Thursday, December 31, 2009


Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett, whose supposedly secret grand jury investigation of the legislature leaked like a sieve for a year and a half, now says he's "disappointed" that grand jury transcripts have appeared in the press.

We're always surprised Corbett's head doesn't burst into flames from sheer hypocrisy when he says stuff like that. But if the rumors we're hearing are true, he's got more "disappointment" in store. Sources tell CasablancaPA that all 4,000+ pages of grand jury testimony that were delivered to defendants' lawyers are now in the hands of the press. What further juicy tales of Corbett's incompetence may lie in store? We can't wait!

We're not surprised at Corbett's "disappointment," since "leaks" that come from anywhere other than his office always result in huge embarrassment for him. Who could forget the famous "U R welcome" e-mail linking former Leader Bill DeWeese to the bonus scandal? Or the hundreds of e-mails showing DeWeese and his top aides directing a state contractor to perform political work? Or the hundreds of incriminating e-mails DeWeese withheld from investigators? Or that Corbett ignored evidence implicating former Revenue Secretary and Campaign Committee head Steve Stetler and allowed Stetler to ditch a grand jury subpoena?

These revelations are not just embarrassing but inconvenient for Corbett, as he is forced to take precious time out of his busy campaign schedule to attempt damage control (although DeWeese remains suspiciously uncharged in the bonus and LCOMM matters).

Then there are the "leaks" that reveal Corbett's own shady dealings such a secret meeting between Corbett, his campaign manager and the supposed target of an investigation, or allowing another supposed target to host a fund-raiser for him, or allowing another supposed target to host another fund-raiser for him (if "allowing" is indeed the proper term). Plus the hundreds of phone calls on state phones during state time between state OAG and legislative workers and Corbett's campaign staff.

No wonder Corbett is terrified at the publicization of whatever further blunders and shenanigans that may be contained within the transcripts - which may at this moment be in the hands of some enterprising journalist!

Wednesday, December 30, 2009


We bet Attorney Matt Haverstick wishes he could get back this letter he sent to Jeff Coleman on December 22. (tip of the hat to
"It has come to my attention that recently you falsely accused the [Senate Republican] Caucus and its memebers engaging in rampant political activity with state funds...Your allegations are made with willful disregard of whether there is any truth whatsoever to your claims and thus are defamatory under Pennsylvania law."
Well, Mr. Haverstick, how about these apples?
"The investigation, confirmed last night by Jerry McDevitt, who is representing Ms. Orie, apparently began a day before the November election when an intern at the senator's district office in the North Hills complained to the district attorney's office that political calls were being made there on behalf of state Supreme Court nominee Joan Orie Melvin, the senator's sister.

On Friday,detectives executed a search warrant at Ms. Orie's district office at the La Casa Blanca Building on McKnight Road. Earlier in the month, detectives had placed Ms. Orie's office under surveillance, Mr. McDevitt said.

He also complained that, at one juncture, investigators had followed his client to church.

'It was pretty much a computer raid,' Mr. McDevitt said. He said detectives seized computers assigned to office staff, several laptops and the office computer server, leaving Ms. Orie's own computer in place.

Sources with first-hand knowledge of the inquiry said the district attorney's office has received complaints of fundraising and other political calls from the senator's district office. Additionally, a college intern brought complaints of improper political activity." (Post-Gazette 12/24/09)
Perhaps Haverstick should consider sending an "I'm sorry" bouquet of flowers to Coleman. This all sounds so very familiar:
"Democratic attorney general candidate John Morganelli's charge that House Republicans probably destroyed records in the investigation of legislative bonuses is borderline slander, the state House GOP leader said Wednesday.'When Mr. Morganelli makes these accusations, he's stepping pretty close to the line of slander,' said House Republican Leader Sam Smith, R-Punxsutawney. Smith said he is considering suing Morganelli after the Nov. 4 election...Smith said Morganelli essentially accused members of his caucus of destroying evidence. 'I kind of took it that way, and I took offense to it,' he said." (Tribune Review 10/16/08)
Fast-forward a year later:
"While the computer contracts likely passed the $10 million mark in what the attorney general believes was misused by Mr. Perzel and his co-conspirators, Mr. Corbett told reporters that was not the thing that bothered him the most. 'If there's one thing in all of this that annoys me? Obstruction's the worst. You're interfering with people finding out what truly happened." (Post Gazette 11/12/09)
Whoops! It is like a bad joke that people keep telling over and over to one another.

Just as with Smith feigning righteous indignity over whether or not Corbett's botched handling of the investigation presented his caucus the opportunity to destroy evidence, it is ridiculous for Haverstick or anyone in Harrisburg to make the claim that Senate Republicans did no campaign work on state time using state resources. Everyone knows how active former Senate staffer Mike Long was for over 20 years in the Capitol offices doing campaign work.

Even Orie's lawyer said there is no politician that can pass the stringent zero tolerance policy Corbett has apparently decided to implement selectively:

"There's not a politician in this state that could pass a zero tolerance test." (Tribune Review 12/30/09)

We couldn't agree more with Orie's counsel. In fact, based on Corbett's own campaign cell phone bills, it is incontrovertible that Corbett himself can't live up to the very standards to which he is holding those he chooses to prosecute.

Everyone in Harrisburg should make a New Year's resolution to not be "shocked, shocked" whenever anyone is accused of using state resources for campaign work. Time after time, it is proven true that "not a politician in this state [can] pass a zero tolerance test."

The real crime and scandal is how gubernatorial candidate Corbett arbitrarily selects those he chooses to indict.

Wednesday, December 23, 2009


Dennis Roddy with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette breaks an incredible story this evening regarding a raid by the Allegheny County District Attorney on Republican State Senator Jane Orie's district office and a grand jury investigation of her for illegal campaign work.
The investigation, confirmed tonight by Jerry McDevitt, who is representing Ms. Orie, apparently began a day before the November election when an intern at the senator's district office in the North Hills complained to the district attorney's office that political calls were being made there on behalf of state Supreme Court nominee Joan Orie Melvin, the senator's sister.

On Friday, detectives executed a search warrant at Ms. Orie's district office at the La Casa Blanca Building on McKnight Road. Earlier in the month, detectives had placed Ms. Orie's office under surveillance, Mr. McDevitt said. (Post Gazette 12/23/09)
Just how serious is Corbett's investigation of Senate Republicans?

If Orie was concerned about Corbett's probe, running operations for her sister's judicial campaign from her taxpayer funded office is no way to show it.

More incredibly, Corbett has three active grand juries investigating corruption, yet he is upstaged by the local district attorney and a county level grand jury!

Orie has been a long-time fan of Corbett and his handling of the investigation:
"As a former prosecutor, I understand it's extremely complicated and (the investigation) expands as he goes along," said Sen. Jane Orie, R-McCandless, a former assistant district attorney in Allegheny County. "I'm confident in (Corbett) and I think he has handled this well." (Tribune Review 8/12/09)
No wonder!

We guess when she got word from Corbett that he wasn't peeking over one of her shoulders, she should have remembered to check for other law enforcement over the other.

Here at CasablancaPA, we never cease to be amazed at the rank hypocrisy of those in both parties. Orie's blatant disregard of the law puts this quote from a year ago in a much different light:
"I think we (Pennsylvania) are one of the worst," said Senate Majority Whip Jane Orie, a McCandless Republican and a former prosecutor. "I think when you look at the pay to play, gaming ... bonuses, we're in a culture, especially in the Legislature, where there was no reform and business as usual." (Tribune Review 12/21/08)

Tuesday, December 22, 2009


...a deal with Rachel Manzo to knock 12 felonies down to 1 misdemeanor get gubernatorial candidate Tom Corbett?

A: The head of Majority Leader Todd Eachus.

Mark Scolforo with the Associated Press reports this evening on the deal Manzo was given in exchange for testimony against her old boss. (Associated Press 12/22/09)

These revelations by Manzo and John Jones, another former Eachus staff member, shed light on why Corbett sent Eachus a "target" letter earlier this month. (Post-Gazette 12/04/09)

Here is Eachus on Monday telling WNEP "anyone who has created a problem should face justice."


Brad Bumsted has a must-read today on Bill DeWeese's use of his taxpayer-funded staff. (Tribune Review 12/22/09)

Apparently, the obnoxious bow ties and the weird bouncy balls were just a fraction of the madness Scott Brubaker described as the "daily nuttiness that [DeWeese] put his immediate staff through."

Sunday, December 20, 2009


At the press conference follwing the announcement of his latest bonusgate indictments, gubernatorial candidate Tom Corbett refused to answer what should be a fairly simple question for an allegedly corruption-busting, tough guy -- "This campaigning has been going on for years and is ubiquitous...what are you going to consider criminal acts?"

This should have been very easy for Corbett to answer, especially since he and his "professional" staff constantly cite the Superior Court decision in the Habay matter. In a nutshell, "[a public official]is not allowed to direct state paid employees under his authority to conduct campaign or fundraising related work during state paid time for his personal benefit."

There is no floor in Corbett's interpretation of the Superior Court's decision. One minute of tax-payer salaried staff time is the same as 100 hours. One email is the same 100 emails. One cell-phone call is the same as 100 cell-phone calls.

Corbett refused to say there will be zero tolerance for any campaigning on state time (as the Habay decision clearly states) under his watch, and in the absence of an endorsement of a zero tolerance policy, he refused to enunciate what would get a public official in trouble.

It is obvious why Corbett won't endorse a zero tolerance policy -- it would ensare Corbett himself. No one credible in Harrisburg will say Corbett and his staff do no campaign work using taxpayer resources, especially using taxpayer funded staff. Everyone knows there are many on Office of Attorney General staff -- notably Brian Nutt, Joe Murzyn and Becky Myers -- whose only purpose is campaign related.

For the very same reason, Corbett won't outline what exactly rises to criminal activity that his "professional" investigators will pursue.

Brad Bumsted with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review used his column today to step into the breach created by Corbett's refusal to make a clear statement on who will get arrested or not:
"Here's my [Bumsted's] view. You're in trouble with the law if:

• The activity is a pattern or pervasive in nature.

• It's directed by the boss or his lieutenant.

• There's "criminal intent" -- you know it's wrong and you have a motive to gain by it.

• You put it in writing, such as an e-mail." (Tribune Review 12/20/09)
Clearly, the "Bumsted Doctrine" allows for illegal activity to take place. In fact, quite a lot of this political activity is allowable using Bumsted's standards depending on a prosecutor's definition of a "pattern" and the word "pervasive."

Corbett would still be in serious jeopardy if the lax Bumsted Doctrine is applied to his activities, particularly his campaign's well-documented work over cell phones with the OAG.

First, the "pattern and pervasive" test. The revelation that hundreds of Corbett campaign cell phone calls were made into the Office of the Attorney General and even more troubling, hundreds of calls were made OUT OF the Office of Attorney General to his campaign cell phones certainly meets the standard of a pattern and hundreds of calls over just a few weeks is pretty pervasive.

Second, the "boss or lieutenant" test. Since Corbett himself was both making and receiving these campaign cell phone calls between himself and his OAG staff on state time, it is clear that "the boss" was directing campaign activity. Furthermore, does anyone believe that Brian Nutt wasn't directing campaign activity from the OAG?

Third, the "criminal intent" test. Corbett was elected to enforce the laws and ostensibly knows the law. Any political activity, most clearly illustrated by the hundreds of campaign cell phone calls, would definitely be recognized as criminal by Corbett as he dialed the phone and spoke with of his OAG staff at their OAG offices during the work day.

Fourth, the "writing" test. The only person with subpoena power over these matters is Corbett himself. Since no one else in Pennsylvania has the power to subpoena Corbett's OAG computers, we'll never know the amount of illegal activity occuring under Corbett's tenure. All written documentation since Corbett took over in 2005 is either destroyed or safely ensconced in the OAG untouchable from even open records requests.

Bumsted quoted Jack Treadway, a retired political science professor (what expertise he has in the law, we're not quite sure, but he still makes a good point) that "It is probably easier to tell when the line has been crossed than where it should be drawn." He is quite right!

Not only does Corbett get to set and move the line, he also gets to decide when the shifting line has been crossed. This is the very reason Corbett shouldn't be allowed to make the decision of when and how the line has been crossed as he runs for governor.

Zero tolerance or Bumsted Doctrine, it doesn't matter. Corbett will never say what is illegal or not because it protects him from entraping himself, but also because he can move the "line in the sand" back and forth as he sees fit based on who shows due deference to his campaign for governor...or who his campaign funders tell him to protect.

Most incredibly, Corbett has allowed the standards of his investigation to deteriorate to the point where, in the absence of an enunciation by Corbett of any legally consistent standard of criminality, newspaper columnists and pundits like Bumsted believe they are qualified to venture suggestions of what the standard should be themselves.

Friday, December 18, 2009


As gubernatorial candidate Tom Corbett's politically motivated indictments countinue to mount, many in Harrisburg still don't get it.

This is especially true for the House Democrats for two reasons.

First, DeWeese spent three entire days with the Attorney General's agents. (Tribune Review 12/12/09) You all know Bill. He is a deluded fool and a rank coward who would do anything to get out of trouble. Does anyone in the caucus really feel comfortable knowing DeWeese spent all that time alone with Corbett's investigators?

Secondly, DeWeese and his attorney Bill Chadwick misguidedly put in place a system where Democratic caucus staff were actively coached by their DeWeese provided attorneys (in concert with Corbett's investigators) to divert as far from DeWeese as possible any culpability. (What DeWeese, Chadwick and Corbett didn't count on was that caucus witnesses with their own lawyers wouldn't go along with this system, i.e. Sidella, Manzo.) But, we digress.

So, we find it par for the course that upon reading the news that Frank Dermody was elected the new Majority Whip (congrats to Frank, btw) some folks still maintain Corbett's investigation is someone else's problem.

Case in point is Democratic Representative Dan Frankel:
"Mr. Frankel said members want [Dermody] prevent the kind of alleged transgressions that led to the arrest of Mr. DeWeese and 14 others associated with the caucus. The scandal, which has become known as Bonusgate, involves allegations of using public resources to run political campaigns. 'Obviously, our leaders have had difficulties, whether that's Bonusgate or our ability to get things done legislatively,' Mr. Frankel said. 'There's an overwhelming reason to break with the past, and this [election of Mr. Dermody] is an expression of that,' he said." (Post-Gazette 12/18/09)
Uh, Dan. It's your problem, too.

Think about it...what did DeWeese tell Corbett about you? And, surely, you're aware that at least three Democratic staff have clearly and unequivocally implicated you in the very things DeWeese was indicted for this week.

If not, here is a quick reminder, you annoying hypocrite: Dan Frankel in Veon July pre-trial motion. Much of that is from 2007!

Those documents show you doing all this stuff from the past you vehemently want to "break from" now. Dan Wiedemer, Paul Martz and Jeb Wagner are all part of the Veon presentment and will likely be part of the Veon trial. They most certainly gave hours of grand jury testimony to Corbett...and clearly some of it was about you and conduct exactly like DeWeese's.

So, if you're so adamant about changing things in the House Democratic Caucus and breaking with the past, how about resigning yourself? You were a leader of this operation and if you're saying now you want to break from it, then get the heck out.

Or, you can just shut your hypocritical trap and hope that whatever Wiedemer, Wagner, Martz, Manzo and any other House Democratic staffer said in the grand jury won't come back to haunt you.

Thursday, December 17, 2009


Gubernatorial candidate Tom Corbett's investigation continues to stumble into serious ethical and, most likely, illegal territory.

In September of 2008 while Stetler was under an active investigation by Corbett's vaunted "professional" investigators, he received a campaign solicitation from Corbett's campaign.

Here is Stetler's attorney brandishing the letter following yesterday's arraignment of the latest bonusgate indictees:

However, this isn't the complete story. In July of 2008, Corbett allowed Stetler to ignore a grand jury subpoena (Pittsburgh Tribune Review 5/2/09)

It is quite possible that Corbett let Stetler off the hook for the failed grand jury appearance, then provided Stetler a subtle avenue to express some appreciation that Stetler failed to recognize consequently resulting in his being indicted. After all, Stetler never did contribute to Corbett in 2008.

Far-fetched? We would agree except this isn't the only instance of a spurned quid pro quo resulting in an indictment by Corbett.

Last month, Chris Brennan with the Philadelphia Daily News reported how Corbett, while actively investigating John Perzel, had a cozy meeting with Perzel where Corbett's campaign was discussed. (Daily News 11/12/09)

Many folks who are privy to the what was really discussed in this meeting say Perzel remained uncommitted (at best) to a Corbett gubernatorial bid. And -- surprise, surprise -- two weeks later Corbett launches into the investigation that results in Perzel's arrest. (Associated Press 10/23/07)

This is a shocking and troubling pattern from Corbett. It should give his "professional investigators" pause. Certainly, the news that Corbett and his campaign manager, Brian Nutt, met with Perzel while an active investigation was under way should raise serious red flags with the top two "professional" investigators, Frank Fina and Jim Reeder.

Rather, Reeder's response to the troubling revelation that Corbett was soliciting campaign contributions from a major target of Reeder's own investigative efforts was an arrogant, non-chalant answer:
"Reeder said the letter was probably authentic...'I don't know, I'm not part of Mr. Corbett's campaign. It surprises me that the response of defense counsel is not what this guy did, but look over here, look over here, here's something shiny...And if Mr. Lock thinks he can distract the jury with something shiny, well, so be it.'" (York Daily Record 12/16/09)
We're not really surprised by Reeder's response. He is after all one of Corbett's "professional investigators" who let Corbett's staunch political ally, York County DA Stan Rebert, walk away unharmed from very potent and well-documented ethical misconduct charges.

Oh, and Reeder worked in Rebert's office while all this illegal activity was occuring. We wonder how much campaign work Reeder did on the York County taxpayer's dime.

Shiny? Not quite. That fundraising letter isn't a shiny distraction, rather it is a dirty, smarmy, stinking smear on the validity and ethics of Corbett's investigation.

Wednesday, December 16, 2009


Think the arrest of former House Democratic Leader H. William DeWeese puts to rest questions about a shady deal between DeWeese and Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett?

Think again.

Despite clear evidence of his involvement, DeWeese was not charged on suspicion of awarding bonuses for political work.

DeWeese was not charged with directing state contractor Eric Buxton to do political work, despte the revelation of 123 e-mails between Buxton and top DeWeese aide Kevin Sidella, 93 e-mails between Buxton and DeWeese press secretary Tom Andrews and even half-a-dozen e-mails between Buxton and DeWeese himself. Corbett's own grand jury presentment against Team Veon acknowledged that DeWeese "always communicated with Buxton through his campaign account."

And DeWeese was not charged with directing House Democratic Caucus staff in Harrisburg to work on campaigns around the state, despite ample evidence that he did so.

Corbett's presentment against DeWeese is based largely on the testimony of immunized witness Kevin Sidella, who began cooperating with prosecutors in the fall of 2007, more than two years ago, well before the grand jury returned indictments against Veon and 11 others.

DeWeese is acting shell-shocked, whining to anyone who will listen that he cooperated with Corbett - in other words, how dare he? There's no doubt DeWeese had a clear expectation that his cooperation would protect him from indictiment.

During yesterday's press conference, reporters asked Corbett point-blank whether DeWeese "has immunity," but the question did not address specific charges, or other arrangements, official or unofficial, between DeWeese and Corbett. Corbett simply said no, without being specific. What the reporters didn't ask is why none of the evidence DeWeese turned over in the fall of 2007 was used against him, even though it clearly implicated him. If Corbett is committed to following the evidence, why didn't he follow that portion of the evidence that led to DeWeese?

Questions unasked remain questions unanswered.

Sunday, December 13, 2009


The pundits agree that Sean Ramaley's aquittal is a blow to Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett's campaign.

When criminal prosecutions carry this much political weight, it's kind of a hint that they're - y'know - political. If there are crimes to be prosecuted, it seems like a no-brainer that they should be prosecuted by someone who doesn't have quite so much personally to gain or lose by their outcomes.

But as long as everyone wants to pretend that criminal prosecutions are just another tool in the political toolbox, like robocalls and yard signs, let's get a few things straight:

Even if one concedes that plea bargains count as "wins," Corbett's score isn't 5-1, it's more like 5-2.5. That is, if charges against Rachel Manzo are to be withdrawn in exchange for her husband's guilty plea, as expected. It's hard to imagine that Corbett plans to prosecute Todd Eachus without the testimony of his top aide, but it's also hard to believe he wouldn't have a deal with Rachel locked down before proceeding with Eachus' indictment. On the third hand, it's even harder to believe Mike Manzo would have agreed to such an absurd plea unless withdrawal of his wife's charges were thrown into the bargain. So, we're tentatively awarding Corbett a loss until further notice.

We're also deducting a half-point for the dismissal of all charges related to the Beaver Initiative for Growth. If Corbett hadn't sought a do-over in front of a politically-friendly Republican magistrate, BIG would be a solid loss - and may yet be. Even if Corbett somehow manages convictions in the teetering case, we're afraid he'll never gain full points because he failed to refile all the original charges.

We don't suppose it's worthwhile to point out that these "points" represent actual human beings, is it? Yeah, we figured not.

Meanwhile, what's with Corbett's excuse that his own case was "weak?" That's a defense? Close scrutiny might beg the question: if it was a weak case, why'd you bring it? Then again, anyone paying attention already knows: Ramaley was poised to win a seat in the state senate. The seat went to a Republican after Ramaley withdrew. The case was a success long before the jury deliberated.

Is there no limit to the political machinations Pennsylvania will tolerate from its top law enforcement officer?

Friday, December 11, 2009


We're getting a kick out of the initial Ramaley trial post-mortums.

Gubernatorial candidate Tom Corbett and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (his campaign broadsheet) are working hard to find ways to downplay the embarrasing loss yesterday.
"'I would say it's a minor blow, if it's a blow at all,' said Thomas Baldino, a political science professor at Wilkes University in Wilkes-Barre...But this was, perhaps, the weakest of the cases, and the defendant was not the major target.' Senior Deputy Attorney General Anthony Krastek said...'Obviously, there's much more involved in the other cases...There are a lot more facets than this little sliver.'" (Tribune Review 12/11/2009)
If Ramaley wasn't a major target or this was just a little sliver, then why did Corbett bring the charges in the first place? Why did he decide to pick just Ramaley out of all the members of the legislature?

Today's Capitolwire gives us the best and most concise answer to these questions.
"Ramaley was charged after he had won the state Senate primary in 2008 for a seat he was favored to win. After Corbett charged him, Ramaley was forced out of that race, and in the din about corruption that followed, Republicans pick up that seat. Corbett now has to answer questions about that decision and its political fallout, which benefited his party and his political allies." (Capitolwire 12/11/09)
We couldn't have said it better ourselves.

Corbett's arrest of Ramaley enabled Corbett's Republican allies and campaign contributors in the state senate to pick up a seat normally safely in the Democrat's column...and with a dolt like Elder Vogel no less.

Ironically, the main campaign consultant on the Vogel campaign was Mike Long, who is the most high-profile political operative who worked in the legislature and the recipient of the largest legislative bonuses.

Here are a few of the pieces of Long's handiwork. One, Two, Three, Four, Five. After looking at those mailpieces, it is clear Corbett's political use of the grand jury benefited the Senate GOP.

Make no mistake. Corbett desperately wanted to convict Ramaley. He put his ace trial attorney, Tony Krastek, up against Ramaley's team. Corbett spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars (if not millions) to dig deep to find witnesses and thousands of documents to tear Ramaley apart.

If Corbett and Krastek now want to downplay the Ramaley trial results by saying Ramaley was a minor part of the investigation and that it was going to be hard to prove the charges, they why did they indict Ramaley in the first place?

They either wanted to win the case (and subsequently failed miserably) or they merely wanted to ruin a Democratic candidate's chances to win...and his life.

Thursday, December 10, 2009


Members of the House Democratic Caucus should be very concerned.

According to today's editions of both the Tribune Review and the Patriot News, it appears former Democratic Leader Bill DeWeese may be holding up his end of his apparent deal with Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett.

Anyone who has ever crossed DeWeese is at risk, because DeWeese is in possession of a big box of incriminating material Bill Chadwick and Bill Sloane dug up on DeWeese's colleagues for just this occasion. (Post Gazette 3/14/09)

Josh Shapiro is probably on the top of his list. (Post Gazette 8/5/08) After all, Shapiro did have one of the largest district office staffs of any member, and according to the Veon pre-trial motions from July of 2009, Shapiro certainly put them to good use on his campaign.

DeWeese is likely to throw overboard every member of the House Democratic Campaign Committee leadership -- notably Steve Stetler, Dan Frankel, Jennifer Mann and Joe Preston. (Veon July pre-trial filings)

Even rank and file members may be fingered by DeWeese in his desperation. Is DeWeese selling out Dan Surra and Rich Grucela ? (Veon July pre-trial filings)

It goes without saying that DeWeese would spill the beans on the highest-ranking members of House Democratic leadership -- Speaker Keith McCall and Majority Leader Todd Eachus -- to avoid arrest.

DeWeese even may be so desperate to keep himself out of trouble that his ex-wife Holly Kinser and the Four Seasons concierge for whom she left him may need to be concerned.

Every member of the Democratic Caucus should be asking himself or herself, what did I ever tell DeWeese and what is in that box of material that DeWeese gathered?


The Facts: 1; Corbett: O

Saturday, December 5, 2009


Well, now. Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett's star witness against Sean Ramaley (and presumably against the rest of Veon and Co.) is an admitted liar and perjurer.
Mr. Webb testified yesterday in the first day of Mr. Ramaley's trial on six counts of conspiracy and theft and admitted he had told some lies while under oath before a state investigative grand jury in September 2007.

"I was untruthful," he said. "I made the biggest mistake of my life."

He didn't return to the grand jury to change his story until April 2008. What happened after September 2007 that might have influenced Webb's recollection of events?

Corbett granted someone secret immunity in October 2007.

Then-leader H. William DeWeese turned over to Corbett a cache of carefully-selected documents implicating several hand-picked scapegoats.

Most of those hand-picked scapegoats were fired with great fanfare in November 2007.

Furthermore, Webb, like most of Corbett's witnesses, is represented by a lawyer who was paid with caucus funds at DeWeese's direction.

Pre-secret immunity deal: Webb has nothing to say. Post-secret immunity deal: Webb, armed with a DeWeese-selected lawyer and the spectacle of his former colleagues' public humiliation, becomes a veritable font of information against DeWeese's chosen scapegoats.

We're sure it's coincidental.

Friday, December 4, 2009


Character, the sages say, is what you do when you think no one is looking.
What does Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett do when he thinks no one is looking?
He accepts a campaign contribution from a political operative he claims is under investigation.
He allows a political operative ostensibly under investigation to organize a fund raiser for him.
He allows another supposed target of investigation to host another fund raiser for him.
He and his campaign manager meet privately with a politician he claims is under investigation.
He allows his taxpayer-funded state Attorney General staff to initiate and accept hundreds of calls, on state phones and on state time, to and from his campaign staff.
He allows a sitting cabinet member to ignore a subpoena.
He green-lights the disposal of computers that supposedly contain evidence in a supposed investigation.
He parks political operatives in taxpayer-funded jobs at the Office of Attorney General.
He overlooks clear evidence of wrongdoing in the office of a Republican district attorney and political ally.
He sweeps under the rug rape allegations against another Republican district attorney and political ally.
He grants someone secret immunity and subsequently ignores a mountain of evidence against the most obvious suspect in the investigation he claims to be conducting.
Now that the eyes of Pennsylvania are upon him, Corbett thinks he can paper over these sins with a little damage control.
Would he ever have conducted a real investigation of Republicans if he hadn't been publicly called out on his partisanship?
If the Tribune-Review hadn't revealed that Steve Stetler flouted a subpoena, would Corbett have continued to let it slide?
If certain bloggers hadn't raised red flags about a possible secret deal with former House Democratic Leader H. William DeWeese, would DeWeese ever have been called before the grand jury?
Would allegations against current Leader Todd Eachus ever have seen the light of day if defendant Mike Veon hadn't included them in his massive motion for dismissal in July ?
As the Magic 8-Ball says: Very doubtful.