There is so much irony on so many levels.

…Since the Nixon administration, a mantra repeated during many scandals has been, “It’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up…”

The Kansas City Star has an online copy (pdf) of the lawsuit filed in Cole County by Special Investigator C.E. Fisher against Governor Matt “baby” Blunt in the e-mail destruction/obstruction case. It’s kind of nice that the paper saved us a drive down to Jefferson City to get a copy. The document provided by the paper does not have the case number nor any filing stamp on the header. tiny URL

Oh, yeah. The Kansas City Star did a front page story (below the fold) in this morning’s Kansas City Edition. tiny URL

It’s on the Missouri Courts case system:

08AC-CC00370 – STATE OF MO EX REL V MATTHEW R BLUNT ET AL

Judge Assigned: CALLAHAN, RICHARD G

Date Filed: 05/05/2008

Location: Cole Circuit

Case Type: CC Declaratory Judgment

Disposition: Not Disposed

There are some interesting revelations:  

First, someone in the Blunt administration who was concerned about the law spilled the beans on the Blunt administration:

…30. On November 1, 2007, after hearing the aforementioned confrontations with Ross, an employee of the Office of Administration contacted a member of the Attorney General’s office and confidentially reported the activities of Ross to the Office of the Attorney General. After receiving this information, the Attorney General took steps to begin an investigation…

Second, that big bill for the records request was not exactly a big bill for the records request:

…63. On February 8, 2008, Mr. Holstein provided his supplementary response to his January 8, 2008 correspondence. In his response on behalf of Defendant Blunt and the Office of Administration, Holstein communicates an estimated cost of $540,940.00 to determine which records Defendant Blunt is required to produce, said amount not including any costs of copying or electronic formatting. Of the $540,940.00 estimated costs, $467,840.00 was for attorney time to review the records…

It was a big bill for attorney’s fees.

What’s the lawsuit all about?:

…73. In order to complete the instant investigation, Plaintiff must review the records of e-mail transmissions and other records currently in the custody of the Office of the Governor and the Office of Administration…

The big revelation?:

…89. Defendant Blunt or those acting on his behalf, under his control or at his direction have violated or attempted to violate the provisions of Chapter 610, by:

a. instituting and overseeing practices to delete email transmissions from forty-three (43) computers located in the Office of Governor…

…b. attempting to compel employees of the Office of Administration to place backup tapes containing public records back into a rotation cycle after Sunshine Law request had been made for such records which would prevent the proper disclosure of public records…

Uh, oh.

And why did they do it?:

…90. The actions set forth in the preceding paragraph where taken to mitigate potential personal and political damage to Defenfdant Blunt and not in furtherance of any legitimate governmental interest…

Yeah, read the “Exhibit 3” attached to the lawsuit.

“…it’s the cover-up”

I don’t know whether there’s a secret handbook Republicans follow that instructs them to act as if it’s illegal for them to answer questions when they’re on the hot seat or whether it’s the innate response of liars, but if there’s a manual, both Bushco and Bluntco have been doing their homework.

Blunt, fearful that Scott Eckersley was about to talk to the press, smeared Eckersley and then, when Eckersley protested his innocence by revealing the real reason he’d been fired–that he didn’t go along with Blunt’s illegal practice of deleting state e-mails–the governor’s office filed an ethics complaint with the Missouri Bar against Eckersley for a “breach of confidentiality.”

The trouble is that the boxes of Eckersley’s e-mails that Blunt’s office sent to two newspapers as part of the smear included e-mails between Eckersley and his attorney, Steve Garner.  Their presence in the boxes revealed that someone in the governor’s office had broken into Eckersley’s private e-mail account.  That’s illegal.

Now that Garner is responding to the ethics complaint and pointing out the governor’s ethical–and legal–lapses, Blunt’s spokeshole is clamming up.  Jessica Robinson refused to comment on Garner’s responses to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, claiming it would be “inappropriate” to comment on an ongoing ethics investigation.

Doesn’t it all remind you of the way Bush/Cheney put out their lies about Joe Wilson and his wife Valerie Plame, and then when Scooter Libby got caught lying about their original lies, Bush and his press spokeshole, Scott McClellan, kept saying that they couldn’t comment on an ongoing investigation/court case.

Once again, Blunt is following in the steps of his role model.  

The case of the missing e-mails continues.

There was this little item in today’s Kansas City Star:

Across Missouri: Judge in Sunshine Law case resigns

Daniel Max Knust resigned Wednesday, two weeks after the former Webster County judge was appointed to help determine whether Gov. Matt Blunt’s administration violated the state Sunshine law.

In a letter to Attorney General Jay Nixon, Knust attributed his resignation to criticism leveled by Gov Matt Blunt’s office that questioned whether Knust, a Republican, was part of a Democratic witch hunt…

tiny URL

Jo Mannies in today’s St Louis Post-Dispatch:

New lead lawyer in email probe says he won’t rush to judgment

…Knust wrote in his resignation letter to Attorney General Jay Nixon, “I did not anticipate that my independence would be doubted by the Governor’s staff. My parents were devout Republicans, and I have held office for 28 years as a Republican…”

[The title of the article refers to the appointment of Chet Pleban to replace Knust]

tiny URL

The Missouri republican party website [Eeeew!] also aimed its wrath at Knust. [I’m not providing a link, just be thankful that I went there to read it so you don’t have to. Eeeew! Can’t get the bad taste out of my mouth. Uck.]  

The moral of the story: If you do anything that  makes Governor Matt “baby” Blunt look less than saintly he will release the hounds.

Matt Blunt refused to reveal what’s in his own e-mail files about Scott Eckersley’s advice to him and then got caught red-handed in a lie about what those files would have shown.  So he’s decided to paint himself as the high priest of transparency.  His minions filed Sunshine Law requests for every scrap of paper and every e-mail for the last three years from nineteen leading Democratic legislators.  As you can see, he believes in transparency–from other people.  Don’t think of it as harassment; think of it as making other people practice what he preaches.

And he does preach it, brother.  He has been converted and has proven it by announcing the creation of a permanent e-mail retention system for the entire state government.

“I take great pride in my administration’s commitment to being good stewards of taxpayer dollars and commitment to accountable and transparent government.”

All both of the voters who might be taken in by his more-transparent-than-thou act, should notice that he’s still not revealing his past e-mail files in the Eckersley scandal.

Instead, by firing Eckersley to begin with and now by harassing Democrats about their records, he has turned what could have been a minor skirmish into war. 

OzarksPolitics.com recommends a counterattack, one justified by the Republican abuse of the Sunshine Law.  The harassment of Democrats is so obviously just that:

No particular issues or events are targeted, Sloca wants everything. Among the targets is Springfield State Rep. Sara Lampe, who holds a leadership position in the Democratic caucus. So, if you have ever sent her an e-mail expressing your opinion on an issue or asking for help in a personal manner, or just telling her she is doing a good job, the Missouri GOP will soon get their hands on it.

So the blogger recommends that we knock out some Sunshine Law requests that do focus on particular issues and lists nine possibilities.  My favorite would be to write one requesting:

Any correspondence between St. Louis County State Rep. (and Senate hopeful) Jane Cunningham, Rex Sinquefield and the organization All Children Matter in regard to school voucher plans.

That request would be using the Sunshine Law rather than abusing it, and the results might be worth a look-see.  How does one write a Sunshine Law request?  Do I just put my request on paper, noting that it’s a Sunshine Law request, and pop it in the mail?

Who else deserves to get one of these letters?

photo courtesy of Fired Up!

Memo shows attorney challenged Blunt’s policy before firing
Saturday, November 10, 2007
By CHRISTOPHER LEONARD ~ The Associated Press

ST. LOUIS — A former staff attorney for Gov. Matt Blunt sent an internal office memo challenging his boss’ stance on deleting e-mails just weeks before the attorney was fired, according to a copy of the memo obtained by The Associated Press.

The memo’s existence and content contradict public statements made by Blunt and his top officials after the attorney was fired in late September. Blunt officials have repeatedly said Scott Eckersley never challenged — verbally or in writing — their policy of deleting office e-mail and brought up the issue only the day he was fired….

This is a textbook case of how not to handle a political windstorm, unless…

…you’re worried that you’re going to go to jail for doing something really really bad.

…On Friday, Chrismer reiterated that Blunt’s office has “no record that Scott Eckersley ever wrote or stated that the practices of our office were inconsistent with any law or standard on record retention….

Heh. Do you think maybe that lack of record is because it was deleted? A classic “non denial denial” if I’ve ever seen one.

RSMo 610.010

(6) “Public record”, any record, whether written or electronically stored, retained by or of any public governmental body including any report, survey, memorandum, or other document or study prepared for the public governmental body by a consultant or other professional service paid for in whole or in part by public funds, including records created or maintained by private contractors under an agreement with a public governmental body or on behalf of a public governmental body; provided, however, that personally identifiable student records maintained by public educational institutions shall be open for inspection by the parents, guardian or other custodian of students under the age of eighteen years and by the parents, guardian or other custodian and the student if the student is over the age of eighteen years. The term “public record” shall not include any internal memorandum or letter received or prepared by or on behalf of a member of a public governmental body consisting of advice, opinions and recommendations in connection with the deliberative decision-making process of said body, unless such records are retained by the public governmental body or presented at a public meeting. Any document or study prepared for a public governmental body by a consultant or other professional service as described in this subdivision shall be retained by the public governmental body in the same manner as any other public record;

RSMo 610.011

Liberal construction of law to be public policy.
1. It is the public policy of this state that meetings, records, votes, actions, and deliberations of public governmental bodies be open to the public unless otherwise provided by law. Sections 610.010 to 610.200 shall be liberally construed and their exceptions strictly construed to promote this public policy.

2. Except as otherwise provided by law, all public meetings of public governmental bodies shall be open to the public as set forth in section 610.020, all public records of public governmental bodies shall be open to the public for inspection and copying as set forth in sections 610.023 to 610.026, and all public votes of public governmental bodies shall be recorded as set forth in section 610.015.

Rough translation: “when in doubt, save it” 

Matt Blunt’s been claiming that no e-mails exist from Eckersley telling him that deleting e-mails is illegal under the Sunshine Law.  He won’t release e-mails so that reporters can look for themselves, but he claims Eckersley never warned him–until a reporter mentions that she saw one.  Oops.

Where to start? A young attorney who works for the governor points out that the governor’s office isn’t following its own written policy on archiving office e-mails. Later, that same young attorney is fired “for cause” – that is, for inappropriate e-mails which were forwarded to his state e-mail account.

The irony is astounding. Think about it. The governor’s office managed to save those particular e-mails.

Blunt lawyer claims fired because questioned office handling of emails [tiny URL]
By Jo Mannies
POST-DISPATCH POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT
10/28/2007

A former lawyer in Gov. Matt Blunt’s office says he was fired last month after he raised questions about how the governor’s staff was handling office e-mails and public records requests….

….”I believed I was fired for pointing to written office policy which … contradicted how the office was handling record requests,” Eckersley said….

….To back up AuBuchon’s assertions about Eckersley, the Office of Administration had sent unsolicited to the Post-Dispatch, by overnight mail, a box containing hundreds of pages of Eckersley’s office e-mails. The e-mails included those dealing with his father’s business and the one e-mail from the sex site.

The box was sent Friday, before the newspaper made any calls to Blunt’s office about Eckersley’s firing….

Ah, the “baby” Blunt administration, a paragon of  Missouri Sunshine Law efficiency. You no longer have to request the records, they’ll just anticipate your needs and forward it all to you. Such service. Especially when it comes to self-serving damage control.

I’m wondering if the governor’s office thinks all the spam e-mail they get is an indication that a lot of people really like them. Nah.

It gets more interesting:

Attorney speaks out about being fired [tiny URL]
….Martin’s buildup to a charge of accessing an inappropriate Web site took about a week. On Friday, Sept. 21, Eckersley had a verbal confrontation with his boss, chief counsel Henry Herschel, over a policy matter in the governor’s office. Eckersley thought Herschel had spoken to him in an inappropriate fashion, and he told Herschel as much.

The state’s rendition of that meeting says it was Eckersley who “shouted and ranted and made threatening motions toward his boss….”

The “baby” Blunt administration – the gang that can’t fire anyone without tripping over their untied shoelaces.

I’m surprised Eckersley wasn’t accused of participating in an international financial scam – you know, with all those overseas bankers sending random e-mails to people asking for help in transferring their funds.