Yes, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey is at it again.

This time, Bailey is using state resources to provide the legal defense of three right-wing state senators being sued for tweet-slandering a bystander to the February mass shooting at the Kansas City Chiefs Super Bowl celebration, falsely alleging he was the shooter.

How bad is this latest self-serving stunt from Missouri’s worst major public officeholder? Bad enough that even Gov. Mike Parson, a fellow Republican who appointed Bailey as attorney general last year, isn’t having it.

“We’re just not going to attack citizens … just because we think we have the power to do such,” Parson declared Thursday.

He’s apparently not too familiar with the right wing of his own state party — or with the shameless demagogue he appointed as the state’s lawyer.

In the chaotic aftermath of the shooting that broke out during the Feb. 14 Kansas City event, killing one and injuring more than 20, Denton Loudermill, a Kansas man who had nothing to do with it, was briefly detained by police.

Someone snapped a picture of him handcuffed. It popped up on social media with a reckless allegation that he was the shooter — and was an illegal immigrant to boot.

So, naturally, three Missouri statesmen re-posted that defamation without anything resembling confirmation.

In since-deleted posts, Missouri state Sens. Rick Brattin, Denny Hoskins and Nick Schroer played some hedging little word games that didn’t excuse in the least the fact that they were sharing slander. “IF THIS IS ACCURATE,” wrote Hoskins, before using the false accusation to slam the Biden administration’s immigration policies.

Any decent public official — indeed, any decent human being — would rush to apologize after learning they had helped spread false allegations that had led to death threats against a private citizen. But these particular officials weren’t done demonstrating their abject lack of decency. Brattin, when asked at a news conference whether he would apologize to Loudermill, said, “There’s nothing that I even see even worth that.”

All three senators are members of the Senate’s so-called Freedom Caucus, a small klatch of hard-right political performance artists who have spent months holding up legislative business in their efforts to pass extremist laws. Though Missouri is nowhere near a national border, racially tinged rants about immigration are a key part of their arsenal.

As it is for Bailey. As we have deeply catalogued in our on-going “Bailey Tally,” there is no other top official in Missouri who has so blatantly politicized his office in his zeal to woo the GOP base in the August primaries, where he faces opposition to his bid to win a full term.

Bailey’s initial filing defending the three senators argues they are protected by “absolute legislative immunity” — a popular construct on the hard right just now that should sound familiar to anyone following former President Donald Trump’s legal troubles.

Bailey made sure to specify that it’s not just the senators’ titles that give them the right to randomly slander a private citizen, but the fact that they did it in service to the culture-war obsession with immigration.

State legislators, he wrote, “should not be inhibited by judicial interference or distorted by the fear of personal liability when they publicly speak on issues of national importance.”

Or, more accurately, political importance.

It’s notable that even Parson, not generally known for standing up to the rabid right of his party, was apparently appalled at this latest Bailey stunt.

“This gentleman did nothing wrong whatsoever other than he went to a parade, and he drank beer and he was Hispanic,” said Parson. In fact, Loudermill is Black, but in the social media photos could appear to look Hispanic.

The tinge of racism is the least surprising element of Bailey’s involvement. His previous abuse of the legal system has included siding against prosecutors to defend a white cop convicted of manslaughter in the shooting death of a Black man, and threatening the Hazelwood School District with the baseless, vile allegation that its diversity policies somehow contributed to the severe beating of a white student by a Black student.

While it’s true that the attorney general’s duties include representing state officials in court, he has wide discretion as to what merits such defense.

Here’s an interesting thought exercise: Try — just try — to imagine Bailey marshalling the power of his office to defend a trio of hard-left legislators accused of, say, slandering an anti-abortion activist.

It’s not imaginable because, as always, Bailey decides whether and how to do his job based entirely upon ideology, partisanship and self-serving politics.

“Politicians have to be responsible and have to be held to a higher standard when you start attacking citizens in our state,” said Parson.

He’s right. Which is why removing this singularly toxic attorney general from office should be the single most important priority of any voter — of any party — who cares about public service.