Sunday, June 13, 2010


Because Mike Manzo was such a stellar witness in the Bonusgate scandal - creating such a bad impression on the jury that he made the defendants sympathetic in comparison - Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett is using him to create an entirely new campaign issue.

What will our clever media corps dub this developing scandal? GamingGate? SlotsGate? LicenseGate? Can they get through this without using the -gate suffix? We're not optimistic.

We find it fascinating that Democrat Manzo appears to be the star witness in yet another grand jury investigation - particularly if Corbett is, as rumors indicate, investigating events that occurred when Republicans controlled both legislative chambers. As with the Bonusgate investigation, Corbett will find it necessary to sacrifice a token Republican or two for the appearance of non-partisanship. But we won't be surprised if he finds a way to lay whatever impropriety he manages to conjure squarely at the feet of the then-minority Democrats.

The timing of the leak published in the Morning Call today fits perfectly the Bonusgate pattern. Look for indictments in midsummer, in order to allow for a three-ring-circus of a preliminary hearing just weeks before Election Day. Then, hilariously, Corbett will solemnly declare a moratorium on further arrests before Election Day, and the press will pee in its collective pants over his magnanimous gesture.

As for us, we just can't wait to see what embarrasing story Manzo comes up with the next time he gets caught in a lie on the witness stand.


Anonymous said...

Is Angela Bertugli, the woman in the Manzo story, still employed by the House Dems? If so, who is responsible for that?

Anonymous said...

The Hatch Act:

Anonymous said...

The real sins and transgressions are the breach of the rights of the citizenry by Tom Corbett. Let uss
not lose sight of the original sin.

Anonymous said...

Chapter 15 of Title 5 of the United States Code Ann., entitled "Political Activity of Certain State and Local Employees," is part of a federal act that is more commonly known as the "Hatch Act." That section of the Hatch Act prohibits certain State and local officers and employees from using their official authority and influence to affect an election or nomination; from directly or indirectly pressuring a State or local officer or employee to contribute anything of value to a party, committee, organization, agency, or person for political purposes; and from being a candidate for elective office.(1) See 5 U.S.C.A. §1502.

The federal Special Counsel is responsible to investigate any alleged violations of the Act and report his/her findings and any charges based on those findings to the Merit Systems Protection Board ("the Board"). The Board is the federal administrative tribunal charged with making determinations regarding alleged violations of the Hatch Act. See 5 U.S.C.A. §1504. The Board has the sole authority to enforce the Act and Federal courts have refused to consider alleged Hatch Act violations that have not first been adjudicated by the Board.(2) Brooks v. Nacrelli, 331 F. Supp. 1350 (E.D.Pa. 1971).
Decisions of the Board may be appealed to the U.S. District Court. When an appeal is taken, the Court's responsibility is to review the Board's decision and determine whether "it is in accordance with law." 5 U.S.C.A. §1508.

The specific questions you asked are whether an individual employed by a state agency who was elected to, or is a candidate for a partisan political office would be in violation of the Hatch Act if:

a. the employee's duties are directly related to activities funded in whole or in part with Federal funds and the employee's payroll costs are financed directly by Federal funds? (This employee will be referred to as "Employee A".)

b. the employee's duties are directly related to activities funded in whole or in part with Federal funds but the employee's payroll costs are financed only by state funds? ("Employee B")

c. the employee's duties are only indirectly related to activities funded in whole or in part with Federal funds and the employee's payroll costs are included in a pool of indirect costs, a portion of which are financed by Federal funds? ("Employee C")

d. the employee works for a state agency, the agency's principal activities are Federally funded as in the case of Human Services, but the employee's duties are not related to a Federally funded activity and none of the employee's payroll costs are financed directly or indirectly with Federal funds? ("Employee D")

You also asked whether 5 U.S.C.A. §1504, or any other law, requires you to report any possible violations of the Hatch Act to the federal Special Counsel or to any federal agency.

Anonymous said...

"Let uss
not lose sight of the original sin"

Yes, the thieving, lying, conspiring, perjuring, and general ethical malfeasance that came first are just everyday occurrences. Being held accountable for your actions is the "sin", isn't it?