allegations are repeated as fact,” the Anchorage attorney wrote.

Neither the Times or the Post made any mention of the embezzlement rumors in their Saturday editions, but sources close to Palin consider the letter a warning shot to stay away from the topic.

This could cause some blogs to think twice, but it’s going to be unlikely to stop infooutlets such as the Huffington Post, TV/cable networks, or big newspapers to (a) not republish material that is already on the Internet and being widely quoted and (b)sending out their own teams of reporters to look into every nook and cranny of Palin’s life. And if this did succeed, would Democrats then follow suit and go after conservative blogs running unfounded rumors and those outlets that print or broadcast them?

An ongoing open “war” between Palin and the media, spilling over into courtrooms and being covered by the new and old media, would help Palin shore up her base. But Palin’s her problem as a politician with aspirations is that she doesn’t want to run for President of the base but for an office that will require that she wins over some others who either don’t like her or have doubts about her, too.

And in terms of seriously expanding her supportive constituency polls since the election show that she has a failing grade. Her crossover appeal so far seems limited to crossover listeners from Rush Limbaugh to Sean Hannity.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24521.html#ixzz0KOuI1kZU&C

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

dmf

please stop taking this joke of a politician seriously.

StockBoySF

“Just as power abhors a vacuum, modern journalism apparently abhors any type of due diligence and fact checking before scurrilous allegations are repeated as fact,” the Anchorage attorney wrote.

Talk about double-standards.... What was all the crap Palin said about Obama during the election? And of course her campaign audiences were calling for Obama's death....

She can dish it out, but can't take it.... And she claims she's a victim of the media. Palin's really a victim of herself.

D. E.Rodriguez

The freedom of speech champion, master of personal destruction ("palin" around with terrorists) certainly is getting desperate.

Polimom

I posted on exactly this earlier at the chron. (link here, so I don't clutter TMV with still more Palin posts.)

In a nutshell, I find it absolutely bizarre that she'd give vague reasons for a resignation, and then threaten to sue people for speculating about it.

Father_Time

The GOP has been subtly telling her to STFU, so now she is finally doing it?

kritt11

Let me say first that I can't stand Palin or anything that comes out of her mouth, BUT--- I actually agree with her on this point. She was absolutely wrong in spreading half-truths and rumors at her rallies about Obama--- BUT I hold journalists from the NYT's and WaPo to a much higher standard. Repeating speculation and gossip from internet blogs does not constitute journalism.

If they want to investigate her for corruption- let them find solid evidence against her or STFU.

Polimom

kritt -- it seems that they're just firing a "warning shot". The NYT and WaPo have not, in fact, repeated the speculation (or at least they hadn't as of last night, when the letter was written).

archangel

i hate to ask, I get the last two letters FU, at least I think I do, that time honored sort of epithet, but ST? Stay Tuned? Start Tomorrow? So Then? Saint Thomerini?

help me help me, I'm part of the know-nothing blogospore-producing llamarama.

kritt11

Polimom
Yes, that's true--- but maybe that's a good idea, and not just for
Palin. I would just rather not see journalism lower its standards to
that of the blogs.
Kritt

Polimom

Kritt -- while I fully agree with you that when reading about something, one should be able to distinguish between a blog and an MSM source, I think the line between them is not particularly clear any more.

Some of the strongest attacks on Palin, for instance, have come from HuffPo and Andrew Sullivan. Are those the MSM? I've read (and been told) that they are. Not sure I accept that, myself (though they are clearly influential).

Also -- I'm having a lot of trouble understanding how Palin can expect to sue if someone reports on stories that are "alleged" or "rumored", if those words are included. We read news like that *all the time*.

Polimom

@archangel -- First two words in STFU are "shut the"...

kritt11

That's exactly my point, Polimom. We should be able to easily
distinguish reputable sources as the MSM- from the more gossipy ones
like Huff Po.

I do agree that Palin would not have grounds to sue if "alleged" or
"rumored" were included-- but I still think the MSM should not stoop
to printing allegations based on that kind of evidence. Yes, the trend
is to do so, but imo, it is regrettable. It leads to a lot of false
impressions and also makes it even more difficult to distinguish
between fact and fiction.
kritt

archangel

Thank you polimom, I get it now. STFU is NOT 'Stay Tuned For Uluru.' Pity in a way, we could use a lot more of Uluru than FU.

just my two cents worth, I hope you are laughing.

dr.e

StockBoySF

"I do agree that Palin would not have grounds to sue if "alleged" or
"rumored" were included-- but I still think the MSM should not stoop
to printing allegations based on that kind of evidence. "

Let me insert my two cents here.....

I think most news stories around people's illegal actions are actually "alleged". The NYT might report on a kidnapping and refer to the suspect with "alleged". After all the suspect is not guilty until a jury finds him or her to be guilty, at which point the "alleged" can be dropped.

I also agree that the "reputable" MSM should stay away from gossip. However it seems to me that when a credible source has a story and tells the NYT (or some other reputable organization) that the NYT will publish that story, and if it hasn't been proven then words such as "alleged" and "rumored" will be thrown in as acceptable qualifiers.

I think a good journalist would use a source with direct knowledge of the activity. A secretary, who may have some knowledge from things overheard would probably not be a good source. So perhaps the problem is with newspapers trying to stay ahead of the competition and accepting the story of anyone in the area as credible?

My opinion on Palin on this particular story is that she's a whiner. She has pushed the limits and even crossed the line in attacking her own political opponents in the same way, and even had the nerve to separate "real Americans" from the rest of Americans, who allegedly are less patriotic. So Palin crying of victimization is just a riot.

And to think she could have been one heart beat away from the presidency. And millions still love her. What a piece of work. What a mess.

GeorgeSorwell

There are, it seems to me, a lot of conservatives who like their politicians to be in your face.

Palin is giving them what they like.

joegandelman

I worked for the news media overseas for about 6 years and on two chain newspapers for nearly 10 years. I did have dealings with the papers' major editors (even some of the ones for which I freelanced) as well as some of the lawyers for the actual papers (two instances of threatened law suits). Just as Palin has her attorney justifying his retainer or billable hours, so do the newspapers. And big news organizations such as the mainstream news media and the HP take press freedom issues very seriously. My point is that not only will this warning be ignored if it is not a threat that would hold up in court by the news organizations, but it will spur them and the ENTIRE press corps on now to follow and vett Palin very very intensely. Why? She has thrown down challenge -- kind of like Gary Hart saying he dared the press to follow him around -- and by the way she is keeping herself in the headlines (the squabble with Letterman, the magazine quotes, warrning with McCain's staff) she is a very hot political story...one that has lots of reader and viewer interest. So on one hand, if she leaves the governorship she'll have a prominent national podium ...on the other hand if she messes up, misspeaks, stubs her toe or anything untoward about her comes up, it will get comprehensive press coverage.

kritt11

SB- Of course there are times when its appropriate to print
allegations--- like when someone is charged with a crime. But no
person's reputation -even Palin's should be ruined because the MSM
resorted to using internet gossip as its main source. I disagree with
her and would have cringed if she were the first female to achieve
higher office ( I was a Clinton supporter) but I see that the trend is
for crossing the lines of decency and fairness on the internet and
would not want to see that crossover to the MSM.
Higher standards of journalism protect everyone.

As a mom, I DO see that she wouldn't want her daughters disparaged in
the media, and I DO think that there's a double standard for women
running for higher office.
So, I can disagree with her on everything, yet realize that some of
the attacks on her may be below the belt.

EEllis

SB said "And of course her campaign audiences were calling for Obama's death...."

Jesus I know some of you guys are hard left and you really love wallowing in this crap but lets get real. This was first batted around about McCain and was refuted by Secret Service who were there now it's tossed out like it's "FACT" and it's dispicable BS and clearly shows that being partisan is more important than anything called "TRUTH".

DLS

Actually, shouldn't the "STFU" advice be extended to the ridiculously excessive obscession with her and other trivial subjects, or objects of pathological behavior, here, too? I was away for a few days and it was no surprise but annoying nevertheless to see so many Palin-obscession threads on here.

The Manx Missile has already won two road stages in the Tour de France -- that's more important now than Palin has been for months. And of course there's the meeting with Obama and Medvedev, as well as lingering issues in Honduras (not to be confused with excessive leftist whining on here that I've seen).

blog comments powered by Disqus