John Brummett today characterizes Mike Huckabee's exit from office as tacky, boorish, petulant, etc., but accepts some of his explanation for his haul of equipment and furnishings from the office and for the destruction of computer hard drives.
Brummett is simply credulous on the merchandise haul.
A Huckabee spokeswoman said, for example, that lighting and sound systems were supplied by the Republican Party and they might be given to the party some day. When was this gift -- even if by loan -- reported on financial disclosure forms? And, if the Republican Party supplied the stuff, why is it now in Huckabee control? If he asserts it is his to decide whether to keep or give to the party, he is asserting control. This is no different than the Mansion furniture contributed by Boe Adams. Either it was given to the state -- and thus was the state's to inventory and possess -- or it was given to Huckabee. If it was Huckabee's, as he originally claimed in the case of the furniture, it raises ethical questions.
Parallel case in point. Huckabee asserted in numerous newspaper accounts that he, through Brenda Turner, controlled money contributed to his inaugural fund in 2002. The money was spent on many things other than inaugural activities, including clothing for Mrs. Huckabee. I noted that it woujld violate the ethics law for Huckabee to be the recipient of inaugural money for personal use. He shortly told the Ethics Commission that he had been misquoted, that he had no control over the money. Any decisions to outfit the first lady in finery was the independent decision of the inaugural committee.
In short, everything belongs to Mike Huckabee. Imagine him in the White House.
He's off to a good start laundering exploratory money through a PAC in Virginia, the Cayman Islands of political financing.