September 30, 2008

The Media and Democratic Party Lied: Palin Did Not Charge For Rape Kits

We previously debunked this smear campaign here, here and here, but it is nice to now have Governor Palin on the record in her own words.

Flush another steaming, stinking, Associated Press-carried, Democratic Party-complicit, liberal-blogosphere- astroturfed lie down the toilet:

The entire notion of making a victim of a crime pay for anything is crazy. I do not believe, nor have I ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test. As governor, I worked in a variety of ways to tackle the problem of sexual assault and rape, including making domestic violence a priority of my administration.

A small liberal blog started the rumor, apparently after two Democratic Party researchers scoured the archives of the Frontiersman for dirt, and came up with an ambiguous story from 2000, that quickly bounced to an muckraking liberal blog.

Top Alaskan Democrats for Obama Tony Knowles (whom Palin beat in the governor's race) and Eric Croft, the sponsor of the law HB 270, both claimed in a recent press conference by Democrats falsely claimed the law was passed because of Wasilla's Police charged victims.

That is a demonstrable, bald-faced, and proven lie.

Read the committee minutes for yourself.

Palin, Fannon, and Wasilla are never mentioned.

Three expert witnesses testified that they knew of no police agencies in Alaska that billed victims. The law was needed because hospitals occasionally exercised bad judgment and billed victims.

The media and Democratic Party should be ashamed.

Update: The New York Times-owned Boston Globe is still attempting to carry on with the smear. Perhaps you should register for a free account and let them know what you think about their editorial standards--or lack thereof.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at September 30, 2008 08:54 PM

>The media and Democratic Party should be ashamed.

Never happen.

Posted by: Dickie Moe at September 30, 2008 09:07 PM

What's important is that it was said and said long enough to enter the psyche of the American public. That it's a lie makes no difference.

Posted by: Jeffersonian at September 30, 2008 09:14 PM

The Boston Globe's editorial for tomorrow is accusing Palin of the rape kit lie. They are erasing comments from their web site as fast as they
get them.

Posted by: Laga at September 30, 2008 09:32 PM

The soviets are winning...

Posted by: deek at September 30, 2008 09:39 PM

"The media and Democratic Party should be ashamed."

Yes, they should. But they are missing the necessary human components that would allow them to feel shame.

I call the missing parts "soul".

Posted by: LarrySheldon at September 30, 2008 09:41 PM

billy :
Sure because if you got mugged and a tooth knocked out the State pays for you to have a new implants or if you're stabbed outside a bar the Government picks up the tab on your hospital visit. Can you name another violent crime that the state pays for any medical treatment for? Idiots like you should be institutionalized not let loose on the Internet.

Posted by: macten at September 30, 2008 10:20 PM

You have got to be kidding me. People are still believing in the lies about the rape kits. My God there are some dense people out there.

And the email thing is nothing. I have about 10 different email accounts, and she had one for her Palin For Gov website, wow that is shocking news.

How about taking a look at Obama's time as a Community Organizer and his friends in Chicago??? Socialist,, Communists, Terrorists, and you going after someone for having more than 1 email. Pathetic

Posted by: Stix at September 30, 2008 10:23 PM

The AZCentral story contains a blatant lie in the second paragraph, viz. "Palin had routinely used her Yahoo address for state business."

That claim was disproven by the "hacker" himself, who complained that he was disappointed because he found nothing but personal emails in the Yahoo account.

Why should we believe a single word in that story?

Aside from that, I wonder how many email accounts Obama and Biden have? Oh, wait, that's right. No one is trying to find that out.

As to the Tasergate story, I would applaud the governor for trying to have a lying, drunken, child-abusing trooper fired, if there was any evidence that she tried to have him fired. There isn't.

WRT the specific claim of trying to refute his disability claim, do you deny that any citizen has the right to submit evidence to the Workers Compensation Board that refutes another's claim to benefits?

Is not the Governor, her husband and every member of her staff citizens of the State of Alaska?

Case closed, bozo.

This is a totally manufactured "scandal" promoted by Obama through surrogates and greased by a compliant media that refuses to even look in the direction of any of Obama's rocks while sniffing the Governors panties looking for evidence of anything, no matter how fraudulent, which they can claim disqualifies her for a position she is eminently more qualified for than Obama is for the position to which he aspires.

Posted by: Antimedia at September 30, 2008 10:29 PM

Folks ignore the Obama "Truth Squaders" that show up in the comments. I'll remove their comments quickly enough, so don't even bother replying to their continued smears and fabrications.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 30, 2008 10:33 PM

Here's a hint: This post should mention the names of the sites and the reporters.

In the current case, the person behind the "small liberal blog" is Dave Anthony:
profile. myspace. com/

(Spaces added)

Posted by: 24AheadDotCom at September 30, 2008 11:39 PM

McClatchy is pushing the Palin-charged-rape-victims story, too:

Posted by: Kevin Gregory at October 1, 2008 01:37 AM

The Washington Post of October 1 peint edition is carrying the lie about Palin's Yahoo account today.

Palin routinely used her Yahoo address for state business.

This article was written by Karl Vick, and appears on page A4. Research editor Alice Crites is said to have contributed.

Posted by: Valerie at October 1, 2008 06:23 AM

This is despicable politics. We must condemn all lies. Like the ones that said Obama is Muslim. Or born in Kenya. Or stood on the sidelines phoning in advice while McCain got phoning in advice. Or McCain taking credit for passage of the bailout bill...even though it failed. And then blaming Obama for the bill.

Taste of your own medicine?

Posted by: Joe V at October 1, 2008 08:35 AM

Obama "nation" is obsessed with Sarah Palin and continues to try and denigrate her with pettiness and lies. Palin must really be threatening to the self-serving ambition of their guy.

Even when Palin tries to emphasize that Alaska shares borders with Russia and Canada (two "foreign" countries), Obama "nation" ridicules her, because apparently they do not know their geography.... or location and importance of U.S. military defense facilities in Alaska.

Posted by: Ninch at October 1, 2008 09:58 AM

Ike @11.23hrs
If Palin is that stupid why don't you leave her alone to get on with being stupid? Why, because you knows she's a credible threat and it shows by your attacks. Give Biden the same treatment, I dare you.

Posted by: Limey at October 1, 2008 11:36 AM

Don't try to play virgin after you have been married for 20 years and have children.

Let's all take a deep breath and acknowledge that both the GOP and the DNC are equally guilty of this "crap". The media is no longer interested in reporting facts. They are attention whore (forgive my language) and the more amazing; the better. Front page lie - - third page retraction. It swings both ways and always has - - Brokaw is pro-McCain; Fox is pro-McCain; MSNBC - pro Obama... and so on and so forth.

Palin is just fresh meat... plain and simple. Obama had just as much trial by fire - we are just such a society of ADD that we don't remember how ugly the DNC primary was.

Meanwhile, rather than spending time with our families or children (who will be soon grown and gone); we sit on the computers as if we will make a difference arguing between ourselves.

This is like only attending a Planning Board meeting when your house is affected. Make sure you vote and then, when the presidendial election is over... start giving the media hell for their shoddy work; subjective comments and bias.

Posted by: Cameron at October 1, 2008 12:06 PM

Cameron, I must have missed the hellish inspection of Barry's past. Did the Hillaroids do a full scrub of Ayers? Actually you will find that Hillary's chief thug, McAuliffe, had no knowledge of that particular Obama negative. Was the CAC investigated? ACORN? Has Barry been asked to release his Harvard transcripts? No, Barry was inspected only for ideology in the Dem primaries and obviously, only from the Left. If 2% of the attention given Palin, the #2, were given to Barry he never would have gotten Iowa, even with his notorious thuggery achieving that "victory". Obama is a racist and fascist. He proves it daily. Congratulations, Democrats. You make me ill.

Posted by: megapotamus at October 1, 2008 12:14 PM

Confederate Yankee, on the story you posted as an "ambiguous story from 2000", the police chief of Wasilla, appointed by Palin, explicitly states that Wasilla had been charging for rape kits and that the new law would cost thousands of dollars. Did you read the story?

And, while it's true that the committee discussing HB270 did not specifically mention Palin, Fannon, or Wasilla, they did say the law was needed because a few small towns were charging victims of sexual assault.

So, according to the evidence you choose to point to, Wasilla, under Palin, was one of the few places in Alaska charging for rape kits.

Posted by: ActuallyLookedAtYourEvidence at October 1, 2008 12:38 PM

Hey Actually - you "actually" need to change your moniker, because it's obvious you haven't "actually" looked at the transcript evidence...if you had, you'd have seen these statements in the record:

REPRESENTATIVE CROFT[...] noted that it is "not standard police practice [to request
payment for forensic exams] and the committee will hear testimony from police agencies to that effect."

Del Smith, Director of the Alaska Department of Public Safety said he does "not know of any police
agency that has requested payment."

TRISHA GENTLE, Executive Director, Council on Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault, testified
"Police departments are willing to pay for
sexual assault exams, but it is an internal decision on the part of the hospital as to who
pays the hospital bill."

The closest thing to a concern about actual instances of rape victims being charged for rape kits comes from Croft, when he said "he'd heard" that some victims had been billed. Well, that's fine - but that bit of hearsay certainly doesn't point any fingers towards any one town or any one mayor in particular.

What IS patently obvious is that some who gave testimony about this bill were concerned that HOSPITALS were insensitively charging rape victims for rape kits....NOT mayors, NOT towns, NOT police departments....HOSPITALS.

Unless you're going to claim that former Mayor Palin somehow had control over a private hospital's billing practices, this smear is officially DEBUNKED.

Posted by: vox at October 1, 2008 01:14 PM

Um, rape kits aren't medical treatment. They are an evidence gathering procedure.

This debunking has been unbunked numerous times. OF COURSE the police can't charge anyone for a rape kit. They don't perform them. They do order them though, and in Wasilla, the police don't pay for them, leaving the victim (and her insurance company) to pick up the tab.

The City should pay for the rape kit because it is for the benefit of the people, not the victim. And charging victims for their own rape kits only discourages them from going to hospital and thus, makes it more likely rapists will get away with raping people.


Posted by: seattle slough at October 1, 2008 02:02 PM

"Actually" writes "the police chief of Wasilla, appointed by Palin, explicitly states that Wasilla had been charging for rape kits and that the new law would cost thousands of dollars. Did you read the story?"

Apparently YOU didn't, because the police chief of Wasilla has NEVER said that. Now scurry back in your rat hole liar.

Posted by: Antimedia at October 1, 2008 02:05 PM

While I am unsure about Palin's level of complicity (if any), I find nothing in the Frontiermsan article that is even a little bit ambiguous.

"While the Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies have covered the cost of exams, which cost between $300 to $1,200 apiece, the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests."

Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon does not agree with the new legislation, saying the law will require the city and communities to come up with more funds to cover the costs of the forensic exams."

What part of "Wasilla police department does charge" don't you understand?"

If you are charging the Frontiersman with fabrication, as you do so many others, say so; otherwise you need to simply admit that the Minutes from 2000 support in some ways, but definitely do not confirm the Frontiersman story.

Posted by: rastronomicals at October 1, 2008 02:14 PM


Yes, it is hospitals that bill for medical services. However, in the towns in which victims are not asked to pay, it is the police who tell the hospitals to send the bill to them. No one asks the victim to send the bill to the police.

In Wasilla, as Palin's appointee Fallon clearly states, the police were not doing this, and he was opposed to making it happen. That's why he says the law will now cost Wasilla thousands of dollars a year. You correctly point out from the committee minutes that this was not standard police practice around the state. You ignore that the same minutes say, "it's happening in some small towns", without naming Wasilla.

So, Palin's appointee as police chief was engaging in a non-standard practice that led hospitals to send the bills for rape kits to victims, while most other communities did not do this. It was enough of an issue to reach the state legislature, so it's hard to believe Palin didn't know it was going on (and if she didn't, she should have). So the issue seems a fair one to raise.

Posted by: ActuallyLookedAtYourEvidence at October 1, 2008 02:14 PM


Here's the quote from the story (the new legislation referred to is the law that made it illegal for Wasilla to charge rape victims for their rape kits):

"Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon does not agree with the new legislation, saying the law will require the city and communities to come up with more funds to cover the costs of the forensic exams.

In the past weve charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible. I just dont want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer, Fannon said.

According to Fannon, the new law will cost the Wasilla Police Department approximately $5,000 to $14,000 a year to collect evidence for sexual assault cases."

So, what the media has been reporting, that the tests were billed to the victim and their insurance companies, is correct. Do not think that Fannon's statement that the bills are sent to the insurers means the victims don't have to pay. Almost all insurers apply co-payments these days. In addition, by sending the bills to the insurer, hospitals were (at Fannon's direction) notifying the insurer and anyone who handled the claim that the victim had been raped, which should have been a private matter. The approach was wrong on many levels.

Posted by: ActuallyLookedAtYourEvidence at October 1, 2008 02:20 PM

Gentlemen, don't feed the trolls. Like tribbles, feeding them only makes them multiply.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 1, 2008 06:21 PM

Yes please "gentlemen," don't respond to the fair critique that media outlets are not saying Palin created this rape-test policy, but rather that she must have known about it and supported it by not taking action.

I would rather stick my fingers in my ears and drift away to a magical universe where reality bends to my imagination!

Posted by: Jennifer at October 2, 2008 01:39 AM
Yes please "gentlemen," don't respond to the fair critique that media outlets are not saying Palin created this rape-test policy, but rather that she must have known about it and supported it by not taking action.

I would rather stick my fingers in my ears and drift away to a magical universe where reality bends to my imagination!

No .. it's like ignoring that creepy, scraggly bearded guy with the sandwich board proclaiming, "The end is nigh!". You simply walk on by and shake your head - you never attempt to engage him because a conversation with a 'true believer' is meaningless.

Posted by: Dan Irving at October 2, 2008 07:41 AM

Acutally wrote:

"You ignore that the same minutes say, 'it's happening in some small towns", without naming Wasilla.'

I'm not sure what you're looking at - I have the transcripts in front of me of the march 2000 committee meeting minutes...I've read them over several times - even used the 'search' function to find the word "town" or "towns." Nada. Nothing. Towns are not mentioned...unless you're looking at a different transcript than I have.

Posted by: vox at October 2, 2008 08:31 AM

Rastronomicals wrote:

"What part of 'Wasilla police department does charge' don't you understand?"

Rastro, what part of "UNSOURCED" don't YOU understand? The reporter, Jo C. Goode, simply states it without saying HOW she knows it to be the case, and without quoting any person who said it. Furthermore, all evidence uncovered (read the committee testimony minutes) since then has indicated that HOSPITALS, not towns, not Mayors, not Police Departments charged victims for rape kits.

There's not a an ounce of proof - not a shred, not a scintilla - that Mayor Palin had ANYTHING to do with rape victims being charged for rape kits, or that the Wasilla PD EVER charged ANY victims for rape kits...and when you sling mud without PROOF, that's called a SMEAR....and this one is SO debunked that only pure desperation on the part of Palin-haters motivates them to continue with this smear.

Posted by: vox at October 2, 2008 08:40 AM

Actually wrote:

"So, what the media has been reporting, that the tests were billed to the victim and their insurance companies, is correct."

Er, no. Incorrect. The media has been reporting that "PALIN CHARGED VICTIMS FOR RAPE KITS," "PALIN'S TOWN CHARGED VICTIMS FOR RAPE KITS," etc. I saw NO mainstream media reports that truthfully told the actual story, which was there was/is NO evidence, none, not an iota, that Palin had anything whatsoever to do with victims being charged for rape kits, and all evidence so far is that the concerns the legislature had about this issue were based on the fact that some HOSPITALS were charging the victims' insurance companies.

So, given there's no evidence to support the smear that Palin "charged victims for rape kits," the NEW smear attempt appears to be "well, Palin should have known that the Wasilla Police Department didn't demand that the Hospital forward these bills to them, and not the insurance companies."

My response to that smear is that if that's the best the Palin-haters can come up with, then you're officially grasping at straws.

Posted by: vox at October 2, 2008 08:58 AM
She says that she is against victims paying for rape kits, but when she was mayor they had to pay for rape kits. the proof you use above is a non answer. facts are stubborn things...

post hoc ergo propter hoc

Posted by: Dan Irving at October 2, 2008 11:20 AM

Nope not a lie

Posted by: Young1 at October 2, 2008 12:28 PM

FactCheck does a good job most of the time, but it is not without issues (most notably was its poor job on the NRA ad against Obama, but it can have blind spots on relying on unreliable sources). In this case, it relies exclusively on the statement of Eric Croft that this was a large issue that the police chief "lead the fight" on, and yet it didn't make it into the committee minutes. I'm not buying that.

Posted by: Nobody at October 2, 2008 01:23 PM

Okay, you Obamamaniacs, time to stand up and prove your point.

Show me a credible media report of one victim, JUST ONE, who was charged for a rape kit during Sarah Palin's tenure as Mayor, and I promise I will vote for Obama/Biden. By "credible media report" I do not mean anything from DailyKOS, DemocraticUnderground, MoveOn, or any similar website, by the way.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 2, 2008 05:57 PM

Hmmm... nearly a day has passed, and no takers for my challenge above. I guess that demolishes that particular spin.

Good day, Obamamaniacs. I said, good day!

Posted by: C-C-G at October 3, 2008 04:50 PM

Before you start congratulating yourself...
1) Factcheck has already been cited. If you don't think that's credible, then I doubt any "news" source will fit your bill except or littlegreenfootballs.
2) How many Obamamaniacs do you think frequent here?

So demolishing spin? Please. That's like saying you slayed a dragon after your hamster died.

Sorry about your hamster.

Posted by: MDS at October 4, 2008 08:11 AM

Factcheck is not credible, it's been days and they haven't posted any of Biden's lies and gaffes.

If you want to see a disturbing Obama video
check this one out:

Posted by: eaglewingz08 at October 4, 2008 11:01 AM

Factcheck.Org is also fully titled Annenberg FactCheck... the same folks who gave Barack Obama $49 million dollars for the education of school chlidren that Obama and Bill Ayers laundered into radical indoctrination efforts.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 4, 2008 11:37 AM

FactCheck has been debunked as non-partisan and unbiased... they're not quite in MoveOn's category yet, but they're closer to MSNBC (which I've nicknamed MS-National-Barack-Channel) than Fox News. Not to mention that FactCheck is not, strictly speaking, a media outlet like Newsweek, the AP, or CBS.

So, MDS, how about a story from the Anchorage Daily News showing that Victim X was charged for a rape kit at Wasilla's hospital? Since that's the closest large paper, they'd be the most logical to have it.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 4, 2008 12:43 PM

Factcheck was cited by Dick Cheney in the 04 VP debate (incorrectly as .com). Now why would he do that if they were partisan?

And rape victims are never identified by name unless consent is given [rarely]. Thus, you go by policy in place. Tara Henry, an AK forensics nurse who used these kits, recalls Wasilla's policy well. Google away.

Posted by: MDS at October 4, 2008 10:03 PM

Surely my last post wasn't deleted.

Wasilla town paper link.

While the Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies have covered the cost of exams, which cost between $300 to $1,200 apiece, the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests.

Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon does not agree with the new legislation, saying the law will require the city and communities to come up with more funds to cover the costs of the forensic exams.

Posted by: MDS at October 4, 2008 10:52 PM

Even if rape victims aren't named, there's dozens of common aliases used for rape victims, MDS. Why not an article that says that "Jane Doe" was charged for her rape test kit?

You can't, because it never happened. There's a difference between a policy that exists and one that is actually followed. Apparently you're too blinded by Obamamania to see that.

For example, on a recent trip I stayed in a hotel next to the convention center for this particular city, so they shared the same parking garage. Your hotel door key opened the gate at the parking garage. The official policy--according to the person on duty when I first pulled in there--was that the guys in the booth made you put your keycard in the machine to open the gate both going in and coming out, probably as a security measure. In practice, when the guys in the booth saw me with the keycard in my hand, they hit a button in the booth and opened the gate for me. See, a policy existed, but wasn't followed. I'm sure the other commenters here can come up with lots and lots of other examples if you want to be stubborn about it.

If you want to be hyper-pedantic and say that this policy had the force of law, you should do a quick search for all the laws on the books that aren't enforced any more... like the one in Calgary, Alberta, Canada that says that all businesses must provide rails for tying up horses. Think many businesses get cited for that one? Or the one in Gary, IN, that says that people can't go into a theater (movie or otherwise) or ride a public streetcar within four hours of eating garlic... I'm sure lots of people can show you their tickets for violating that law (/sarc). How about the Kansas law that requires that pedestrians crossing the street at night must wear tail lights?

Here's three links to get you started on your search for unenforced laws.

So, I think we can lay this particular smear to rest now... even if there was such a policy, it was obviously never enforced, because not one woman who was actually charged can be found, despite the entire MoveOnMedia searching.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 5, 2008 08:31 AM

Yo, CCG, didn't you read what I just posted? In the Wasilla paper, it said that the rape victims WERE CHARGED. The police chief said the new law would cost tax payers 5-14000 dollars a year. Thus, Wasilla was charging 5000 - 14000 a year to rape victims. Pretty simple, really.

Posted by: MDS at October 5, 2008 08:56 AM

Except, Mark, that the Democratic Party researchers scouring the archives of the Frontiersman couldn't find any evidence that the city had charged any victims, at any time.

The current Wasilla City Clerk, Kristie Smithers, can find no evidence that Wasilla ever charged anyone for rape kits during the 1997-99 period Palin was Mayor before H.B.270 took effect, and we know for fact none were charged in 2000, because I've seen the bill for the kits the city paid in 2000-2001. Chief of Police Angela has been blunt in that except for the 2000-2001 figures I published, she has found no indication that the Wasilla PD ever charged victims for anything.

There were 38 sexual assaults of all kinds between 1997 and 1999, and ten more in 2000. The city's crime stats does not get more detailed that that.

Also, for a City that is supposed to be processing a lot of rape kits, Wasilla doesn't have many rapists in the population... zero, in fact.

Doubt me? Go to and put in Wasilla, AK.

There are 35 sex offenders in the population, the vast majority convicted of statutory offenses against minors, the next largest group being for sexual battery, and a handful of "other" offenses, but no rapists. Perhaps they're all still in jail, but somehow, I doubt it.

Fannon's $5K-$14K was predicated on a worse case scenario, but the year he made his comments, they process precisely two kits both on the same day (June 20) which the city paid for at a cost of $1,060.00 for the year.

Perhaps there were rape kits that the city or police told the victim to pay for. I have an Alaska rape advocate who told me three days ago she could produce docs showing it was true, and I'll publish them (minus of course, identifying information) if they check out.

The fact remains that as of right now, the only evidence for such a claim is the word of two Democratic politicians that are supporting Obama, both of which have had their claims debunked by the very minutes kept during the committee meetings that created HB 270.


Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 5, 2008 10:17 AM

MDS, where is the specific person--name or pseudonym--who was charged?


That's all I am asking for.

And you can't deliver.

Since it is impossible to prove a negative (that no one was ever charged), it is up to you to prove the positive (that a specific person was charged). You've failed miserably, but predictably.

Come on, Obama sent 30 lawyers to Alaska, don't you think they could find one person who was charged if they existed?

Keep spinning, we're gonna hook you up to a generator. You could probably light up Vegas.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 5, 2008 10:34 AM

"MDS, where is the specific person--name or pseudonym--who was charged?"
Are you kidding me? Why don't you call your local abortion clinic and ask them the names of the women who had procedures that week. What? No Names? I guess they don't perform abortions then. [/roll]

If they weren't charging the victims, why did their local paper say they were? Why did the forensics nurse I listed earlier say they were? And how could the budget go up ANY? Maybe the reason that there are no rapists in Wasilla is because they are STILL in jail?

Sorry, but WAY too many holes in this one.
1) Official policy of Wasilla
2) Police chief comments with $ tally
3) Local paper confirmation
4) Forensic nurse confirmation

Posted by: MDS at October 5, 2008 10:55 AM

MDS, the paper says it was the policy to charge them... not that "Jane Doe" or "Sally Smith" had been charged.

Either you are too stupid to see the difference, or you see it and are ignoring it.

I am leaning towards the latter.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 5, 2008 01:38 PM

"the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests."

Ok CCG, nowhere does it say "policy" as you claim. It says victims WERE charged without listing them individually.

The angle you are playing is most bizarre, given the nondisclosure policy of rape victims.

If you want to counter the four points I listed, go for it. "Name the rape victims" is not a valid counterpoint.

I'll leave the light on for ya.

Posted by: MDS at October 5, 2008 06:53 PM

I've covered the nondisclosure already... they could say that "Jane Doe" was billed, or specify "a victim of a rape on X Street in 1998 was billed," they don't have to give a name.

The fact is, there have been no records found of any specific individuals being billed during Palin's tenure. You keep spinning because you want to keep the smear alive despite having no evidence, that much is painfully obvious.

Don't leave lights on, it's not environmentally friendly... plus it costs money! Please turn them off when you leave.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 5, 2008 07:41 PM

Lol...yeah man, I don't have any proof...except for Wasilla's official policy, confirmation victims were charged via town paper, statement from forensic nurse confirming same, and the police chief saying the new law will cost taxpayers...

And it's bonus day for overwhelming proof!! Peggy Wilcox, a legislative staffer on the bill said it was "more than a couple" of victims, and the bill got off the ground due to victim complaints to Lauree Hugonin, of the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault!!!

So now we have SIX pieces of evidence, with the last two having spoke to the victims themselves.

It might not be the brand of proof you're looking for in your musical chairs request..but it was good enough for the state legislature, and good enough for the law to be changed.

Face it: I could get thirty victims to sign sworn affidavits they were charged, and you'd want a dna test or something just to keep from admitting you lost this argument. Palin herself could admit on youtube that she personally signed the policy that victims were charged, and you'd say it was Hollywood media tricks, lol.

Shame on you, Sarah.

Posted by: MDS at October 6, 2008 05:16 PM

MDS, let me put it to you this way.

Say you're a cop on the beat, and someone walks up and says that he heard there's a robbery that occurred up the street. Dropping your donut and running up the block, you find a large group of people gathered around.

Being a good cop, you start asking questions, and one of the first questions is, "who was robbed?" The people can't answer that question, but they push forward a person (use whatever stereotype of a robbery suspect you like) and say that here is the robber.

"Thanks much," you reply, "but there's no crime without a victim."

"But he said that he knew a robbery had occurred!" they cry.

"But who was the victim? Without a victim we can't possibly convict him," you point out.

"But he said he knew there had been a robbery! He must be connected with it!" they shout.

Now, Officer MDS, do you have enough to arrest the suspect?

If you say yes, you just flunked out of cop school.

In our story, Sarah Palin is the suspect that the crowd is pushing forward. (did I mention the crowd was all Democrats?) But without a victim, there is no case.

You can't point out a single victim. And before you bring out the old nondisclosure rule, in our story, all the crowd would have had to do is point out the person, even if they didn't have a name.

Oh, your USAToday story isn't a smoking gun, either. The quote from Hugonin is:

Rape victims in several areas of Alaska, including the Matanuska-Susitna Valley where Wasilla is, complained about being charged for the tests, victims' advocate Lauree Hugonin, of the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, told state House committees, records show.

Note that it doesn't say that the rape victims were in Wasilla, or had been processed by the Wasilla PD, bu that they were in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley. In short, the rapes could have occurred outside the city limits of Wasilla and been handled by the County Sheriff (or whatever equivalent they have there) or Alaska State Police.

Poof! There goes your evidence, Officer MDS. Case dismissed for lack of evidence.

Please, shut off the lights when you head back to MoveOn to brag.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 6, 2008 06:19 PM

C-C-G, you also forget that Wasilla is just a town of everal thousand, and the Mat-Su Valley is the size of West Virginia.

I've spoken with the publisher of the paper, the town clerk, and the police chief, and none foundevidence that any victims wee billed.

I've read the committee meeting minutes that clearly blamed the hospitals, and confirmed that leading Democrats in 2008 flat-out lied about Wasilla being the need for the law.

If anyone has actual evidence of victims being charged, I suspect that the bills (with personal information redacted) would have been released by now.

MS will believe what he wants, picking and chosing the information he desires, to support the reality he has chosen.

Ignore him. He's simply another kind of truther.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 6, 2008 06:35 PM
If anyone has actual evidence of victims being charged, I suspect that the bills (with personal information redacted) would have been released by now.

I'll go one step further. I am certain that there is no evidence. Permit me to explain why.

The fact that MDS and others have been so desperately trying to say, "here's the evidence!" shows that they realize the importance of having evidence of an actual victim being billed. If they had believed that evidence wasn't important, they'd have skipped over any requests for evidence. We all know how well lefties can ignore things they don't wanna answer, after all.

Given the above, the fact that they haven't shown any actual evidence is itself highly indicative that there is no evidence. If it existed anywhere, one of those 30 muckrakers sent to Alaska would have dug it up by now, and it would have been trumpeted on the Communist News Network and MS-National Barack Channel, not to mention the NY Slimes.

MDS can spin and dance around it all he wants, but there is no record of "a victim of a rape on Palin Blvd in downtown Wasilla" being billed for a rape test. Of that I am certain.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 6, 2008 07:15 PM