David Montgomery is also poring over the interactions catalogued in the intriguing set of Regental invoices made public by Rep. Kathy Tyler (D-4/Big Stone City) this week. In addition to demonstrating the state's February 2009 cognizance of Joop Bollen's misdeeds and revealing that Bollen resigned briefly from his own SDRC Inc. in spring 2009, Montgomery now adds the revelation that Bollen was pressing the Regents to turn his contract on its head and grant him immunity from legal consequences for the trouble he caused the state with his EB-5 machinations.
I'll have more on that when I have time to excerpt the noteworthy invoice passages. Suffice it to say that the Regents say they've cut no deal with Bollen.
Just as eyebrow-raising is the below-the-fold statement by Attorney General Marty Jackley along the same line:
Other authorities investigating EB-5 said they haven't given Bollen any immunity from prosecution or lawsuits.
"The attorney general has not granted any (criminal) prosecutorial immunity in relation to the EB-5 matter," Attorney General Marty Jackley said Thursday [David Montgomery, "Bollen Sought Indemnity in EB-5 Lawsuit," that Sioux Falls paper, 2014.09.25].
Wait a minute: that's a pretty forward statement about a criminal investigation, isn't it, AG Jackley?
Jackley said he ordinarily doesn't disclose immunity deals but would confirm Bollen's lack of a deal "because the thing is of such public nature" [Montgomery, 2014.09.25].
Oh my goodness! Isn't "public nature of the story" exactly the argument Bob Mercer has been making about why you ought to make an out-of-the-ordinary release of your records in the investigation of Richard Benda's suspicious death?
Jackley is showing a pattern: when an unusual release of records forwards his party's narrative or need for cover, he's an open-records champion. But when we want answers to real questions that might not reflect well on his office or his fellow candidates, we get bupkis.
Gubernatorial spokesman Tony Venhuizen joins AG Jackley in spilling select beans, telling Montgomery that Governor Daugaard hasn't given Bollen any deal, either, and that the Governor nuked the state's contract with Bollen and SDRC Inc. last year against Bollen's wishes.
I don't know, Joop: the Regents, Jackley, and Venhuizen don't sound like they want to cut you any slack. Maybe it's time for one more charm campaign: why not call the blog, publicize your side of the story, and tell us what orders you were following, and which of your superiors gave those orders?
Jackley's political options just died.
Did Jackley just reveal the existence of an ongoing Mike Rounds Scandal investigation?
With Jackley, one never knows as he is just about the poorest attorney I have ever seen, but it sure sounds like he just spilled the beans. Maybe Jackley should take down his shingle and spend some time with the family, the other family, not the crime family.
So did our attorney gen cut a deal.
Nicely done, Mr. Heidelberger. 42 days and ticking.
It is Bollen vs. Rounds or Bollen + Rounds. Otherwise if Rounds wants to prove his innocence, he needs to turn over Bollen. The "I don't know" bit is not convincing.
no immunity may mean no pursuit of those joop could hurt. sames as Chris Christie who knew how to thwart the investigation, as is likely happening here. Brenden Johnson's future sure looks interesting, whether it be working for the prez or taking down a governor and a senator. hopefully the voting people of south dakota can make sure they don't get elected.
Joop asked the board of regents for an immunity deal. That says that he has something to say and does not want to be incriminated by his own testemony. The fact that they did not accept but preferred to keep it all quiet with no real hearing says that coverup was in everyone elses best interest.
Cory, I've been thinking someone should reach out to Bollen for his side of the story. Keep at it. I'll bet Mike Rounds would like nothing more than to have Bollen remain silent until after the election.