Jim Bindbeutel is throwing himself on his sword, as we earlier predicted. He went to the KC Star to try to clear the air, but they're reporting that his account doesn't add up. We'll review the updates and reveal what we think is the final piece to the Lakegate puzzle.
There are two big points in the KC Star interview:
(1) It turns out Bindbeutel had three meetings with the Governor's office in June, two of which involved Chuck Hatfield. The first of these meetings, on June 1, wasn't fully disclosed to the Senate investigation. The DNR now claims that was a 'mistake'.
(2) The account of Bindbeutel's disappearing E. coli report doesn't make any more sense than before, even in light of Bindbeutel's 'full confession'. Apparently people close to him aren't buying it either.
Bindbeutel's interview was supposed to clear the Nixon administration from blame. Now everyone's wondering what they're trying to hide.
We think we know, and it goes back to Lynn Griswold and Chuck Hatfield.
As we posted earlier, Griswold has been involved in a lengthy lawsuit over the release of sewage into the Lake of the Ozarks. Sewage, of course, can contaminate lakes with E. coli.
We’ve described why Lynn Griswold might have the motive to want to suppress E. coli test results at the Lake of the Ozarks – but did he have the opportunity? This part of the story is surprisingly simple to put together.
The lawyer representing Griswold, in the sewage lawsuit and a number of other cases, is none other than Chuck Hatfield. Hatfield is a former Nixon aide turned lobbyist, and it'd be an understatement to say that he and Nixon are close. Most members of the Nixon administration have been hired by Hatfield at some point during their careers.
Was Hatfield in communication with the Nixon administration? Yes.
We believe that in one of Hatfield's several meetings with Bindbeutel, the E. coli results were discussed - and that Hatfield asked Nixon to suppress the results.
If this did occur, we wonder if Hatfield was acting illegally - he's not registered to lobby on Griswold's behalf.
In either case the E. coli results weren’t released to the public. DNR bureaucrat and Nixon appointee Bindbeutel’s efforts to produce a report for the Nixon administration was suddenly canned - which is ironic, because he ended up being the scapegoat for Nixon’s decision.
Why is this account persuasive? Besides the trail of breadcrumbs and explaining the Nixon administration’s attempts to obstruct any inquiries, it’s more consistent with the facts we know about the case.
Through DNR e-mails, we know information was being prepared for the Nixon administration – and we can thoroughly account for its actions, until the effort suddenly and without any explanation went silent. Why was the effort abandoned? Bindbeutel's explanation doesn't make sense.
If Bindbeutel suspected the E. coli levels were only temporarily raised by rainfall, why did he wait a month to do new tests – possibly risking a major health threat? He says he wanted to do an 'action plan' - what is that even supposed to mean?
Why else would Bindbeutel be rewarded with an appointment to the Administrative Hearing Commission, even as the Nixon administration leveled its guns on him to make him a scapegoat?
There is only one way it all adds up, and there is no question of whether there were serious improprieties on the part of the Nixon administration. They tried to throw Bindbeutel under the bus, and now he’s stuck under the axle. The only way to save him was to implicate themselves – so they probably thought the merciful option would be to put Bindbeutel out of his misery. It’s a sorry reward for his loyalty.
The cover-up is becoming worse than the crime, and there's no way this story is over yet. Expect more to come - we'll post updates as the story develops.
There are two big points in the KC Star interview:
(1) It turns out Bindbeutel had three meetings with the Governor's office in June, two of which involved Chuck Hatfield. The first of these meetings, on June 1, wasn't fully disclosed to the Senate investigation. The DNR now claims that was a 'mistake'.
(2) The account of Bindbeutel's disappearing E. coli report doesn't make any more sense than before, even in light of Bindbeutel's 'full confession'. Apparently people close to him aren't buying it either.
Bindbeutel's interview was supposed to clear the Nixon administration from blame. Now everyone's wondering what they're trying to hide.
We think we know, and it goes back to Lynn Griswold and Chuck Hatfield.
As we posted earlier, Griswold has been involved in a lengthy lawsuit over the release of sewage into the Lake of the Ozarks. Sewage, of course, can contaminate lakes with E. coli.
We’ve described why Lynn Griswold might have the motive to want to suppress E. coli test results at the Lake of the Ozarks – but did he have the opportunity? This part of the story is surprisingly simple to put together.
The lawyer representing Griswold, in the sewage lawsuit and a number of other cases, is none other than Chuck Hatfield. Hatfield is a former Nixon aide turned lobbyist, and it'd be an understatement to say that he and Nixon are close. Most members of the Nixon administration have been hired by Hatfield at some point during their careers.
Was Hatfield in communication with the Nixon administration? Yes.
We believe that in one of Hatfield's several meetings with Bindbeutel, the E. coli results were discussed - and that Hatfield asked Nixon to suppress the results.
If this did occur, we wonder if Hatfield was acting illegally - he's not registered to lobby on Griswold's behalf.
In either case the E. coli results weren’t released to the public. DNR bureaucrat and Nixon appointee Bindbeutel’s efforts to produce a report for the Nixon administration was suddenly canned - which is ironic, because he ended up being the scapegoat for Nixon’s decision.
Why is this account persuasive? Besides the trail of breadcrumbs and explaining the Nixon administration’s attempts to obstruct any inquiries, it’s more consistent with the facts we know about the case.
Through DNR e-mails, we know information was being prepared for the Nixon administration – and we can thoroughly account for its actions, until the effort suddenly and without any explanation went silent. Why was the effort abandoned? Bindbeutel's explanation doesn't make sense.
If Bindbeutel suspected the E. coli levels were only temporarily raised by rainfall, why did he wait a month to do new tests – possibly risking a major health threat? He says he wanted to do an 'action plan' - what is that even supposed to mean?
Why else would Bindbeutel be rewarded with an appointment to the Administrative Hearing Commission, even as the Nixon administration leveled its guns on him to make him a scapegoat?
There is only one way it all adds up, and there is no question of whether there were serious improprieties on the part of the Nixon administration. They tried to throw Bindbeutel under the bus, and now he’s stuck under the axle. The only way to save him was to implicate themselves – so they probably thought the merciful option would be to put Bindbeutel out of his misery. It’s a sorry reward for his loyalty.
The cover-up is becoming worse than the crime, and there's no way this story is over yet. Expect more to come - we'll post updates as the story develops.
Comments