Chief Justice Jean Toal The South Carolina State Supreme Court convened Monday afternoon at 2:30 to hear about Governor Sanford’s request to keep the state Ethics Commission’s findings under cover.

The Ethics Commission began its investigation of Sanford’s activities after Attorney General Henry McMaster requested a review. McMaster submitted his request soon after Sanford’s stealth run in June to Argentina for personal reasons, never letting on to his staff or his family where he was.

Travel records during his term surfaced that suggested profligacy in the first class section of passenger jets while he was on state business and in the passenger seats of private planes while he was on trips donated by friends. And personal use of the governor’s own plane supplied by the state also came under question.

Once the call came out to the Ethics Commission to investigate, Sanford wrote a letter to the Ethics Commission, dated August 28, 2009, saying it was OK, effectively, to air his dirty laundry.

Sanford lawyer Kevin Hall suggested Sanford’s letter of August 28, was not intended to be interpreted as it was, and it was not meant to waive confidentiality. There was an earlier letter from August 24, where Sanford lawyer Butch Bowers wrote to Herb Hayden, the executive director of the Ethics Commission. Hayden responded with his letter of August 27, saying he was in sync with Bowers. The two came to terms. But then Sanford, apparently without the benefit of legal counsel, cranked out his own letter of August 28, presumably dropping his protections of confidentiality.

Chief Justice Jean Toal kept trying to understand the context of Sanford’s August 28 letter, and she kept asking questions along those lines.

Hall made the point — an impeachment is purely political, which by definition then bars an impeachment as either a civil or a criminal matter.

Chief Justice Toal said the S.C. House of Representatives can go ahead with impeachment regardless of what the Ethics Commission discloses or fails to disclose because the House has its own means to investigate. The House has the authority to move forward as its own prosecutor, she shared.

On behalf of the House, House Clerk Charles Reid declined to comment about Sanford’s letter of August 28. But he did agree the House prosecutorial authority could continue to ride regardless of what came out of the Ethics Commission, if anything.

Ethics Commission lawyer Cathy Hazelwood appeared and sounded a bit overwhelmed. Chief Justice Toal asked Hazelwood to speak more slowly and to come closer to the microphone. Hazelwood tried to accommodate the justices’ need to hear in order to understand.

Hazelwood reported her best guess as to when the Ethics Commission would conclude its investigations might well be late October. The report, she said, would be given to Attorney General McMaster and to Governor Sanford.

Then Hazelwood fell into a semantics slush as she tried to walk the court through the sequence of reports if and when they came out of the Ethics Commission. There was a preliminary report, but that was not handed out. What would be handed out was the preliminary report summary which would help the Ethics Commission in its decision making as to what direction to take next.

The next step was an investigative report that would include attached documents resulting from three sources: (1) individual interviews, (2) documents from the public domain easily obtained, and (3) matters that bear scrutiny, as Chief Justice Toal put it.

The House, it appeared, would want the same investigative report with all its thoroughness and backup material.

Hazelwood made clear the Ethics Commission did not look into anything without a formal complaint that followed the procedures outlined by the Ethics Commission. There is no movement at the Ethics Commission without a complaint, she declared.

She was not asked to explain the Ethics Commission’s action against Attorney General McMaster after compaign contribution disclosures were reported by the Associated Press. A news story in the local papers picked up by television stations might not meet the definition of a formal complaint, but Hazelwood failed to explain how that instance worked its way through the Ethics Commission.

Reid’s response in the context of a possible impeachment included his observation that the House of Representatives is the prosecutorial authority.

Hall’s response cited a law on the books, 13–20– 10G (hyphens inferred from Hall’s pronunciation), which says confidentiality is held and preserved “until final disposition.”