We finally got around to reading the latest court filing in the Bonusgate case, and we couldn't disagree more with the Patriot-News' lazy and shallow characterization of the information as Mike Veon pointing a finger at other legislative leaders.
Veon is pointing a finger, and it is aimed squarely at Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett.
The first and most important section of the "supplement to various omnibus pretrial motions" accuses Corbett of an "amateurish attempt" to conceal important evidence from the defendants.
Although the law requires the prosecution to turn over to defendants both incriminating and exculpatory evidence, portions of an investigative report were redacted.
Fortunately for the defendants, Corbett's agents appear to have the computer skills of sixth-graders; the "redacted" sections in the electronic document actually were highlighted in black. Even the Post-Gazette managed to crack the code.
According to the court documents, the redacted portions of the report fall into five categories:
1) the apparently improper removal of computer equipment from the House Democratic Caucus by an information technology supervisor in December 2007. (Veon was no longer a caucus member in 2007).
2) the assignment of a House Democratic intern in February 2007 to destroy computer hard drives.
3) the assignment of a House Democratic intern to shred documents in the information technology department between December 2007 and January 2008.
4) interviews with at least four individuals who supplied "documentary evidence" to the prosecution; there is no explanation of what they said or what evidence they supplied.
5) a "systematic scheme" by the House Democratic Caucus to shred documents related to the investigation.
Veon's lawyers call the redactions "an effort to hide the fact that the Democrats who are colluding with the prosecutor to set up these Defendants were, at the same time, destroying or altering other evidence which presumably exculpates these Defendants and inculpates other individuals who were not selectively prosecuted."
In other words, Corbett allowed Bill DeWeese to pick and choose what evidence to turn over. He appears to have been fully aware that DeWeese's staff apparently tried to destroy evidence DeWeese didn't want turned over. But instead of prosecuting DeWeese and his staff, he helped them cover up their scheme by redacting all traces of it from his report.
Anyone have a logical explanation for any of this?
Todd won't let you look at the files Bill gave him, huh?
ReplyDeleteA few supplicants across from the Strawberry Square Gate rather press our attention on the pillars of society. Such as a crisis of extraordinary gravity rising among fearful staffs too slow to propagandized and seek to sour the public attitude as to true public service.
ReplyDeleteThe truth is very indeed hard to see from end to end when campaign work and constituent service cross paths of imperfections.
In reality, these routines overlap one another every minute of any political day. Any attempt to separate them is reminiscent of gazing at a fog all the way through the darkness of a garden while smelling the air of contrivance.
Everyone from Third Street to Strawberry Square has a Tabula Rasa today. One can by no means decide whether a theory is true or not simply by examining what political or philosophical implications, it might have as to a moralistic fallacy.
Peixtin people have evolved into ungainly, tangled, and befuddled qualities as time goes by and only the very prescient can see it.
Now Dark Forces are at play in Peixtin, where whispering and maneuverings are the behavior of anyone’s aspiration of power in the ever-close union of Lot Lizards, Do-Goode’s, and Hypocrites.
Such is the foray upon the American Dream built on personal requests within hearts blinded by vivid revelations. It reminds me of why Montreal is so lovely to visit, because it has French Morals with American Plumbing.
Harrisburg (Peixtin) now has a mood of tragic surprises that border on either Churchill’s Black Dog or one Home of the Red Mists enveloping anybody unaided by supremacy. The moralistic erroneous belief is the opposite of the naturalistic misleading notion. It says that because something is morally wrong, it could not be a part of human nature or that what ought to be, is. The naturalistic fallacy on the other side of one mouth says that what is, is what ought to be.
Thus, some have been paying attention to, or disgusted by, the notion of the "blank slate" for such rationales with intrinsic restrictions to how society can shape human psychoanalysis when under tribulations. As opposed to that human nature is chiefly predisposed by genetics of the need to explain what cannot be proven.
Therefore, the public has no choice but to deduce, all affairs at one time or another are tainted by deception and set-ups, in the bowels of capitol. The myth is a response to calls for ethical guidelines to control the learning of what could allegedly become "dangerous knowledge", or second-hand reference to the “danger of misuse”. Hence, the Prosecutors, Lawmakers, and Defendants are discovering the market price between the moral assessment of when gratis information provides consideration of maxim estimations, and the potentially depressing penalties of the knowledge.
The state budget is often akin to investing others people’s money as the citizens enjoy a shut-eye until they wake up every 6 to 9 years and vote a few out. Rendell’s comments have rung a bell for the end of his popularity, but it is the Legislature and Senate caught holding the bags upon next year elections.
As we, all wait for AG Office hammers to be thrown down upon those we now surrender in hopes of a better tomorrow that will never come. Meanwhile, some first-rate employees will be sacrificed in the name of transformations of a Third Kind!
Some possible answers In Title Case:
ReplyDelete1) The apparently improper removal of computer equipment from the House Democratic Caucus by an information technology supervisor in December 2007. (Veon was no longer a caucus member in 2007).
POSSIBLE ANSWER TO #1:
Sure Veon Was Not There And Veon Like Many Of The Legislators Depend On Staff To Handle Computers, So Veon Would Not Have Removed Anything Anyway. However, Veon’s People That Worked The Campaign Were Until December Of 2007. Manzo, Foreman And Lavelle May Have Given The Answers To Your Question About Computer Equipment Removals. The Negative Impact Is That Fumo’s Boys Tried This Same Tactic But Failed At The Erasures Because They Kept On Their Personal Computers. President Clinton Whitehouse Did It Right When It Came To Vince Foster Probe, All Hard Drives Just Were Removed, And Never Found, And No One Knew What Happen To Them. In Any Event, This Is Kind Of Cover Up That DeWeese Refused To Conduct And DeWeese Did The Right Thing.
2) The assignment of a House Democratic intern in February 2007 to destroy computer hard drives.
SPECULATION ANSWER TO #2:
Once Again, All The Defendants In The Presentments Were Still Working At The House And HDC On 7 February 2007, So Naturally Any New Intern Would Have Followed Orders From Staffers Not A Legislator. Interns Are Used At The Capitol To Learn How To Work As Directed By Others, Not On Their Own.
3) The assignment of a House Democratic intern to shred documents in the information technology department between December 2007 and January 2008.
ASSUMPTION ANSWER TO #3:
As Stated In One Of Casablancapa Top Articles Just Posted Above, Mike Veon’s Lawyers Through Mike Veon Just Outlined A 900 Page Motion Showing How Allegedly Todd Eachus Has Now Been Mentioned As An Alleged Example Of Doing Work On State Time. DeWeese As Majority Leaders Was Working On The Democratic Platform And Agenda The Entire Years, While Veon And Eachus Were Assigned The Re-Election And Fundraising For Democratic Candidates As Operated By Manzo, Foreman And Lavelle, According To The Presentments. It Is Tough To Believe Veon Mentioned Eachus And Other Legislators Far More Than DeWeese In His 900 Pages.
4) Interviews with at least four individuals who supplied "documentary evidence" to the prosecution; there is no explanation of what they said or what evidence they supplied.
CONJECTURE ANSWER #4:
Good Point, But We Really Know That 3 People Have Pleaded Guilty And A Few Others Have Taken Immunity And Still Some Others Have Become State Witnesses And There May Still Be A Few Informants With The Caucus As We Speak. It Is A Good Bet A Few Of Them Have Given The Information You Are Looking For And Pointed Out.
5) a "systematic scheme" by the House Democratic Caucus to shred documents related to the investigation.
THEORY ANSWER #5:
The Similarities Between Senator Fumo Staff, Campaign, And State Paid Personal Valets, Along With Setting Non-Profits And Attempting To Remove Computer Data And The Alleged HDC Campaign Operations Under Veon And Eachus Are Almost Exact In More Ways That Different. One Reason Why DeWeese Had No Choice But To Investigate The Caucus And Find Out What Happen Especially After He Found His Named Forged, Computer Budgets Approved Without Him, And Campaign Emails Sent Out But Not His At All. Many Keep Blaming DeWeese Here For Almost Everything, But Really The Testimony And Evidence Given By Those Working Under Veon Before The Grand Jury Is By Far More Relevant Than Anything DeWeese Agreed To Hand Over To AG Office To Protect The Confidentiality Of The Legislators.
DeWeese Did What Was Right And Refused A Cover Up, And Did The Right Thing For The Caucus Too, As Leaders That Care Normally Do Anyway.
Veon points a crooked finger at Eachus and McCall, saying "They did it to!", and you revert to beating the drum to blame DeWeese?
ReplyDeleteAmazing. To anyone else, it looks like Veon is the one trying to throw people under the bus. But at least you're consistent in showing your stripes.
Here's a little reality check: Who gets charged, and who goes to jail, won't be predicated on which blogger bleated the loudest.
I got an idea, lets just prosecute only Bill DeBeasts, and dismiss charges against all others.
ReplyDeleteThen we can burn anyone in effigy, damn, why there, lets burn them in Boston.
DemocRATS for RepubliCANS.