Yesterday, I posted about the enormous amount of donor money Nathan Deal has spent on lawyers since he began his run for Governor, $81,225.47 since July of 2009.  If that date rings a bell, it should. Coincidentally, July of 2009 was the month Deal’s daughter and son-in-law sought bankruptcy protection, failed to disclose the previous bankruptcy of Clinton Wilder and failed to list Nathan Deal in any fashion. I suspect the campaign legal fees were not related to the bankruptcy, but the timing raises a question.

Fast forward. Deal’s most recent disclosure included $20,924.40 in legal fees to Greenberg Traurig. The first payment of $13,201.50 was on 8/24/2010. A few days later, on 9/2/2010, Deal released the cover pages his tax returns, but not the critical schedules. Of course, there’s no way to know whether the fees were related to the release of the returns, but, again, the timing is interesting.

On 9/22/2010 second payment of  $7,722.90 to Greenberg Traurig. On 9/15/2010, the AJC raised the issue of Deal’s apparent insolvency. On 9/17/2010, reports began to emerge that Deal’s son-in-law failed to disclose a previous bankruptcy, as required, and that the bankruptcy did not list Deal in any fashion. And, on September 23rd, Deal again amended his financial reports. He was now miraculously solvent.

I don’t know whether the legal fees paid by the campaign were related to any of the issues raised here, but somebody ought to ask Deal. Like his incomplete tax returns, Deal’s disclosure of these expenditures creates more questions than answers. Let’s start with two:

  • Why does a man who has done nothing wrong need to spend so much on lawyers?
  • And, were all of these fees legitimate campaign expenses?
Tagged with:

8 Responses to The Curious Timing of Deal’s Legal Expenditures

  1. AmyMorton says:

    Besides, what lawsuit is Deal facing?

  2. AmyMorton says:

    Barnes spent $80 bucks. $80 v. $80,000

    You don’t get to use donor dollars to pay for personal legal fees.

  3. Amy Morton says:

    @DF. Maybe so, but this is a highly unusual expenditure for a gubernatorial campaign. Very much out of the norm.

    • I guess I should add maybe there is something there, maybe not. My guess is anytime a congressman/candidate for gov/POTUS is involved in a lawsuit you HAVE to spend a little more. I think that’s what I’m trying to say.

      At any rate, just for comparison, how much did Barnes spend?

  4. JMPrince says:

    Really highly relevant if his name’s on the note, eh? For whatever reason. He’s obligated to pay. And seemingly these expenditures are directly related to that central mystery too. It’s all about accountability & the Rule of Law. Not the rule that says & keeps on saying, ‘my crony pals will bail me out, just like always’. No need to worry! JMP

  5. “Why does a man who has done nothing wrong need to spend so much on lawyers?”

    This was dumb when Birthers asked Obama why if he has nothing to hide about his birth certificate did he spend so much on lawyers and it is dumb now. Or at least irrelevant. Something like that, can’t think of the write word.