But today he was forced to explain why he had favourited a tweet wherein a mentalist had suggested Scotland international and RFC player Lee McCulloch should be 'hung'.
As is usual in recent days, the media appear happy to make excuses for Regan, with some displaying characteristic solidarity for the unlawful SFA.
Here's the thing: Stewart had the chance to say "I clicked on the tweet and favoured it by mistake."
That's what most would have said, and it would go away. It's also ridiculously easy to accidentally do such a thing on Twitter and it would be a non-story, if unfortunate.
But instead he has claimed that he kept it for future reference because of its content and likelihood of it falling foul of new government legislation.
Okay, but here's where we run into some problems:
1. It was tweeted in January and thus pre-dates the implementation of the new legislation by a couple of months.
2. It's the only one he has saved, in the course of a calendar year, despite his claim to do similar 'often'.
Had he said it was a mistake we could have understood but what conclusion are we now to draw?
Has he reported it to the police? Or to Rangers?
If so, why is said offensive Twitter account still active and why haven't we heard a peep about the complaint?
Rangers have to ask Regan, officially, what he is up to. It might also be nice for Lee McCulloch to get an explanation. And perhaps the media who, thus far, have been unable to get any comment from member clubs about the unlawful actions of the SFA could try and ask a simple question or two instead of pulling up the drawbridge so easily, as if they think us all to be serfs who will go back to the crops.
Perhaps, also, we need to go down the Bill Clinton route of asking Regan what he means by 'often'?
And if the general explanation is as unconvincing as it seems then the Club have no option but to move towards the stance held by the fans' groups and state that the position of the SFA Chief Executive is now untenable.