Who's telling the truth in Deal ethics scandal?
- Get link
- Other Apps
By Jay Bookman
The most crucial question: Is state ethics chief Holly LaBerge telling us the truth?
LaBerge
claims that two years ago, on July 17, 2012, Gov. Nathan Deal’s top
staff threatened the ethics commission with retaliation unless it
produced the verdict that they demanded on an ethics case involving
Deal’s 2010 campaign, and on the schedule that they also demanded.
That’s
a serious charge, especially in light of a poll released this week by
Channel Two Action News. It shows Deal trailing Democrat Jason Carter
by a startling eight points in his bid for re-election, which may be
the consequence of this ongoing ethics controversy. It certainly
suggests that Deal is in for a real fight.
LaBerge has at least
two strong arguments supporting her claim that she is telling the
truth. First, she has a memo dated the same day of her 2012
conversation with Ryan Teague, the governor’s top attorney, in which
she detailed their discussion. Among other things, it states:
“Ryan
informed me that it wasn’t in the agency’s best interests for these
cases to go to a hearing on Monday, nor was it is in their best
political interest either and that (the ethics commission’s) rule-making
authority may not happen if the complaints were not resolved by
Monday. I responded by expressing my surprise that the threat of
rule-making being withheld was being used to make the complaints go
away.”
Second, LaBerge claims that on that same day two years ago,
she related the troubling conversation to her boss, ethics commission
chair Kevin Abernethy. Abernethy confirms that story, and confirms that
LaBerge wrote the memo at his request.
However, Deal and his
staff strongly dispute LaBerge’s version of vents. In their own
version, the governor’s top attorney was merely making an observation,
not making a threat, when he told LaBerge that a failure to resolve the
Deal case quickly would do harm to the ethics commission. And in
remarks Thursday to reporter Doug Richards of Channel 11, Deal himself
took it an important step further. He suggested, without offering
proof, that LaBerge may have falsified the date on the memo and that
she actually wrote it much later to bolster a planned lawsuit.
That
too is a serious charge, with potential implications that go beyond
the political to the criminal. It’s certainly not a suggestion that
should be offered lightly.
Further complicating the story,
Attorney General Sam Olens said this week that even if LaBerge’s
statement is accurate, such behavior by the governor’s staff would
break no state law and requires no further investigation by his office.
In short, Olens believes that it is legal in Georgia for the subject
of an ethics investigation to use the power of high office to
intimidate those investigating him. Wow.
Olens was given the
incriminating memo in August 2013, yet chose to withhold it from
lawyers involved in four whistleblower lawsuits filed against the
ethics commission. That decision adds to concern that the political
system was more concerned about protecting Deal in getting to the
truth. After all, the core issue in those lawsuits was that ethics
investigations had been compromised by political pressure, and the
LaBerge memo addresses that explicitly.
LaBerge
claims that two years ago, on July 17, 2012, Gov. Nathan Deal’s top
staff threatened the ethics commission with retaliation unless it
produced the verdict that they demanded on an ethics case involving
Deal’s 2010 campaign, and on the schedule that they also demanded.
That’s
a serious charge, especially in light of a poll released this week by
Channel Two Action News. It shows Deal trailing Democrat Jason Carter
by a startling eight points in his bid for re-election, which may be
the consequence of this ongoing ethics controversy. It certainly
suggests that Deal is in for a real fight.
LaBerge has at least
two strong arguments supporting her claim that she is telling the
truth. First, she has a memo dated the same day of her 2012
conversation with Ryan Teague, the governor’s top attorney, in which
she detailed their discussion. Among other things, it states:
“Ryan
informed me that it wasn’t in the agency’s best interests for these
cases to go to a hearing on Monday, nor was it is in their best
political interest either and that (the ethics commission’s) rule-making
authority may not happen if the complaints were not resolved by
Monday. I responded by expressing my surprise that the threat of
rule-making being withheld was being used to make the complaints go
away.”
Second, LaBerge claims that on that same day two years ago,
she related the troubling conversation to her boss, ethics commission
chair Kevin Abernethy. Abernethy confirms that story, and confirms that
LaBerge wrote the memo at his request.
However, Deal and his
staff strongly dispute LaBerge’s version of vents. In their own
version, the governor’s top attorney was merely making an observation,
not making a threat, when he told LaBerge that a failure to resolve the
Deal case quickly would do harm to the ethics commission. And in
remarks Thursday to reporter Doug Richards of Channel 11, Deal himself
took it an important step further. He suggested, without offering
proof, that LaBerge may have falsified the date on the memo and that
she actually wrote it much later to bolster a planned lawsuit.
That
too is a serious charge, with potential implications that go beyond
the political to the criminal. It’s certainly not a suggestion that
should be offered lightly.
Further complicating the story,
Attorney General Sam Olens said this week that even if LaBerge’s
statement is accurate, such behavior by the governor’s staff would
break no state law and requires no further investigation by his office.
In short, Olens believes that it is legal in Georgia for the subject
of an ethics investigation to use the power of high office to
intimidate those investigating him. Wow.
Olens was given the
incriminating memo in August 2013, yet chose to withhold it from
lawyers involved in four whistleblower lawsuits filed against the
ethics commission. That decision adds to concern that the political
system was more concerned about protecting Deal in getting to the
truth. After all, the core issue in those lawsuits was that ethics
investigations had been compromised by political pressure, and the
LaBerge memo addresses that explicitly.
Who's telling the truth in Deal ethics scandal?
Comments