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?
Leave a Reply