Saturday, June 27, 2009


The master sleuth at the Patriot News, Charlie Thompson, has caught a Democrat in the act again! The act of testifying to a grand jury, that is. Lurking outside the courtroom, Thompson has identified and publicized the identities of many House Democratic staff who have testified.

In a short item in Friday's newspaper, apparently unavailable online, Thompson noted that ex-chief of staff to ex-Majority Leader H. William DeWeese put in another appearance Thursday.

What's most interesting is Thompson claims in the same story, "In recent months, Corbett's prosecutors have focused most heavily on taking testimony from witnesses affiliated with the House Republican caucus."

Yet in all his lurking, Thompson apparently never has spotted one of these elusive Republican witnesses. He certainly never has identified one.

It's certainly odd that all of Thompson's stakeouts coincide with the appearance of Democratic witnesses only, when so many Republican witnesses supposedly are giving testimony.


Anonymous said...

If AG Corbett goes after more Democrats and gives Republicans a big break escape, he will not be Governor under any circumstances. “O, What May Man Within Him Hide, Though Angel On The Outward Side.” ~ William Shakespeare

After all, Republicans have their own closet of bonuses and it does not stop at House and Senate Chambers. They Are Not All Saints Who Use Holy Water. ~ English Proverb on Hypocrisy

Karma has a way coming back on oneself, and if not Karma, than beware of friends that have become foes, that prefer to point fingers and call out names that can follow one to places never expected.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Why has Alberto Reynaldo Gonzales not been hired since leaving the US Attorney General Cabinet post?

Where is Mary Beth Buchanan going in the future?

Whatever happen to Kenneth Starr as he was put out to Pasteur becoming a Dean of Pepperdine Law School?

Let us not forget about our dear favorite son from Pennsylvania Lewis Scooter Libby.

Here is what happen to him, As a consequence of his conviction in United States v. Libby, his license to practice law was suspended by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in December 2007.On March 20, 2008, Libby was disbarred by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, in Washington, D.C., at least until 2012.

Sloppy prosecutions based on personal bias for sloppy political purposes often result in the Prosecutors being held accountable in the end, more than the victims as defendants.

Some Prosecutors do not always win in the end, but not when they follow blind ambition against a few and let the many escape, especially those from their own political parties.

Anonymous said...

Lets go back in time and see what happen Once Upon A Time In America:

On December 7, 2006, seven United States attorneys were notified by the United States Department of Justice that they were being dismissed, after the George W. Bush administration sought their resignation.

One more, Bud Cummins, who had been informed of his dismissal in June 2006, announced his resignation on December 15, 2006 effective December 20, 2006 upon being notified of Tim Griffin's appointment as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

In the subsequent congressional hearings and press reports, it was disclosed that additional U.S. attorneys were dismissed without explanation to the dismissee in 2005 and 2006, and that at least 26 U.S. attorneys were at various times considered for dismissal.

Although U.S. attorneys can be dismissed at the discretion of the president, critics claimed that the dismissals were either motivated by desire to install attorneys more loyal to the Republican party ("loyal Bushies", in the words of Kyle Sampson, Gonzales’s former chief of staff) or as retribution for actions or inactions damaging to the Republican party.

At least six of the eight had received positive performance reviews at the Department of Justice.

There were various hearings and testimony offered in January through March.

Criticism increased upon the release of emails by Gonzales' chief of staff Kyle Sampson, which showed extensive communication between Sampson and White House officials Harriet Miers. Sampson resigned, but the emails indicate that a number of statements from the Department of Justice, including those made by Gonzales himself, were inaccurate.

In a press conference on March 13, Gonzales suggested that "incomplete information, was communicated or may have been communicated to the Congress" and he accepted full responsibility. Nonetheless, Gonzales avowed that his knowledge of the process to fire and select new US attorneys was limited to how the US attorneys may have been classified as "strong performers, not-as-strong performers, and weak performers." Gonzales also asserted that was all he knew of the process, saying that "[I] was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on. That's basically what I knew as the Attorney General."
The record of the Justice Department released on March 23 appeared to contradict Gonzales' assertions, indicating that on November 27 "he attended an hour-long meeting at which, aides said, he approved a detailed plan for executing the purge.

Despite insisting that he was not involved in the "deliberations" leading up to the firing of the attorneys, newly released emails also suggest that he had indeed been notified and that he had given ultimate approval.

In a testimony to Congress on April 19, 2007, Gonzales insisted that he was only indirectly involved and left the decisions to his staff. However, ABC News obtained an internal department email showing that Gonzales urged the ouster of Carol Lam, one of the fired attorneys, six months before she was asked to leave. During actual testimony on April 19, Gonzales stated at least 71 times that he couldn't recall events related to the controversy.
His response frustrated the Democrats on the committee, as well as several Republicans.

In a meeting in November 2006, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, one of the most conservative members of the Senate, and a staunch ally of the Bush administration, expressed his frustration. The firings were purportedly discussed, but Gonzales did not remember such discussions.


Funny how Former Prosecutors actually lose memory to recall details after being investigated themselves. Whether it because the prosecuted half-truths and forgot where they placed them in the windmill of their minds!

Anonymous said...

The biggest mistake I have seen to date is that if anyone is indicted, they should not waive their Right to Speedy Trial.

It is obvious; the Prosecution is not ready to put forth a case on these matters for Trial.

The Sixth Amendment provision guaranteeing the right to a speedy trial, while among the most important such clauses, is unique in that it is attributable to reasons which deal with the rights and infliction of harms to both individual defendants and society as a whole.

The U. S. Supreme Court, ruling in a 1966 case, called this Sixth Amendment clause "an important safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration prior to trial, to minimize anxiety and concern accompanying public accusation and to limit the possibility that long delay will impair the ability of an accused to defend himself."

It is clearly in the public's best interest to provide speedy trials, so that the accused can either be convicted and begin to serve out his sentence, or be acquitted and set free.

Waiting for long periods of time make a fair trial very doubtful. The same thing can be said for Investigations taking far too long after Indictments are reached.

Most of the evidence would almost certainly have disappeared.

Other evidence could be manufactured.

Witnesses would die or move away.

Even if they were available for trial, extended periods of time meant faded memories.

The defendant, of course, could have absolutely no way to prepare for trial, while the accusers and prosecutors could do so at their leisure.

In fact, all 50 states have provisions similar to the Sixth Amendment in their own constitutions including Pennsylvania.

The protection offered by the Sixth Amendment is activated only when a criminal prosecution has begun and extends only to those persons who have been "accused" in the course of that prosecution.

Application of this right does not hinge on an indictment, information or other formal charge.

To do so would make this a hollow right which could easily be circumvented merely by refusing to bring formal charges for a long period of time.

To prevent possible abuse, the right to speedy trial begins to apply as soon as the actual

Reasons for delay will vary.

If the prosecution deliberately delays to get an advantage, it is improper.

Absence of a witness would justify an appropriate delay.

Factors such as crowded courts or negligence by a party will be given their appropriate weight.

The prosecutor has a duty to bring the defendant to trial. The fact that a defendant has failed to demand this right is not a waiver of a speedy trial.

However, if the defendant agrees to a delay that works to his advantage, it should be considered against his later claim that he was denied a speedy trial.

The right to a speedy trial has been known, on occasion, to work to the disadvantage of the defendant -- as when sufficient time is not allowed for preparation of an adequate defense -- and the higher courts have found it necessary to keep a close eye on this.

The right to a speedy trial, and its resulting impact on both the defendant and society as a whole, makes this Sixth Amendment guarantee a crucial portion of the Bill of Rights -- and another important part of our legal heritage.

Anonymous said...

After reading the Pennsylvania Grand Jury Presentments, it came to me, we need to change society’s view about money in the theories now proposed by John Forbes Nash, Jr. In this context people can be so controlled and motivated by money that they may not be able to reason rationally about it The days of interest groups that promotions of quasi-doctrines based on Keynesian economics actually cause manipulative short-term inflation and debt tactics that ultimately undermine our currencies, values and society.

Nash argued for a global "industrial consumption price index" system that would support the development of more "ideal money" that people could trust, rather than more unstable "bad money". Nash notes that some of his thinking parallels economist and political philosopher Friedrich Hayek's thinking regarding money and a nontypical viewpoint of the function of the authorities.

This is what led to bonusgate but none of us really understand it, so a Jury should acquit everyone involved.

Anonymous said...

Here is another charming commentary about REPUBLICAN US ATTORNEY Mary Beth Buchanan. Can you believe she allegedly spent $12 million on the infamous kingpin Tommy Chong behind bars for nine months?

Buchanan's prosecution of Chong, which was profiled in a 2006 documentary, was by no means her only unorthodox crusade against relatively harmless transgressors. She also pursued the first federal obscenity case in two decades, against a pornography producer, and she has pursued public corruption charges against outspoken Democrats.

After Operation Pipe Dreams -- the sting aimed at Chong and other pot paraphernalia providers -- Buchanan went after the manufacturer of devises like the Whizzinator and other products aimed at helping people beat drug tests. This operation (coincidentally, we are sure) led to federal agents raiding the distributor of documentary a/k/a Tommy Chong and confiscating several thousand DVD copies of the film.

Libertarians and drug war critics note that law enforcement agencies -- whether they are federal, state, or local -- can always find a better use of their time and money than cracking down on harmless pot smokers or porn peddlers.


Here is what $12 Million can buy:

Twelve million would pay for treatment for 3,500 drug addicts for an entire year.

Twelve million would pay enough needle exchange programs to prevent 1,258 HIV infections.

Twelve million as a direct grant to Pennsylvania would stimulate spending and help the economy.

Guess who supervised Mary Beth Buchanan when she was an Assistant US Attorney?......REPUBLICAN Tom Corbett!

Guess who appointed Tom Corbett to Attorney General in 1995 to fill the unexpired term of Democrat Ernie Preate who was convicted of mail fraud.?....REPUBLICAN Tom Ridge!

Guess who is paying for all of this Nonsense?....YOU!

Hitherto, we are to believe only Democrats violate campaign laws?

I prefer the most unfair peace to the righteous war.
- Cicero

"If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that, if it is comfort or money it values more, it will lose that too."
-- William Somerset Maughan, 1941

Anonymous said...

Funny, but the Invisible Man was driven crazy by his own invisibility and ended up only hurting himself when you hurt other people needlessly.

Why one must be fair at all times when given the power to protect the citizens of the commonwealth.

Once visible, a true sense of justice prevails over any political gains, and if not events from higher powers can seek out the visible that were once invisible.

Strange but true!