What were we telling you over two years ago!

by

Stuff like this really gets my blood boiling;

The South Dakota Secretary of State’s Office under former Secretary Jason Gant misused federal grant money, overspent its annual budget and couldn’t account for $43,000 in state funds, according to a report by the state auditor.

Cameraman Bruce and I told the media and government officials over two years ago that we were very suspect of what was going on in that office. Not just the campaign business being run by the deputy SOS, but the moving servers, the large donations to the SDGOP from election services companies, missing records, etc., etc.,

Stan Adelstein responded (thankfully) and all we got was a watered down report from the AG that said, “They didn’t steal anything.” Now we know that might not have been the case.

But what do I know, I’m just a speculator.

Posted in: Secretary of State

6 Thoughts on “What were we telling you over two years ago!”

  1. The D@ily Spin on October 29, 2015 at 1:21 pm said:

    Saw the Argus article. It’s much more than just the 43k. It’s sad how we can no longer trust public personnel.

  2. Lewis on October 29, 2015 at 10:01 pm said:

    Ah, like, what is an audit? Can I get it at the BK drive thru or at a smoke shop?

    http://www.ksfy.com/home/headlines/Gant-on-audit–338567902.html

    ‘Gant says he had no idea this kind of audit was a possibility.

    “Had I known that, I probably would have had one when I took office and asked for one when I left office, just to make sure any mistakes we did make we were able to fix, especially those accounting errors,” Gant said.’

  3. anonymous on October 30, 2015 at 5:56 am said:

    This guy needs to stop talking to the press and get himself a lawyer.

  4. l3wis on October 30, 2015 at 9:40 am said:

    Wonder if Shawn Tornow is available? LOL!

  5. John on October 30, 2015 at 10:38 am said:

    The Democrats chickened out and didn’t help Stan run Gant out of town when they had the chance. Stan almost had him gone and the compromise was to let Gant finish his term. Imagine what wouldn’t have been “fixed” if he would have resigned early.

  6. Helga on October 30, 2015 at 2:36 pm said:

    The Argus says today —Gant agreed that it was a reconciliation issue between two accounts and said he wished it would have been brought to his attention before leaving office.

    “I wasn’t able to dig into the issue,” he said.

    So can we take this to mean Gant didn’t “clean out the barn” before he left office?

Post Navigation