Take note, Gov. Deal

Just a quick note here to supplement the previous quote about Rick Perry's indictment and remind us all of the close parallel to Gov. Nathan Deal's role in disposing of the ethcis case against him (see Aug. 20th post, "Two governors.").

Look back at today's earlier post, quoting political analyst James Moore about Gov. Perry's indictment.   Here's the relevant quote:

"First, he used the veto to threaten a public officeholder. This is abuse of the power of his office. Presidents and governors frequently use the possibility of vetoes to change the course of legislation. But that is considerably different than trying to force an elected officeholder to resign. What Perry did, if true, can be politely called blackmail."

Now apply this to Deal.    Admittedly the public official (executive director of the ethics commission) was an appointed, rather than an elected, official.   But I'm not sure that  difference is crucial.

Here's the parallel:   In the midst of an ethics investigation of Gov. Deal, the two people heading up the investigation are forced out of their offices (one by job elimination, the other through a drastic salary cut).   This is a bit more than just a "threat to a public officeholder."   The slash was actually carried out.

Second, the replacement executive director, chosen by the governor's office, was also later pressured to "make the case go away."   If she did not cooperate, she could forget about any support from the governor to restore the autonomy of the commission to make its own rules and regulations.   Blackmail?   Sounds like it to me.

Now, are Deal's fingerprints on these abuses of power?   No.   He's too slick an operator for that.  But would a grand jury see what is undeniable here? . . .  that the motive was clearly to get rid of past and possible future ethics charges against the governor.    When his minions do the dirty work -- clearly for him -- does he not bear responsibility?

Ralph