Ethics panel finds probable cause for charges against Gov. Mark Sanford

Photo of our esteemed governor is from WJBF-TV.



I worried I was boring yall with the continuing Mark Sanford follies here in Carolina... so I laid off him for awhile. But hey, it's getting good again, so an update is in order.

My Green Party droogs disagree with me about the fate of Mark Sanford, and think tarring and feathering him takes attention away from "the real enemy" (for lack of a better term)--and there is no doubt a lot of truth to that. But some of us enjoy this sort of thing on it's own terms, and likely descend from the same people who watched public executions a couple of centuries ago. Execution-by-Media is the equivalent of public execution for our modern age. (With the added bonus of being able to smugly congratulate ourselves on how civilized we have become!)

Hang em high!

Ethics panel finds probable cause for charges against Gov. Mark Sanford
Who will get to see commission's investigative report not yet decided
By Tim Smith • Staff writer • Greenville News
November 19, 2009

COLUMBIA — Gov. Mark Sanford now knows what the State Ethics Commission believes he may have done wrong, but it will be next week before the public learns what ethics regulations the governor is accused of violating with his travel or campaign finances.

And the question of who gets to see the commission's report of its investigation remains unsettled and with it the request by House leaders to view the report and decide whether to pursue impeachment action.

After eight commissioners met behind closed doors for nearly seven hours Wednesday, the commission's executive director said only that they had found probable cause for ethics violations in the governor's case on multiple allegations.

Herb Hayden, the commission's executive director, said specific findings by the commission won't be publicly released until next week. “A finding of probable cause is not a finding of guilt,” Hayden said. “It is only one phase in the process.”

[...]

An administrative hearing at which the commission would hear Sanford's side and render a verdict as to guilt won't be scheduled until after the first of next year, Hayden said. That hearing would be closed unless Sanford agrees it should be open to the public, he said.

“As we have always maintained, Gov. Sanford supports the public release of the full and complete ethics report,” Bowers said Wednesday night. “We believe that once all of the facts have been considered, it will once again confirm that this administration has been a good steward of tax dollars and public resources.”

On November 10th, we learned that Governor Sanford has $1.7 million left in his campaign finance account and actually has the right to use these funds to pay for legal fees generated by the State Ethics Commission investigation. Do you believe?!?

Rep. Greg Delleney sponsored the impeachment resolution on Tuesday, but House Speaker Bobby Harrell decided to cut Sanford a break, announcing yesterday that barring anything new in the ethics investigation, Sanford's scandalous love-affair with his Argentinian 'soul-mate' Maria Belen Chapur was not sufficient for impeachment.

And then today, after the news from the ethics investigation, it seems Harrell has changed his tune:

House Speaker Bobby Harrell has called on Gov. Mark Sanford to release a disputed investigative report into the governor's possible ethical or criminal violations stemming from his travel and use of campaign funds.

Harrell, R-Charleston, argued a Nov. 5 S.C. Supreme Court ruling made the report public, and that Sanford is not living by standards he has demanded of others.

"We are disappointed that Governor Sanford has broken his transparency promise by keeping this court-ordered public document secret," Harrell said in a statement. "After claiming to be a leader in the transparency movement and heavily criticizing others on this issue, the Governor’s insistence on secrecy goes against all his past actions on this issue."

Harrell has asked the Supreme Court to clarify their decision about whether the House and public can access the report. Sanford's attorneys and the S.C. State Ethics Commission have until tomorrow to file arguments in the case.

Sanford has asked the Ethics Commission to prevent staff from releasing the report to lawmakers or the public, arguing it could undermine Sanford's defense. Harrell also criticized the eight Ethics commissioners for choosing to give the report to Sanford's attorneys during a closed-door session.

They gave the report to Sanford's attorneys?!?

That really stinks, doesn't it? (It stinks almost as bad as Sanford's colorful Appalachian Trail fib.)

This is what happens when right-wingers investigate right-wingers: Everybody stands around with their thumbs up their asses.

Stay tuned, sports fans!

SC Senate investigating Mark Sanford

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford holds forth at a press conference at the Greer DMV on Tuesday. He was mostly baited about the mysterious Maria from Argentina, and the fact that he was not wearing his wedding ring. (Photo by Owen Riley Jr of the Greenville News)

Yeah, sports fans, it got ugly!

~*~


More on the never-ending saga of Mark Sanford:

S.C. Senate's probe of Mark Sanford has little precedent
Only twice before has governor been investigated, historians say
By Tim Smith • Capital bureau • July 24, 2009
Greenville News

COLUMBIA — A Senate subcommittee today will begin what historians are calling an unprecedented investigation of a sitting governor in modern times when it convenes to look into the travel of Gov. Mark Sanford, with the governor and his family in Europe on a two-week vacation.

Sen. David Thomas of Fountain Inn, chairman of the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Constitutional Officers, announced the probe last week as part of his panel's oversight responsibilities. He has said it has nothing to do with his race for Congress.

Sanford announced June 24 that he engaged in a yearlong extramarital affair with an Argentine woman, Maria Belen Chapur. He denied spending state resources on the affair, but wrote the state a check for more than $3,000 after admitting he had met Chapur on an economic development trip to Argentina and Brazil in June 2008.

A State Law Enforcement Division review of Sanford's travel expenses on the five trips during which the governor said he met Chapur in Argentina or New York found no wrongdoing, SLED's director announced earlier this month.

Thomas said, however, the SLED review was based entirely on trips volunteered by Sanford. He said he wants a more thorough look at the governor's travel, to see where he went during the dozens of times he told his security detail not to follow him.

“It (the SLED review) only looked at five trips that zeroed in on Chapur,” Thomas said. “It did not look at the mass of trips and the issue that is in front of the committee, which is was there any misappropriation of state funds on non-state-related business.”

The other members of Thomas' three-member subcommittee may not appear today because they are on vacation, Thomas said, but he hopes at least one may attend anyway.

“If they can come, they can come,” he said. “If not, I can at least lay out the outline of what we're going to be doing.”

Thomas had planned to call SLED Director Reggie Lloyd as the panel's first witness but Lloyd said he couldn't make it on Friday, Thomas said. Lloyd is providing a memo about SLED's review but not the agency's formal report on the matter, Thomas said.

Jennifer Timmons, a SLED spokeswoman, said the report is “not available yet.”

The subcommittee's probe of a sitting governor is unusual, according to historians, and unprecedented in modern times.

A.V. Huff, a retired Furman University history professor who chairs the State Archives Commission, said only twice since reconstruction has the Legislature confronted a governor with an investigation or vote of nonsupport.

The last time, he said, was in the 1930s, when then-Gov. Olin Johnston demanded the resignation of the State Highway Commission, which refused, prompting the governor to call out the state militia to surround the agency.

The commission, he said, appealed to the Legislature, which refused to support the governor and the crisis faded.

“It was a political standoff, which I suspect is what is going to happen here,” he said, referring to Sanford.

The Legislature in 1872, Huff said, investigated then-Gov. Franklin Moses Jr. and he was indicted for stealing. Moses then surrounded the governor's mansion with troops to avoid arrest, he said.

University of South Carolina political science Professor Blease Graham said he doesn't know of any other instance in modern times in which lawmakers investigated a sitting governor.

“It is very unusual,” he said.

Officials in Sanford's office have reacted to the probe by Thomas' committee by saying the office will be cooperative but view the inquiry as unnecessary after the SLED review.

Thomas said he has invited other members of the Senate Finance Committee to attend.

He said he hopes the hearings can be finished in 30-45 days. Should the panel need subpoena power, he said it will need to request that from the full finance committee. He said his panel also might simply note that certain witnesses or officials were uncooperative in the subcommittee's report, should that happen.

Senator Thomas claims none of his colleagues have openly opposed the hearings. He says there are "innuendos" and "undercurrents" that he should not be continuing, but nobody has come right out and told him to stop.

I think they call that, talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Stay tuned, sports fans!