Sarah Palin's Modus Operandi in Action

By Ennealogic

Love thy neighbor? Turn the other cheek? Forgiveness? These New Testament concepts were not part of Sarah's Old Testament temperament. Both eyes for an eye was the rule, and vanquishing enemies became a goal. Nothing was more important, to any of us working alongside Sarah, than preserving her image or achieving retribution. Not our families, not our friends, not our financial well-being, not the state's business. Nothing.
[-- from Blind Allegiance to Sarah Palin, Kindle edition]

It's happened plenty of times before: someone writes about his personal journey toward a more enlightened state, or at least, a state where shades of gray begin to separate black from white. Along the way they disappoint or even anger those whose commitment has not wavered yet. One example is Frank Shaeffer, founding member of the religious right who penned Crazy for God: How I Grew Up As One Of The Elect, Help Found The Religious Right, And Lived To Take All (Or Almost All) Of It Back, a memoir about his misgivings after having furthered Christian evangelicalism.

Another example is Paul Haggis, former high level Scientologist, who ultimately repudiated the "church" and resigned when the hierarchy would not disavow California's Proposition 8, a piece of anti-gay legislation. Haggis wrote, in his resignation letter, "Our public association with that hate-filled legislation shames us."

Sarah Palin waves as she comes on stage before McCain's concession speech

And now we have Frank Bailey's tell-all, Blind Allegiance to Sarah Palin: A Memoir of Our Tumultuous Years, in which he renounces the former Governor and cements the conviction that Sarah Palin is truly and undeniably a woman with deep psychoses and the personality traits that go along with them. In Bailey's book, assuming it remains much the same as the leaked manuscript, we'll get a glimpse of the real Sarah Palin in her own words, the persona she lets out only in front of her closest aides and advisors (and probably her spouse and children). We'll see how she drives her inner circle to cheat and lie in order to keep her from imploding. We'll learn the lengths to which she'll go to destroy the lives of those she perceives as "the enemy." No one wants to be the object of her wrath and so her team did what had to be done in the name of the greater good, that is, massaging Sarah's mood so that she was happy.

Bailey essentially predicted the kind of pushback his book is now receiving. He made it plain, in the pages of his mea culpa memoir, what happens to those who cross Sarah. We are witnessing the sort of excuses, prevarications, distractions, slanders and deceptions that he chronicled—and he should know the methods well since he participated in them himself, many times, during his years as a close Palin aide. Sarah Palin's modus operandi is in full view, evident in the statements and attitudes of her aides and followers, and this goes to prove Bailey's book is not a lie.

For example, instead of addressing any of the content (which is well-supported by thousands of e-mails), current chief aide and SarahPac spokesman Tim Crawford misleads us with, “Gov. Palin suspended Bailey and refused to hire Bailey when he sought a position on her vice presidential campaign staff … (he)has an axe to grind and abandoned truth in his book.” Of course, the suspension was a critical CYA maneuver for Palin. When it was revealed that Bailey had been caught on tape trying to get Mike Wooten fired (see Troopergate), Sarah had no choice but to send Bailey away temporarily (albeit on a paid leave of absence).

In a Politico article titled "Sarah Palin's team pushes back against new book," Tim Crawford elevates his rhetoric to smear Bailey,

Frank Bailey was the only member of the Palin administration to be found to have acted unethically – twice. He is currently under investigation again by the state attorney general. Then, as the administrator of certain email accounts, he acted unethically by appropriating account information he was entrusted to protect.

What Crawford neglects to mention here is that Bailey was dinged for ethics when he was acting on Sarah's behalf, and he conveniently forgets the occasions when Sarah was, indeed, found to have acted unethically or illegally—more than two times, in fact. (Troopergate, Travelgate, AFT-gate...)

Stacy Drake at C4P opined, as she descended into the depths of ad hominem-ness,

After reading this manuscript, my only conclusion is that Frank Bailey is a horrible person... Frank Bailey’s motives, in my view, were greed and vengeance. This man of little skill decided to try to cash-in on the job he no longer had, and at which he was incompetent when he did have it."

Palinbots are out in force elsewhere too. A commenter at TheBlaze.com (Glenn Beck's site) wrote that the book was "Ghost-written by Bill Ayers LOL," inferring, I suppose, that Bailey is a terrorist with a connection to President Obama. Another commenter there, Missionarydad, attempts to discredit Bailey and prevent others from reading his book:

Who would ever want to read any trash like this. Anyone who will betray their relationship and trust with someone they are being paid for their time spent with them is of such low integrity that anything they have to say isn’t worth reading. It would be one thing if they were the one who was betrayed and they are just sharing their side of the story but this is sounds more like one who was treated well but because of the opportunity to cash in big they are willing to sell their soul and burn their bridges just for some filthy lucre.

If Missionarydad would take the time to read Blind Allegiance, he'd discover that Bailey was not paid for most of his time and effort, nor was he treated very well by his boss, throughout his service to her ambitions. This commenter may not realize he is following right in Sarah Palin's footsteps by speaking ill about the author without having read the book. He also doesn't realize that there is overwhelming evidence in Blind Allegiance that it is Sarah Palin, herself, who seeks 'filthy lucre' with every step she takes.

Bailey bemoans, after asking himself how spending hundreds of hours trying to destroy Mike Wooten's life and reputation had anything at all to do with governing Alaska,

This tale, unfortunately, includes the worst of Sarah's dysfunctional psyche and administration, including the compulsion to attack enemies, deny truth, play victim, and employ outright deception.

There seems to be no dearth of revelatory books about Sarah Palin this year. Geoffrey Dunn's The Lies of Sarah Palin has been out for a little more than a week, and it is a thorough, comprehensive, well-researched biography of Sarah Palin's political life that details her penchant and ability to manipulate others. Bailey's Blind Allegiance is out today, May 24, and I hope it does not vary much from the damning content in the leaked manuscript. Joe McGinniss' The Rogue - Searching for the Real Sarah Palin is being completed now and will be released in September. Add to that, we've heard a fairly strong rumor that yet another reporter is penning an expose about 'Babygate' this year.

Covers of Dunn's, Bailey's and McGinniss' latest books about Sarah Palin

There will also be no dearth of trashing, defaming and discounting the authors of these books. It's the Sarah Palin way - pay no attention to the substance, just destroy the messenger and rain retribution upon their heads in any way you can and seriously consider mailing them all a dead fish, while you're at it.

Geoffrey Dunn -- Upcoming Book Readings in Santa Cruz

By Kathleen

On Wednesday, 26th May at 7.30pm Geoffrey Dunn will read from his book The Lies of Sarah Palin at the Santa Cruz Bookshop, 1520 Pacific Ave., Santa Cruz.

Geoffrey will also hold a further reading, also at 7.30pm, on Thursday, July 14th, in the Capitola Book Cafe, 1475 41st Ave., Capitola.

If you are in the area drop in to one of the readings to have your books signed and please say hi to Geoffrey for us.

Jason Hoppin at Mercury News has asked some interesting questions of Geoffrey about his book. Be sure to read the full interview.

At Politico.com this claim by the Palin camp about Bailey's release of certain emails struck us as curious:

Palin’s camp also insists that some of the Palin emails printed in the manuscript are framed to distort events — for example, the emails Bailey includes to show the former Alaska governor’s reaction to her oldest daughter’s pregnancy are about rumors that circulated before Bristol actually became pregnant.

Politicalgates, thanks to the generosity of a kind reader, has three copies of Frank Bailey's book, Blind Allegiance to Sarah Palin, to give away to readers who cannot afford their own copy. This time round I will collect requests and pull names from a hat to determine the winners.

Please send your entries to kathleenpoliticalgates@gmail.com

No entries accepted after Wednesday, 25th May, 2011. Good luck to those who enter.

UPDATE: I now have 5 copies of Blind Allegiance to give away so don't forget to put your name forward if you would like the chance to receive a copy.

Download Professor Brad Scharlott's bombshell research paper about Sarah Palin's fake pregnancy hoax and the role of the media!

By Patrick

Finally - the code of silence has been broken! For more than two years the media desperately tried to ignore the obvious, the fact that Sarah Palin is not the biological mother of Trig Paxson Van Palin and faked her pregnancy. This story turned into one of the best kept secrets in America, a taboo subject, something not to be mentioned in public, considered "nonsense" for example by far too many liberal journalists out of pure wishful thinking. It was so secret that famous author Christopher Hitchens once wrote with deep surprise in the UK "Spectator":

"An astonishing number of well-informed people tell me that Sarah Palin is not in fact the mother of baby Trig, but that she is ‘covering up’ for another family member whose child he really is."

Now Bradford Scharlott, Associate Professor for Journalism at Northern Kentucky University, who has been teaching at the university since 1991, finally decided to take matters into his own hands, and wrote a very well researched and brilliantly executed research paper about the faked pregnancy. The paper is not only a collection of damning facts, but also a stunning indictment of the media.

If the media continues to ignore the subject, they do so at their own peril. Already the question has to be asked how it was that the obviously faked pregnancy by Sarah Palin was never seriously discussed in the US media when the story first emerged in public at the end of August 2008.

Brad Scharlott writes at the beginning of his paper:

But it’s fair to ask if the U.S. press should have treated the fake pregnancy rumor as untouchable, both in 2008 and up to the present day. After all, if there seemed to be any real chance that the rumor was true, that might mean that a candidate for the vice presidency had staged a hoax about the birth of a Down syndrome child and then used that birth to promote her political career. This article looks at what American journalists knew, and when they knew it, concerning the fake birth rumor – and it finds there was insufficient evidence for the press to conclude that Palin was telling the truth about Trig. The article then looks at what factors may have caused the press to give Palin more deference than she was due, and how journalists might have reacted differently. Finally, the article considers how the spiral of silence theory casts light on press performance relative to the Trig hoax rumor and, relatedly, the Obama fake birth-certificate rumor.

***

DOWNLOAD BRAD SCHARLOTT'S RESEARCH PAPER HERE!

ALTERNATIVE DOWNLOAD LINK - CLICK HERE!

Prof. Scharlott would like to stress that this paper is not the final version - it's a preliminary version, a work in progress, and there will probably be additions in the future.

***

Moreover, we already have "a story in the story" as well! As we reported earlier today, Brad Scharlott made his paper available to several people in advance - including Sarah Palin's former spokesperson Bill McAllister.

Brad Scharlott didn't expect that Bill McAllister's reaction would be an outburst of hate on part of McAllister - the student's newspaper "The Northener" reported earlier today:

After sending his research to McAllister, Scharlott said he was not expecting what came next.

“If we ever meet, I’ll slap you,” McAllister wrote in an email to Scharlott on April 5. “In a different era, I’d challenge you to a duel.”

McAlliser’s email continued, calling Scharlott a “scoundrel” and “despicable.” He then forwarded his response to Scharlott to five other members of the Communications Department, with the subject line “Brad Scharlott disgraces your university.”

“He should be fired, frankly,” McAllister said. “I can’t believe [the] university is going to let some idiot present a paper [like this.]”

McAllister is quick to point out, both in his emails and over the phone, that he is, in no way, speaking on behalf of the Alaska Department of Law, but as “someone who is demeaned and lied about in this paper.” Emails obtained by The Northerner were sent to and from his personal email account, and he said he spoke to reporters on his lunch break.

“I had never even heard a rumor [about this] until she was chosen by McCain, then that weekend all kinds of shit came out that no one had heard before,” McAllister said. “[Scharlott’s research] defames me and I’m just not having it.”

McAllister said that after he sent the emails to other members of NKU’s communication department, Scharlott responded to him again, this time telling McAllister that he “made a deal with the devil.”

“That blows any pretense that he’s objective or fair,” McAllister said. “It proves it is not academic rigor but vitriol.”

McAllister said he found many factual errors in the paper when he read it, such as incorrect call letters to TV stations, and facts taken out of context.

“He doesn’t come out and say it, but he is implying there is some link between the story about Trig [Paxton Van Palin] and my being hired by her,” McAllister said. “The two things have nothing to do with her. She hired me because I was the best known politics reporter in the state of Alaska.”

McAllister said he denied the charges on behalf of Palin because he was her spokesman, not because he had any role in a pregnancy hoax. He said the only part he played during Palin’s pregnancy was that of a reporter.

“Aside from interviewing her in her office when she came back to work, I had nothing to do with it,” McAllister said. “I had nothing to do with her personal life.”

Interestingly, it was Bill McAllister himself who chose to make his response to Brad Scharlott public, by sending it to Scharlott's colleagues in the communications department, in an attempt to damage Scharlott's reputation.

Therefore it's only fair to publish Bill McAllister's email in the full version - it's a memorable document:

On Apr 5, 2011, at 2:57 PM, xxxxxxxxxxxx@alaska.xxx wrote:
If we ever meet, I'll slap you. In a different era, I'd challenge you to a duel.
Be advised: I am at home on my own computer. This is my final week at
the Alaska Department of Law. Nothing I have to say here is said on
behalf of the state, the attorney general or Sarah Palin, whom I have
not seen or heard from since she resigned.
The italicized word "coincidentally" in the following sentence makes
you a scoundrel:
"In the first photo, Palin is shown standing to the left of KTUU-TV
newsman Bill McAllister, who coincidentally would become her director
of communications in July. (The other person is KTVA-TV cameraman Dan
Carpenter.)"
So let's parse this. I was a journalist for 30 years. I took down a
conservative Republican congressman, Arlan Stangeland (7th District,
Minnesota), in 1990, because he used his House credit card to bill
phone calls to and from the home of his mistress. (Johnny Apple of the
New York Times followed up on the story.) In 1980, I took down the
police chief of Winona, Minnesota, over a variety of ethical lapses,
including the doctoring of a police report on an alleged sexual
assault by his son. I have won national, regional and state awards for
my reporting in both Alaska and Minnesota for television, radio and
newspapers. I co-chaired the annual conference of Capitolbeat, the
Association of Capitol Reporters and Editors, in Seattle in 2005. I
was elected four times (the most ever) as the president of the Alaska
Capital Correspondents Association.
And I threw it all away to hide Sarah Palin's pregnancy hoax?
You are despicable.
I wasn't there when Palin was impregnated nor when she gave birth, so
I have no eyewitness accounts to offer. I can tell you that I never
even heard of the fake pregnancy rumor until the VP selection. Let me
repeat that: As the most connected politics reporter in the state for
years, I NEVER EVEN HEARD OF IT!!!!
Your suggestion that I was bought off to perpetuate a scam on the
American people is reprehensible. Be sure -- and be glad -- that we
will never meet. I have far more honor than you, scumbag. I have lived
an imperfect but honest life. You are in the service of evil.

Brad Scharlott, in the" service of evil?"

Bill McAllister will make C4P proud.

However, the available documentation suggests one thing: That Bill McAllister is a liar.

After Frank Bailey's new book "Blind Allegiance to Sarah Palin" was leaked, it quickly became apparent that it contained incredibly interesting information (click to read details) about the frantic attempts of Sarah Palin in March and April 2008 to suppress the fake pregnancy rumors.

Excerpt from the book:

Of course, placid waters did not last long. Two issues immediately became irksome.

Because she did not look pregnant, speculation arose that Sarah was not actually carrying a child at all. More annoying was the allegation that she was hiding daughter Bristol‘s pregnancy. Those of us who saw Sarah daily and were there after the birth of Trig, know this to be an idiotic story.

We also saw Bristol regularly in jeans tight enough to convince anyone with eyes she was not with child. At first, Sarah made light of the story:

From: sarah
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 2:30 PM
Subject: Bristol

Todd: Don't tell (Bristol) but rumor around the capitol is that she's pregnant. People are so mean. I'm going to nicely pull McAllister (KTUU political reporter and soon to be Palin spokesperson) aside and tell him that's not true.

Funny people maybe speculated I'm not really pg, but she is and I'm taking the heat for her! Funny, but pathetic.

The next day, Sarah alerted us that Bristol had already heard the story:

Yeah- Brsitol (sic) just called and heard the rumors too, but this time is was from Wasilla High kids who heard that I'm not really pg, but she is, and I'll be taking/raising the baby she's supposedly having next month. She's ticked, but made light of it with, "They think I'm pregnant just because I have huge bo obs?" Told her to just tell those rumormongers that they're invited to peer at my stretch marks, that'll prove who's really pg .

Let's summarize:

Bill McAllister in his email to Brad Scharlott on April 5, 2011:

"I can tell you that I never even heard of the fake pregnancy rumor until the VP selection. Let me repeat that: As the most connected politics reporter in the state for years, I NEVER EVEN HEARD OF IT!!!!"

Sarah Palin in an email to her staff on April 1, 2008:

"Todd: Don't tell (Bristol) but rumor around the capitol is that she's pregnant. People are so mean. I'm going to nicely pull McAllister (KTUU political reporter and soon to be Palin spokesperson) aside and tell him that's not true."

Funny people maybe speculated I'm not really pg, but she is and I'm taking the heat for her! Funny, but pathetic.

We know that Sarah Palin then DID in fact pull Bill McAllister aside, from an article by Kyle Hopkins in the Anchorage Daily News from August 31, 2008.

Kyle Hopkins wrote:

Here's a story we wrote soon after the birth. At that point, the questions were all about whether Palin should have flown back to Alaska to give birth. In the story, Palin's doctor talks about the labor and addresses questions raised at the time about Palin's decision to board a jet and fly to Alaska from Texas when she showed signs of early labor.

"The stage of her pregnancy was not apparent by observation," said an Alaska Airlines spokeswoman. The doctor, Cathy Baldwin-Johnson, said she induced labor once Palin was at the hospital.

What's the McCain campaign say? Nothing so far. I've called and e-mailed for an on-the-record response, but haven't heard back.

What's Palin's in-state spokesman, Bill McAllister say?

That it's not true. "The answer to that is no," he said.

"But beyond that, I don't know, why should we even have to say anything," he said.

McAllister was an Anchorage TV reporter before working for Palin. He said Palin once approached him - before people knew she was pregnant - assuming he'd been hearing rumors.

"She said it's not true about Bristol," McAllister said.

At the time, the rumor would have been that Palin's daughter was pregnant.

How does McAllister know it's not true?

"The governor's not a liar. That's the main reason. But also this would have to involve some sort of conspiracy with the hospital of Wasilla. They said she gave birth there. Is the doctor, the nurses ... are they all lying?" he said.

Why not share the birth certificate?

"What a thing to request -- prove that this is your baby," McAllister said. "I mean, my god, that's horrifying to think that she would have to do that."

I said one reason is to put it to rest.

"In my mind, there's nothing to put to rest," he said.

No, Alaska birth certificates are not public record. Meantime, this is all a plotline straight out of a recent season of Desperate Housewives.

So it's proven that Bill McAllister was very well aware about the "false" rumor that Bristol was pregnant BEFORE she was pregnant with Tripp - and he now claims that he wasn't aware about the faked pregnancy rumors, which are basically a "derivative" of the first rumor?

In any case, I highly doubt that Bill McAllister was the "most connected politics reporter" in Alaska back then.

Others appeared to be much, much more connected - here Michael Carey from the Anchorage Daily News states on the record on September 2, 2008 that he had heard the rumor that Sarah Palin faked her pregnancy long before the nomination, that it was discussed in the newsroom and that one of his friends, a "smart lawyer", claimed that it's the "absolute truth" that Sarah Palin faked her pregnancy:

In this context is also interesting to note that after the election, Alaska journalist Brendan Joel Kelley published a very detailed and revealing portrait about Bill McAllister in the "Anchorage Press" on June 10, 2009.

There, Brendan Joel Kelley wrote:

McAllister went round and round with the press, including with the Anchorage Daily News, which had a reporter chasing a story about the persistent rumors that Palin’s baby Trig wasn’t really hers; ADN editor Pat Dougherty perpetuated the dustup between the two with posts on his editor’s blog. Asked to comment for this story by email, Dougherty replied, simply, “Brendan, No.”

In any case, historians have to decide who was "in the service of evil" and who wasn't.

But the journalists have to do their duty first. Now or never!

+++

UPDATE:

Joe McGinniss just wrote on his new blog:

"Rest assured, the question of whether Sarah is really Trig’s mother, or whether she faked the pregnancy and lied about the birth is not an issue I ignore in The Rogue."

Say it ain't so, Joe! ;-)

+++

Please re-tweet:

http://twitter.com/#!/politicalgates/status/56507634496454656

http://twitter.com/#!/politicalgates/status/56508174139801602

http://twitter.com/#!/politicalgates/status/56508384542863360

http://twitter.com/#!/politicalgates/status/56508936009940994

http://twitter.com/#!/politicalgates/status/56509267376734209

http://twitter.com/#!/politicalgates/status/56509604254855168

http://twitter.com/#!/joemcginniss/status/56507679237091328

+++

Websites which linked to this post:

Joe McGinniss - "The Rogue" blog

The Alaska Dispatch (here and here)

+++

Click HERE to read all posts at Politicalgates about Sarah Palin's faked pregnancy.

Cease & Desist Letter by Frank Bailey, Ken Morris and Jeanne Devon against Politicalgates

By Patrick

Cease & desist letters are a funny business. We have received them before, back in the days when we blogged at Palingates, and they always failed to reach their goals. When they are aimed to "plug a leak", they usually only increase the leak by giving it more publicity.

Nevertheless, Frank Bailey, Ken Morris and Jeanne Devon decided to send the following cease & desist letter to Politicalgates:

BONFANTE |STEINBECK
BONFANTE STEINBECK, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
9190 OLYMPIC BLVD. #400
BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212
WWW.BSALAWFIRM.COM

February 20, 2011
SENDER INFORMATION:
Ken Morris, Frank Bailey and Jeanne Devon
sent By:
Bonfante Steinbeck
9190 Olympic Blvd. #400
Beverly Hills, CA 90212

RECIPIENT INFORMATION:
Political Gates
Attn: Publisher / Legal Counsel
kathleenpoliticalgates@gmail.com

SENT VIA: EMAIL & OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
RE: COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

Dear Sir:

I write on behalf of Ken Morris, Frank Bailey and Jeanne Devon (collectively, the “Copyright Owners”). The Copyright Owners are co-owners of the copyright in the unpublished manuscript entitled “Blind Allegiance to Sarah Palin: A Memoir of our Tumultuous Years” (the “Work”).

On February 18, 2011 you were the recipient of an unlawfully distributed version of the Work. Although you knew that the Work was unlawfully distributed to you, that same day you posted on your website (the “Site”) certain blogs whereby you described each section of the Work in great detail. Most shocking was the fact that you felt free to quote liberally from the Work and reproduce large portions verbatim. As you are well aware, simply quoting copyrighted material does not alleviate you from your duty to comply with copyright laws.

The Copyright Owners hereby demand that you cease and desist from displaying and distributing any portion of the Work on the Site and any other website under your ownership, control or influence, and refrain from any further display or distribution of any portion of the Work.

Additionally, the Copyright Owners demand that you provide exact details as to how you obtained unlawfully distributed copies of the Work and which parties (including names and contact information) sent you the Work. You have until February 23, 2011 to provide us with written assurances that you will immediately comply with the Copyright Owners’ demands.

Thereafter, we expect you to act promptly and in good faith with our demands.

This letter is not intended as, and may not be construed to be, a complete recitation of the facts or circumstances connected with this matter. Furthermore, any statement contained in this letter is not intended as, and may not be construed to be, a waiver or relinquishment of any of the Copyright Owners’ rights or remedies under law, all of which the Copyright Owners hereby expressly reserve.

Please feel free to contact me at (310) 776-0865 or via email at deansteinbeck@bsalawfirm.com
to discuss this matter further.

Sincerely,

Dean M. Steinbeck

Therefore, we inevitably have to give a reply.

Here it is, also communicated today to the lawyers via email:

Dear Sir,

Thank you very much for the message.

We are saddened to have received such an aggressive letter from people who are on our side in the political fight against Sarah Palin. Fortunately for us, your cease & desist letter has little merit.

When I first read your letter, I had the impression that you were talking about another blog or website. We have neither

"posted on our website certain blogs whereby you described each section of the Work in great detail"

nor did we feel

"free to quote liberally from the Work and reproduce large portions verbatim."

Where did you read that? Certainly not at Politicalgates.

In our post from February 18, 2011, "Sarah Palin teases "Long Island Association" that she is still thinking about running in 2012 - PLUS: Book of former Palin-aide Frank Bailey leaked!" we quoted from several press reports about the book, for example from the Anchorage Daily News, Alaska Dispatch and KTUU. Our post neither describes "each section of the work in great detail" nor does it "quote liberally from the work and reproduce large portions verbatim."

Media outlets like the Anchorage Daily News published much larger portions of the book, as did several other media outlets or blogs, for example today Andrew Halcro

http://www.andrewhalcro.com/another_shot_of_baileys

or Andrew Sullivan on the Daily Dish.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/02/more-scoop-on-palin-her-reliable-media-mouthpieces.html

What we published in the forementioned post were short excerpts, exactly in the way they were quoted in other media outlets. These excerpts did in no way represent a large or substantial portion of the book. At this point, we were not in possession of a copy of the manuscript, and we relied on news reports like everybody else. When we quoted the news reports, we did so with the good intention of informing our readers about this important book.

We received copies of the manuscript one day later, on February 19, 2011, and they were sent to us by not one, but several sources, which we are under no obligation to reveal, and will never do so.

After we received copies of the book on February 19, 2011, we published the post "Frank Bailey's book "Blind Allegiance to Sarah Palin": Sarah fights in April 2008 against rumors that she is not pregnant - but has no evidence!", in which we quoted from a section of the book which the authors themselves consider to be a rather insignificant part of the book, basically a non-issue: The part in which they write about Sarah Palin's pregnancy with Trig.

We took great care and quoted from the book only very few sentences which were necessary to prove our point. In fact, we quoted 77 words verbatim. The book itself contains more than 133.000 words. The rest of the quotes were from emails that were sent by other people to Frank Bailey, for example the emails from Sarah Palin. The authors have no copyright over these emails. In fact, it is our view that the authors themselves might run into severe legal difficulties if they attempt to publish the book in its current form, which includes a very large number of emails. The legal situation regarding the attempt to publish emails of other people which were regarded to be confidential is not clear at all and might in the end not turn out in favor of your clients, if the authors of the emails decide to start a legal challenge. The leak of the book actually ensured that such a legal challenge, be it with merit or without, would now be useless, as the content of the emails cannot be kept secret anymore.

Therefore we did your clients nothing but a favor with this post. We gave the book free publicity, and we helped the cause to get the book published in an uncensored form. Our actions were covered by fair-use rules, the limitations of which we strictly observed. Politicalgates is a non-commercial, educational political citizen's blog, and we published these tiny excerpts in good faith, along with our own extensive commentary and we are fully supportive of the authors intents, which we also made clear in our post.

The aggressive tone of your cease & desist letter is also surprising giving the fact that the obvious carelessness of the agents of the authors was the main cause for the leak. We are in possession of a letter by the Carol Mann Agency from February 17, 2011, in which Carol Mann, in attempt to market the book, not only revealed the main content of the book in the letter itself, but also attached the full copy of the book with the email. The agents should have known that such an explosive and powerful book should have been handled with more care, confidentiality and secrecy. The legal term for this behavior is "contributory negligence", I believe. The fact that we were sent a copy of the book on February 19, 2011, not only by one, but several sources confirms that the handling of this highly confidential material was done unprofessionally. The leak was preventable, it should never have happened.

We do hope that the book will be a huge success, as we also expressed in our previous posts. As I mentioned, all we did was give it more free publicity, and we are full of praise for the efforts of the authors. We do hope that the book will be published uncensored. We highly appreciate the work your clients have done. It is our view that the leak ensured that it will be possible to publish the book in its original form in the end, therefore it clearly was a blessing in disguise.

Out of courtesy, as a gesture of good will, we have deleted some excerpts from the book in our post "Sarah Palin teases "Long Island Association" that she is still thinking about running in 2012 - PLUS: Book of former Palin-aide Frank Bailey leaked!", which were excerpts, as I mentioned above, which were previously quoted by other media outlets.

As it is apparently not appreciated by the authors, we will cease to continue to publish further excerpts from the book, and we will not pass the book on. We wish the authors all the best and lots of success.

Yours sincerely

Kathleen

+++

PLEASE RE-TWEET:

http://twitter.com/#!/politicalgates/status/39813973138214912

Politicalgates Weekly Roundup, February 14-20, 2011

By Blueberry Tart

HUGE THANKS to Bandit Basheert for sending pizzas on behalf of PoliticalGates to the protesters in Wisconsin!

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Valentines Day Protests in Iran

photo: abcnews.go.com

Kathleen continues to follow events as they unfold in the Middle East. This post covers the protests in Iran, rekindled after the successful removal of dictators in Tunisia and Egypt. Predictably, Sarah Palin inserted herself in this turmoil through Twitter, questioning whether President Obama would pressure Iran as he had done in Egypt. To her fans, this tweet was another example of her brilliant foreign policy credentials and her influence on President Obama’s handling of foreign affairs, with nary a thought to the many differences between the U.S. role in Egypt and Iran. As Kathleen observes, Sarah Palin “…is no more interested in the will of the people of Iran than she was interested in the will of the people of Egypt.”

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Saudi Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal and The News Corp.

photo: newsone.com

Nomadic Joe’s excellent guest post introduces Saudi Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal, one of the world’s wealthiest men. Among his many lucrative investments is one that is not widely publicized: a 7% share in The News Corporation, Rupert Murdoch’s enterprise that owns Fox News and The Wall Street Journal, among other media outlets. As Nomadic Joe writes, “Al-Waleed’s ownership might come as a surprise to many of [Fox News’] conservative ultra-patriot viewers.” To what extent does Prince Al-Waleed influence the coverage of news? He himself said that he got Fox News to change a banner covering unrest in France last month from “Muslim riots” to “civil riots.” Two top investigative reporters who had broken major stories about Saudi funding of terrorism for the WSJ left, after Murdoch scaled back terrorism coverage. To be continued.

Doubts Increase about Anthrax Case Conclusions

photo: newser.com

Ennealogic’s post presents new evidence that the case against Dr. Bruce Ivins was flawed. Ivins was accused of having mailed envelopes with anthrax, causing deaths, illnesses and panic. The National Academy of Science now disputes the FBI’s claim that the anthrax strain must have come from Ivins’ lab. The post points out other discrepancies in the investigation, casting further doubt on the FBI’s conclusions, investigative methods and integrity. Unfortunately, Dr. Ivins will never have his day in court, and the records of the investigation are sealed.

Thursday, February 17, 2011

“Death Panelgate”

from: laprogressive.com

Joe Christmas, cheeriogirl and sleuth1 are health care professionals, and they teamed up for an excellent guest post about the real damage done by Sarah Palin’s inflammatory and dishonest claim about “death panels.” As they so aptly say, her blatant lie was “rhetorical terrorism” which denied people the opportunity to have a dignified discussion and make a personal choice about their last days. Our guest-posters also show how well they know Palin, by perfectly describing the typical pattern when she is publicly called out: “Stonewalling, denying, rationalizing, reverse-victimization, Fox News cover, and eventually making light.” Sleuth offers a moving first-hand account of the turmoil that accompanied one woman’s death when her Do Not Resuscitate order was unavailable; the scene was so disruptive that her 10-year old son was denied the peace and quiet he needed to say goodbye to his mom in the way he wanted and needed to do.

Friday, February 18, 2011

Sarah on Long Island, PLUS Frank Bailey’s Book Leaked!

photo: msnbc.msn.com

Kathleen’s post began with a report on Sarah’s appearance at an event on Long Island at which she teased about the perfect credentials for a presidential candidate. Surprise – she fits the bill perfectly! And who would think anything else but “Presidential” when they gaze upon her wearing the short, tight skirt and leopard-spot shoes? But lo, just when we were getting into some of the juiciest snark about the shoes, all hell broke loose with the release of passages from Frank Bailey’s book on Sarah. Finally, one of Palin’s closest insiders tells what he knows about her true character. From the first excerpts, he seems revolted by and apologetic for his role in her politics of personal destruction, which, he claims, went against his personal beliefs. Among other things, he reveals Sarah’s campaign’s illegal coordination with the Republican Governors’ Association, her “dysfunctional psyche” and the inside story about Palin’s vendetta against Mike Wooten that became Troopergate. He also talks about her MO in attacking her opponents: “We set our sights and went after opponents in coordinated attacks, utilizing what we called ‘Fox News surrogates’, friendly blogs, ghost-written op eds, media opinion polls (that we often rigged), letters to editors, and carefully edited speeches,” Bailey wrote. Story is going viral as I write this. The updated post has tremendous links to background information.

Saturday, February 19, 2011

Blind Allegiance and Babygate

photo from thenewstribune.com

Patrick’s post takes a look at part of the Bailey book pertaining to “Babygate,” exploring the subtle meanings contained in several never-before-revealed emails from Sarah Palin and her staff. While Bailey disclaims Babygate himself (although admitting he was unaware she was pregnant before she announced it), these emails make clear that there were rumors that Bristol was pregnant and Sarah was covering up for her, even before Trig Palin’s birth was announced. After Palin announced her pregnancy, she and her staff still focused on whether the media “suspected anything.” Hmmm, interesting word choice, what would they suspect? Rather than disproving the rumors, Palin had her staff plant stories in the media to beat back the “suspicions.” She also suggested showing her stretch marks as proof of her supposedly then-current 7-8 month pregnancy. (Hmm. You couldn’t think of any other way to prove it, Sarah?) Despite the disinformation campaign, the rumors persisted in the days after Trig’s “presentation” on April 18^th. Palin and staff continued to try to beat them back, not with facts but with more snide comments about showing her stretch marks, again ridiculing the rumors instead of presenting evidence to refute the claim. Bailey himself recognized the “stretch marks” as a deflection from the truth – Sarah’s MO.

A Few Comments and Links:

Many PolitcalGaters expressed solidarity with TABJ, inmylife and our other readers in Wisconsin!

Linda1961: Sarah Palin has used her looks all her life; I wonder what she will do now that they are not just fading, but morphing into something far worse than Dorian Gray's portrait. She has nothing but her looks and her hatefulness, and the looks are gone.

Moles: Palin and truth are strangers, never to meet in this lifetime.

BadlandsAK took up lilylake’s challenge to finish the sentence: "At her New York interview, Sarah Palin's attire” … “was a hideous and unflattering monochromatic black leather ensemble, inappropriate to the occasion in question, yet strangely appropriate to the person on display, black being the color of her soul.”

465janedoeseeker: This article is a new first: it combines Sarah's sandals with Sarah's scandals. In neither department does she come out ahead. ;-)

JCos: I think Bailey must have misunderstood what Palin said. It was, "Hate IS my job!"

Event Horizon: Dedicated to the Long Island Lounge Lizard:

MoFo Ho Faux Leopard Shoosies
Made for escorts, teens and floozies.
Don't get drunk perched on these doozies.

Sparky40: Palin is starting to remind me of the telltale heart... She is suspicious because she is morally corrupt and dishonest that she knows Lyda Green (et al) have a reason or reasons to see right through her.

Patrick answered Molly_WI’s question: Is it not true that CBJ, when given the chance, neither confirmed nor denied that she was in attendance at the birth of Trig Palin? Yes, that's absolutely correct. That's what CBJ said when she had the "secret" interview with the Anchorage Daily News in late 2008, the interview that the ADN never reported about. CBJ appeared to the interview together with her lawyer.

Adrian found a great new moniker for SP on rumproast.com: America’s Back-Seat Driver™ (also “Millionaire Celebrity Anarchist” and “high-fashion media parasite”)

Everspring: What really smacks me in the face about Babygate is that NO WOMAN who has birthed 4 children already would think to conceal their fifth pregnancy. Totally not plausible!

Kevin: I have a feeling Palin is playing off the babygate story to make her opponents seem deranged, obviously boosting her with her palinbots, similar to how "birthers" are a turn off for independent voters who may vote Republican, but I don't think Palin is that smart politically...

Cackling Rad: ...babygate definitely works to Sarah's advantage with those who don't believe it because it seems so horrible to doubt that a woman's baby isn't her own (especially that "poor little DS baby"). It makes her look like a victim, as if people are just being mean to her, and because motherhood is considered sacred, it can be twisted to make it look as if people are attacking all women.

One has to wonder how she comes up with this stuff? The stretch marks angle is very, very effective in making people back off. In analysis it makes no sense, especially now that we know she was using it when she was still pregnant. But it serves its purpose of suggesting that anyone questioning her is being too nosy, too personal, too creepy. Clever. She does the same thing when she suggests that people are peering at her kids, or attacking her kids when they are really attacking her, or so many of the other ploys she uses. One could do a post on Sarah's Ploys. She is very clever in a sick, devious way. Years of experience, I guess.

Honestyingov pointed out this piece by Frank Schaeffer on “freedom from religion.”

TruGal found this link to a (longish) Salon article comparing Palin with John C. Frémont. While the comparison to Frémont is a bit strained at times, the article includes some very clever sideswipes (the author clearly knows many of Palin’s foibles) as well as thoughtful observations about Palin and quitting.

Juicyfruityy linked to this interesting comparison of how often Repubs lie vs. Dems. (Hint: here is a contest where Sarah actually does come in first, fair and square.) He also found this on a “Reagan litmus test.”

Aview999 linked to a great piece by Bill Moyers on Alternet.

BellPeppery highlighted the Guardian’s report admitting that WMD claim leading to Iraq war was false.

Juicy76 pointed out this report that Palin has split with Jason Recher, which seems all the more relevant in light of the Bailey book.

Nicky in NY posted this link on the connection between attorneys for Big Oil and the campaign to discredit Wikileaks. [BBT: seems like all things are connected…to Big Oil.]

Here is a link I found to an interesting NYT article on the strategy of non-violent action and 198 methods of non-violent protest and persuasion.

Older_Wiser linked to The Nation. (Happy Birthday, O_W!)

Special H/T to sunnyjane, who was on an incredible roll with the tweets this week!

The Last Word: Espresso4me: I long for the day when this dishonest, mean-spirited, ineducable, self-centered crazy person is exposed and revealed for who she really is for all to see. She is certainly appropriate for psychiatric services as well as jail and/or prison services. Just take her away!

Frank Bailey's book "Blind Allegiance to Sarah Palin": Sarah fights in April 2008 against rumors that she is not pregnant - but has no evidence!

By Patrick

Frank Bailey's book "Blind Allegiance to Sarah Palin - A Memoir of Our Tumultuous Years" has been leaked, and even after reading the book for just several minutes, and after searching for several key words in the book, it's obvious that this 456-page manuscript is pure dynamite. It's an unfiltered look from a well-known insider at the shady dealings of a woman who aspires to be the next US President. The book confirms once again what seems to be so incredibly hard to believe for many people: That Sarah Palin does not belong into the White House - and that she is severely mentally disturbed, to put it mildly.

The book is a treasure trove of many previously unknown details regarding Sarah Palin. For any researcher, this material is invaluable. The power of this book is that it provides hard evidence.

As we have known for a long time, it is hard that would eventually lead ti Sarah Palin's downfall - because facts don't mix very well with Sarah's twisted and warped actions and her disturbing mindset.

The State of Alaska can retract as many state government emails from Sarah's time as Governor as they want, because Frank Bailey is reportedly in possession of thousands of email exchanges from Sarah Palin's inner circle. Bailey was apparently the "administrator" of a special email chain within the inner circle, which was not connected to the Alaska state server. It doesn't appear that Frank Bailey has any hesitation in quoting from the emails, or any hesitation in sharing other parts of his vast inside knowledge.

Excerpts from the book are already all over the media, see the links in our previous post. Links to the story about the leaking of the manuscript are already viral.

Bailey's account is full of surprises. Let's talk about a particular topic today, an old favorite: Sarah Palin's pregnancy with Trig.

In Frank Bailey's book, Sarah Palin's pregnancy and the "rumours" that the pregnancy could be faked and that Bristol may be the real mother of Trig are mentioned in greater detail. This might not come as a huge surprise to many of our readers, but large parts of the public still have no idea that there could possibly be anything "wrong" with Sarah Palin's pregnancy, because the media, up until this very day, has consistently ignored the many questions that surround Palin's account of the events leading up to Trig's birth.

At Palingates, I had written about Sarah Palin's faked pregnancy many times in great detail. Unfortunately, due to the fact that flickr decided to delete my flickr-account, these posts are severely "crippled" now, as they included a large amount of pictures from my flickr account. Fortunately, I made safety copies of my most important posts on a regular basis. PDF-copies of the "Babygate" posts can be downloaded HERE.

For any person who has investigated Sarah Palin for a long time, this book is full of "OMG!", "Olala!", "What?" and "I told you so!" moments. If the authors manage to publish this book in this uncensored form, they will make a fortune, which certainly would be well deserved.

Whether this book has a chance to be published in this version, I really don't know for certain - but I doubt it. Frank Bailey quotes extensively from Sarah Palin's emails, which are in his possession, apparently thousands of them. Would Frank Bailey be able to publish the book with all these emails being included, if the Palins start a legal challenge? I have doubts, but whatever the answer to this question may be, the "leak" of the book made sure that any legal challenge would now be worthless - as the content is now available within the "public domain."

Was the leak really as "accidental" as everyone now claims? It would appear that the agents of the authors were at least "grossly negligent." From a source, we actually received an insight of how the leak occurred.

We were given the copy of an email-message which was written by Carol Mann from the "Carol Mann Agency" in New York, who was shopping the book around, apparently attaching a complete copy of the book with the message. I have no inside knowledge of the media business, but how the heck could the agents think that sending the full manuscript around via email would be a good idea? There is nothing else which will be forwarded quicker than a simple email! I find it hard to believe that this is "standard procedure" when it comes to dealing with highly confidential, in this case even highly explosive material. It seems to me that the agents haven't properly understood how the internet works. Clearly they should have approached potential buyers via "safer channels."

It also seems utterly unfair to me to blame somebody like Joe McGinniss for the leak, when the agents of the authors sent the copy of the full manuscript around just like a normal press release, and were apparently at least "grossly negligent!"

Quoting from the email message which was sent around by the agents:

From: xxx
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 xxx PM
Subject: From Carol Mann - BLIND ALLEGIANCE TO SARAH PALIN by Frank Bailey with Ken Morris and Jeanne Devon

C A R O L M A N N A G E N C Y
55 FIFTH AVENUE NEW YORK NY 10003 (212) 206-5635 FAX (212) 675-4809

Dear xxx

When the Troopergate scandal erupted, Frank Bailey was catapulted into the spotlight. Bailey, the first outside volunteer for Sarah Palin’s gubernatorial campaign and a trusted member of her inner circle, made the infamous recorded call that led to the revelation of a years-long campaign by the Palins and the Governor’s staff to have State Trooper Mike Wooten dismissed. Frank, the go-to guy to handle any crisis, went instantly from being a behind-the-scenes staffer to “the Troopergate guy.” He had accompanied the Palins to the Governor’s office where he perfected his role even through her resignation, but when she betrayed a local Christian charity, it was the last straw for him. Since leaving the Governor’s office, Frank has been forced to reconsider his actions on Palin’s behalf in terms of his deep Christian faith and his allegiance to her as the standard-bearer for the conservative causes he still champions.

In BLIND ALLEGIANCE TO SARAH PALIN: A Memoir of our Tumultuous Years, Bailey explores such key events as Palin’s gubernatorial victory, Troopergate, illegal coordination with the Republican Governor’s Association, never-before-revealed scandals such as a judicial appointment as payoff for a favorable child custody ruling for Palin’s sister, the vice presidential campaign and the bizarre vetting process, and Palin’s resignation. Drawing on thousands of emails from the personal accounts of Sarah and Todd Palin as well as key members of the staff, Bailey reconstructs how the Palins’ pathologies became apparent, and how he and other members of the team rationalized Sarah’s increasingly erratic behavior and their commitment to a cause that was changing shape before their eyes. Bailey’s stories and representative emails—which are not subject to FOIA requests and therefore will not be included in the email correspondence scheduled to be released by Alaskan officials this May—sketch a disturbing portrait of Sarah Palin and her inner circle. Given the recent news that Palin’s political action committee has hired Michael Glassner, a veteran of both Senator Bob Dole’s and Senator John McCain’s presidential campaigns, as chief of staff, the revelations and insights of Frank’s story are more necessary than ever, as the public will seek to learn as much as possible about the woman who seems to have her sights set on the national stage. Both a chilling expose of the inner workings of Palin’s circle and the story of one man’s slow drift from his most cherished beliefs and his ultimate redemption, BLIND ALLEGIANCE TO SARAH PALIN is sure to strike a chord with readers on both sides of the aisle.

Frank Bailey was the first outside volunteer for Sarah Palin’s gubernatorial primary campaign, and served as a staffer and member of her inner circle until his departure from politics in the fall of 2009. He now runs a small coffee-stand business, having turned down an appointment from new Governor Sean Parnell in order to spend more time with his family. Ken Morris, a former Wall Street executive, has written for the San Francisco Chronicle and Jim Cramer’s RealMoney.com, and has appeared on Cramer’s former show Kudlow and Cramer as well as dozens of radio shows. Jeanne Devon is the editor and proprietor for The Mudflats<http://www.themudflats.net/>, one of the most influential blogs in Alaska, and a regular contributor to the Huffington Post, where she has an open invitation to post lead articles. She contributed a chapter to GOING ROUGE: An American
Nightmare (Health Communications, 2009). She is a regular guest on Shannyn Moore’s popular Anchorage radio show, and has appeared on Rachel Maddow.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Best,
Carol Mann

So, what do we learn for example about Sarah Palin's "pregnancy" with Trig in "Blind Allegiance to Sarah Palin"?

First of all, Frank Bailey confirms in his book that there were rumors around even before Trig's birth on April 18, 2008 that Sarah wasn't "really" pregnant - and that Bristol was in fact the one who was pregnant instead. This also didn't escape the attention of Sarah, and already on April 1, 2008, almost three weeks before Trig was officially born, she sent an email around with the following content to her "inner circle":

From: sarah
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 2:30 PM
Subject: Bristol

Todd: Don't tell (Bristol) but rumor around the capitol is that she's pregnant. People are so mean. I'm going to nicely pull McAllister aside and tell him that's not true..

Funny people maybe speculated I'm not really pg, but she is and I'm taking the heat for her! Funny, but pathetic.

Bill McAllister was at the time a TV-reporter for KTUU and later became Sarah Palin's government spokesperson.

Yes, people are "so mean", aren't they, Sarah! Well, on April 1, 2008, Palin was already officially around 7 months pregnant, but the exact figures were afterwards frequently changed in Sarah Palin's speeches. It seems that Sarah Palin now settled on the idea that she gave birth on April 18, 2008 at "7 1/2 months", contrary to the earlier official version, given when she announced her pregnancy on March 5, 2008, when Palin claimed that she was already "around seven months" pregnant at this point.

In any case, it is indisputable that, according to the official story, Sarah Palin gave birth to Trig just 18 days later, when Trig had the "official" birth weight of 6 pounds 2 ounces on April 18, 2008. So Sarah should have had no difficulties whatsoever to "prove" her pregnancy on April 1, 2008.

Wouldn't it have been pretty easy under normal circumstances to prove who is highly pregnant, Sarah or Bristol? Either you are pregnant or you are not.

The next day, on April 2, 2008, Palin sent another email message, according to Frank Bailey in his book, with the following content:

Yeah- Brsitol (sic) just called and heard the rumors too, but this time is was from Wasilla High kids who heard that I'm not really pg, but she is, and I'll be taking/raising the baby she's supposedly having next month. She's ticked, but made light of it with, "They think I'm pregnant just because I have huge boobs?" Told her to just tell those rumormongers that they're invited to peer at my stretch marks, that'll prove who's really pg.

Yes, there we have some news: Sarah Palin already "invited" people to look at her "stretch marks" on April 2, 2008. Oh, those evil rumormongers! Sarah Palin's "unprovable" pregnancy began even before Trig was even officially born on April 18, 2008 - that's big news for everybody who has been researching the pregnancy - and it should be big news for the mainstream media as well!

Sarah Palin later recycled this "invitation" to show her "stretch marks" in some of her speeches, for example in her speech on October 7, 2010 in Montgomery, Alabama, in which Palin said:

"I didn't tell anybody for a long time. In fact, I think I probably had the world record. I went seven months without telling anybody I was pregnant, except for Todd, our doctor and a nurse. And matter of fact to this day if I didn't tell anybody ... up there in Alaska, it's so cold you just put on more layers, more clothes, and here I am chunking out and my staff is like "Governor, are you really that cold? Do you really want another coat?" "Yes it's chilly in here." But to this day, because my son Trig was born prematurely at seven and a half months and I didn't tell anyone I was pregnant for seven months, to this day, a lot of the haters, a lot of the bloggers out here, still say "'That couldn't have been her kid, because she was only pregnant for two weeks!' And I say, don't make me show you the stretch marks to prove it!"

Watch the clip:

But that's not everything.

Sarah Palin, seems to be the only woman in the world who doesn't know how to prove a pregnancy to the public, then a few days later creates a cunning plan in order to convince the world that she really IS in fact pregnant - while she allegedly already was around seven months pregnant...

After quoting the above emails, Frank Bailey reports that the inner circle at the same time also discussed feeding information about the pregnancy to ADN-journalist Sheilah Toomey, who writes the "gossip column" for the ADN, called "The Ear" - at a point when Trig wasn't even officially born yet, and after Palin had already officially announced her pregnancy!

Bailey writes that Sarah Palin suggested that top-Palin aide Sharon Leighow should (quoting Sarah Palin's email original message)...

...feel out Shelia on it discreetly, play it by ear and clear it up if she's suspecting anything.

In my opinion, the use of the word "suspecting" by Sarah Palin tells you all one needs to know.

In addition, Sarah suggested for a second time, according to Bailey:

Heck- offer to let her see my new stretch marks to prove which Palin is truly pregnant!

Quite apart from the fact that Palin had had 6 previous pregnancies making stretchmarks somewhat a moot point she likely calculated that no one would take her up on an offer to examine her because such an acceptance would strike at the heart of her mystique as a woman -- her ability to reproduce.

Frank Bailey was irritated by this repeated proposal by Sarah and writes in his book:

While the serendipitous suggestion of viewing stretch marks was clearly not a serious proposal, it was nonetheless strange for both the disturbing imagery and a deflection from a more simple solution.

Yes, the "simple solution!" Oh, how we would have all loved to see the "simple solution!" We are still waiting for it today, and it seems that we will have to wait forever. Unfortunately for Sarah, we have known for a very, very long time from highly reliable sources in Alaska that there is no "simple solution", as Sarah Palin was not pregnant, and faked the pregnancy with Trig. This is a fact, however unbelievable or politically inconvenient it may be for some people.

This documentation proves beyond any doubt that Sarah Palin struggled with providing hard proof for her pregnancy even BEFORE Trig was born - and at the same time Sarah Palin tried to manipulate the media, in order to counter the rumors.

So what about Bristol? Did she look pregnant in April 2008? No, of course she didn't, as Frank Bailey reports, but I knew that even without reading Frank Bailey's book. From a reliable source in Alaska we were told several months ago that Bristol attended West High in Anchorage around February/March 2008 and didn't look pregnant during that time.

Bristol Palin was not pregnant in April 2008 - but she was pregnant a few months earlier, as we also know for a very long time from other highly reliable sources. It's possible that Bristol gave birth around January 2008. However, and I was always open and honest about it, we don't know for certain when Bristol gave birth, or IF she gave birth. What we know for certain is, and I have written this many times before on Palingates, that Bristol Palin was pregnant around December 2007 and January 2008, but from around February 2008 onwards she no longer appeared to be pregnant.

So where did the rumors come from that Bristol was pregnant?

The inner circle of Sarah Palin quickly had an answer to this question - Palin-confidante Ivy Frye wrote in an email on April 6, 2008, according to Frank Bailey:

From: Ivy personal
Sent: Apr 6, 2008 1:31 PM
Subject: Bristol

I was just on the phone w (a friend) and he got a call... Reports from Juneau that lyda's office is perpetuating the Bristol being pregnant rumor. No doubt (one of her assistants). I'm callin them on the flippin carpet!

So former Alaska State Senate President, Republican and Sarah Palin's arch-enemy Lyda Green was supposedly the culprit.

I myself talked to Lyda Green on the phone in summer 2009, and she confirmed to me in this conversation that the rumors that Bristol was pregnant were already around in December 2007, as I previously reported in an important post about Sarah Palin's faked pregnancy on Palingates.

According to Frank Bailey, the following excerpt from an article in the Anchorage Daily News about Palin's pregnancy announcement from March 6, 2008 caught the attention of Sarah Palin - quote from the article in the ADN:

"It's wonderful. She's very well-disguised," said Senate President Lyda Green, a mother of three who has sometimes sparred with Palin politically. "When I was five months pregnant, there was absolutely no question that I was with child."

Palin showed her anger in the internal email-correspondence and wrote in response to this remark by Lyda Green:

Flippin unbelievable. Wouldn't you think they'd be afraid of being proved wrong when they rumor around the building like that?... hopefully it'll be another reason why reporters and the public can't trust that odd group of strange people.

Ivy Frye then also waded in:

We'll get it taken care of, don't worry…When confronted lyda won't be able to do anything but apologize for her staff. How unbecoming and embarrassing for her office esp when press start inquiring...

So Palin had trouble before the birth to convince others that she was actually pregnant, and that Bristol was not the real mother of Trig, and as the only solution offered to show her stretch-marks!

But what happened AFTER Trig's official birth on April 18, 2008?

You guessed it: Sarah was still not happy. She wrote on April 22, 2008 to her inner circle:

Sheeeesh- I just can not get over this. Todd just left messages with a couple of teachers out here to have them call him b/c they publicly repeated the rumor and he wants to clear it up with them, but also ask where in the flippin world they heard this. Does anyone have any ideas how to squelch this... for Bristol's sake if no other reason…- maybe even an (Anchorage Daily News) Ear mention, or a crafty reporter could handle it light-heartidly (sic) perhaps and put it to rest.

The new suspicion, evidently, is that it's too suspicious that I "flew to Texas" and supposedly came back in the middle of the night and appeared with this baby the next day - ha! That either Bristol really had it or some other stupid angle is the newer twist... or that Bristol's still going to have one? (They can't even get their rumor straight.).

No, Sarah, I also wouldn't have had "any ideas how to squelch this" - LOL!

So we are now four days after the "birth", and poor little Sarah still has major problems to prove that she actually gave birth four days ago. How inconvenient!

There were not many solutions to the problem, as Sarah Palin never had any evidence that she was actually pregnant or gave birth, and the reaction by Palin's team was inevitable and foreseeable - Frank Bailey writes:

We did our best to bombard both friendly and non-friendly media outlets with our outrage, blasting critics by suggesting their evil had no limit. In doing so, we stupidly ensured that everyone in the state now knew of the rumor, no matter how remote their village.

Well, they had no other choice, did they?

Sarah Palin's faked pregnancy is one of the best kept secrets these days, and probably also one of the biggest "taboo-subjects" which currently exist in the mainstream media. This documentation should be a big wake-up call for everybody, especially for those journalists who refused to report about the allegations, out of fear to create an anti-Obama backlash. The time has finally come to start to investigate, ask the right questions, and to demand proof from Sarah Palin. The current situation is beyond ridiculous. The time has come for the media to finally do their job.

+++

READ THE FOLLOW-UP:

Cease & desist letter by the authors Frank Bailey, Ken Morris and Jeanne Devon sent to Politicalgates.

+++

PLEASE RE-TWEET:

http://twitter.com/#!/politicalgates/status/39059381995847680

http://twitter.com/#!/politicalgates/status/39059646236999680

http://twitter.com/#!/politicalgates/status/39061139832705024

+++

Click HERE, HERE and HERE to read all posts at Politicalgates about Sarah Palin's faked pregnancy.