Deal's deal . . . a continuing story

We're going to be hearing a lot more about the saga of the little deal that just won't go away.   And about the big Deal who's desperate to cover it up.    And maybe . . . let's hope . . . the Atlanta Journal Constitution will continue its excellent investigative reporting.  

I think this is only the tip of the iceberg, with much more to be uncovered about this governor's basic dishonesty and using state government to his personal advantage.

Anyone who has not been following this story of Georgia Governor Nathan Deal and his ethics case, his threats to the executive director to minimize the damage, and then to cover up his mendacity can catch up by reading ShrinkRap posts on July 18 and July 19.

In his Monday AJC column, Jay Bookman added some important points about the bombshell memo Holly LaBerge wrote, describing efforts by Gov. Deal's staff to intimidate and pressure her to settle the case against Deal without a hearing.   She wrote the memo on the same day two years ago that the supposed phone calls occurred.    She also says that on that day she told the commission chair, Kent Abernathy, about the phone calls.  

Bookman says that "Abernathy confirms that story, and confirms that LaBerge wrote the memo at his request."

Gov. Deal is not denying that phone call from his office took place;  but he says that rather than making a threat, his attorney was merely making an observation about the effect a hearing into the governor's ethics charges would have on the future of the commission.   That's pretty lame;  in fact it does not dispute that he may have referred to expected consequences, just that he was not making a threat directly to LaBerge.

To add to the 'unbelievable' aspects of all this:   Attorney General Sam Olens has said that, even if LaBerge's memo is the truth, the calls would not have broken any law and his office would not have had any reason to pursue her claims.   Bookman concludes:

"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."

Double Wow.    Look what their pathetic defense against LaBerge's charge is actually admitting:    (1)  Yes, the governor's top lawyer did call her and said there could be serious consequences for the commission if she did not stop the case from going to a hearing, but he just didn't threaten her personally;  and (2) even if he did what she said he did, it wouldn't be illegal.   And remember that LaBerge was their personal choice to take over the ethics commission and fix this case against the governor.

When will politicians learn that it's always the cover-up that does them in?   So often, the crime in the cover-up is so much worse than the original allegations.  With a close election in less than four months, this cover-up could sink Deal's ship.

Ralph

PS:   Another defense was offered on Tuesday:   some email exchanges between Gov. Deal's lawyer and LaBerge in the days surrounding the supposed "threat" and the memo, which are characterized as being friendly and the usual kind of informal exchange between friendly co-workers.    So they say this shows there was nothing inappropriate going on.   I say:   politicians and people who have to deal with them do this all the time as part of a cover-up.   Or simply to maintain a surface illusion.