Nathan Deal could use congressional resources to help a constituent, even if that constituent was Nathan Deal. This makes my head hurt. See the full story:

 

9 Responses to Dale Russell Investigates Nathan Deal

  1. JerryT says:

    Perhaps Amy could have worded this better, because if I understand, the issue is that it is Deal’s gubernatorial disclosures on which the legal fees appear. So whether it’s his personal legal troubles or his congressional legal troubles, why does his current campaign appear to be paying for it? It’s not so much the timing as it is why THIS campaign is paying the bill.

  2. Amy Morton says:

    @Sara, I agree with you, but the OCE investigation ended with his March 8th resignation from Congress. It’s possible that the fees paid on April 10th were related, but the two most recent fees, in August and September of 2010, were paid to a different firm, and were several months removed from the ethics investigation. Besides all that, 80K in legal fees from a campaign has to be some kind of record in Georgia.

    • Sara says:

      All I’m saying is that we cannot necessarily assume that because fees were paid in August and September, they were too far removed in time to possibly be for work performed before March 8th. I have no idea if they were related to the ethics investigation or something else, but having an invoice for legal work performed that stays outstanding for 6 months or longer before being paid is not unheard of in the legal industry.

  3. JMPrince says:

    Shady Deals, Transparently corrupt, and proudly so! They obviously see no ‘conflict of interest’ in arguing & advocating for an expenditure of tax payer dollars be made to make improvements on their private property, in order to do even more business with the state on same said property. To profit once again from their positions of power & crony connections even down to the local county level. And they did it from their own Congressional office email, which is a direct & flagrant violation of House ethics rules. Which is what the OEC was finding. Just amazing. If this crooked little man had a ‘D’ after his name, the entire of the political elites in the state would be on fire for him to resign any positions of public trust, and to abjure from any such efforts at public office in the future. And yet to some small minds, all this is seemingly ‘too difficult to understand?’ Really?! JMP

  4. Amy Morton says:

    I just read Aaron’s account of the debate, and Barnes asked Deal about the 80K on lawyers from his campaign account. Deal said it was because of the congressional ethics investigation. Now, if I were Deal, I might not want to draw attention to that investigation or to my financial reports to the FEC, but, hey, if he wants us to go there, fine.

    But, I digress. How can a congressional ethics investigation be responsible for fees after Deal left Congress? More than half of the 80 grand was paid after the investigation was over – after he resigned from Congress. Now, CREW, the group that filed a complaint that triggered the initial OCE report, says once the OCE report was made public, they filed a DOJ complaint against Deal, asking for a criminal investigation.

    http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/44545

    Then, later in the summer, during the Republican primary, Sheinin and Salzer reported that a federal grand jury subpoenaed Bart Graham, Georgia Department of Revenue Commissioner to testify in June of this year.

    “The subpoena, issued May 24 by Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert McBurney, ordered Graham to appear June 8 and provide documents “concerning the contents of the sidebar discussion between Commissioner Graham and then-U.S. Representative Nathan Deal” last year in the office of the governor’s chief of staff.”

    http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/federal-grand-jury-sought-579989.html

    So, did a criminal investigation happen? If so, has it concluded or is it ongoing?

    • Sara says:

      Legal fees are generally billed about 30 days after the work was performed, if not longer. Also it looks like he disclosed the expenditure based upon when they were paid, not when the fees were first invoiced. If he paid fees in the 3rd quarter that means they could conceivably been billed in the second quarter and for work performed at least a month before that, if not earlier (since sometimes folks don’t pay their legal bills right away…)

      I don’t think we can assume anything about when the work was performed or what the work involved simply based upon the timing of the disclosure.

      • JerryT says:

        I would agree with that but the sheer amount of money is a red flag. I mean, 2+2= what?

        Deal has personal legal troubles.
        Deal is spending epic amounts of campaign money for lawyers.

        One would be hard-pressed to NOT see a connection there.

        Deal already seems to have his own magic (accounting) math, maybe he’s using magic metaphorical math too. 2+2= none of our business!

        • Sara says:

          I’m not commenting on that either way, simply adding what I know about how law firms invoice their clients, how clients deal with those invoices, and what you can and cannot assume from the timing of payment of a law firm’s invoice(s).

  5. Mel says:

    About time. The question is, how much longer will it take voters to realize this man is a crook.