Gant investigation ‘suspicious’ timeline

 

I first want to say when it was brought to my attention that SOS Jason Gant’s deputy was running an online campaign store, I never thought for a moment that anything illegal was being done. Only unethical, which apparently isn’t against the law in SD. I never once thought the operations director or Gant were ‘stealing’ any money from the state. This was always a question about ethical behavior. I think not only was I pretty clear about that, I think many other journalists, bloggers and even senator Adelstein was clear about that.

There has been discussion that Gant may have broken the law, or at least not enforced it, on the Gosch petitions, but it has NOTHING to do with stealing from the state.

That is why it was so bizarre when the AG released the results of his investigation and essentially said that neither Gant or Powers were stealing from the state. Duh. It was almost like the AG investigated something he already knew they were innocent of.

Read his results here; Jackley-Gant

But the release of the report on Tuesday, July 17 is even more bizarre. Why? Well let’s fill you in a bit.

The person who tipped me off about Power’s campaign website, ‘Guest Poster’ was basically anonymous to everyone but myself. He wanted to keep it that way, but I encouraged him to AT LEAST reveal his identity to Senator Adelstein to assist him with the investigation. It’s not like ‘Guest Poster’ is a nobody in the politics world of SD, he assisted many democrats and republicans over the years with campaigns, and is well known in those circles. He also has expertise in data mining, data security and Information Technology. He has made his living from it since the 1980′s.

So after he contacted Adelstein in an email and phone call, he sent the Senator this email suggesting how the investigation should at the very least move forward with all speedGuestpostemail

Was this a ploy by either Adelstein OR by Jackley and the DCI to get the name of ‘Guest Poster’? Not sure, but it worked. The email went to the senator on Sunday July 15th who in turn probably forwarded the email on Monday July 16 to DCI  – then magically the investigation is closed the next day.

Jackley and DCI only looked at the topic NOT brought up.  As stated from the beginning:

• This was an ethics discussion, not embezzlement or financial

• When it would not go away, it became a DCI “investigation”

• A show was put on to make like action was being taken

• Jackley and DCI reached a decision to clear the SOS of financial criminal activity

• Instead of answering simple questions with direct answers from Gant

• The subterfuge and games became a possible criminal conspiracy

• Now we have to deal with the keeper of the laws (SOS) and enforcer of the laws (AG) doing what?  Why?

Food for thought.

 

9 comments ↓

#1 Testor15 on 08.07.12 at 8:12 am

“NPR report by Laura Sullivan revealed that the South Dakota D.S.S., in collusion with the present Governor of South Dakota, Dennis Daugaard, has been systematically violating the 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act over the past decade.” To the tune of $50 million… No wonder the state government is protecting CHS and it’s executives…

#2 Craig on 08.07.12 at 1:24 pm

“Food for thought.”

Oh now you are just picking on Gant due to his love affair with all things Burger King.

I see right through you l3wis.

/sarcasm tag applied for those with an impaired sense of humor

#3 Anon on 08.07.12 at 3:15 pm

The only reason to need to know the tipster is to figure out how much they knew so the investigation could be buried. Time for a recall election or two.

#4 Anooner on 08.07.12 at 4:17 pm

What bothers me about this whole thing is that, at least as it appears to me, the scope of the investigation was intentionally narrowed and then Marty determines there is no evidence of wrong doing “within the scope of this investigation.” Marty doesn’t say anything about Gant’s duty under SDCL 3-1-5, PP’s duty under 3-2-3, or anything about 3-16-1 which makes all intentional omissions to perform a duty a class II misd., (where no other special provisions exist). Marty’s opinion therefore supports the inference that everything Gant and Pat did, in and outside the office, comported with their statutory oath and duty to act impartially. In not considering those three statutes above, one gets the impression that maybe the “scope” of the investigation was too narrow.

#5 DDC on 08.07.12 at 8:20 pm

What crime does “Guest Poster” think was committed that would require the type of investigation he is outlining?

#6 l3wis on 08.07.12 at 9:47 pm

Conspiracy to cover something up.

#7 WOW! on 08.08.12 at 10:35 am

Adelstien jumped the gun on this investigation. He should have announced he was circulating a letter to his colleagues to investigate Gant not have the AG do it.

Adelstien could have found a group of people to join him in his quest.

We all know Gant is an idiot. Gant will screw up again and again. He can’t help it.

#8 DDC on 08.08.12 at 11:47 am

Conspiracy to cover what up? Using a state internet connection for personal business? Not trying to be difficult, just trying to figure out what would call for this kind of investigation.

#9 Guest Poster on 08.08.12 at 12:10 pm

DDC it would appear by virtue of the joint actions of the SOS and his operations director to hide activities opens the door to a cover-up investigation. At this point with investigative delays, the cover-up can continue.

The very fact the duo has been deleting information becomes the possible criminal conspiracy to subvert an investigation. The ‘Bill Clay’ deletions now going on are a continuation of this cartoonish covering of the tracks.

Our US Attorney and state Attorney General should have been looking into the corruption going on at many levels if not all levels of South Dakota state government. Gant and his ‘ex’ operations director are just a small tip of the iceberg.

There is more to come…

Leave a Comment