The following list is from Andrew Sullivan’s blog over at The Atlantic.
After you have read these, ask yourself: what wouldn’t Sarah Palin lie about if she felt she had to?
Palin lied when she said the dismissal of her public safety commissioner, Walt Monegan, had nothing to do with his refusal to fire state trooper Mike Wooten; in fact, the Branchflower Report concluded that she repeatedly abused her power when dealing with both men.
Palin lied when she repeatedly claimed to have said, “Thanks, but no thanks” to the Bridge to Nowhere; in fact, she openly campaigned for the federal project when running for governor.
Palin lied when she denied that Wasilla’s police chief and librarian had been fired; in fact, both were given letters of termination the previous day.
Palin lied when she wrote in the NYT that a comprehensive review by Alaska wildlife officials showed that polar bears were not endangered; in fact, email correspondence between those scientists showed the opposite.
Palin lied when she claimed in her convention speech that an oil gas pipeline “began” under her guidance; in fact, the pipeline was years from breaking ground, if at all.
Palin lied when she told Charlie Gibson that she does not pass judgment on gay people; in fact, she opposes all rights between gay spouses and belongs to a church that promotes conversion therapy.
Palin lied when she denied having said that humans do not contribute to climate change; in fact, she had previously proclaimed that human activity was not to blame.
Palin lied when she claimed that Alaska produces 20 percent of the country’s domestic energy supply; in fact, the actual figures, based on any interpretation of her words, are much, much lower.
Palin lied when she told voters she improvised her convention speech when her teleprompter stopped working properly; in fact, all reports showed that the machine had functioned perfectly and that her speech had closely followed the script.
Palin lied when she recalled asking her daughters to vote on whether she should accept the VP offer; in fact, her story contradicts details given by her husband, the McCain campaign, and even Palin herself. (She later added another version.)
Palin lied when she claimed to have taken a voluntary pay cut as mayor; in fact, as councilmember she had voted against a raise for the mayor, but subsequent raises had taken effect by the time she was mayor.
Palin lied when she insisted that Wooten’s divorce proceedings had caused his confidential records to become public; in fact, court officials confirmed they released no such records.
Palin lied when she suggested to Katie Couric that she was involved in trade missions with Russia; in fact, she has never even met with Russian officials.
Palin lied when she told Shimon Peres that the only flag in her office was the Israeli flag; in fact, she has several flags.
Palin lied when she claimed to have tried to divest government funds from Sudan; in fact, her administration openly opposed a bill that would have done just that.
Palin lied when she repeatedly claimed that troop levels in Iraq were back to pre-surge levels; in fact, even she acknowledged her “misstatements,” though she refused to retract or apologize.
Palin lied when she insisted that the Branchflower Report “showed there was no unlawful or unethical activity on my part”; in fact, that report prominently stated, “Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.”
Palin lied when she claimed to have voiced concerns over Wooten fearing he would harm her family; in fact, she actually decreased her security detail during that period.
Palin lied when asked about the $150,000 worth of clothes provided by the RNC; in fact, solid reporting contradicted several parts of her statement.
Palin lied when she suggested that she had offered the media proof of her pregnancy with Trig to “correct the record”; in fact, no reports of her medical records were ever published; and the letter from her doctor testifying to her good health only emerged hours before polling ended on election day, even though there was nothing in it that couldn’t have been released two months earlier.
Palin lied when she said that “reported” allegations of her banning Harry Potter as mayor was easily refutable because it had not even been written yet; in fact, the first book in that series was published in 1998 – two years into her first term – and such rumors were never reported by the media, only circulated as emails.
Palin lied when she denied having participated in a clothes audit with campaign laywers; in fact, the Washington Times later confirmed those details.
Palin lied when asked about Couric’s question regarding her reading habits; in fact, Couric’s words were not, “What do you read up there in Alaska?” or anything close to condescension.
Palin lied when she mischaracterized the “$1200 check” given to Alaskans as the permanent fund dividend check; in fact, that fund had yielded $2,069 per person, and she claimed otherwise to obscure the fact that Alaskans also received a $1200 rebate check from a windfall profits tax on oil companies – a tax widely criticized by Republicans.
Palin lied when she claimed to be unaware of a turkey being slaughtered behind her during a filmed interview; in fact, the cameraman said she had picked the spot herself, while the slaughter was underway.
Palin lied when she denied having rejected federal stimulus money; in fact, she continued to accept and reject the funds several times.
Palin lied when she claimed that legislative leaders had canceled a meeting with her to hold their own press conference; in fact, they only canceled it after being told she would not participate, and the purpose of the press conference was very different from the meeting’s.
Palin lied when she announced on the news that she never holds closed-door meetings; in fact, she had just attended a closed-door meeting with the legislature earlier that day.
Palin lied when she said that former aide John Bitney’s “amicable” departure was for “personal” reasons; in fact, Bitney said he was fired because of his relationship with the wife of Palin’s friend, plus a Palin spokesperson later claimed “poor job performance” for his firing – without elaborating.
Palin lied when she said she kept her running injury a secret on the campaign trail; in fact, her bandaged hand was clearly visible in photographs and the story was widely talked about.
Palin lied when she claimed that Alaska has spent “millions of dollars” on litigation related to her ethics complaints; in fact, that figure is much, much lower, and she had initiated the most expensive inquiry.
Palin lied when she denied that the Alaska Independence Party supports secession and denied that her husband had been a member; in fact, even the McCain campaign noted that the party’s very existence is based on secession and that Todd was a member for seven years.
By the way, Sullivan has an updated version of lies in the book.
I found your blog on google and read a few of your other posts. I just added you to my Google News Reader. Keep up the good work. Look forward to reading more from you in the future.
I found your site on Google and read a few of your other entires. Nice Stuff. I’m looking forward to reading more from you.
Thank you kstreet for such a comprehensive source of information re: Palin’s lies.
I don’t know where this type of distilled information is available elsewhere.
Oops, I overlooked your attribution to Andrew Sullivan’s blog. Thanks for re-printing it here, though.
No problem LTL. Sullivan is an excellent source on the subject.
Hey All,
I’ve looked at a couple of these “fact checked” “lies, and I hope to have a “full report” sometime this weekend.
Keep in mind IB, that the fact checking was done by numerous sources bi-partisan sources.
Hey All,
I’m sure I won’t get to every one of these “lies” tonight, but let’s start with number one:
“Palin lied when she said the dismissal of her public safety commissioner, Walt Monegan, had nothing to do with his refusal to fire state trooper Mike Wooten; in fact, the Branchflower Report concluded that she repeatedly abused her power when dealing with both men.”
I notice this says “the Branchflower Report concluded that she repeatedly abused her power when dealing with both men.”
UMMMMMM no it doesn’t. What the report says is that she violated the ethics statute by allowing Todd to use her office to pressure for the firing of Wooten.
What it says about Monegan is this:
“Governor Palin’s firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.
So, my conclusion is that Sullivan LIED when he wrote that she abused her power in the Monegan situation.
Just read the report yourself:
http://download2.legis.state.ak.us/DOWNLOAD.pdf
Why would someone take someone else’s interpretation of the report, when you can read the report yourself?
The conclusion of the Monegan issue is on page 71.
Also, the report says that the Wooten issue “likely” contributed to the firing of Monegan, it did not state that it “definately” contributed to his firing.
This is also included on page 71 of the report.
“Lie” number 2:
“Palin lied when she repeatedly claimed to have said, “Thanks, but no thanks” to the Bridge to Nowhere; in fact, she openly campaigned for the federal project when running for governor.”
First off, I’d comment that I do NOT like Wikipedia. The articles on this site are allowed to be “edited” by members. Not sure how much “fact checking” is done on the “editing”, but this seems to be a case where it has gone a bit overboard.
I’d point out that it was CONGRESS that killed the “bridge to nowhere” funds according to Wikipedia. The article says:
“Following an outcry by the public and some members of the US Senate, Congress eliminated the bridge earmark from the spending bill but gave the allotted funds to Alaska as part of its general transportation fund”
So Alaska was allowed to use this money any way they seen fit, so instead of spending 233 MILLION dollars on this bridge, it spent 25 MILLION for a road that does the same thing the bridge was supposed to do.
Sounds like good fiscal policy to me. Sure the road probably goes around the water that the bridge was supposed to cross, but there’s still access to the island.
NOWHERE in the Wikipedia article does it state that Palin “actively lobbied for the money”. The link given as evidence is a “dead” link. What the article does state is that Palin stated that she would “not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project [...] into something that’s so negative.”[108] Palin criticized the use of the word “nowhere” as insulting to local residents[107][109] and urged speedy work on building the infrastructure “while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.”
So she made good on her pledge to build a road saving over 200 MILLION in the process. Sounds like good fiscal policy to me.
“Lie” number 3:
“Palin lied when she denied that Wasilla’s police chief and librarian had been fired; in fact, both were given letters of termination the previous day.”
This one is sooooo easy.
Read the article linked in the stated “lie”.
The article says that when Palin was asked about the terminations she stated this:
“There’s been no meeting, no actual terminations,”
Then she was confronted with the letter given which states this:
“Therefore I intend to terminate your employment. . . .”
Notice where it says “intend”? Kind of self explanitory that when she was asked about the terminations, these people were NOT terminated YET because she wanted to do it in person, face to face, like a person of character would do. She gave them a “heads up” on what the meeting was about, but the letter clearly doesn’t say that they were terminated, only that she “intended” to terminate them.
NO LIE
Some people will jump at ANYTHING
NO LIE, it’s OBVIOUS. She obviously had made up her mind that she was going to terminate them, but when she was asked about this, these people HAD NOT been terminated.
“Lie” nuber 4:
“Palin lied when she wrote in the NYT that a comprehensive review by Alaska wildlife officials showed that polar bears were not endangered; in fact, email correspondence between those scientists showed the opposite.”
My simple answer to this is, Where are the email correspondence referenced by the article Sullivan posted?
Seems to me that Palin concluded one thing, and Rick Steiner concluded something different.
You can’t tell without the report, or the email correspondence that is referenced.
My conclusion is “still on the fence” concerning this so called “lie”.
Besides, Golbal warming is a MYTH. There is NO concrete proof that global warming even exists, as evidenced by the coolest summer in decades this past summer.
For the record, I tried to find the emails that Steiner says he used to come to his conclusion, and can’t find them posted anywhere.
If you have a link to them, or the report used, I’d be interested to look at them.
“Lie” nuber 5:
“Palin lied when she claimed in her convention speech that an oil gas pipeline “began” under her guidance; in fact, the pipeline was years from breaking ground, if at all.”
Another easy one.
NO LIE
The project DID start under Palin. So it did “begin” when an agreement was reached.
And this stuff was “fact checked” by numerous sources, huh KStreet?
Sullivan’s article states the project began under Palin when the agreement was reached. By “began” Palin didn’t say they were “turning dirt”. Now if she said the pipeline had begun to be built, then you could call her on that, but she didn’t.
“Lie” nuber 6:
“Palin lied when she told Charlie Gibson that she does not pass judgment on gay people; in fact, she opposes all rights between gay spouses and belongs to a church that promotes conversion therapy.”
This is really ridiculous.
How can she “lie” about her opinion?
The last line of the article by Sullivan states:
“Ultimately, she said, she supports denying those [health and retirement] benefits through a constitutional amendment, if that’s what the public wants.”
Notice the “if that’s what the public wants”, part of her statement?
And let’s not even bring her church up. Did she attend the Conference conducted by her church?
Let’s not go there. It’s ridiculous to conclude because a church holds a Conference on something, that the congregation as a whole agrees with the subject of the Conference.
This is a wild jump. A HUGE leap to conclude that because Palin’s chuch held a Conference on something, that Palin agrees with it, just like the Obama connection with Reverend Wright. Or do you believe that Obama holds the belief that 9/11 was “America’s chickens coming home to roost”????
Palin has the RIGHT to believe however she wants on the gay issue. Just because you don’t agree with benifits being given to “the other half” of gays, or that they shouldn’t be able to marry, doesn’t mean that she is against gays.
This is like saying that if you don’t agree that 12 year olds shouldn’t be able to drive, then you are against all 12 year olds.
“Lie” number 7:
“Palin lied when she denied having said that humans do not contribute to climate change; in fact, she had previously proclaimed that human activity was not to blame.”
Again, this is OPINION, not FACT. Climate Change, Global Warming, or whatever the name for it is this week, is a MYTH. There is conclusions BOTH WAYS.
The founder of the Weather Channel currently has a lawsuit signed by in his words 30,000 scientists who would like to debate the Global Warming issue.
Like EVERYONE else, anything you conclude on Global Warming, is OPINION.
I’d also like to make this comment:
Palin is quoted as saying in this article by Sullivan that:
“I’m not a doom and gloom environmentalist like Al Gore blaming the changes in our climate on human activity.”
Notice she said “like Al Gore” who blames Global Warming on human activity soley. She didn’t say that there is no evidence that humans didn’t “contribute” to it.
But I will.
I believe this whole Global Warming crap, is just that, crap. A reason to make money, plain and simple.
There is NO concrete evidence that Global Warming is caused by ANYTHING humans do.
Or that Global Warming is an issue at all.
“Lie” number 8:
“Palin lied when she claimed that Alaska produces 20 percent of the country’s domestic energy supply; in fact, the actual figures, based on any interpretation of her words, are much, much lower.”
Wow, you guys got her on that one.
Ok, she lied, big deal.
“Lie” number 9:
“Palin lied when she told voters she improvised her convention speech when her teleprompter stopped working properly; in fact, all reports showed that the machine had functioned perfectly and that her speech had closely followed the script.”
I wasn’t at the Convention, and I certainly wasn’t on stage, so I can’t say whether the teleprompter messed up.
Not sure where Jonathan Martin comes to the conclusion that the teleprompter “broke” either. Palin said the teleprompter “messed up”, she didn’t say that it “broke”. Maybe the pages were out of order or something like that, but I am speculating.
Not sure how to take this “lie”. If the teleprompter “messed up”, and we all know it happens to our President on occasions, then I’d tend to believe her.
The spokesperson said “She was off the prompter at points.”, so that bolsters her argument that the teleprompter “messed up”.
Seems like a pretty petty “lie” either way.
“Lie” number 10,
“Palin lied when she recalled asking her daughters to vote on whether she should accept the VP offer; in fact, her story contradicts details given by her husband, the McCain campaign, and even Palin herself. (She later added another version.)”
Another petty “lie”.
First off, she doesn’t say WHEN she asked the girls.
I’m baffled as to why this is even on the list.
Her stories are consistant, there are NOT three versions as Sullivan concludes, but it seems she is consistant in her response.
NO WHERE does Sullivan write that she asked “permission” from her daughters, only that she asked them “what they thought” about her running.
So here’s how I take it things went down:
McCain asked her, and she said “yes”. It was then suggested that she consult her husband to see how he felt about it. He said “yes”. Then they made a plan as to how to tell the girls, and it was decided to take the girls to Ohio (where Palin was scheduled to be), and they would tell them there.
Todd told them the story about the “surprise” anniversary celebration, and it was there that the girls were asked about how they felt about her running on the ticket.
The tone of the article suggests that Palin asked the girls permission to run, when in the interview with Hannity, she didn’t say she asked them permission, only how they felt about her running.
Something like “Hey girls, what do you think about mom running for Vice President?”
NO WHERE in her interview with Hannity, does she say she asked the girls BEFORE she accepted the position, which is what you are trying to suggest.
As for the “couple days” part of this “lie”, people use the term “a couple days” to mean different things.
This “lie” seems to be much ado about nothin.
“Lie” number 11:
“Palin lied when she claimed to have taken a voluntary pay cut as mayor; in fact, as councilmember she had voted against a raise for the mayor, but subsequent raises had taken effect by the time she was mayor.”
More ridiculous stuff here.
Sullivan in his artcile admits that she got an ordinance passed taking her pay from 64 grand to 61,200 dollars. Let’s see, 64,000 to 61,200 seems like pretty easy math to me. 61,200 is less than 64,000, so her salary was cut.
NO LIE
There is NO evidence in the article from Sullivan, or the article from TMP that says ANYTHING different than this.
The TMP story says this:
“Asked for proof of her claim that she took a pay cut, the McCain campaign provided us with minutes from a Wasilla City Council meeting from November 13, 1996, which appear to show that Palin introduced and passed some sort of measure to reduce her salary by 10 percent.”
THEY ADMIT in the article that the “measure” was passed, and that it “apears” that Palin introduced the “measure”. NO, either the minutes PROVE Palin introduced the measure, or the minutes PROVE she didn’t introduce the measure. Why aren’t the minutes linked in the TMP article, so we can see for ourselves?
Then the article has this:
“So what appears to have happened is this: As a Council member she voted against hiking the mayor’s salary from $64,000 to $68,000, but it passed anyway. When she came in as mayor, she passed the ordinance which brought her salary down to $61,200. But that may not actually have taken effect, and Council-mandated raises brought her actual salary up to $68,000.”
“So what appears to have happened” is supposed to be ABSOLUTE proof that it did happen? Another thing that gets me is this part: “But that may not actually have taken effect”, which again is NOT actual proof that it did or didn’t happen.
Pretty far reach there.
NO LIE
“Lie” number 12:
“Palin lied when she insisted that Wooten’s divorce proceedings had caused his confidential records to become public; in fact, court officials confirmed they released no such records.”
These are getting odder and odder. The article from Sullivan quotes an article from the “Public Record” which supposedly said this:
“In fact, the judge who presided over the divorce proceedings and the custody hearings that took place over the course of three years never saw Wooten’s records because the trooper entered into a settlement agreement with his ex-wife over custody of their young children before the confidential information was discussed in court, according to Palin’s sister’s attorney, Roberta Erwin.”
This paragraph is confusing to me.
It says the judge “never saw Wooten’s records” but then it says “the confidential information was discussed in court”. So which is it? Was the “confidential information” discussed in court, or not? Seems to me that if it were discussed in court, then the records would have been introduced in to evidence.
What I did find out is this:
http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/5198-palins-office-launched-probe-into-ex-brother-in-laws-disability-claims.html
If you read this article it states this:
“But the fact that Wooten’s personnel file was released to his ex-wife’s attorney during court proceedings does not mean that Palin’s office then had the right to access the files so it could be used against him, Cyr said.”
So the records were released to Palin’s sister’s attorney. One could surmise that the lawyer discussed the records with Palin’s sister, and then the sister discussed the records with Palin.
Ya think maybe this is how Palin became aware of what was in the records?
Sisters do talk you know.
“Lie” number 13:
“Palin lied when she suggested to Katie Couric that she was involved in trade missions with Russia; in fact, she has never even met with Russian officials.”
KStreet,
Where did you get these “lies”?
From Sullivan’s OWN article it says this:
“We have trade missions back and forth.”
She doesn’t say “I have trade missions back and forth”, she says “We”.
The “lie” is a “lie” in the FACT that she NEVER stated that “she” was involved in the direct “missions” as this “lie” suggests.
What IS known is that her Administration had negotiations about trade with Russians, which means that “she” was “involved” by that FACT.
NO LIE
And people on your site suggest that I “nit pick”.
“Lie” number 14:
“Palin lied when she told Shimon Peres that the only flag in her office was the Israeli flag; in fact, she has several flags.”
Ok she lied, she also has the American Flag and the State of Alaska Flag in her office also.
Take her out and flog her for making such an OBVIOUS misstatment. Ok, ok, it was a BIG “lie”. A HUGE “lie”.
She CAN NOT be trusted.
“lie” number 15:
“Palin lied when she claimed to have tried to divest government funds from Sudan; in fact, her administration openly opposed a bill that would have done just that.”
I’ve read five stories on this issue, and NO WHERE can I find where “her administration openly opposed” the divest bill.
What I learned is that ONE deputy revenue commissioner named Brian Andrews made this statement during a hearing on the bill:
“The legislation is well-intended, and the desire to make a difference is noble, but mixing moral and political agendas at the expense of our citizens’ financial security is not a good combination,”
The article also states that “Minutes from the meeting are posted online by the legislature” as does Sullivan’s article. I can’t find the minutes ANYWHERE, doing a search for them.
I also read an article that stated what Gara said:
“I walked out of that hearing livid,” Gara recalled of the February meeting. Because of the Palin administration’s opposition to the bill, “We could not get a vote in that committee,” he explained.”
But the article WENT ON to explain that Gara sent emails later saying that the the opposition by Andrews wasn’t the only reason the bill stalled in Committee.
However the story continues:
“The bill’s Republican co-sponsor remembers things differently. “I know she was very strongly behind this,” said Rep. Lynn. Asked why, if Palin supported the bill, one of her administration’s officials would speak against it, Lynn demurred. “We don’t all work in lockstep here,” he said. “People have different opinions,” he added.”
So a “lie”?? I don’t think so. The Revenue Commissioner simply sent the wrong person to the hearing.
By the way, the bill has passed out of committee with the help of Palin’s Revenue Commissioner as of March of 2009. I can’t find anything to update where the bill stands now.
NO LIE, and Sullivan’s own links in his article support that.
I’m getting the impression Sullivan doesn’t like Palin.
“Lie” number 16,
“Palin lied when she repeatedly claimed that troop levels in Iraq were back to pre-surge levels; in fact, even she acknowledged her “misstatements,” though she refused to retract or apologize.”
She didn’t have her facts straight.
This IS a lie.
It’s a lie on par with Obama saying he had visited 57 states with 2 more to go.
“Lie” number 17,
“Palin lied when she insisted that the Branchflower Report “showed there was no unlawful or unethical activity on my part”; in fact, that report prominently stated, “Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.”
She WAS found to have violated this ONE Ethics Statute. With EVERYTHING that Branchflower investigated, this was a minor, minor issue. She allowed Todd in to her office to make phone calls about the Wooten issue. THAT was the ethics violation. Wow!!!!
She “LIED”.
She did NOT lie on the “unlawful” part of her statement, only the “unethical” part.
I especially like the word “prominently” that Sullivan used to describe this violation of the ethics code. Makes one think that it was used over and over again in the report, when the FACT is the violation was mentioned on ONE page of the report.
I linked the Branchflower Report earlier, if you’d like to read it instead of taking Sullivan’s word that the violation is “prominently stated” in the report.
“Lie” number 19,
“Palin lied when she claimed to have voiced concerns over Wooten fearing he would harm her family; in fact, she actually decreased her security detail during that period.”
I just don’t get this one.
Because she decreased her security detail, she wasn’t in fear that Wooten wouldn’t do something to her or her family? Is that what Sullivan is suggesting? This is evidence of NOTHING.
It was TODD who was taking care of most of the Wooten issue. Are we confusing Todd with Sarah? Does Hillary speak for Bill? Does Michelle speak for Barack?
Look, I’m no expert on the Wooten issue, but from what I have read, and NOTHING in the articles that I have read has ANYTHING Wooten says, or his side of the issue, but from what I have read, Wooten did do things wrong. Todd was trying to inform his superiors of Wooten’s wrong doing.
The man tasered his 10 year old boy. If someone can do that, and then be allowed to stay on as a State Trooper, it says something about the quality of people they have on the force. The man was suspended for FIVE days for his wrong doings. Wooten also was on leave because he slipped on some ice and hurt his back, but was photographed riding a snow mobile, and doing other things that would suggest that his back injury wasn’t as bad as suggested it was. Why is it wrong to alert his superiors about what he was doing while at home nursing an injury he got while on the job?
The bottom line is, that just because Palin decreased her security detail, DOES NOT mean she wasn’t in fear for her, or her family’s safety. Actually the article states that she was in fear for “her family”, so does her family get a security detail, and were they decreased also? I’m thinking her family is not given a security detail.
NO LIE
Whoops, that was lie number 18, not lie 19.
My bad.