Tag Archives: Attorney General

State Auditor Nicole Galloway (D): Governor Mike Parson (r) needs to follow the Missouri Sunshine Law (§ 610, RSMo)

30 Friday Aug 2019

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

State Auditor Nicole Galloway (D) [2019 file photo].

A press release from Missouri State Auditor Nicole Galloway (D):

Statement from Auditor Galloway on Governor’s improper use of First Amendment
8/30/2019

State Auditor Nicole Galloway today released the following statement in response to a determination made by the Attorney General’s Office related to Sunshine Law exemptions as claimed by Gov. Parson’s Office. This spring, reports revealed that Gov. Parson’s office failed to disclose information in response to Sunshine Law requests, citing the First Amendment.

“The Attorney General’s letter confirms Gov. Parson was wrong to withhold information from the public. Nonpartisan advocates for government transparency and legal experts all agree the Governor’s actions were unlawful.

“I will continue to fight for transparency and openness at all levels of Missouri government. Missourians deserve nothing less.”

In a May 7 request, Auditor Galloway asked for legal clarification on whether it is appropriate to redact information related to individuals conducting business with, lobbying or attempting to influence a government entity. The Attorney General’s Office has since advised that practice is not appropriate.

In the letter to State Auditor Nicole Galloway from the office of Attorney General Eric Schmitt (r):

In the letter to Governor Mike Parson (r) from the office of Attorney General Eric Schmitt (r):

The press release from the attorney general’s office:

AG Schmitt Recommends Against Using the First Amendment for Blanket Redaction in Letters to Governor Parson, Auditor Galloway
Aug 30, 2019, 09:07 AM

Jefferson City, Mo. – Yesterday, the Missouri Attorney General’s Office issued a letter to Governor Mike Parson and Auditor Nicole Galloway regarding the use of the First Amendment to redact personal contact information in response to Sunshine Law requests.

The letter to Governor Parson, a response to a request for advice from the Governor’s office, states, “We recommend that your Office not rely on the First Amendment for blanket redactions of personal contact information.”[….]

Governor Mike Parson (r) [2018 file photo].

And Governor Parson (r) still thinks otherwise:

….Gov. Mike Parson will continue to redact certain information from public records, despite a letter from the attorney general’s office Thursday advising him to stop using the First Amendment as justification to withhold records from public disclosure….

A response on social media:

@GovParsonMO likes it in the dark, just like @EricGreitens did.

Is anyone surprised?

Rep. Peter Merideth (D): about that Sunshine Law…

09 Friday Aug 2019

Posted by in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

A release, yesterday, from Representative Peter Merideth (D):

State Rep. Peter Merideth
80th District
peter.merideth@house.mo.gov

For Immediate Release:
Aug. 8, 2019

Five months later, Schmitt hasn’t provided requested legal opinion
Attorney general shows pattern of protecting GOP officials in Sunshine Law cases

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – More than five months after state Rep. Peter Merideth submitted a request for a legal opinion from Attorney General Eric Schmitt regarding whether the Republican-controlled House of Representatives is violating state law and the Missouri Constitution by preventing public access to certain lawmaker records, Schmitt has yet to respond – even though his office promised to do so with 90 days.

Yesterday, State Auditor Nicole Galloway noted that Schmitt, a Republican, likewise has failed to timely act on a request she submitted on May 7 seeking the attorney general’s opinion on whether government entities can assert the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as justification to close portions of public documents that are open under Missouri’s Sunshine Law. Republican Gov. Mike Parson’s office recently invented the novel legal argument, which has been ridiculed by experts in open records law.

“Eric Schmitt has established an unfortunate pattern of looking the other way when Republican elected officials violate the law by shielding public records from public scrutiny,” said Merideth, D-St. Louis. “As attorney general, it is his duty to fight for transparency and protect Missourians. Instead he has chosen to protect officials of his own party and keep Missourians from holding their state government accountable.”

Merideth submitted his request for an attorney general’s opinion on March 7. Other than a same-day letter acknowledging receipt of the request and promising to respond to respond “within 90 days,” Merideth has received no further information from Schmitt regarding this issue.

“Missouri law requires the attorney general to issue legal opinions when requested by other elected officials,” Merideth said. “Eric Schmitt needs to do his job.”

Merideth’s original opinion request and the attorney general’s letter of acknowledgment are attached.

-30-

The original request for an opinion from Attorney General Eric Schmitt (r):

Request for Attorney General Opinion

1. Information about requestor: Representative Peter Merideth represents Missouri House District 80. He was first elected to the Missouri House of Representatives in 2016, reelected in 2018, and currently serves as a member of the 100th General Assembly.

2. Official capacity of requestor: Rep. Merideth is a duly elected State Representative serving the constituents of St. Louis City residing in Missouri House of Representatives District 80. He currently serves as a member of the 100th General Assembly, First Regular Session. His principal office is in Cole County, Missouri, in the Missouri Capitol building.

3. The question of LAW upon which I request your legal opinion is as follows: Does Rule 127 of the rules governing proceedings before the Missouri House of Representatives for the 100th General Assembly, as set forth in House Resolution 7, passed by the Missouri House of Representatives on January 15, 2019, violate Article III, Section 19(b) of the Missouri Constitution?

4. A complete statement of the FACTS giving rise to this question is as follows: Constitutional Amendment 1 (“Clean Missouri”) On November 6, 2018, 62 percent of Missouri voters approved Constitutional Amendment 1, also known as the “Clean Missouri” Amendment. Among its provisions, Constitutional Amendment 1 required all legislative records, defined broadly, to be subject to the state open meetings and records law, known as the Missouri Sunshine Law. Subsequent to its approval, Article III, Section 19 of the Missouri Constitution was amended to include subsection (b), which states: “Legislative records shall be public records and subject to generally applicable state laws governing public access to public records, including the Sunshine Law. Legislative records include, but are not limited to, all records, in whatever form or format, of the official acts of the general assembly, of the official acts of legislative committees, of the official acts of members of the general assembly, of individual legislators, their employees and staff, of the conduct of legislative business and all records that are created, stored or distributed through legislative branch facilities, equipment or mechanisms, including electronic. Each member of the general assembly is the custodian of legislative records under the custody and control of the member, their employees and staff. The chief clerk of the house or the secretary of the senate are the custodians for all other legislative records relating to the house and the senate, respectively.” House Rule 127 On January 15, 2019, the Missouri House of Representatives adopted House Resolution 7, which details the rules governing proceedings before the Missouri House of Representatives for the 100th General Assembly. House Resolution 7 included a new rule, Rule 127, “House Records,” which purports to grant Members of the Missouri House of Representatives the authority to close constituent case files, which it defined broadly, as well as records containing caucus strategy, which it did not define. The rule states: “Members may keep constituent case files, and records of the caucus of the majority or minority party of the house that contain caucus strategy, confidential. Constituent case files include any correspondence, written or electronic, between a member and a constituent, or between a member and any other party pertaining to a constituent’s grievance, a question of eligibility for any benefit as it relates to a particular constituent, or any issue regarding a constituent’s request for assistance.” Sunshine Request On March 2, 2019, Rep. Peter Merideth, who is currently an elected official in the Missouri House of Representatives, received two requests for legislative records pursuant to the Missouri Sunshine law. The first request specifically asked for emails purportedly, though likely fraudulently, sent to Rep. Merideth using his constituent’s email address. The second request specifically asked for emails, including attachments to said emails, sent from Democratic caucus staff and leadership to Rep. Merideth in regards to certain bills filed in 2018.

5. List each and every governmental entity involved in this request:
Rep. Peter Merideth The House Minority Caucus.

6. Which of the entities listed in response to Question 5 have attorneys paid with public funds? For each entity listed, attach a copy of the written legal opinion of each such attorney on the question involved herein. Rep. Merideth is represented in this matter by the House Minority Caucus Counsel, Casey Millburg. As an employee of the Missouri House of Representatives, Ms. Millburg is paid with public funds. Ms. Millburg’s written legal opinion on the question is attached.

7. State in detail how the question of law relates to your official position or to the discharge of your duties. Pursuant Article III, Section 19(b) of the Missouri Constitution, each member of the general assembly is the custodian of legislative records under the custody and control of the member, their employees and staff. As the custodian of such records for his office, Rep. Merideth is responsible for determining how to comply with Sunshine requests made for his office’s legislative records. Further, pursuant to this subsection, in doing so Rep. Merideth must comply with the provisions of the state’s open records laws. As a duly elected official serving as a Member of the Missouri House of Representatives, Rep. Merideth is also subject to the rules governing proceedings before the Missouri House of Representatives for the 100th General Assembly. As set forth in House Resolution 7 passed by the General Assembly on January 15, 2019, Rule 127 purports to give Rep. Merideth and all Members of the Missouri House of Representatives the power to determine whether or not to release constituent case files of the type at issue in Mr. Pedroli’s request in response to a Sunshine request for such records.

8. Is any litigation pending involving the issues raised in your opinion request? We are aware of no pending litigation involving the specific issues in this request.

9. If the answer to Question 8 is “yes” list the name of case, court in which it is pending and docket number of case: See above.

It ain’t exactly rocket surgery.

So this happened today

09 Tuesday Jul 2019

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Jay Ashcroft (r) [2017 file photo].

An entry today in the Missouri Court System Casenet after the Western District Court of Appeals ruled yesterday that the Missouri ACLU’s initiative petition to reverse the anti-abortion HB 126 can move forward in the process.

WD82880 – AMERICAN CIVIL LIB, APEL V JOHN ASHCROFT, RES

07/09/2019

Mot for Rehearing/Tran to SC
motion and application; Electronic Filing Certificate of Service.
Filed By: ANTHONY EDWARD ROTHERT
On Behalf Of: AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI, SARA E BAKER

Mot for Rehearing/Tran to SC
Respondents Ashcroft and Schmitts Motion for Rehearing, En Banc Review, or Transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court; Electronic Filing Certificate of Service.
Filed By: DEAN JOHN SAUER
On Behalf Of: JOHN ROBERT ASHCROFT, ERIC SCHMITT

You think they’re doing this to delay the gathering of signatures? Of course they are…

Previously:

HB 126 and HB 127: catering to their single issue base (December 3, 2018)

Gov. Mike Parson (r): Alabama, hold my beer… (May 15, 2019)

Gov. Mike Parson (r): New York is shorthand for what? (May 16, 2019)

Medieval (May 17, 2019)

Sen. Denny Hoskins (r): post session victory dance over any individal woman’s personal medical decisions (May 17, 2019)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): the 13th Century GOP in 21st Century America (May 20, 2019)

HB 126: the elephant in the womb (May 24, 2019)

HB 126: “…here for the ratio” (May 25, 2016)

Missouri: Medieval (May 28, 2019)

ACLU: Referendum Petition filed on HB 126 (May 28, 2019)

Women’s Health Care in Missouri – 1, Gov. Mike Parson (r) – 0 (May 31, 2019)

Our nation turns its eyes to Missouri (June 1, 2019)

State Auditor Nicole Galloway (D): Gov. Mike Parson (r) and HB 126 – “…extreme and cruel.” (June 3, 2019)

In the Medieval State of Missouri (June 4, 2019)

Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (r): Emergency! Emergency! (June 7, 2019)

American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri and Sara E. Baker v. John R. Ashcroft, et al. (July 8, 2019)

State Auditor Nicole Galloway (D): going forward with the HB 126 petition (July 8, 2019)

Welcome to America (and Missouri) in 2019

09 Tuesday Jul 2019

Posted by in Healthcare, social media

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Yep, this about sums it up:

Elad Gross @BigElad
Good morning, Missouri.

Today, our Attorney General is in federal court arguing that we should eliminate health care coverage for Americans who have preexisting conditions.

Let’s get a new Attorney General.
[….]
7:32 AM – 9 Jul 2019

Non-existent Trumpcare, courtesy of Eric Schmitt (r).

Elad Gross (D) [2019 file photo].

State Auditor Nicole Galloway (D): not so fast…

07 Tuesday May 2019

Posted by in Missouri Governor

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

The Missouri Attorney General shall, in the Missouri Revised Statutes:

27.040. Opinions to be given, when. — When required, he shall give his opinion, in writing, without fee, to the general assembly, or to either house, and to the governor, secretary of state, auditor, treasurer, commissioner of education, grain warehouse commissioner, director of the department of insurance, financial institutions and professional registration, the director of the division of finance, and the head of any state department, or any circuit or prosecuting attorney upon any question of law relative to their respective offices or the discharge of their duties.
[….]
(1974) Opinions of the attorney general are entitled to no more weight than that given the opinion of any other competent attorney. Gershman Investment Corp. v. Danforth (Mo.), 517 S.W.2d 33.

27.070. Shall file and index opinions. — The attorney general shall keep in his office and provide for his official use, and that of his successors, indexed copies of all opinions delivered by him during his term.

State Auditor Nicole Galloway (D) [2018 file photo].

Today, from State Auditor Nicole Galloway (D):

Statement from Auditor Galloway on request for Attorney General Opinion on Sunshine Law exceptions
May 7, 2019

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo (May 7, 2019) — Missouri State Auditor Nicole Galloway today released a statement after formally requesting a legal opinion from the Attorney General on the appropriateness of Sunshine Law exemptions, as claimed by Gov. Parson’s office. Recent media reports revealed that Gov. Parson’s office failed to disclose information in response to Sunshine Law requests, citing the First Amendment. Auditor Galloway’s request asks whether it is appropriate to redact information related to individuals conducting business with, lobbying or attempting to influence a government entity.

“Government should not be in the business of finding ways to hide information from taxpayers, but time and again, we have seen continued efforts to do just that. Most recently, reports revealed Governor Parson’s office used the First Amendment to withhold information requested under the Sunshine Law. This is why I have requested clarification from the Attorney General as to whether these actions were lawful. There should be no confusion on how the Sunshine Law is applied.”
[….]

Form to Request Attorney General Opinions [pdf]

1. Information about requestor:
Name: State Auditor Nicole Galloway
Address: PO Box 869
Jefferson City, Mo 65102
Phone: 573-751-4213
Date Request Made: May 7, 2019

2. Official capacity of requestor (See Section 27.040, RSMo):
Section 27.040, RSMo, provides (in part), “When required, he shall give his opinion, in writing, without fee, to the . . . auditor . . . upon any question of law relative to their respective offices or the discharge of their duties.”
As the duly elected State Auditor, charged with auditing state and local government entities, as provided by Missouri Constitution, Article IV, Section 13, and Chapter 29, RSMo, I request that the Attorney General issue this opinion.

3. The question of LAW upon which I request your legal opinion is as follows: (Note: Make certain the phrasing of the question is complete and clearly stated because only this question will be considered for an official opinion.)
In responding to Sunshine Requests, the State Auditor’s Office does not redact any identifying information related to an individual who is conducting or seeking to conduct business before the entity, advocating on behalf of a third party or lobbying that entity, or otherwise attempting to influence or advise on any action taken by the government entity based on an exception found in the First Amendment. Should a Missouri government entity, such as the State Auditor’s Office, assert that the First Amendment of the US Constitution provides an exception to the Sunshine Law such that it can redact, any or possibly all, identifying information related to an individual who is conducting or seeking to conduct business before the entity,
advocating on behalf of a third party or lobbying that entity, or otherwise attempting to influence or advise on any action taken by the government entity?

4. A complete statement of the FACTS giving rise to this question is as follows: (Note: If all facts are not furnished which this office needs to respond to this question, it may be rejected as an incomplete request which this office cannot answer.)
The question presented is one of a predominantly legal nature. The State Auditor’s Office does not, and has not, closed information based on an exception to the Sunshine Law found in the First Amendment. In Missouri Law, there is not a specifically enumerated exception in the Missouri Revised Statues that would permit the office to close or redact information under the First Amendment. Additionally, there is no exception imposed by any judge in Missouri caselaw that would permit such an exception solely on First Amendment grounds.
This question nonetheless arises because a Missouri state government entity has asserted that the First Amendment in and of itself requires redaction of information, effectively rendering the Missouri Sunshine Law, and the state’s public policy that records of governmental entities be open to the public, unconstitutional.
This government entity appears to redact information that identifies information related to individuals conducting or seeking to conduct business before the entity, lobbying that entity, or otherwise attempting to influence any action taken by the government entity, claiming that the First Amendment protects this information. Essentially, this government entity asserts that individuals attempting to influence actions taken by the government would not do so without fear of retribution were it to provide in a Sunshine request response identifying information that the individuals voluntarily gave. This position provides greater protections to those lobbying or conducting business with the government entity than is given to individuals who are referenced in arrest and incident report records. See Sections 610.100 to 610.150, RSMo (providing that incident reports and arrest records are open records). While this office does not believe that the
First Amendment exception is a valid exception under Missouri law, it requests the opinion of the Attorney General to ensure that it is properly complying with the law.

5. List each and every governmental entity involved in this request:
The Missouri State Auditor’s office as a public governmental body under Missouri law, and as the executive office whose primary duty is to audit state and local government entities.

6. Which of the entities listed in response to Question 5 have attorneys paid with public funds? For each entity listed, attach a copy of the written legal opinion of each such attorney on the question involved herein. (Note for prosecuting attorneys: Also attach a copy of your legal opinion giving Missouri statutes, significant Missouri appellate decisions and your conclusions drawn therefrom.)
Missouri State Auditor’s Office. See attached legal opinion.

7. State in detail how the question of law relates to your official position or to the discharge of your duties.
The Auditor’s Office, as the executive office whose primary duty is to audit state and local government entities. requests this opinion as an entity subject to the Sunshine Law.

8. Is any litigation pending involving the issues raised in your opinion request?
None are known to date.

9. If the answer to Question 8 is “yes” list the name of case, court in which it is pending and docket number of case:
[….]

Well?

Governor Mike Parson (r) [2018 file photo].

Previously:

Gov. Mike Parson (r): Sunshine Law? What? (April 26, 2019)

Attorney General Eric Schmitt (r): April Campaign Finance Report – 2019

20 Saturday Apr 2019

Posted by in campaign finance

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

The April quarterly campaign finance reports are due at the Missouri Ethics Commission.

[We don’t have any file photos of Eric Schmitt (r), but then, we don’t run into him out in public in this neck of the woods.]

C071320: Schmitt For Missouri
Committee Type: Candidate
Po Box 220722
Kirkwood Mo 63122
Party Affiliation: Republican
Established Date: 10/12/2007
[….]
Information Reported On: 2019 – April Quarterly Report
Beginning Money on Hand $427,831.13
Monetary Receipts + $82,626.70
Monetary Expenditures – $82,682.99
Contributions Made – $0.00
Other Disbursements – $11,801.65
Subtotal ($11,857.94)
Ending Money On Hand $415,973.19

[emphasis added]

Let’s take a look at the contributions:

So, no spontaneous small dollar grassroots contributions?

Some detail: there was one $50.00 contribution, a couple of $100.00 contributions, and a whole bunch of $2,600.00 contributions. With $88,939.83 in itemized contributions from 87 itemized contributors the average contribution this quarter was $1.022.30.

Well, isn’t that special, if not particularly grassrootsie?

And the expenditures?:

Media analysis, consulting, photography, research (polling), fundraising, more consulting.

Heh.

Previously:

Elad Gross (D): April Campaign Finance Report – 2019 (April 20, 2019)

Elad Gross (D): April Campaign Finance Report – 2019

20 Saturday Apr 2019

Posted by in campaign finance

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

The April quarterly campaign finance reports are due at the Missouri Ethics Commission. Elad Gross (D) is a 2020 candidate for Attorney General.

Elad Gross (D) [2019 file photo].

C180694: Elad Gross For Missouri
Committee Type: Candidate
Po Box 21666
St Louis Mo 63109
Party Affiliation: Democrat
Established Date: 11/12/2018
[….]
Information Reported On: 2019 – April Quarterly Report
Beginning Money on Hand $10,178.64
Monetary Receipts + $8,588.21
Monetary Expenditures – $4,836.02
Contributions Made – $0.00
Other Disbursements – $0.00
Subtotal $3,752.19
Ending Money On Hand $13,930.83

[emphasis added]

Well, okay. Then you look at the details. During the fundraising quarter there were 207 itemized contributions (and $52.00 in anonymous contribution(s)) for a total of $9,081.21. There were a couple of $500.00 contributions and a few ranging from $100.00 to $300.00. There were a lot of $5.00 and slightly larger contributions. The average?: $43.87

What do the campaign spend all that money on? Video production. And gas.

That’s such a novel idea. Drive around Missouri and talk to voters to make your case.

Previously:

Elad Gross (D) in Sedalia – April 7, 2019 (April 7, 2019)

Elad Gross (D) in Sedalia – April 7, 2019

07 Sunday Apr 2019

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

The 4th Congressional District Democratic Committee held its bi-monthly meeting in Sedalia this afternoon. Elad Gross (D), a candidate for Attorney General in 2020, an open records advocate, and a foe of “dark money”, spoke to the group.

Elad Gross (D), Sedalia, Missouri, April 7, 2019.

…I’m running for Attorney General because we need to enforce those rules, very much. I’m running to prosecute public corruption in our state, bring accountability back to Jefferson City, and end dark money. [applause] I’m assuming from that reaction we know what dark money is. [laughter] Dark money’s the worst. Dark money is anonymous campaign contributions. It’s pretty much it. So, if you’ve donated to a candidate before….if you want to donate, if we want to donate we have to give a whole bunch of information about ourselves, right? So you say how much money I’m donating, we get your first name, your last name, your address, uh, who you work for, what you do. Yeah?

Now, if you have a whole bunch of money you don’t have to do any of that….but if you have a bunch of money, you hire a bunch of attorneys, and you start a charity….So we create this charity…we take millions and millions of dollars from you and all of your friends and you put it into the non-profit….and all the names of the donors it cleanses them off because these…non-profits don’t have to reveal the names of their donors. Yeah, so then, the non-profit takes all that money and gives it away to candidates, to issues, whatever it wants. Right, million of dollars. And we never see the original sources of those donations. None. [….]

Elad Gross spoke for about forty-five minutes and then took questions.

Josh Hawley (r): Liar

24 Monday Dec 2018

Posted by in Josh Hawley, US Senate

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Use your words.

Josh Hawley (r) [2016 file photo].

Via Twitter:

Steve Vockrodt @st_vockrodt
ICYMI: Nov. 2 Josh Hawley told a TV reporter that a KC Star story about how political operatives steered the AG’s office was false, while avoiding me as I waited outside his campaign bus. But records from his office make it clear the story was all too true
[….]
10:34 AM – 22 Dec 2018

People figured that out a while back:

“…He [Josh Hawley] is, well here’s, let me make sure that you understand. He is, every member of his staff is a taxpayer resource. Every e-mail they read from his political operatives is using taxpayer resources. When political operatives are in official meetings giving direction, talking about punch lists that is a political operation that he is bringing his state staff to deal with. He is having the political operatives run the taxpayer operated operation. So he is bending taxpayer resources to his political will. That is using taxpayer resources for political purposes. It may not be a copy machine where he’s copying flyers, but it is just as significant and, frankly, in some ways more insidious because he has turned official resources into a political operation. That’s what violates, uh, not only good judgment, not only does it disappoint Missourians about what the Attorney General’s office is supposed to be, but I believe it crosses the line in terms of the law…” – Claire McCaskill (D) – November 1, 2018

Previously:

Josh Hawley (r): Who did you say was in charge at the Attorney General’s office? (October 31, 2018)

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D): Who was in charge at the Attorney General’s office? (November 1, 2018)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Who was in charge at the Attorney General’s office? – Press Q and A – November 1, 2018 (November 1, 2018)

Josh Hawley (r): Ask me no more questions, I’ll tell you no more lies… (November 4, 2018)

Josh, we barely knew ya (December 6, 2018)

By the book (December 14, 2018)

Anyone remember Bill Webster (r)? (December 22, 2018)

Anyone remember Bill Webster (r)?

22 Saturday Dec 2018

Posted by in Claire McCaskill, Josh Hawley, social media, US Senate

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

We do.

“…He [Josh Hawley] is, well here’s, let me make sure that you understand. He is, every member of his staff is a taxpayer resource. Every e-mail they read from his political operatives is using taxpayer resources. When political operatives are in official meetings giving direction, talking about punch lists that is a political operation that he is bringing his state staff to deal with. He is having the political operatives run the taxpayer operated operation. So he is bending taxpayer resources to his political will. That is using taxpayer resources for political purposes. It may not be a copy machine where he’s copying flyers, but it is just as significant and, frankly, in some ways more insidious because he has turned official resources into a political operation. That’s what violates, uh, not only good judgment, not only does it disappoint Missourians about what the Attorney General’s office is supposed to be, but I believe it crosses the line in terms of the law…” – Claire McCaskill (D) – November 1, 2018

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) [2018 file photo].

Late last night, Claire McCaskill (D) on Josh Hawley (r), via Twitter:

Claire McCaskill @clairecmc
This isn’t what real prosecutors do. And btw not one person has gone to jail or been convicted of a felony in Missouri as a result of this made for TV “raid”, directed by political consultants. “Run of show” and make sure he has law enforcement outfit on? Lord above this is bad.
[….]
10:55 PM – 21 Dec 2018

Josh Hawley (r) [2016 file photo].

On the documents in the Friday news dump:

Mark Pedroli @MarkPedroli
Josh Hawley’s “outside consultants” directing taxpayer-paid state employees to produce Josh Hawley movies.

“Wag the Dog”??

They’re even telling him what to wear. No wonder @AGJoshHawley dumped the docs on @JayAshcroftMO Fri before Christmas. Good Grief!
[….]
3:55 PM – 21 Dec 2018

We remember Attorney General Bill Webster (r).

Previously:

Josh Hawley (r): Who did you say was in charge at the Attorney General’s office? (October 31, 2018)

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D): Who was in charge at the Attorney General’s office? (November 1, 2018)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Who was in charge at the Attorney General’s office? – Press Q and A – November 1, 2018 (November 1, 2018)

Josh Hawley (r): Ask me no more questions, I’ll tell you no more lies… (November 4, 2018)

Josh, we barely knew ya (December 6, 2018)

By the book (December 14, 2018)