Nathan Deal: Forget About Your Birth Certificate, Release Your Ethics Report

There’s been some good natured ribbing around here asking Nathan Deal to release his birth certificate in light of his request to ask President Obama about his.

The laughing stops today, as Congressman Deal may have a more relevent document to his political future.

Roll Call is reporting that Deal is “likely” in posession of the report from the ethics committee.

“According to its most recent report, OCE investigators opened only one new inquiry in the last half of 2009. That investigation began in October – the Journal-Constitution reported in December that state records showed OCE investigators contacted a state office in October – and appears to have ended its second and final phase in late December.

Under its rules, whenever, the OCE completes a second-phase review, it must issue a report to the ethics committee recommending the panel either conduct its own investigation or dismiss the allegations. The OCE must also provide a copy of the report – a one-page document detailing the focus of its investigation and its recommendation to the eithics committee – to the subject of the review.”

So, while the above statement is circumstantial, it appears that former Congressman Deal is holding a finding from the ethics committee. When the complaint was filed, he said he looked forward to proving his innocence. Instead, he tried to leave Congress in the middle of the biggest expansion of Government in our lifetimes.

The people of Georgia deserve to know what is in that report. I’m calling on Congressman Deal to confirm if he has a copy, and if so, release it immediately.


  1. Tyler says:

    He can either clear his name or prove some accusations. Holding onto the report does nothing but discredit him further.

    Deal, do your former constituents and Georgia a favor by showing what is in the report. If you’re innocent, what have you got to lose? Then again, if you’re guilty, you could lose more than just the Governor’s race.

    • SFrazier says:

      It’s a shame that some GOP candidates and their supporters have stooped to the level of joining the Democrats in blatant attacks of misinformation and false charges.

      • Tyler says:

        “Deal, do your former constituents and Georgia a favor by showing what is in the report. If you’re innocent, what have you got to lose? Then again, if you’re guilty, you could lose more than just the Governor’s race.”

        Enlighten me as to how the above is an attack dealing with this ethics complaint. I’m listening…

        • Provocateur says:

          Like the one filed against Newt for switching two words in a history lesson? Yeah, that wasn’t “frivolous.” Nahh. That “Office of Congressional Ethics” never does anything “frivolous” does it?

      • macho says:

        I know Nathan welcomed this report to prove his innocence. So I have no doubt, that Nathan will be releasing the report, in the next day or so, to show he’s done nothing wrong.

        • AlanR says:

          He can’t release a report he doesn’t have. Its only been six months since the complaint was file. The committee usually takes a minimum of 8 months even when its a slam dumk like the Rangel travel deal.

          The whole ethics thing in congress is set up to protect each other. No one is going to go fast. The only politics in the ethics committee is “incumbent.” The most Deal may have is a memo laying out the information and asking for his responses.

          Don’t get your hopes up. Deal did the right thing hanging around for the vote on health care. Give the guy some credit. And in Georgia, isn’t it required to have at least one ethics complaint filed against you before you can run for Governor?

          • ByteMe says:

            Really, you should read the Roll Call article to grasp what the rest of us understand: the ethics investigation has been completed.

            • AlanR says:

              The article is mostly conjecture. I don’t think there is a one for one correspondance between Deal and the single investigation. It could have been part of the PMA complaint that involved eight members. Most are closed but others could now be involved. There is an open ethics investigation of Alan Molohan thats been going on for over three years. There are several Rangel complaints that are separate from the recent travel finding. Any one of them could have been the investigation appearing in the statistical report.

              And when you look at the decisions concerning the members who traveled with Rangel, the Rangel fundraising complaint that is dead cold and still no result, Rangel’s tax problems, Mollohan — my personal favorite — how can you place any faith in any of this? How can you be so quick to condemn Deal based on this rumor when the ethics committee so clearly let the members traveling with Rangel and most of the PMA members off the hook?

              Politically, would you rather have the issue as it stands now to use in the campaign, or have a report that says Deal didn’t do anything? The committees record for getting stuff right is not good.

              • ByteMe says:

                You make some good points and to answer your last question: personally, I’d rather the truth came out. Does he have a copy of the report? Will he release that report if he has a copy?

                The cover-up is usually worse than the crime.

                • Provocateur says:

                  Trouble is, most of the PP-eers think everything is a “crime” and make noise over the slightest thing.

        • GOPGeorgia says:

          It’s conjecture. Do you KNOW it exists? I have long been in favor of seeing the report, but what if Congress decides to drop the report?

          • macho says:

            The problem is, Nathan know if the report exists or not, but instead of answering that very simple question, he’s referring it to his lawyer.

        • macho says:

          I’m sure one of Nathan’s staffers is currently searching for a high-resolution fax machine to distribute the report.

  2. polisavvy says:

    If he continues to ignore this and not provide any answers to questions that people have regarding the ethics investigation, then the silence will be deafening.

    • SFrazier says:

      The truth is that Nathan is an honorable man and has never had his ethics called into question in his 30 years of public service.

      • Icarus says:

        You mean 29 of his 30 years, correct? Because it seems like his ethics have been called into question, and apparently there is an opinion floating around. I don’t think ethics works like tenure. You don’t get a lifetime achievement award if you make it 25 years so that the rules no longer apply.

  3. Progressive Dem says:

    Ethics. It is such a sore subject for the GOP in Georgia this year. Oxendine contributions. Johnson’s pass on Richardson. Deal’s deal. Richardson’s sweetheart. The fallout from having sweethearts. Burkhalter’s appointment of Proctor. The progress on ethics reform. Sonny’s retroactive tax deduction. Thanks for kicking the scab.

  4. LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

    Geeez, what a great slate of candidates we have this year. 2014 can’t get here soon enough.

    • Who’s on-deck for 2014? This was supposed to be the year that David Shafer moved up a few notches, to lay the groundwork for a future governor run. However, with Cagle sitting in “Lt.-Gov.-Limbo”, neither going anywhere nor going away, the feeder system seems backed up. I guess I’m hoping that Austin Scott’s stock rises… or even that the Dems rally around some sensible leadership that isn’t corrupt or Fulton/DeKalb-beholden.

  5. B Balz says:

    Fellas, You’ve met the man: He is smart enough not to say “Bugger off”, and tough enough to ignore this forum. Good luck on ever seeing that report, even if it is around.

  6. benevolus says:

    I just noticed yesterday that there is a big billboard on the north side of I-20, just west of the downtown connector that says only “Where’s the birth certificate?”

      • macho says:

        The Deal campaign was asked if he had a copy.

        Here was the “Deal Real” response to the AJC: Asked whether Deal has the report and if he will release it, Deal spokesman Harris Blackwood said “any questions on this issue should be referred” to the House ethics committees. “He is no longer a member of Congress.”

        Blackwood has refused to comment further.

        Something tells me that if the report vindicated Nathan, you wouldn’t be getting a “No Comment” from the campaign.

        • Icarus says:

          The Roll Call article linked above has a better quote. “(Harris Blackwood) referred all subsequent inquiries to Deal’s attorney late Tuesday afternoon, who could not immediately be reached for comment.”

          His attorney? Really?

          To confirm or deny the existance of a report that Deal said would exonerate him, you need to refer to an attorney?


          • macho says:

            Trouble is, referring questions to your attorney on the campaign trail never goes over that well.

          • GOPGeorgia says:

            If I am being investigated and all the facts are not out yet, I might want to run things past my attorney just to make sure that whatever I say does not add more fuel to the fire. If you are going to quote Roll Call, quote the parts of Roll Call which don’t back up your claim as well.

            “The ethics committee does not comment on its investigations and has never publicly confirmed whether it is examining Deal.”

            So do we know for a fact that Deal was under investigation or not? According to Roll Call, it can’t be confirmed that he was. If he was under investigation, we don’t know the result.

            “It is not known whether the OCE recommended a further investigation of Deal to the House committee or whether it suggested the query be dismissed.”

            I will continue to state that I’d like to see the results of an investigation, but now it seems that there is question of if he was under investigation to begin with.

            • Icarus says:

              “I will continue to state that I’d like to see the results of an investigation, but now it seems that there is question of if he was under investigation to begin with.”

              Well, we’re in luck.

              As Chairman of the 9th District, I’m guessing you have the only person’s phone number who could clear this up for us: Nathan Deal.

              Why don’t you give him a call and clear this all up for us?

              • GOPGeorgia says:

                I ate lunch with Congressman Deal on Tuesday, but the time and place wasn’t appropriate to give me the chance to bring it up. I was on the phone with Kevin Harris (former Ninth District Chair and Deal’s Political Director) earlier tonight and was going to bring it up, but we lost the call as he was driving over mountains. It will be brought up, but it’s taken me almost a week to get Kevin on the phone. Believe it or not, I don’t have Congressman Deal’s direct number.

            • macho says:

              “I will continue to state that I’d like to see the results of an investigation, but now it seems that there is question of if he was under investigation to begin with.”

              The reason we don’t absolutely know whether there is a report or not, is because Deal is referring those questions to his lawyer. Nathan can clear this question up in two seconds. Even Clinton, during the Lewinski crisis, didn’t refer the press to his lawyer. As ByteMe said earlier, many times the cover-up is worse than the crime.

              Of course if there is a report, and it rips Nathan, then I totally get why they would be hiding it.

    • Icarus says:

      What we do know is that he refuses to say.

      He knows if he has a copy. It seems to be pretty simple to clear up. Isn’t that what his fellow birthers tell us?

      • macho says:

        His supporters seems to be defending him by stating he doesn’t have a copy of the report. But, as you stated, if he doesn’t have a copy of the report, you’d think that would be an easy thing to clear up. All he has to say is, “I don’t have a copy of the report.” Seems a little overly cautious to refer that statement to your lawyer.

        Of course, if he actually has a copy of the report, then it’s a whole different scenario, and you do things like refer questions to your lawyer.

  7. macho says:

    Unless the Deal campaign takes steps to clear up any confusion regarding the ethics committee report, i.e. release the report, deny having the report, send a letter to the committee asking for the report; this issue will haunt them all the way to November 4th. The Ox campaign thanks you for the predictable, and amateurish, way in wish you are handling this crisis.

    • Chris says:

      And coming from the Ox Campaign, the experts in predictable and amateurish ways of handling a crisis, this means a lot.

      • macho says:

        All I can say to the Deal campaign is, “Batten down the hatches boys, you’re heading straight into the storm.”

  8. Sarah Scott says:

    It would seem that if the Ethics Committee had some horrid report they could have released it anytime before he tendered his resignation on Sunday. So the AJC writes an article on the Wednesday after his resignation and says something like there might be an ethics report on the grassy knoll.
    I think that Pelosi and the liberal Congress are mad that they didn’t get a chance to go after Deal on a phony ethics charge. I think the liberals are even more upset that now they have no dog in the GA Gov’s race.
    With the poll showing that Deal shows best against Barnes, this is the last ditch effort to take out the GOP’s best candidate.

    • Icarus says:

      Sarah, screaming “liberal” does not exonerate a fellow Republican.

      And if you check the actual article above, it’s from Roll Call. It outlines the process of how the Ethics Committee works, what the timeline is, and given that Deal’s was the only active case, the fact that they produced a report should be his.

      Furthermore, “Pelosi and the liberal Congress” aren’t allowed to release the report unless the ethics committee votes to do so.

      On the other hand, we have Citizen Deal, who won’t even comment on whether he has received the report or not, much less what’s in it. Instead, his spokesperson referred Roll Call to his attorney.

      Scream “liberal” all day long. It won’t change one basic fact above.

      • AlanR says:

        And you and Roll Call are absolutely sure that Deal is the only active case? No hard feelings, but the ethics committee operates in strange ways. Just look at their recent findings. Deal should answer for what’s been reported during the campaign. Its a legitimate issue. Pretty bad, actually. But please, the ethics committee?

    • AubieTurtle says:

      I love it! You’re my new best friend! As the Chinese say “May you live in interesting times”, and people such as yourself are going to create some very interesting times.

      I pray that the GaGOP listens to you and even gives you some degree of control over the party’s future. It’ll be influence that pays back over and over again.

      Go get’em Sarah!

    • Progressive Dem says:

      “I think that Pelosi and the liberal Congress are mad that they didn’t get a chance to go after Deal on a phony ethics charge. ”

      Yeah, Nathan Deal was such a force to be reckoned with in Congress that the Speaker had nothing better to do than to persecute a do-nothing Congressman.

      • Sarah Scott says:

        So why would the Ethics Committee investigate a long-serving Congressman with no past ethical problems rather than finishing up with an obvious source of ethical issues like Rangel? Do you mean to tell me that this ethics committee can only investigate one person at a time? They had almost an entire month to release the findings when Deal remained in Congress to vote against the HCR legislation. Why was it not released? My guess….nothing to release.

        • Icarus says:

          I think it’s because your guess is based on what you want to believe, as opposed to reading anything in the linked articles which describes the procedures for how the committee operates, when it votes, and what it can and can’t release.

          Please continue to live in your world where all Republicans are pure and perfect, and all evil Lib’rals want to molest your children.

          It’s that kind of mentality that allowed the Jack Abramoff’s and the Mark Foley’s of the world to kill our “permanent majority” in 2006, and continuing that philosophy at the state level is sure to give us a Democratic Governor in 2010.

          • Sarah Scott says:

            Again I ask, if this report was so damning…why wouldn’t it be released while he was still in Congress? He gave everyone plenty of notice that he would be resigning after the HCR vote. If there was some ‘smoking gun’ they had several weeks with which to release it. Instead nothing was done, and he resigned after voting against a trillion dollar boondoggle of a bill. He is now a full-time candidate which I am sure is worrying many of the candidates that have been out there campaigning full time for awhile…he is a formidable campaigner.

            • rugby says:

              You do realize it takes a LONG TIME to complete an investigation if you are actually doing a decent job?

              Aw hell, who am I kidding, Deal poops roses and everything about him is fine.

              Move along nothing to see.

            • ByteMe says:

              There’s a big difference between OCE completing their investigation and writing their report for the committee members — which is what Roll Call is saying happened — and the committee creating their report and determining a proper recommendation of action for the leadership.

              I’ll bet you complain all the time about government moving too slow to suit your purposes. Sweet irony.

              • GOPGeorgia says:

                No HE DIDN’T. He announced that he was going to quit, but he only quit once and that was AFTER the vote.

        • B Balz says:

          Exactly. Remember when everyone was aghast that Rep. Deal quit B4 the HC vote? Speculation was the report was days from release. But it was not released, now was it?

          I think that was Dem arm twisting and the entirety of this post is to make Rep. Deal look bad. Fact is, few if any would have the cahones to ask these questions of Rep. Deal mano a mano. ‘Cept this post is not from a Dem, now is it.

          Let’s see….why would someone post this???? Who benefits? And why are the most colorful candidates all from the GA’s 9th?

          OK the last questions is meant as a joke, disclosed for the humor impaired.

          • GOPGeorgia says:

            You may see more candidates from the Ninth. Maybe even more colorful ones. Maybe a joke, maybe not.

            • B Balz says:

              Like I said, only a few would do that and I’ll be there for it, Icarus! You’ve seen the man in action, I applaud your quest. I think he’ll eat your lunch.

              Mind you, he is n0t my choice for Gov, I am calling BS on this rather transparent intra GOP attack.

              O Yea, more fun from the 9th, I cannot wait ! ! !

              • Icarus says:

                I will continue to raise issues for anyone that wants to wear the GOP standard bearer lable in November but has outstanding ethical issues today. Deal went from “looking forward to a chance to clear his name” to referring folks to an attorney who just ask if a report exists.

                We should never tolerate ethical lapses, but this year especially, we have to have a nominee that is “beyond the appearance of impropriety”, not one that “hasn’t been indicted yet”.

                We’ve set the bar low for our ethical standards. I want to see them raised.

                • B Balz says:

                  That any individual, on their own volition, wishes to vet GA’s GOP on ethics issues is a noble course; the timing for the inquiry is suspect, that’s all.

                  I, too, want to KEEP the ethical standard high for ALL of our elected Reps. To presuppose the bar is lowered by the acts of a sad
                  few unfairly indicts the many good and ethical Reps. in Georgia.

                  Rock on!

            • Henry Waxman says:

              Icarus, I know you get his campaign emails because you post them on this site. It isn’t hard to track down a man who emails you the date, time, and location of his upcoming events.

  9. Sarah Scott says:

    Ok, fine. Then explain why the ethics committee did not vote to release it? Probably because it is nothing! Why would he need to comment on something that really doesn’t matter? Now that he is a full-time candidate for Governor, this sham of an ethics investigation is no longer a valid concern. The only problem with Deal is that he is now a full-time candidate and that worries some candidates who have been full-time for quite a while and have nothing to show for it.

      • AlanR says:

        Only if it exists and he actually has it. We’ll see tomorrow. The Deal campaign was probably stunned by this — as though they didn’t see it coming — and they should have something to say tomorrow.

  10. macho says:

    I can’t wait for the next debate, some question asked makes Nathan a little uncomfortable, “I’d like to refer that question to my lawyer.”

    • AlanR says:

      Yes! Perfect. That’s the perfect forum to air it out. Both the real issue and the ethics committee nonsense. No where to hide. Straight answers. No Roll Call sources say.

      When is the next debate?

    • polisavvy says:

      I bet I know which candidate would be the most likely to raise that question. He seems to be able to push Deal’s button (and Ox’s) at every debate. Could be quite interesting before all is said and done.

  11. AlanR says:

    And for the record, yes, I think the ethics committee lacks ethics and is a freak show you can only find in Washington.

    The Ethics Commission in Georgia is much more credible — they have a weak law to work with and have been starved for money in the past, but everything they do is pretty much public and open.

Comments are closed.