Mansiongate summary

Today has been a big day on the issue of Senator Daschle having signed a legal document stating that Washington, DC is his "principal place of residence." For those who are trying to figure out all of the threads to this story, here's the deal:

This story began in April of 2003, when Forbes magazine, in its column on who's buying and selling in the world of high-end real estate, reported that Senator Daschle had purchased a $1.9 million French colonial mansion in one of Washington, DC's most exclusive neighborhoods. This purchase raised some eyebrows back in South Dakota, and raised concerns about how Daschle could afford such a home on his six-figure senator's salary. Also, we now know that on April 28, 2003, Senator Daschle signed an application for the DC "Homestead Deduction," declaring that Washington, DC was his "primary place of residence (domicile)."

In August of 2003, the Club for Growth began running a television ad in South Dakota about Daschle's new mansion (you can view the ad by clicking HERE). The Washington Post published an article headlined "D.C. House Is a Topic On Daschle's Home Turf."

Shortly after the Club for Growth ads began running, Jeff Gannon, a conservative investigative reporter in Washington, DC, reported on August 13, 2003, that an investigation into DC property records indicated that Senator Daschle was receiving DC's "homestead tax credit" a credit given only to those whose "principal place of residence (domicile)" is in DC. Soon, Bob Novak followed up with a brief report. Then the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call published a thorough report of the matter under the headlined "Daschle hit on tax break; wife claims 'homestead' exemption."

We now know that on August 14, 2003, the day AFTER Jeff Gannon broke the story about Tom Daschle receiving the homestead deduction, the application for the deduction was amended so that Linda Daschle's signature appeared on the application rather than her husband's signature. This amendment to the application enabled the Daschle camp to tell Roll Call that it was Linda Daschle who was eligible to receive this homestead tax on behalf of the Daschles. Of course, the Daschle camp neglected to tell Roll Call that the application had been amended to show only Linda Daschle's signature only four days before, and that it was Tom Daschle's signature that had appeared on the application until a pesky reporter started sniffing around.

In early September, Stephen Moore of the Club for Growth wrote a column for NRO under the headline "Tom’s House Is a Very, Very, Very Nice House" noting the irony of Senator Daschle taking steps to avoid paying taxes while "fighting like a pit bull" to prevent the Bush tax cuts.

Of course, none of this activity was so much as mentioned in the Argus Leader, or any of the South Dakota press, until this week. This story percolated for over a year, until the indefatigable Jeff Gannon once again did some investigative work on the matter, making a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for a copy of the Daschles' application for the DC homestead deduction. Gannon made the FOIA request on September 29, 2004. When he received a copy of the application for the homestead deduction, it had only Tom Daschle's signature on it. The DC government did not thoroughly respond to the FOIA request, because Gannon did not receive the amended application showing only Linda Daschle's signature. Armed with the information that Tom Daschle, and not Linda Daschle, had signed the application, Gannon published a report on October 15, 2004, headlined "Daschle's South Dakota Residency In Question."

At the end of Gannon's story reporting the findings in his FOIA request, Gannon noted that an intriguing action had been taken by the DC government. "Since the FOIA request was filed on September 29, 2004," Gannon reported, "the DC Tax and Revenue web site has been updated to indicate that the Daschle property is "Not receiving the Homestead Deduction." But in a fascinating twist, the very next day the DC Tax and Revenue web site reflected that Daschle was "currently receiving the Homestead Deduction." Gannon followed up this fact with a new story headlined "Daschle Residency Question Grows Murkier." Excerpt:

Last week, Talon News obtained a document through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that indicated Daschle made Washington, DC his "primary place of residence" when he applied for a property tax exemption in April 2003.

On Friday, the District of Columbia's Office of Tax and Revenue (OTR) told Talon News that on September 29, 2004, the homestead tax credit was removed. That determination was made by a senior assessor the same day it received the FOIA request. A day later, on September 30, the OTR legal staff reinstated the credit.

You can see the documented evidence of what smacks as an attempted coverup HERE.

On Tuesday of this week, a former clerk for a federal appellate judge sent along a compelling legal analysis concluding that by claiming the DC homestead deduction, Daschle "legally declared that he had 'no fixed and definite intent to return' to South Dakota, his former domicile."

Yesterday, after Senator Daschle tried to generate publicity by voting absentee, the Thune campaign issued a press release pointing out that Daschle had signed a legal document declaring Washington, DC to be his "principal place of residence." This press release was the impetus for the story that appeared in today's edition of the Argus Leader headlined "Thune: D.C. tax break shows Daschle out of touch." The Aberdeen American News also carried a report on the matter today.

Finally, Jeff Gannon reported today that the DC government is investigating whether Sen. Tom Daschle is entitled to the homestead deduction.

That pretty much brings you up to date. There's likely to be more developments on this matter, so keep reading the blogs of the Dakota Alliance.