CasablancaPA

DeWEESE'S INCONSISTENCIES

2012-01-26T14:08:00.000-05:00

Here's a puzzle:

Since the very moment craven liar H. William DeWeese struck a deal with then-Gubernatorial Candidate and Attorney General Tom Corbett to escape indictment in the "Bonusgate" case, DeWeese has pointed to his very cravenness as evidence of his innocence and his ethics.

After "discovering" evidence that his chief of staff and other staffers were engaged in illegal electioneering, DeWeese says, he fired them.

But he never fired his former taxpayer-funded political operative Kevin Sidella, and he never fired his former press secretary Tom Andrews, despite overwhelming evidence of their participation in the same activities.

Why?

Don't expect prosecutors in DeWeese's trial to ask the question, even though this week DeWeese's lawyer actually invoked Sidella's involvement in the "Bonusgate" case in an effort to discredit Sidella's testimony against DeWeese.

And, although hope springs eternal, we don't expect the Capitol Stenographers Corps covering the trial to ask or even acknowledge the question.

The answer is simple: the very same evidence that implicated Sidella and Andrews implicated DeWeese himself.

That's why DeWeeese never turned it over to Corbett. And though it made its way to the OAG through another route, Corbett never acted upon it, or charged DeWeese for witholding it.

Much of Harrisburg seems to have forgotten, but when Corbett first launched his campaign for Governor by issuing subpoenas and executing search warrants on House Democrats, Bill DeWeese actively obstructed the investigation. He fought to quash the subpoenas and sought "legislative privilege" for the seized documents.

After the state Supreme Court shot him down, DeWeese negotiated a deal with Corbett, the precise terms of which remain confidential.

Then, with the taxpayer-funded help of high-powered fixer Bill Chadwick, DeWeese gathered emails and documents that implicated his former colleague Mike Veon and several staffers, turned them over to Corbett and leaked them to Corbett sycophant Dennis R. Roddy. At the same time, he fired most of the staffers implicated therein.

Just before that, however, DeWeese eased Sidella off the state payroll and continued to pay him the equivalent of his state salary out of campaign funds.

Andrews remained a part of DeWeese's Harrisburg staff until DeWeese was indicted on separate charges. Forced to resign his leadership position within the caucus, DeWeese had to downsize his staff. Andrews was spurned in favor of hypocritical whore Paul Sunyak, who remains assigned to DeWeese. Andrews was reassigned within the caucus, but remains loyal to his old boss.

We're curious what lies DeWeese might tell to justify his inconsistency in retaining ties with Sidella and Andrews while throwing up other staff as human shields. But prosecutors won't ask, because it might reveal the 2007 "negotiation" that both Corbett and DeWeese want desperately to remain a secret.

LET'S MAKE A DEAL

2012-01-23T13:02:00.000-05:00

Unlike the Computergate trial, which ran nearly six weeks this past fall and was largely a battle of documents, DeWeese’s trial is shaping up as a battle of witnesses, with an array likely to be called by both sides. (Patriot-News, 1/23/12)

Curious why documents won't figure largely in craven liar Bill DeWeese's trial on illegal electioneering, even though the Office of Attorney General is in possession of reams of documents that inciminate Bill DeWeese and his state-paid aides on illegal electioneering?

Documents such as campaign-related faxes and emails among DeWeese's state-paid aides using DeWeese's state fax-machines and state email during the state workday?

Documents such as emails among DeWeese, a top state-paid aide, and a state-paid contractor detailing illegal campaign work performed by the state contractor?

Documents such as emails showing a state-paid DeWeese staffer worked on DeWeese's 2006 re-election campaign from DeWeese's district office, then transferred to DeWeese's Harrisburg office where he continued to perform political work?

Not just documents, but grand jury testimony from DeWeesese staffers that DeWeese knew about the bonus scheme?

Documents such as an the infamous "U R welcome" email from DeWeese himself in which he explicitly acknowledged a bonus awarded for campaign work?

Why, with this plethora of evidence proving that DeWeese engaged in illegal electioneering, would the Office of Attorney General not even try to use it in a trial on charges of illegal electioneering?

The answer lies in a 2007 negotiation between DeWeese and then-Attorney General and Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett.

Corbett issued subpoenas to caucus employees, which DeWeese unsuccessfully fought to quash. Shortly after the Supreme Court shot down DeWeese's motion, DeWeese agreed to turn over selected documents and drop legal challenges to grand jury subpoenas.

DeWeese failed to turn over documents in his possession that incriminated DeWeese or top DeWeese aides, yet no charges were filed. Many of these documents found their way to the OAG through other routes, but none were ever used against DeWeese or his aides.

There doesn't appear to be anything illegal about this arrangement, whether formal or informal - Corbett granted immunity to hundreds of grand jury witnesses, some of whose immunity agreements remain confidential under seal. But the delusional DeWeese still clings to the laughable claim that he escaped indictment because of a lack of evidence. Corbett, meanwhile, clings to the claim that indictments in "Bonusgate" were based upon the evidence and not political considerations.

Now, prosecutors are faced with trying a suspected criminal without using the best evidence available to them, all because of a short-sighted agreement struck to expedite a criminal investigation along a political timeline.

REQUIRED VIEWING

2012-01-21T13:24:00.001-05:00

"We have every confidence that Justice Melvin can apply the applicable provisions of our Constitution to our appeal and render a fair and appropriate decision," said Sen. Jay Costa, D-Forest Hills, who has an appeal pending before the court." (Tribune Review 1/21/12)

With all due respect, Senator, but you must be smoking some of your brother's weed. (Post-Gazette 11/17/10) There is no way that Justice Melvin will "render a fair and appropriate decision."

Millions of dollars were spent to put Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin on the Commonwealth's highest court for moments just like Monday when the court will hear your appeals regarding the 2011 legislative reapportionment plan. She is going to stick it to you just like the Reapportionment Commission did last month.

The ONLY, slimmest of narrowest chance you have for victory is to get her off the bench. A three- Democrat to three-Republican tie on the Supreme Court will create havoc and present more opportunities for more equitable options for Democrats in the matter. (PoliticsPa 1/18/12) When you're as far behind the proverbial eight ball as Democrats are at this moment, chaos is your friend...and your only hope.

Justice Melvin is accused of being compromised and corrupt in a manner much more insidious than Rolf Larsen. (Tribune-Review 1/11/12) She should be off the bench until her legal problems are settled.

Here at CasablancaPA, we imagine how the GOP would handle such a situation in the Democratic Party's shoes. With this much at stake, we're pretty certain they would try every option, turn over every stone, and pull out all the stops to gain any advantage.

This is about the future of the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania and all it stands for -- equitable education funding, clean air and water, affordable health care, to name just a few. All the Democratic press releases, Tweets, amendments, floor speeches and policy hearings are just futile screams into the wind unless the party controls the legislative calendar.

We are reminded of the following contrast between the Republican and Democratic parties' responses to the Bush/Gore results in 2000. It should be required viewing for all the Democratic Caucus leaders (and any of their staff who aren't urging a full-frontal assault on Melvin.) Pennsylvania Democrats should not proceed with the attitude of a Warren Christopher when Melvin provides them with the kind of red meat James Baker would rip to shreds. Nothing worth having comes to you without a fight. Start punching! Now watch and learn:

DEWEESE PREPARES FOR TRIAL

2012-01-18T10:20:00.001-05:00

In the wake of Sharon Rodavich's plea bargain today (Tribune Review 1/18/12), the CasablancaPa Players proudly present their interpretation of Representative Bill DeWeese as he prepares for trial. Anyone who has spent much time with DeWeese will acknowledge this is a spot on portrayal of Bill..

And, scene.

MAYBE IF JUSTICE MELVIN HAD EXPOSED HER JUNK...IN HER TRUNK

2012-01-12T09:00:00.000-05:00

"Sasinoski testified that Melvin's office was using so much paper for campaign work that on one occasion she and Melvin loaded boxes of paper from [Senator Jane Orie's] Harrisburg office into Melvin's car to stock up. 'The suspension was actually down on the car. I was concerned,' Sasinoski said." (Tribune Review 12/30/11)

Apparently, a witness under oath, in court, giving detailed testimony about Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin personally stealing state legislative property for her judicial campaign isn't enough to be suspended from the bench. (Post Gazette 1/11/12)

But, it isn't just this one instance of theft. A recent grand jury report has page after page of sworn testimony outlining the rampant use of Melvin's staff and offices for political campaigns over nearly twenty years. (Grand Jury Presentment) Yet, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not suspended her.

Here at CasablancaPA, we get a chuckle from this considering that just last week a sitting judge was suspended from the bench by the Supreme Court for allegedly exposing himself to an employee. (Inquirer 1/6/12) This kind of lewd behavior is clearly worthy of a suspension. How unseemly for a judge to even be accused of such activity!

However, it is just as unseemly for a sitting judge to be pilfering a state legislative office of its paper supplies for her personal political gain (and that's the least of the abuse of her authority). Maybe it would have been different if Justice Melvin has exposed her junk...in her trunk...too?

FOXES GUARDING THE HENHOUSE

2012-01-07T13:15:00.000-05:00

Finally, one of the defendants in Tom Corbett's politically-motivated investigation of the legislature has officially charged what we at CasablancaPA have been saying all along.

Caucus-paid lawyers, hired by legislative leaders, actively steered witness testimony away from the leaders who hired them.

Not a single legislative leader was charged in the original investigation.

In a lawsuit, former House Republican staffer Al Bowman claims caucus-paid lawyers blocked his efforts to give prosecutors testimony against caucus Leader Sam Smith.

What a surprise.

It doesn't take a genius to see the overwhelming conflict of interest presented by allowing the ostensible targets of an investigation to choose, hire and pay the lawyers for the witnesses in that investigation. In fact, in any other instance, Corbett's office would have objected to such an arrangement.

In a case involving the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, former Deputy Attorney General Patrick Blessington, who prosecuted the "Bonusgate" case, was outraged by such an arrangement:

"Blessington told Common Pleas Court Judge M. Teresa Sarmina that the request posed a conflict because the lawyers, Robert Welsh and Catherine Recker, were being paid by the archdiocese while advising potential witnesses whose testimony could hurt the church and its leaders. He said the lawyers want to sit in on all meetings between the employees and law enforcement. 'You don't have to stretch your imagination to see the chilling effect that will have,' Blessington said."

Last year a judge, too, noted the conflict in a case where the Archdiocese agreed to pay an accused priest's legal bills, but only if the case turned out the way Archdiocese officials wanted. It was obvious to Judge Renee Cardwell Hughes that the Rev. James Brennan had a financial incentive not to incriminate the people paying his legal bills.

But even though Team Corbett objected to the arrangement in other cases, they had no problem with allowing caucus leaders to foot the bill for legal representation for the very witnesses who might testify against them. And that's because they had no interest in hearing testimony against any of the legislative leaders.

Even when Corbett was accidentally presented with evidence against legislative leaders, he never acted on it. Evidence in the "Bonusgate" case implicated not only then-Whip, former Leader Bill DeWeese, but also Leader Todd Eachus and Speaker of the House, Keith McCall, Evidence in the "Computergate" case implicated Leader Smith. A former legislative intern implicated former Senate Republican Whip Jane Orie. Corbett responded to exactly none of it.

Barring his ass-covering belated indictment of DeWeese, Corbett targeted only two sitting legislators, both rank-and-filers. He had no intention of antagonizing the very legislative leaders who would be acting upon his agenda when he became Governor.

"BIG" SIMILARITIES

2012-01-04T10:04:00.000-05:00

After his strong showing last night in the Iowa caucuses, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum shot to the top of the list of GOP presidential contenders. All this new attention on Santorum should - but probably won't - bring a renewed interest in his Pennsylvania non-profit, Operation Good Neighbor.

Everyone recognizes it to be quite irregular an organization. Just this morning the Philadelphia Inquirer's John Baer lists it as one of the factors that may sink his presidential bid after further scrutiny by the national media. (Inquirer 1/4/2012) Perhaps he's right.

But, here at CasablancaPA, we can't help but draw the comparison to former State Representative Mike Veon's non-profit, Beaver Initiative for Growth, the subject of Veon's trial later this month. (Tribune Review 9/1/2010)

The charges brought against Veon by then Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate, now Governor Tom Corbett accused BIG of spending too much money on overhead and salaries, inappropriately mixing political and legislative work with that of the non-profit's, and using the non-profit's fund to benefit close personal and political friends. (Tribune Review 3/26/2009)

Every one of those accusations applies to Santorum's Operation Good Neighbor. There was a shockingly low ratio of giving to overhead. (“Sen. Santorum’s home mortgage foundation outlays raise questions” Philadelphia Daily News, 2/21/2006)

There was a completely unacceptable blending of the non-profit operations with his legislative and political operations. (“Santorum’s Operation Good Neighbor is low on giving, high on fees” Associated Press, 2/25/2006)

And, there was plenty of evidence that government contracts were awarded to friends of the non-profit and Santorum’s political causes and personal campaign. (“Big donor to Rick’s charity was seeking federal aid” Philadelphia Daily News, 3/2/2006; “Group tied to Santorum campaign gets $250,000 grant” Philadelphia Daily News, 3/24/2006)

At the time of Veon's arrest, Corbett falsely promised that he would be looking into other Pennsylvania non-profits that are connected to politicians:

"'The grand jury is also investigating other nonprofit organizations run by elected officials and funded by taxpayers' dollars,' Corbett said. 'This is far from a completed investigation.'" (Tribune Review 3/26/09)

Yet, Corbett never looked at Operation Good Neighbor (or any other legislatively run non-profits for that matter).

Maybe it has something to do with Corbett's close political alliance with Santorum (PoliticsPA 11/17/2009)

Maybe it is because Santorum and Corbett share the same high level political consultant, John Braebender. His work for Corbett (Capitol Ideas 12/22/2010) and Santorum (Boston Herald 1/4/2012) is a huge part of Braebender's business.

Just more politically-motivated hypocrisy from Corbett.

"STRETCH YOUR IMAGINATION"

2011-12-22T08:54:00.001-05:00

Former Deputy Attorney General, now Philadelphia Assistant District Attorney Patrick Blessington must have a very vivid imagination. One that can stretch into some seriously conflicted spaces when asked by his old boss, Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Corbett.

Apparently, when an institution that's being investigated pays the legal bills for withesses in the investigation, the investigation can be compromised. But only sometimes.

This week Blessington was wringing his hands over the way the Archdiocese of Philadelphia has inserted itself into the investigation of child molestation involving its priests by asking everyone involved to check in with Church attorneys before communicating with the Philly DA probe:

"Blessington told Common Pleas Court Judge M. Teresa Sarmina that the request posed a conflict because the lawyers, Robert Welsh and Catherine Recker, were being paid by the archdiocese while advising potential witnesses whose testimony could hurt the church and its leaders. He said the lawyers want to sit in on all meetings between the employees and law enforcement. 'You don't have to stretch your imagination to see the chilling effect that will have,' Blessington said." (Inquirer 12/18/11)

"...Welsh's representation of at least four employees whose testimony could hurt the church and its leaders poses a clear conflict of interest, as the archdiocese is paying his legal bills, Blessington maintained." (Inquirer 12/22/12)

Blessington's and his boss, Seth Williams', position seems to make sense. Whistle blowers and other witnesses who get their legal bills paid by the Church could have a very large conflict of interest regardless of what the Church says:

"We want these people to cooperate because it's in the archdiocese's benefit," [Archdiocese attorney Robert Welsh] said. "We stand here today eager to bring them in to talk to the D.A. They are going to provide compelling testimony." (Inquirer 12/22/11)

Blessington really had to "stretch his imagination" then, when he was working as a Deputy Attorney General under Tom Corbett's supposed investigation of the Pennsylvania State Senate...another influential organization in Pennsylvania. The Senate GOP's response to the "Bonusgate" investigation is exactly the same as the Church's response:

"Senate Republicans 'have done everything possible to cooperate with the Attorney General's office,' said the statement from Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati, R-Jefferson County, and Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, R-Delaware County...A law firm the caucus hired interviewed 55 current and former caucus employees and provided the information learned in those interviews to the attorney general. The Senate Republicans have paid $2.5 million for outside legal fees in the bonus investigation.No one has been subpoenaed, said Senate GOP spokesman Erik Arneson." (Tribune-Review 9/13/11)

Everyone in Harrisburg knows that the Senate GOP was just as politically active using taxpayer resources as the other caucuses swept up in Corbett's investigation. Yet, there has yet to be a single indictment in the Senate GOP, let alone an aggressive investigation. No subpoenaed witnesses? Not even Mike Long, the man who received the single largest amount of legislative bonus money (Tribune Review 2/1/07) or Drew Crompton, who raised eyebrows after receiving a $20,000 bonus for working months on Lynn Swann's campaign in 2006 (Tribune Review 2/4/07)?

Corbett's alleged four-caucus investigation of the Pennsylvania General Assembly has been a joke. Very powerful Republican allies (past and present) have been given a complete pass. If it weren't so disgusting, we would get a chuckle out of Corbett's banana-republic-level of brazenness. It doesn't take much stretching to see how crooked it's all been.

LIES, DAMNED LIES AND STATISTICS ABOUT CORBETT'S CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS

2011-12-21T17:12:00.000-05:00

We can't take it anymore.

Earlier this month, the Patriot-News falsely reported that Tom Corbett "refused any campaign contribution that had a state lawmaker’s name attached."

Now, Philadelphia Magazine repeats the lie in Patrick Kerkstra's column, saying Corbett "eschewed campaign donations from state lawmakers, lest it taint his Bonusgate investigation."

This is pure prevarication. Senate Republicans gave Corbett's campaign at least $90,000.

Here's how they did it: Senator Joe Scarnati gave $50,000 to Corbett's running mate, Jim Cawley, who gave $40,000 of it to Bob Asher's PAC, Pennsylvania Future Fund, which gave $36,000 directly to Corbett. Meanwhile, the Senate Republican Campaign Committee gave $50,000 to Cawley. Cawley gave the $50,000 to the state Republican Party, which spent nearly every contribution it received on Corbett's campaign. Asher's PAC also gave $5,000 to the state party days after receiving Cawley's contribution.

These contributions are not easily explained away. The $50,000 from Scarnati and the $50,000 from SRCC are not only the largest contributions Cawley received, they're among the only significantly large contributions he received. And contributions to the state party and Asher's PAC are among the largest contributions Cawley gave.

The same pattern of contributions was nowhere to be found in Lt. Gov. candidate Jim Matthews campaign finance reports from 2006.

A few media outlets reported the Senate Republicans' contributions to Cawley, but not how Cawley directed the contributions to Corbett. Not that contributions to Cawley should be considered anything other than contributions to Corbett.

Furthermore, Corbett allowed former House Republican Chief of Staff Brian Preski to contribute to his campaign and host a fund-raiser in December of 2007. When confronted, Corbett claimed "we didn't have all the facts in front of us" .... because it was a big secret that Preski was Chief of Staff.

If a Democratic politician had been the beneficiary of such financial shenanigans, legislative Republicans would be denouncing him from the rooftops, and the Capitol Stenographers Corps would be dutifully lapping up every indignant word.

Need we remind anyone that Corbett never subpoenaed a single witness from the Senate Republican Caucus during his politically-motivated investigation of the legislature and overlooked clear evidence of illegal campaigning in a Senate Republican office?

Caught red-handed accepting lawmakers' contributions through his running mate, Corbett claimed ignorance, but Scarnati's Chief of Staff, Drew Crompton (Swann campaign aide and recipient of a $20,000 taxpayer-funded bonus) ratted him out, saying, there was 'an acknowledgement' from the Corbett camp that a contribution from Scarnati to Cawley would not be returned."

By the way, both the Patriot-News and Philadelphia Magazine were presented with the facts of Cawley's finance reports, and both have chosen to ignore them.

THICK AS THIEVES

2011-12-21T07:00:00.000-05:00

This is what we know about the Orie sisters.

Senator Jane Orie used her taxpayer funded office and staff for her re-election campaigns. Read the presentment here.

Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin used her taxpayer funded office and staff for her political campaigns going back twenty years. Read the presentment here.

What do the two have in common beyond their penchant for illegally using taxpayer funded resources and a family connection?

They use the same political consultant, former State Senate GOP political guru Mike Long. The man who received the single largest amount of legislative bonus money (Tribune Review 2/1/07) The man universally recognized for his political activism and for doing it while at work as a state senate employee. Read a few excerpts here. Oh, and the man gubernatorial candidate Tom Corbett's supposedly four caucus investigation has yet to indict...mainly because not a single Senate staff person was subpoenaed by gubernatorial candidate Tom Corbett. (Tribune Review 9/13/11)

It is humorous to see how closely related the scandal plagued Orie family is to the one un-indicted person all of Harrisburg continues to scratch their heads over. Check it out for yourself -- here's Senator Orie paying LN Consulting for her primary campaign and here's the Senate Republican Campaign Committee paying LN Consulting for her general election mailings. Here's Justice Melvin paying Commonwealth Campaigns for her campaign efforts in 2009.

Is there anything wrong with these arrangements between the Ories and Long? We guess not.

Although, given that no one in the Democratic Party has questioned Corbett over his non-existent investigation of the Senate, it is incredible to see the handiwork of Long on behalf of the sisters, especially the aggressive nature of calling into question the motives of a prosecutor (and paid for by the Senate Republican Campaign Committee, no less). Hat tip to the blog North Pittsburgh Politics for posting this assortment of Long's work for Senator Orie calling Allegheny County District Attorney Steve Zappalla corrupt here, here and here.

IF NOT YOU, THEN WHO?

2011-12-20T10:56:00.001-05:00

Many CasablancaPA readers have been asking us what's up with the Pennsylvania Democratic Party's silence on the explosive revelations found in Friday's grand jury presentment revealing the massive amount of illegal campaign work ordered by Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin. If you haven't had a chance to read it, check it out here. It rivals everything found in the bonusgate presentments from 2008 and 2009.

Why is there no call for her immediate resignation? There is no gray area when it comes to judicial staff and resources being used for political purposes. It is strictly verboten. Judicial staff can't even volunteer for political campaigns. Period. (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, In Re: Prohibited Political Activity By Court Appointed Employees)

The only comment from any sort of Democratic leader is found today in the Tribune Review, and it is a desultory shrug:

"State Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin's name appears more often in a recent grand jury report than the report's target, her sister Janine Orie. Testimony in the report suggests Melvin, whose 2009 election gave Republicans a one-vote majority on a court that could determine the shape of Pennsylvania's congressional districts, could become ensnared in the widening criminal case against her sisters Janine, 57, her former aide, and Jane, 50, a Republican state senator from McCandless. Janine and Jane Orie are charged with using state-paid staff to perform campaign work. An Allegheny County grand jury presentment released last week includes testimony from one witness saying Melvin did the same thing. Melvin, 55, of Marshall, has not been charged...State House Minority Leader Frank Dermody, D-Oakmont, led the prosecution of Larsen in the Senate. Dermody declined to comment, but his spokesman, Bill Patton, said he's "closely following" the Ories' case." (Tribune Review 12/20/11)

The collective yawn from the Democratic Party so far is especially curious given how quickly many members of the House Democratic Caucus were so quick to call for then-Majority Leader Bill DeWeese to resign his post as caucus leader after the first bonusgate arrests were made in July of 2008.

There was now-Senator John Yudichak, Representatives Bill Keller, Dan Frankel (Capitolwire 7/16/08), Harry Readshaw (Capitolwire 7/17/08), Matt Smith (Post-Gazette 7/18/08), Josh Shapiro (Capitolwire 8/8/04), Eugene DePasquale (Capitol Ideas blog 8/6/08), Jesse White (Jesse White blog 8/6/08), Jared Gibbons (Beaver County Times 8/8/08), and, yes, even Frank Dermody. (Tribune Review 8/21/08)

Remember, DeWeese wasn't even mentioned in the first bonusgate presentment, and this was a year and a half before the presentment was handed down against him in December of 2009. At the time all these calls for resignation were happening, DeWeese was less culpable according to the grand jury report than Orie Melvin has been shown to be in the two presentments released by Allegheny County District Attorney Steve Zappalla so far.

What's the hold up now?

Orie Melvin is part of the GOP establishment who has ripped away at efforts to reform health care, wants to strip collective bargaining rights away from workers, wants to end prevailing wage laws, make it harder to hold accountable big corporations who put profits over all else, gut public education, oh, and gave us the latest reapportionment maps.

And, it turns out that she used illegal methods to get onto the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in order to make rulings that will stick it to Pennsylvanians at every turn.

The time to act is now. If someone in the Pennsylvania Democratic Party establishment doesn't call for Orie Melvin to resign, then no one else will.

"WELL, IF YOU CAN'T HANDLE IT..."

2011-12-18T16:58:00.001-05:00

The hubub over the Penn State scandal preliminary hearings last week has overshadowed some very big and very important news.

In an explosive grand jury presentment issued Friday afternoon, Allegheny County District Attorney Steve Zappalla describes in great detail how Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin ran her political campaigns for nearly 20 years from her taxpayer funded judicial offices using her taxpayer funded judicial staff. Most incredibly, the illegal activity occurred during her successful 2009 Supreme Court campaign...after the first "bonusgate" arrests in 2008. You can read the entire presentment here.

The law is crystal clear. At no time can judicial staff work on political campaigns, even as volunteers. Period. And, of course, as with all taxpayer offices, at no time are taxpayer funded judicial office space, material or equipment to be used on campaigns:

"And now, this 24th day of November, 1998, the prohibition against political activity by court-appointed employees is hereby reaffirmed..."partisan political activity" shall include, but is not limited to...working at a polling place on Election Day, performing volunteer work in a political campaign, solicitiing contributions for political campaigns..." (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, In Re: Prohibited Political Activity By Court Appointed Employees)

Yet, Friday's grand jury presentment announcing further charges against Orie Melvin's sister, Janine, for directing the Judge's staff to work on the campaigns of her sister, showed blatant disregard for the law. Make no mistake...Janine Orie wasn't a rogue element operating outside the Judge's knowledge.

On page after page of the presentment, grand jury witnesses describe how Orie Melvin directly ordered them to do campaign work, was in the presence of her judicial employees at campaign events, and even used judicial resources for her campaigns herself:

"Sasinoski also described a period of time in 2003 when she overheard Orie Melvin in her chambers on her office telephone soliciting multiple Republican committee people in furtherance of her own campaign for Supreme Court Justice. Sasinoski stated that she knew that the judicial telephone within Orie Melvin's office had been used for these political contacts that she had overheard being done by Judge Orie Melvin because several months later she, Sasinoski, was berated by Janine Orie about the high telephone bills that had been incurred by the office; Janine blamed those high bills on Sasinoski and the other law clerks. As a result of this chastisement, Sasinoski subsequently requested detailed billing records for those phone calls. The records that were received displayed the billing in greater detail and those records reflected that the overwhelming majority of the additional billed calls were from both Orie Melvin's office extension and the additional telephone line that had been installed by the court at the residence of Orie Melvin. Those billing records further indicated calls to telephone numbers across the state during the very same time period in which Orie Melvin had been overheard by Sasinoski as Orie Melvin telephoned various Republican committee people. Sasinoski advised that there were between 280 and 400 committee people, and it was her understanding that Orie Melvin contacted each on of them during that time." (Pages 6 and 7)

When a staff person directly addressed all the illegal activity with Orie Melvin directly, that staff person was summarily fired:

"On a Monday in early December 2003 (after Orie Melvin's failed bid for a seat on the Supreme Court), Sasinoski approached Orie Melvin and told her that the political activities that had occurred in the office in the past need to cease, and that she (Sasinoski) could not do them anymore. According to Sasinoski, Orie Melvin stated, 'Well, if you can't handle it...' then turned to answer an incoming telephone call. Sasinoski then got up and left the office and went back to work...the following day, Sasinoski was directed by Janine to turn in her building ID card and her court ID, and to clear out her desk. When asked why, Janine reportedly advised Sasinoski that she would need to talk to Orie Melvin...and her employment with Orie Melvin ceased at that time." (Page 9 and 10)

Friday's presentment is no different than those issued by gubernatorial candidate Tom Corbett in 2008 and 2009 against members of the state legislature. Last October, Pittsburgh television station WPXI ran a report that said Orie Melvin would be arrested for illegally using Senator Jane Orie's state legislative staff for her 2009 Supreme Court race. (WPXI 10/13/10) Now, this detailed expose of Orie Melvin's own staff being illegally used for her campaigns can only mean it is a matter of days before she is finally arrested.

"MY WHOLE PRACTICE DEPENDS ON OPERATING ETHICALLY AND TRANSPARENTLY"

2011-12-11T20:16:00.000-05:00

"My whole practice depends on operating ethically and transparently." -- Bill Chadwick

Chadwick markets himself as an investigator above reproach, but he's functioned more as a shadowy "fixer" for two prominent Pennsylvania public officials while paid with taxpayer money. Rather than impartially investigate, Chadwick has used taxpayer funds essentially to extricate his clients from sticky situations -- former Speaker Bill DeWeese during the "bonusgate" investigation and Chief Justice Ronald Castille in the ongoing Family Court building scandal.

In both cases, Chadwick has followed a nearly playbook-like pattern:

Step 1 -- "White hat" Chadwick hired to impartially investigate

"DeWeese (D., Greene) brought in Chadwick Associates, a Washington-based consulting firm, before State Attorney General Tom Corbett launched a grand jury probe to examine whether government bonuses were handed out to legislative aides from both parties last year as a reward for off-the-books campaign work. Through the end of August, DeWeese has paid the consulting firm $180,000 from a state discretionary account he controls. DeWeese said the effort was aimed at finally ending a 'culture of causality and politics as usual' that has existed in Harrisburg for decades...William Chadwick, who runs the consulting firm, said his mission was to serve as a set of independent eyes focused on 'evaluating the practices, policies and procedures of the caucus, to make recommendations for improving internal controls and to ensure compliance with the law and promote public confidence in the operations of the caucus.'" (Inquirer 10/5/2007)

"Pennsylvania Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille has hired a longtime adviser and colleague to conduct what he said would be an independent investigation of a troubled Family Court project in Center City. William G. Chadwick, a lawyer who worked as Castille's top deputy in the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office in the 1980s, was hired to do a 'thorough, independent, and objective' review of the project, now terminated, for construction of a Family Court building at 15th and Arch Streets...Chadwick said Tuesday night he would figure out what went wrong in the deal even if his examination found mistakes by Castille. 'I told him going into it I am not going to pull punches,' Chadwick said. 'My whole practice depends on operating ethically and transparently.' Castille could not be reached for comment. He said in his statement he wanted Chadwick to develop a chronology of events, including an examination of any conflicts of interest and 'misrepresentations by any parties that resulted in losses to the court.'" (Inquirer 6/9/10)

Step 2 -- Chadwick is paid millions to pin wrongdoing on anyone but his clients

"A source close to Mr. DeWeese's office said yesterday the mass ousters [Manzo, Brubaker, Cott, Mosely, Webb, Keefer, McClure] followed an internal report by William G. Chadwick, an attorney whose firm was hired by the Democratic caucus earlier this year." (Post Gazette 11/14/07)

"Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille says he was the victim of fraud and legal malpractice by attorney Jeffrey B. Rotwitt, who was paid by the court to put together a deal for a new Family Court building at 15th and Arch Streets - and ended up as the codeveloper of the project." (Inquirer 11/2/2011)

Step 3 -- Chadwick feigns cooperation with prosecutors

"The caucus also has paid about $800,000 to Chadwick Associates Inc., a Washington, D.C., firm that is helping it respond to the state attorney general's investigation into the bonuses. 'We understand that this is a substantial expenditure of public funds, but we believe strongly that it was entirely appropriate under the circumstances to facilitate the truthful cooperation of the caucus' staff with the attorney general's investigation,' said Bill Chadwick, a lawyer and president of the Washington firm." (Associated Press 7/31/2008)

"'DeWeese is the most-investigated guy on the landscape,' said attorney William Chadwick, a consultant for House Democrats. The grand jury 'turned over every stone' in July and did not implicate DeWeese in any wrongdoing, Chadwick said" (Tribune Review 10/16/2008)

"Castille has hired William G. Chadwick, his former top deputy in the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office, to conduct a review. Stalberg says that won't be good enough to reassure the public, noting that Chadwick also has been serving as Castille's press spokesman. 'Many of the recent quotes didn't sound like a guy who was objectively investigating the situation,' he said. 'It sounded like a guy who was trying to explain the chief justice.' Chadwick said again that his role is to review the deal and cooperate with the real investigation being conducted by the FBI. (Inquirer 7/2/2010)

Step 4 -- Chadwick keeps taxpayer-funded work product secret

"A former lawyer for state House Democrats who was paid $1.3 million by taxpayers won't give caucus leaders a file on a public corruption investigation. Bill Chadwick, who represented the caucus as a legislative bonus scandal unfolded, said Tuesday that House Majority Whip Bill DeWeese instructed him not to provide the file to the caucus. Chadwick represented the caucus and DeWeese while DeWeese was majority leader through 2007 and 2008." (Tribune Review 3/11/2009)

"When a Family Court deal blew up last year, after the payment of millions in fees, Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille hired an investigative consultant and pledged a 'full public accounting' of what went wrong. But now, Castille's lawyer says there will be no report released to the public. Instead, the findings of Chadwick Associates, paid $780,540 so far, will be used to support a lawsuit seeking to recover the lost public money. "(Inquirer 11/4/2011)

Sadly, there were big problems with Chadwick's "cooperation" while in DeWeese's employ .... not all the documents in Chadwick's "investigation" were turned over to the Attorney General...

"A state grand jury is poring over the contents of a recently discovered box of files from a Capitol office, a find that has triggered renewed prosecutorial interest in longtime state Rep. Bill De-Weese, D-Greene. The files, described by those who have seen them as a collection of e-mail printouts, discuss political operations apparently from inside Mr. DeWeese's office at the time he served as state House minority leader...The data in the box also include campaign donation spreadsheets that appear to have been assembled on a state computer...The latest round of inquiries into the activities of Mr. DeWeese, who has steadfastly denied any wrongdoing, came as a seeming accident: a newly appointed Democratic caucus employee moving into an empty office earlier this year stumbled across a box of records left by a predecessor. Sources close to the investigation say the documents appear to suggest widespread campaign activity inside Mr. DeWeese's Harrisburg and district offices during state work hours." (Post Gazette 6/28/2009)

...DeWeese turned out to know much more than Chadwick repeatedly asserted...

"A trail of e-mail messages has surfaced suggesting that former House Democratic Leader Bill DeWeese may have known all along that tax dollars were being used to reward aides for work on political campaigns. Mr. DeWeese maintains he knew nothing about the scheme to use state money to reward campaign work, which became the focus of an ongoing grand jury investigation that so far has resulted in 12 arrests. 'I can't thank you enough for the bonus for campaigning. I am speechless as most of us are,' research analyst Karen Steiner wrote in a December 2004 e-mail message to Mr. DeWeese, D-Waynesburg, and former House Whip Mike Veon, D-Beaver Falls. She received a $1,000 bonus that year, according to grand jury documents. A short response, 'UR welcome,' came from Mr. DeWeese's e-mail account." (Post Gazette 3/17/2009)

...DeWeese was eventually found by the Attorney General to have broken campaign and ethics rules while Chadwick repeatedly insisted his "investigation" had cleared DeWeese ...

"A statewide grand jury recommended the prosecution of former state House Speaker Bill DeWeese, one of Pennsylvania's most colorful politicians, for running political campaigns for years out of his Capitol and district offices...'The grand jury showed that DeWeese's legislative staff and campaign staff were virtually one and the same,' said Corbett, a Republican candidate for governor, who oversees the grand jury." (Tribune Review 12/19/2009)

What does this mean for Castille? Especially when you consider the FACT, that before Castille began to pay Chadwick with taxpayer funds, Castille admitted he was aware of Rotwitt's role as a co-developer on the the Family Court building project:

"When Castille was first asked about Rotwitt's codeveloper role, he didn't seem upset with Rotwitt at all. Instead, he was angry at being questioned about it. With an Inquirer writer pushing court officials for an explanation, Rotwitt met with Castille, then e-mailed him a suggested 'clear statement of the facts': Yes, Rotwitt and Donald Pulver were codevelopers, the statement said, without suggesting it was any sort of problem. Castille ordered it sent to The Inquirer as his own opinion - word for word as Rotwitt had written it, e-mails show. In a Family Court saga filled with twists, there are few more jarring than court officials' shifting response to the revelations about Rotwitt's working on both sides of the courthouse deal. A review of e-mails and other records from April, when Rotwitt's partnership deal first came to light, show that Castille and other court officials reversed themselves on the project within a month. At first, they denied knowing such a partnership existed. Then they acknowledged it, but defended it." (Inquirer 7/25/10)

Bill DeWeese's corruption trial is scheduled for next month (here at CasablancaPA, we still aren't sure the case will ever make it to trial). Will Bill Chadwick's opaque "investigative" methods be mentioned in the trial? Or, will Attorney General Linda Kelly put Chadwick off-limits to save the Chief Justice (and fellow Republican) from having to answer uncomfortable questions about Chadwick's work for him?

COMPROMISED

2011-12-08T16:39:00.001-05:00

Here at CasablancaPa, we always found it odd that gubernatorial candidate Tom Corbett allowed Kevin Sidella, his chief witness against Bill DeWeese, (Post-Gazette 6/28/11) to take cash payments for campaign work from DeWeese. These payments lasted almost up to the very day of DeWeese's arrest. You can see all the payments to the WS Group, Sidella's company, here.

Just like clockwork, every month, Sidella received a payment equal to his old salary as a taxpayer-funded caucus employee whose primary responsibility was political fundraising for DeWeese. (Grand jury presentment)

After DeWeese's arrest, it appears the payments stopped - as well they should have, considering how unseemly and problematic it might be for the Commonwealth's star witness still to be so intimately involved with DeWeese's raison d' etre -- re-election to the state house.

Except, Sidella and the WS Group didn't stop working for DeWeese after Corbett's indictment in December of 2009.

A young gentleman named Kevin Warner worked for Sidella at the WS Group from December 2008 to September 2010. You can see Warner's resume on his LinkedIn profile here.

While in Sidella's employ, Warner was reimbursed nearly $4000 by DeWeese for consulting and campaign expenses AFTER DeWeese was arrested by Corbett. Check out the reimbursements here.

Did Corbett and his investigators know Sidella's company kept working for DeWeese after his arrest? Does current AG Linda Kelly? What does it mean for Sidella's testimony in next month's trial? Will Sidella be tempted to downplay DeWeese's crimes in hopes that DeWeese will be acquitted and the gravy train can keep on rolling? It appears Sidella already has succumbed to the temptation: while witnesses testified to the grand jury that Sidella's job was 100 percent campaign work for DeWeese, Sidella's own testimony at DeWeese's preliminary hearing downplayed it to a more modest "more than 40 percent" - at times.

SMOKE = FIRE

2011-12-07T08:53:00.001-05:00

While we're still chuckling over GOP Attorney General candidate Senator John Rafferty's hypocritical "abhorance" of things like bonuses and legislative staff doing campaign work, we thought we'd check a little deeper into just what Rafferty's legislative staff has been doing for his campaigns over the years.

And, unsurprisingly to anyone who is familiar with the Pennsylvania state legislature going back to, well, forever, Rafferty's staff received quite a few campaign reimbursements. Especially, his District Office Director, Betty Randzin, and his former Director of Outreach, Alex Charlton. Check it out for yourself here.

If there is one thing we've all learned since 2007, campaign reimbursements have always led back to illegal campaign activities IF a prosecutor issues subpoenas and investigates.

House Democrats? Yep. After gubernatorial candidate Tom Corbett brought over 100 staffers into the grand jury to testify. (Post-Gazette 10/21/07)

House Republicans? Yep. Corbett called their Office of District Operations led by John Hanley "a wholly owned campaign subsidiary of the House Republican Campaign Committee." (Page 157, Grand Jury presentment 11/09)

Senator Jane Orie? Yep. After the Allegheny County District Attorney, Steve Zappala, followed up on the whistle-blowing intern Corbett ignored with subpoenas and a grand jury. (Post-Gazette 2/19/11) Check out Orie's expenditures to Senate staff here...lots of familiar names from her trial.

The much ballyhooed grand jury report on how evil the state legislature concluded:

"In the eyes of thisgrand jury, it is beyond dispute that numerous legislative employees have foryears spent an enormous amount of time working on political campaigns when theywere supposed to be performing their legislative duties." (Grand jury report)

Corbett and his successors at the OAG have yet to subpoena any Senate Republican staffers, (Tribune Review 9/12/11), so why should anyone trust that Rafferty and his staff are any different?

"IT'S OBVIOUS [HE] DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THE LAW"

2011-12-06T08:12:00.001-05:00

Cumberland County District Attorney David Freed yesterday announced he will run for the Republican nomination for Attorney General. Tricky family connections required him to make an important statement regarding how he would handle any conflicts of interest:

"Attorney General Linda Kelly is in the midst of a civil investigation into actions taken by the board of the Hershey Trust Co., which [Freed's father-in-law Leroy] Zimmerman has chaired since January 2006...the probe is aimed at transactions that occurred under his leadership, creating the potential for a huge conflict for Freed. Freed said Monday that it is a manageable problem....If there are issues pending from the investigation that involve the conduct of Zimmerman, he would recuse himself and hand the case over to a special prosecutor, he said." (Patriot 12/6/11)

Sounds like a good plan! Oh, wait.

"[Democratic Attorney General candidate John] Morganelli called on attorney general staffers who have handled campaign tasks to resign their state jobs, and he urged Corbett to appoint a special prosecutor in the case accusing House Democrats of campaigning with public resources...As for Morganelli's call for a special prosecutor, [Corbett taxpayer-funded spokesman Kevin] Harley said state law does not allow it, and 'it's obvious John Morganelli doesn't understand the law.'" (York Daily Record 7/22/08)

Will anyone ask Harley, the Office of Attorney General, or Governor Tom Corbett whether Leroy Zimmerman's son-in-law "obviously doesn't understand the law?" Or, was Harley just spouting nonsense on the taxpayer's dime to protect his boss politically?

MAYBE RAFFERTY WILL GIVE US A BONUS, TOO

2011-12-04T11:06:00.001-05:00

"Rafferty said he had 'zero tolerance' for political corruption. He said he 'abhored the illegal use of tax payer dollars to enhance political positions,' a reference to 'Bonusgate' the other celebrated case pursued by then-Attorney General Tom Corbett and now by his successor Linda Kelly." (Inquirer 11/30/11)

GOP Attorney General candidate Senator John Rafferty knows that there is still a four-caucus investigation going on regarding the bonuses that he so abhors, right? As recently as September, an active investigation of the Senate Republican Caucus by a state wide grand jury was still in progress. (Tribune Review 9/12/11)

Perhaps not, but why should this matter to Rafferty anyway, a man who just abhors those bonus payments?

For one thing, his newly-minted Attorney General campaign's chief consultant is the Senate Republicans' former taxpayer-funded "campaign guru" Mike Long. Long's businesses -- Commonwealth Campaigns and LN Consulting (both located at 121 State Street ) -- have been part of the Rafferty campaign team since 2010. Check the relevant copies of expenditures in Rafferty's campaign finance reports for yourself here.

Long received more legislative bonus money than any other staffer of either party. (Tribune Review 2/1/07) Not only did he perform an incredible amount of campaign work over the years, he was renowned solely for his political skills. As a senior staffer who received enormous bonuses and with a long history of campaign work, Long is one of the suspects the state wide grand jury is still examining.

Furthermore, one of the "associates" in Long's operation is Megan Crompton, the wife of Drew Crompton. Mr. Crompton is the poster boy for the political bonuses doled out in 2006 by the Senate GOP caucus after receiving a $20,000 taxpayer-funded bonus for working four months on the Lynn Swann for Governor campaign in 2006. (Tribune Reveiw 2/4/07)

Beyond merely surrounding himself with some of the largest beneficiaries of the legislative bonuses he abhors, Rafferty seems to have a more significant problem than just schizophrenic taste.

How does it look for a candidate for Attorney General to hire as a leading member of his campaign team a current target of an on-going grand jury investigation? What signal does it send to the investigators at the OAG who are still investigating the Senate Republican Caucus' operations during Mike Long's leadership? Are they sitting over at Strawberry Square worried about doing something to embarrass someone who has better-than-even odds of becoming their next boss?

"MANY OF THEM WILL BE LYING"

2011-11-30T08:20:00.001-05:00

"Imagine if the Pennsylvania Turnpike asked every state resident with a driver's license to file a form each year, stating the number of miles traveled on the highway and remitting the proper tolls. That's crazy, right?...The latest scheme out of Harrisburg -- from the ostensibly anti-tax Corbett administration -- will apply that flawed methodology to sales tax on items purchased online. It won't work...Gov. Tom Corbett's Revenue Department is planning to include a new line on the 2011 income tax forms that will require filers to report what they spent on online purchases that went untaxed. Pennsylvanians who don't want to do the math will be allowed to use an estimate based on their income. What's likely is that many taxpayers will report zero, which means many of them will be lying. That's been the experience in other states, including Ohio, where just 46,476 of its 5 million households complied last year." (Post-Gazette 11/4/11)

This is pretty powerful stuff from the Post-Gazette editorial board earlier this month. Calling millions of average, otherwise law-abiding Pennsylvanians liars is quite shocking.

So, where's the skepticism regarding a small, insular group of people being similarly asked to self-report illegal activity that could land them in prison?

Just like his plan counting on internet shoppers to self-report their on-line sales tax bills, Corbett has allowed the State Senate Republican caucus to self-report on their illegal political activities and bonuses.

Corbett and his Republican Attorney General successors have allowed the Republican State Senate Caucus to self-investigate and self-report any evidence of campaigning illegally by its members and staff. In fact, the only contact between the Office of Attorney General and the Senate GOP has been the two voluntary appearances of former General Counsel Stephen MacNett, one of the very Senate staff members who performed campaign work on the state's dime over his many years as an employee of that caucus. In fact, not a single State Senate employee has been subpoenaed by Corbett or his successors in the supposedly four-caucus investigation supposedly approaching its fifth year of existence. (Tribune Review 9/12/11)

Corbett and his successors expect us to believe that MacNett can be trusted to tell the truth voluntarily. This is the same MacNett who has had past campaign run-ins with a grand jury. (Inquirer 5/9/1995)

Raise your hand if you think Mike Long will waltz in un-bidden by a subpoena to recount how he came to be known as the Sentate GOP caucus' "campaign guru"?

Does anyone really believe the Senate Republicans are going to turn over the emails and documents that explain how Drew Crompton earned a fat bonus from the taxpayers for spending a huge chunk of 2006 as a top adviser to GOP gubernatorial candidate Lynn Swann? (Tribune Review 2/4/07)

Everyone knows that the Senate GOP culture was just as partisan and political as both House caucuses. The Orie investigation by Allegheny County District Attorney Zappala bears that out. It took subpoenas to get to the bottom of that mess. Meanwhile, Corbett didn't even follow the lead of a confidential informant who literally called him up on the phone. (Post-Gazette 2/19/11)

We're not lawyers here at CasablancaPA, but it is quite possible the statute of limitations clock on activities in 2006 is ticking away. Expecting the Republicans in the State Senate to honestly report their illegal activities is just as ludicrous as expecting Pennsylvanians to self-report their on-line sales tax bills.

"BIG" SIMILARITIES

2011-11-27T08:50:00.001-05:00

"Corbett said that the efficiency of non-profits is often measured by the percentage of its budget that goes to programs or projects. Of the $4.7 million spent by [Beaver Initiative for Growth] from 2004 to 2006, only 23 percent (less than $1.1 million) was used toward actual program expenses. The other 77 percent went to salary, consultants and administrative costs." (OAG press release 3/25/09)

Gubernatorial candidate Tom Corbett stirred up outrage in 2009 against the Mike Veon-led non-profit Beaver Initiative for Growth by pointing out that 77 percent ratio. That ratio alone, according to Corbett, was proof positive that BIG was rotten and corrupt.

Now, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's Jon Schmitz reports this morning that Jerry Sandusky's Second Mile non-profit charity spent 73 percent of its total revenue for the year ending in 2010 for salaries and benefits to employees, including the husband-wife team who earned the top two salaries. (Post-Gazette 11/27/11)

This follows Schmitz's earlier report that a large chunk of the $3 million grant Corbett awarded to the Second Mile in 2010 was headed straight for the pocket of the charity's long-time chairman and Corbett campaign contributor, Robert Poole. (Post-Gazette 11/17/11) The heat is obviously troubling to all involved based on the evasiveness and curtness shown to the Philadelphia Inquirer:

"How the Second Mile decided to award the center's construction contract to Poole, its board chairman, remains unclear. He did not return numerous calls for comment. Representatives of his company - Poole Anderson - said they were not authorized to discuss the deal. And sometime within the last month, the company removed the project from its website. Second Mile chief executive David Woodle also declined to talk about the Poole Anderson contract in detail, saying only: 'There was a competitive bid done.' Even so, said Otten, a charity awarding such a large contract to a member of its own board gives the appearance of a conflict of interest." (Philadelphia Inquirer 11/27/10)

Remember, candidate Corbett brought felony charges against prominent Democrat Mike Veon based on allegedly corrupt spending decisions and awarding of contracts. The case was so flimsy that it had to be brought before a district justice twice - the second time in truncated form due to the outright erroneous conclusions his investigators originally drew. (Post-Gazette 5/28/09)

This seems to be one more reason Corbett delayed his investigation into Sandusky in 2009 and 2010. Not only did he want to avoid blowing apart the vaunted Penn State football program before the 2010 elections, but neither did Corbett want to create major problems for campaign donors associated with Second Mile.

This morning the Philadelphia Inquirer's Jeremy Roebuck goes into great depth on the convoluted ties between the Second Mile and Penn State. (Inquirer 11/27/11) Unfortunately, he doesn't take the next step linking those ties to Corbett via campaign donations as the sports blog Deadspin did earlier this month.

Maybe Corbett is right when he says Veon's decisions to spend of millions of BIG's funding on salaries and contracts rose to the level of criminality. As the official entrusted with oversight of non-profits, Attorney General Corbett was in a position to determine such criminality.

If so, we expect to see him call for the arrest of Robert Poole and other campaign contributors on Second Mile's board who personally approved spending 73 percent of the funds on salaries and benefits, and directing state funds into their own pockets over the past several years, including a $3 million dollar grant Corbett personally approved.

While Attorney General and a candidate for Governor, it sure looks like Corbett wanted to delay investigating Sandusky so he wouldn't have to make such a call until after the election.

EVEN MORE CORBETT FAKERY

2011-11-25T13:12:00.001-05:00

“The one thing you do not want to do as a prosecutor is go on one case. ... You want to show a continued course of action.” Governor Tom Corbett, 11/20/11, Pennsylvania Press Club

Corbett is under harsh criticism for his failure to investigate promptly an allegation that former Penn State football defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky sexually abused a Central Mountain High School student.

The complaint was referred to Corbett, then Pennsylvania Attorney General, in March of 2009. Investigators from the Office of Attorney General were not assigned to the case until October 2010, just before Corbett was elected governor.

Sandusky was not arrested in connection with the Central Mountain boy, and seven other alleged vicims, until earlier this month. This week, Corbett defended the length of the investigation, saying, "The one thing you do not want to do as a prosecutor is go on one case." In other words, the investigation took so long because he had to go searching for other victims before he could file charges.

Unsurprisingly, Corbett is lying. Again.

A six-year-old Northampton County girl told police in February 2010 that she had been assaulted. By December, the rapist already had been sentenced. He was arrested immediately after the complaint of a single victim.

In a case that was prosecuted by Corbett's own office - in the midst of the Sandusky investigation - Delaware County District Judge Gerald C. Liberace was sentenced earlier this year on a sex abuse conviction involving a single victim. Remember, as a prosecutor, you never want to go on just one case. Except when you do.

In March of 2009, around the same time Corbett received the Sandusky case, state police charged Butler County physician and Boy Scout leader David Allen Evanko with sexually abusing two scouts.

Less than six months later, Corbett himself announced additional charges related to additional victims.

Just to be clear, even though the doctor already had been arrested on the original complaint, Corbett's office was able to continue the investigation and file additional charges - a procedure Corbett claims he went to great lengths to avoid in the Sandusky case. And, he managed to complete the Evanko investigation in one year.

Even cases involving multiple victims over several years - cases that were taken to a grand jury - have never taken anything close to three years to investigate. Marysville borough officials first received complaints about officer Robert J. Pavlovich Jr. in early March of 2007. The initial complaint involved two girls. By late October, investigators had identified at least 14 victims. All in just over six months.

As Attorney General, Corbett bragged that his Child Predator Unit made 250 arrests. Most of the defendants were arrested on the basis of their contact with a single "victim" - who wasn't even a child but an agent posing as one.

Is there no limit to the outrageous dishonesty Corbett can get away with feeding to an unquestioning press corps?

TWO YEARS LOST

2011-11-21T14:04:00.000-05:00

"If you think I delayed [the child rape investigation of Jerry Sandusky] for any reasons, you're wrong." -- Pennsylvania Governor and former state Attorney General Tom Corbett, Nov. 17, 2011

It is beyond question that the investigation of Jerry Sandusky was delayed. Three years between complaint and arrest is simply incomprehensible. We don't yet know how many more children may have been victimized between the time Corbett received the complaint and his successor finally brought charges against Sandusky.

It's also very clear why Corbett didn't aggressively pursue the Sandusky case. He was frantically trying to fix his botched investigation of the legislature before launching his gubernatorial campaign.

Corbett received the Sandusky complaint in March of 2009. A single state trooper was assigned to the case. Investigators from the Office of Attorney General weren't assigned to the case until the fall of 2010.

By March of 2009, Corbett had spent two years investigating the General Assembly. He'd had plenty of time and resources to devote to it long before the Sandusky allegations came along. But, as Corbett's opponent in the 2008 Attorney General campaign pointed out, Corbett "botched" it by failing to investigate all four caucuses at once.

"A series of contempt hearings before the Supervising Judge of the grand jury from October 2008 to December 2008, which was held for the purpose of forcing the [House Republican] caucus into compliance with subpoenas and court orders."

That's right. Corbett didn't get serious about investigating House Republicans until October 2008, nearly two years after announcing that he was investigating all four legislative caucuses.

Corbett had issued subpoenas to House Republicans as early as October 2007 - or at least, someone told the Associated Press that he did. The subpoenas were, as reporter Mark Scolforo wrote, "the first tangible evidence that the probe has extended to any of the other three caucuses ... House Democrats have complained that the focus in recent weeks has appeared to be on them."

It wasn't just House Democrats complaining. Days before the leak to the AP, Capitolwire Bureau Chief Peter L. DeCoursey had published a column suggesting Corbett's political ties to Republican politicians might inhibit the investigation. A Morning Call editorial called for Corbett to turn over the investigation to an independent prosecutor - "someone who is not seeking re-election."

But House Republicans didn't respond to the October 2007 subpoenas, which appear to have been issued merely to provide "tangible evidence" that the investigation wasn't partisan. And Corbett remained unconcerned about their lack of response for an entire year.But by the fall of 2008 scrutiny of Corbett's partisan investigation was growing more specific. The Patriot-News revealed that Corbett had allowed House Republicans to replace all their computers in the summer of 2007, suggesting that he'd never had any real intention of investigating the caucus at all.

That decision would come back to haunt him when he realized he would need to indict a Republican.

As he scrambled to play catch-up in the face of mounting accusations of partisanship, Corbett discovered, to absolutely no one else's surprise, that House Republicans hadn't obediently preserved evidence of their crimes for the two years Corbett had waited to go looking for it.

Imagine the growing panic that consumed the investigative arm of Corbett's gubernatorial campaign. "If this goes much further Corbett risks being accused of using it to launch what many expect will be a gubernatorial bid in 2010," the the Patriot-News opined in July of 2009. By then, Corbett was scrambling to recover lost evidence. The grand jury presentment outlining charges against House Republicans is rife with lamentations about the difficulty of hunting for missing documents.

Even as Corbett desperately was chasing down a nice shiny Republican indictment he could wear as an emblem of impartiality, more embarrassment beset the investigative arm of his campaign. In March, 2009, precisely when Corbett received the Sandusky complaint, the Tribune-Review published an email in which a House Democratic staffer thanked caucus Leader Bill DeWeese for "the bonus for campaigning." DeWeese responded "U R welcome."Three weeks later, the Philadelphia Inquirer outlined evidence that DeWeese also used a state-paid contractor for poltical work.Unable to explain why DeWeese hadn't been charged for these offenses, Corbett frantically dispatched investigators to pull together some kind of case against DeWeese.

Meanwhile, the Sandusky complaint, shielded from public eyes as it was, posed no threat to Corbett's campaign. It received a proportional amount of Corbett's attention.

As if overwhelmed OAG investigators hadn't enough to do playing catch-up on both House Republicans and DeWeese, more embarrassment hit in June 2009 - when Corbett should have been in the thick of a Sandusky investigation, if not making an arrest - as the Post-Gazette revealed that Corbett failed to act on testimony that Steve Stetler, then chair of the House Democratic Campaign Committee, authorized illegal campaign work.

Corbett managed to put together indictments of House Republicans, Bill DeWeese and Steve Stetler just under the wire. So surely he was able to devote his full attention to the Sandusky complaint in early 2010, right?Nope. The trial of Mike Veon and three aides, from jury selection to verdict, lasted nearly nine weeks, the longest trial in recent Dauphin County history. At least 10 agents from the Office of Attorney General were present in the courtroom all day, each day of the trial.

After the trial ended (with 117 acquittals) did Corbett then turn his attention to the Sandusky complaint? Nope, again. Instead of using the grand jury to investigate Sandusky, Corbett was using it improperly to gather information he hoped would maximize the sentence of someone already convicted, and to subpoena Twitter for the identities of his online critics.

Investigators from the Office of Attorney General weren't assigned to the case until the fall of 2010.By then, Corbett's victory in the gubernatorial race was virtually assured.

Corbett's failure to conduct an impartial and sincere investigation of the General Assembly in 2007 and 2008 forced him to compromise the Sandusky investigation in 2009 and 2010. As conservative activist Chris Freind points out, "Giving priority to children who are at risk of rape and molestation is a no-brainer. But inexplicably, that wasn’t done."

BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS

2011-11-17T08:46:00.001-05:00

Former gubernatorial candidate Tom Corbett tells the Patriot-News this morning why he green-lighted in July a $3 million grant for alleged child molester Jerry Sandusky's Second Mile:

"Yes I knew this (Sandusky investigation was under way), but I could not act publicly on this without saying certain things that would have possibly compromised the investigation" (Patriot 11/17/11)

First of all, we're not sure what would have been compromised given that the Patriot had let the cat out of the bag on the investigation four months earlier. (Patriot 3/31/11)

We wish he would just admit that the construction of the new building was very important to a large campaign contributor.

The Post-Gazette's Jon Schmitz reports this morning that The Second Mile's long-time chairman Robert Poole's company, Poole Anderson Construction, was to be the construction manager of the project. (Post-Gazette 11/17/11)

Unsurprisingly to anyone who follows how Corbett operates, Robert Poole has contributed over $12,000 to Corbett's campaigns. Given that the construction business isn't what it used to be, we can only imagine that Poole's ability to steer this bit of business his way was helpful to his bottom line (BTW -- Corbett has a habit of ignoring how his political allies run the non-profits they are associated with).

HARTFORD COURANT: CRIPPLING QUESTIONS ABOUT CORBETT'S INTEGRITY

2011-11-13T20:01:00.001-05:00

Norman Pattis of the Hartford Courant:

"I'm wondering why there is no investigation of the governor ... In 2009, the case involving former Penn State assistant coach Jerry Sundusky landed in his lap. He convened a secret grand jury to gather evidence, including the role of university officials. He cared more for his political ambitions, however. With the case still open, he was elected governor in 2010. As governor, he joined the Penn State board of trustees. A lawyer, Corbett is presumably familiar with the loyalty he owes to Penn State as a board member. He would have us believe that he served as board member with nary a peep about the grand jury investigation of senior university administrators for their role in covering up the consequences of Sandusky's alleged lust. Perhaps he did say nothing. But there is no question that knowledge of the investigation colored his perception and influenced his judgment.

"A lawyer cannot represent both sides of a conflict. You can be loyal to only one side. When a lawyer cannot serve both masters, he is supposed to serve neither. You don't pretend all is well.

"That is what Corbett did. He should have stepped down as a trustee until the investigation was finished. He is now on a board that is paying the legal fees of administrators accused of lying to a grand jury, but firing a man who has not been accused of any crimes.

"The true north of [Corbett's] moral compass is set firmly in the direction of the press release.

"Instead of integrity, we get the release of a secret grand jury report and the governor's urging prompt and decisive action against Paterno. Corbett postures as the poster boy for integrity in a year in which all politicians are roundly condemned.

"The New York Times abandoned its role as critic to become a cheerleader. Its puff piece on Corbett reports: "The grand jury indictment had been filed under seal, but because of a computer glitch it had mistakenly been made public." Oh, really? I guess Pearl Harbor was just a training mission gone bad."

Read the column in the Hartford Courant.

RAMALEY: CORBETT TARGETED ME BECAUSE I WOULDN'T CONFIRM HIS THEORY

2011-11-12T10:46:00.001-05:00

BREAKING:

"I met with with the Attorney General's office before I was charged ... Because I didn't confirm their theory, the guns focused on me. They had a complete misunderstanding of the process. They refused to listen." -- Sean Ramaley on KDKA

Listen to the full interview on KDKA radio.

DOORMATS

2011-11-11T08:33:00.001-05:00

Tom Barnes of the Post-Gazette reports today on a coalition of good government groups complaining about the amount of energy company money flooding into the campaign coffers of Pennsylvania politicians. (Post-Gazette 11/11/11)

We love ya, fellas, but don't expect to ride this issue on a wave of voter outrage. The 2005 pay-raise backlash - the uproar every activist hopes to replicate - was a rare perfect storm. Generally, a regular ho-hum attitude reigns over the antics of the knuckle-heads in the State Capitol (many people actually conflate their state legislators with their Congressman and vice versa).

There are some very, very hinky things going on in Harrisburg by specific people in power. Yet, very rarely, if ever, do you - you, the activists, the gadflies, the agitators - single them out and call them what they are: thieves, crooks, liars, etc. Instead, you make broad stroke indictments of "the culture" without ever singling out the bad actors and going for the jugular. Only when you've isolated them and brought as much pressure as possible upon them, will you capture anyone's attention in a big enough way to effectuate change.

Here is a perfect example from today's Post-Gazette story:

"The liberal groups said they are hearing that House Republican leaders are using redistricting threats to line up members' votes for the 'weak' gas regulation bill. Mr. Kauffman said if a House Republican doesn't vote for the bill, he may end up 'with a thousand more Democrats in their new district.'"

There are two - and only two - individuals that have that power among the House Republican leaders - Speaker Sam Smith and Majority Leader Mike Turzai. Why didn't you specifically call them out, by name, for what is nothing less than blatant blackmail? Their names aren't even mentioned in the story.

Inexplicably, you even threw into the mix Congressional members of both parties who have practically no ability to do anything about the perils of hydraulic fracturing. Ho-hum.

There are three villians in the story you want to tell -- the blackmailers Smith and Turzai who carry the (frac) water of Governor Tom Corbett, the President Harding of this generation's Teapot Dome scandal, who sold his soul for $1.6 million from the energy companies.

You accuse two politicians of blackmail, without specifically naming them or their crime, yet no one will ever hear from you again about it.

Kind of like how you filed a stunning lawsuit accusing those in the highest levels of the state legislature and the state judiciary of colluding to connect the 2005 payraise for the judiciary with protection of the newly passed gaming legislation from judicial scrutiny. (Inquirer 2/7/06) Then, a few years later, Corbett uses a grand jury to investigate how the gaming law came into being and issues a report (with no indictments) that doesn't mention any of those listed in your lawsuit -- former GOP Representatives Ed Krebs and Scott Chadwick, former Republican Senator Bob Jubelirer, conservative activist Matthew Brouillette, ex-wife to state senate GOP campaign guru Mike Long, Suzanne O'Berry, and Mike Long himself.

Where was the outrage when Corbett completely ignored sworn statements given by some of those listed above? We're guessing O'Berry wasn't called before the grand jury, nor Brouillette or Krebs or Chadwick. These people were part of a stunning chain of events you uncovered yet there was no mention of it in what was supposed to be a bombshell of a grand jury report.

Where is your outrage this week when a secretary, Jill Seaman, is convicted of 40 felonies in connection to the computergate scandal, yet the Speaker of the House Sam Smith (who signed millions of dollars in contracts, was on emails about the illegal activity and in meetings about the illegal activity) isn't even subpoenaed by the prosecution?

Until you specifically call out, by name, the few bad-actors who have the real power to change things to the carpet aggressively, you're going to continue being treated like doormats by the wider group of people you chastize instead.

HIGHER STANDARDS, MIXED MESSAGES, PHONE CALLS, AND CUFFS

2011-11-10T07:39:00.000-05:00

A few quick observations surrounding this week's big news stories.

In the wake of the earth-shattering events unfolding in Happy Valley, the Patriot-News' editorial demanding the resignations of Joe Paterno and Graham Spanier is a great example of statewide editorial opinion regarding "higher standard" to which those in positions of great authority need to be held.

"The attorney general has determined that Paterno and Spanier did everything the law required. But a university president must be held to a higher standard. The most famous coach in college football history must be held to a higher standard." (Patriot 11/8/11)

We couldn't agree more, but we can't help but notice the sad lack of editorializing about the higher standard to which Speaker Sam Smith should also be held, for what occurred under his watch in the "Computergate" scandal. Sure, Smith says he was duped by others and given incomplete information, but isn't that what Paterno and Spanier have been saying this week, too?

Deputy Attorney General Frank "Anybody who violated the law is going to get it" Fina loves to talk about how the "Bonusgate" and "Computergate" trials should be sending messages to the legislature:

"'I sure hope the message is getting delivered over there -- that they're there for the best interest of the people, and the best interest of the people only, and they should not be using the money of the people for personal efforts,' Fina said." (Associated Press 11/9/11)

Yet, we think the actions of gubernatorial candidate Tom Corbett's probe of the legislature has sent a mixed message to the members of the General Assembly. Especially when you consider that contrary to all the tough talk from Fina about ne'er-do-wells "getting it", former State Representative Matt Wright has yet to be indicted for running a political operation exactly like the belatedly-indicted Representative Bill DeWeese's. It's all here in the Pennsylvania Ethics Commission's 2009 decision fining Wright $10,000. We bet Mike Veon, John Perzel, Brett Feese and Steve Stetler wished they could get the same deal as Wright.

Speaking of Ethics opinions, in a recently published opinion, we couldn't help but notice the prominence the Ethics Commission gave to a series of phone calls a township supervisor made in a illegal scheme for his personal benefit:

"Palmiero and other people involved in the project made multiple calls to Kaltenbaugh -- but not the other two supervisors -- before and after the vote, the ruling says." (Tribune Review 11/9/11)

So, rougly two dozen phone calls are proof of malfeasance concerning a roughly $9,000 scheme, but the hundreds of phone calls made by gubernatorial candidate Tom Corbett and his campaign staff made to and from the taxpayer funded offices of the Attorney General using their campaign cell phones have yet to be examined for either ethics or campaign finance violations.

Finally, there is more handcuff hijinks from the Office of Attorney General. Senior Deputy Attorney General Kenneth Brown was quite adamant after catching flak for how bonusgate and computergate defendants were being paraded around that everyone arrested for a felony is shackled:

"A felony is a felony, and if it is a felony, you get cuffed. The law makes no distinction for white collar crimes, and neither do we." (Patriot News 11/13/09)

It's the law! Or, is it? Some of those arrested in relation to gubernatorial candidate Corbett's legislative investigation were cuffed and some weren't. Now, check out the picture accompanying this post. That's the now-infamous duo of Curley and Schultz walking into their arraignment on Monday...uncuffed.

Brown is either full of poop or an ignorant jackass. Either way, how did he ever get to become a Senior Deputy Attorney General when he has blatantly allowed the law as he adamantly interprets it to be broken or just makes it up as he goes along?

LETTING THE BIG FISH OFF THE HOOK - AGAIN

2011-11-06T00:45:00.000-04:00

Once again, Tom Corbett lets the people at the top off the hook. Only this time, the world is watching.

"Paterno wasn't charged, but if Sandusky is guilty he would be guilty," writes Mike Wise of the Washington Post. "Joe Pa knew, if the charges are true. They all knew. And they never told police."

"The chief question is this: If Curley, Schultz and Spanier believed it was no longer appropriate to allow Sandusky to bring children onto the Penn State campus – an act that suggests some concern over his behavior – how could they possibly believe his actions didn’t warrant a full police investigation?" Dan Wetzel of Yahoo! Sports asks.

Inquirer columnist Bob Ford: Joe Paterno is done.

The Post-Gazette's Gene Collier: It's truly staggering that these professional academics -- including Paterno -- when faced with an allegation so serious and so sanctimoniously mishandled by the Catholic church almost simultaneously, somehow knew only the wrong thing to do.

Around the country, everyone wants to know: if Athletic Director Tim Curley and Vice President Gary Schultz are charged for failure to report a crime, why aren't Paterno and Spanier?

Welcome to Pennsylvania, and Tom Corbett's Office of Attorney General.

Paterno and Spanier aren't charged for the same reason Speaker Sam Smith wasn't charged in "Computergate." The same reason Bill DeWeese wasn't charged "Bonusgate." The same reason LeRoy S. Zimmerman wasn't charged in the Hershey Trust scandals. The list goes on.

The reason is that Tom Corbett's OAG simply doesn't charge the truly powerful and influential. (Until and unless he absolutely has to in order to protect his political career)

Joe Paterno, millionaire, friend of George H.W. Bush and father of Republican congressional candidate Scott Paterno - does anyone really think Corbett's OAG in a million years was going to charge that guy?

No, Corbett's OAG only charges public figures who are already unpopular, whose guilt the public already is predisposed to believe.

While the sports pundocracy sees heinous crimes in Paterno's and Spanier's failure to act upon their mere knowledge of a crime, no one seems bothered by Smith and DeWeese's actual participation in crimes. Smith signed the checks that paid for illegal software contracts, sat in on meetings about their use, was included on emails about the progress of the illegal scheme. DeWeese authorized the allocation of caucus funds to award bonuses, acknowledged that they were for political work, was implicated in the scandal by both his top aide, and his legislative assistant, and directed a state contractor to perform political work and on and on.

The case against Jerry Sandusky makes it clear that Paterno and Spanier knew about Sandusky's crimes and never reported them, and an outraged public demands to know why they're not arrested. The Computergate and Bonusgate cases reveal far more culpability from Smith and DeWeese, but no one even notices, much less cares.

CORBETT BELIEVES SMITH AND ALIANO ARE STUPID

2011-11-02T09:31:00.001-04:00

There is no other way around it. Former Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Tom Corbett believes Speaker Sam Smith and Smith's Chief of Staff Anthony Aliano are stupid... dumb... clueless... idiots.

It's true. The prosecution in the "Computergate" trial essentially said so in its closing arguments:

"Claims made during the six-week trial of former state Representative Brett Feese and his aide, Jill Seaman, that there was an assumption the political work was being financed by money raised by former state House Speaker John Perzel don't add up, Fina said. If Perzel had been paying the bill, he would have made sure everyone knew it, Fina said, because that sort of largesse would have given Perzel plenty of political chips to cash in." (Patriot 11/1/11)

When does Fina think these political chips get cashed in? Maybe that isn't something that is taught at Ivy League schools, so we'll clue him in:

Leadership elections.

It's convoluted, but what Team Corbett is saying is that Feese must have known Perzel was using taxpayer funds, because he didn't tell everyone he was using campaign funds. Using the same admittedly weird argument, there's no way Team Corbett can claim Smith and Aliano didn't also know.

Sam Smith and Tony Aliano were in the room for every one of the leadership elections during the Computergate years. Knowledgeable people like Capitolwire's Pete DeCoursey write extensively about how Smith was part of Perzel's leadership election calculus and no one will say Smith wasn't in the room for the wheeling and dealing. Most tellingly, Smith was right there, pre-Computergate, at the most important leadership election of both his and Perzel's careers...the 2007 freeze-out of Perzel when Denny O'Brien was made Speaker over Perzel.

If Perzel wasn't using all those "political chips" to his advantage when he needed them most in January of 2007 (just before Corbett's legislative investigation began), then Smith - by Perzel's supposed silence about the funding source - would have discovered that all the campaign activity swirling around the caucus for years wasn't being paid for with Perzel's money. At least that is the logical conclusion necessitated by Fina's closing argument.

The Computergate grand jury presentment itemizes $20 million in computer programming and staff work that every important Republican House campaign used on its campaign. In fact, even safe incumbents like Rep. Bill Adolph benefited from this illegal use of taxpayer funds. (Page 43 grand jury presentment)

On top of this massive outlay of taxpayer money for computer databases and programming, there was an entire House Republican Caucus department called the Office of District Operations that Corbett's grand jury called "virtually a taxpayer funded, wholly owned campaign subsidiary of the House Republican Campaign Committee." (page 157 grand jury presentment) District Operations consisted of dozens of full-time taxpayer-funded staff who did nothing but campaign work for nearly every House Republican candidate and incumbent.

Corbett and Fina contend that Feese and Seaman had to know that Perzel wasn't spending campaign money on the computer gear and the Office of District Operation. They brought nearly a hundred witnesses to testify at the trial and before the grand jury to say, under oath, that all of it was paid for by taxpayer money and that they knew none of it was paid for by Perzel campaign funding.

So, according to Corbett and Fina, nearly every key staffer in the House GOP notably Feese, Seaman, Hanley, Uliana, Flickinger, Painter, Dull, and Royer - none of whom had a vote in leadership elections - all knew, but Smith and Aliano were stumbling and bumbling around clueless to all of this. It's ridiculous, and the fact that they're making this argument with a straight face speaks to how absurdly tilted in Corbett's favor the political landscape has become.

THE MONSTER UNDER THE BED

2011-10-26T16:35:00.002-04:00

Here at CasablancaPA headquarters, we're fielding lots of questions from readers about why the media has virtually ignored the trial of former House Republican Whip Brett Feese and his aide, Jill Seaman.

We did a quick Internet search, comparing press coverage of the trial of a former House GOP whip accused in a $20 million scandal with the trial of a former House Democratic Whip accused in a scandal involving less than $2 million, and discovered the following:

The Tribune-Review published about 70 stories during the trial of former House Democratic Whip Mike Veon, compared with about 16 during the Feese trial.
The Post-Gazette published about 53 stories during the Veon trial, compared with about 5 during the Feese trial.
The Inquirer published about 57 stories during the Veon trial, compared with about 8 during the Feese trial

We must admit, those results were worse than even we expected. But we're not surprised at the dearth of media coverage. Governor Tom Corbett, who conducted both "investigations," wanted this outcome, engineered this outcome, and the media happily complied.

The Capitol Stenographers Corps no doubt disagrees with our assessment, though we've yet to hear a cogent explanation for the disparity in coverage. We're sure they don't even realize they're being manipulated.

But the fact is, even though Corbett claimed for months beginning in February 2007 that he was investigating all four legislative caucuses, we now know that he didn't begin investigating House Republicans in earnest until October 2008. That was when contempt hearings were held to force the caucus to comply with subpoenas issued a full year earlier.

The Capitol Stenographers Corps has yet to grasp the significance of the delay in the investigation, even as they backhandedly acknowledged that Corbett was lying throughout 2007 and early 2008 about a four-caucus investigation. They continued to explain away the delay with another lie: that Corbett had to investigate House Democrats first because he thought they were destroying evidence. We know Corbett didn't act on that erroneous belief until August of 2007, six months into a Democrats-only investigation, all the while insisting he was investigating all four caucuses.

It astounds us how smoothly the pack narrative slid from the false "he's investigating all four caucuses" to the equally false "he had to investigate House Democrats first," without even a pause to acknowledge the months of lying or to point out how absurdly incompetent and self-destructive it would be to conduct a highly-publicized investigation of one caucus with the intention of going after the other caucuses at some point in the future.

Only Democratic Attorney General Candidate John Morganelli pointed out that even a fool would expect evidence to disappear: "If I have four potential targets, and I think they all might be involved in the same thing, and if I go to house A and take all the evidence out and wait two years to go after B, C and D, there’s not going to be any evidence in B, C and D," he said.

He was right, of course, as Corbett's presentment against John Perzel and House Republican staff makes clear, though don't hold your breath waiting for anyone in the mainstream media to acknowledge it.

But nobody, not even the Capitol Stenographers Corps, can possibly believe that Corbett was stupid enough to expect House Republicans and both Senate caucuses to sit on their hands and wait more than two years for investigators to come a-calling.

Throughout 2007 and most of 2008, Corbett had no intention ever of pursuing charges against anyone in the House Republican Caucus or the Senate. There is simply no way he would have allowed House Republicans to replace their computers if he had. He would not have blithely continued to accept fundraising help from Brian Preski . He would not have held political meetings with Perzel. He would not have waited an entire year to force compliance with subpoenas that were issued three weeks after such a meeting with Perzel. He would not have accepted indirect campaign contributions from Senate Republicans. These actions, if Corbett indeed had intended to pursue charges against Republicans, would be both breathtakingly stupid and undeniably corrupt.

The only alternative explanation is that Corbett never intended to pursue charges against House Republicans or anyone in the Senate. He believed that he could get away with indicting one sitting rank-and-file Democratic representative who just happened to be running for a competitive Senate seat, one former representative already reviled statewide for the pay-raise controversy, and 10 staff members and be hailed as the conquering hero of legislative corruption.

At first, Corbett thought he could deflect suspicion about his partisanship by leaking hints about a nascent investigation of Republicans. In October 2007, a Capitolwire column suggested Corbett's political ties to the Republican legislature might inhibit Corbett's investigation, and a Morning Call editorial endorsed Morganelli's call for an independent prosecutor. The next day, the Associated Press reported that House Republicans had at last received a subpoena for records. We now know Corbett and his campaign manager had met with Perzel three weeks earlier. It had, by then, been 10 months since Corbett announced his investigation. The House Republican Caucus had replaced all its computers months earlier.

But the pressure continued to mount. In January 2008, Morganelli accused Corbett of “conflicts of interest” in a Tribune-Review article, which also detailed contributions from Republican lawmakers to Corbett's campaigns. Shortly afterward, the news emerged that a subpoena for records had been issued to Senate Republicans (Patriot-News 2/13/08) The turning point appears to have come around Aug. 3, 2008, when the Patriot-News published an analysis headlined “Is state bonus probe partisan?” In a Tribune-Review article published three days later, Governor Ed Rendell urged Corbett to reveal by election day whether Republicans would be charged as well. The Chambersburg Public Opinion editorialized the next day that Rendell had a pretty good point. By October, Team Corbett was explaining to House Republicans that no, they really were serious about those subpoenas they'd issued the year before.

It's easy for the Capitol Stenographers Corps to avoid seeing the patterns of Corbett's politically-motivated prosecutions when they're stretched out over five years. And prosecutors have been fairly successful in leading the press to treat the $20 million, eight-year House Republican corruption scheme as an afterthought to the House Democrats $1.4 million, four-year bonus program. But a full-blown dog-and-pony show the likes of last year's "Bonusgate" trial might have laid out the facts in a pattern too obvious even for the Corps to deny. That's why prosecutors were so motivated to get Preski and Perzel to agree to plea deals. They certainly didn't need them to testify - although Perzel got on the stand, the best he could do against defendant Feese was, "He had to know because everyone knew." Hardly a smoking gun. We doubt the public will find out anytime soon how sweet Preski and Perzel's deals are. Almost two years after entering a plea in the "Bonusgate" case, Mike Manzo, former Chief of Staff to craven liar Bill Deweese, has yet to be sentenced. But the deals were motivated by Corbett's desire to deflect media attention to the trial. And it worked.

We at CasablancaPA have a theory about why the Capitol Stenographers Corps are so willing to turn a collective blind eye to Corbett's ethical lapses and political opportunism. When a child suspects there's a monster under her bed, she hides her head under the covers rather than lean over to see. Because once you're looking it square in the face, what are you going to do about it?

PUT UP YOUR PERJURY ANTENNAE

2011-10-25T12:11:00.000-04:00

Tomorrow, Speaker Sam Smith will take the stand in the "computergate" trial along with his long-time chief of staff, Tony Aliano. Everyone's perjury antennae need to be up for both of them.

Prior to their appearances, Sheila Flickinger, a $58,000 a year "special projects coordinator" in Smith's office during the peak years of the "computergate" shenanigans, provided testimony regarding her time as Finance Director of the House Republican Campaign Committee (Associated Press 10/24/11)

It's not apparent from the media coverage of her testimony whom Flickinger's supervisors were for her "official" caucus job, nor that she was (and perhaps still is) in charge of Smith's personal leadership political committee -- Keystone Leader's PAC.

Much of the coverage of the trial so far has centered around the computer programs and the contracts with vendors that established a $20 million criminal enterprise. What hasn't been mentioned very much or very clearly is the function of the House Republican Caucus' Office of District Operations (pages 157-172 grand jury presentment)

The combination of Flickinger's intimate roles in both the illegal computer contracting and the rampant illegal campaign work of the Office of District Operations make it so very hard to believe that Smith will take the stand tomorrow and say he had no idea that massive illegal campaign operations were conducted right under his nose for nearly a decade or more.

Flickinger's prominence in the computer contracts scheme and the Office of District Operations is well documented in Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett's grand jury presentment:

"...GCR had detailed consultations with Sheila Flickinger due to her lengthy experience in the nominating petition process in Pennsylvania." (Page 65 grand jury presentment)
"John Hanley and Sheila Flickinger both testified that it was clear and well known that HRCC was not paying GCR for any of this work." (Page 73 grand jury presentment)
"Steve Dull testified that, while attending one of the HRCC meetings, he overheard a private conversation between several people including John Hanley, Al Bowman and Sheila Flickinger. The participants were quietly discussing their concerns over the fact that GCR was doing a tremendous amount of campaign work for the HRCC without adequate compensation." (Page 89 grand jury presentment)
"After assisting the Republican candidates with properly completing and filing their petitions, various [District Operations] staffers were assigned by Hanley and/or Sheila Flickinger to review the nominating petitions of Democratic incumbents. The reveiw of these petitions, which occurred at the Department of State (if no copies were made) or either HRCC or the District Operations headquarters in the State Capitol (if copies of the petitions were requested, required the time and assistance of most of the Regional Coordinators as well as the Harrisburg staff. These reviews happened both during and after the normal legislative day..." (Page 162 grand jury presentment)
"Adam Maust and Tom Weeter actually moved boxes full of binders and other 'questionable' material from District Operations to HRCC. The two of them used Sheila Flickinger's car (Ms. Flickinger has a parking space under the Capitol) to make at least two trips to take the material to HRCC." (Page 170 grand jury presentment)
"After [illegally gathered campaign information] was analyzed by Republican Caucus leadership (Perzel Feese, Preski) and senior staffers (Hanley, Bowman, Tomaselli, Dull, Seaman, Flickinger), the leadership and senior staffers would allocate resources or engage in other activities with one goal in mind: to get Republican candidates elected to office." (Page 172 grand jury presentment)

Are we to believe that at no time did Flickinger discuss with her direct supervisors, Smith and Aliano, the "well known" illegality of the millions of dollars of computer contracts Smith signed over the years? Or, that she never once mentioned all the political work taking up the majority of her time while under their supervision?

Of course not. Smith and Aliano knew fully well what was going on, and until it became clear that Corbett really was going to investigate the House Republican Caucus (after having given the GOP the green light to replace their hard drives and servers and continuing his cozy political relationship with them), things were cruising along after Smith took complete control of the caucus in 2007 just as they did in the years before.

Flickinger said yesterday on the stand that "the willingness of House employees to work as campaign volunteers for House shrank markedly after rules governing the practice were tightened in 2008 while the state attorney general’s investigation intensified into the alleged use of taxpayer-paid resources for electioneering." Maybe that is true -- for 2008 -- but definitely not 2007.

In 2007, when Smith was completely in charge of the caucus, there was absolutely no change in the amount of political campaign work the Office of District Operations was performing. Just compare the Perzel era DO staff activity here with the Smith era activity for 2007 here.

The grand jury presentment lists emails and meetings that included Smith's participation surrounding the political work of the computer contractors. It also relates how Smith knowingly parked notorious campaign operatives in the Office of District Operations (page 170 grand jury presentment)

Corbett even goes to great lengths to mention how Aliano authorized the use of taxpayer resources to pay for a party held in honor of the campaign work the District Operations staff did in 2005 (page 171 grand jury presentment)

There have been some Smith apologias over the past month similar to this:

"As whip, Smith mostly did what he was told, since while he had some concerns about Perzel, he also, like any fair-minded person, was in awe of the sheer skill of the man, and of Perzel’s incredible deal-making ability. And Smith needed Perzel to rise in the House as much as Perzel needed him. But since Perzel tended to be a huge power hog, Smith got titles but not much power, both as whip and as majority leader...Did Smith probably have an idea Perzel did some hinky things? Yes. Did he have legal proof of the way the campaign stuff was used? Almost certainly not." (Capitolwire 10/19/2011)

No one could have written that after reviewing Corbett's grand jury presentment or following the "computergate" testimony thus far. It is all there.

Smith knew. Witness after witness says "everyone" knew, especially those at the highest levels (not to mention the dozens and dozens of caucus staff working on campaigns daily). He was at the meetings. He was on the emails. Sheila Flickinger was his direct employee for years. He parked political operatives in the Office of District Operations. Most importantly, he signed many of the contracts and many of the checks knowing full well what was going on in the caucus.

There are many criticisms made of the Pennsylvania General Assembly, but electing and then putting into the very top leadership positions literal jellyfish with no backbone and no brain has never been one of them (figuratively? Maybe.) To believe that Smith, a veteran member of the House and son of a veteran member, and right hand Aliano floated aimlessly around the Capitol, bumping into walls, unaware of all the activity buzzing around him for years is simply absurd.

Perhaps Smith and Aliano will follow DeWeese's lead and plead the Fifth tomorrow. But if they don't, any answer short of acknowledging they were aware of the political nature of the computer contracts Smith signed, and that the Office of District Operations was a front for campaign operatives performing taxpayer funded campaign work, will be a deliberate act of perjury.

THE PERILS OF COOPERATING

2011-10-22T10:33:00.000-04:00

A word of advice to Senate Republicans: It's hard to throw someone under a bus without getting at least a little dust kicked up on your face.

When we read the statement from Senate GOP hired gun Matthew Haverstick that evidence in the Jane Orie case was turned over "as part of a prearranged and cooperative effort," we couldn't help but reflect upon craven liar Bill DeWeese's "cooperative effort" with Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett.

Believing he had nothing to fear from prosecutors, DeWeese turned over a massive cache of documents and emails to be used as evidence against his former colleague Mike Veon and others. He made at least a halfhearted effort to exclude some of the blatantly incriminating evidence, such as emails showing two of his top staffers coordinating political work with a state-paid contractor - emails that unfortunately for him turned up among the small amount of evidence gathered from other sources.

But a person who believes he has nothing to fear is a person who lets his guard down. Plenty of incriminating emails were among the evidence DeWeese himself turned over, including the smoking-gun "U R welcome" email in which he acknowledges awarding bonuses for campaign work.

DeWeese's sloppiness in voluntarily handing over evidence that incriminated himself did not have direct legal consequences - even after public disclosure of his complicity in awarding bonuses for campaign work, using a state-paid contractor for politicking, using state resources for petition challenges and overseeing other state-paid political work, DeWeese never was indicted on any of it.

But public disclosure of the unindicted DeWeese's criminal activities created a huge public-relations problem for Gubernatorial Candidate Corbett. Unable to act upon the incriminating evidence within his very grasp, Corbett was forced to conduct a separate investigation to ferret out crimes not covered by his previous deal with DeWeese.

Now, it's certainly not difficult to be smarter than Bill DeWeese. And Senate GOP leaders may not feel as bulletproof as DeWeese did in the fall of 2007. Perhaps they learned a lesson from DeWeese's stumbles. On the other hand, this investigation is being conducted by the District Attorney of Allegheny County, not the GOP candidate for Governor. Senate GOP leaders presumably weren't able to cover their asses with this prosecutor by funneling campaign contributions through his running mate's commitee.

HAVE AT IT, PAT

2011-10-21T09:50:00.000-04:00

Today's Philadelphia Inquirer reports some very familiar-sounding news to those who have been following Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett's investigation of the state legislature. In this case, it involves Philadelphia City Council Member Donna Reed Miller's office and staff:

"Michael Quintero Moore, who receives a city salary of $60,179 a year as Miller's communications director, was accused of creating that flier and several other political documents on his city-owned computer, in Miller's office on the third floor of City Hall. Moore then used a city printer to produce more than 1,000 copies of the flier, and directed Kacy Nickens, Miller's niece and a $30,000-a-year staff member, to fold them for distribution, [the Ethics Board] said. Nickens allegedly set up her folding operation at the councilwoman's desk, where Ethics Board investigators found the material May 13 while serving a subpoena for political material....[the Ethics Board's] enforcement action accused Moore of 11 violations of the City Charter's restrictions on political activity, and five additional counts of trying to undermine the Ethic's Board's investigation by deleting relevant files from Council's computer system and refusing to answer questions under oath from board investigators." (Inquirer 10/21/11)

Oh, my.

Highly-paid staffers doing campaign work on the city taxpayer clock. Staff ordering other staff to work on campaigns. Nepotism. The use of city taxpayer equipment. Destroying evidence. Refusing to cooperate with investigators.

This is exactly the kind of illegality Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams specifically brought former Deputy Attorney General Patrick Blessington onto his "anti-corruption" team to weed out earlier this year:

"'There is no question that Mr. Blessington has the abilities, the temperament, and the accomplishments to serve as our chief corruption prosecutor,' Williams said. 'I've asked him to investigate corruption wherever it may go and wherever it may lead us.'" (Inquirer 6/3/11)

Heck, from reading Williams' press release on his appointment, you'd think that the pinnacle of Blessington's career was a trial that resulted in 117 acquittals.

We're eager to see if Blessington will spring into action. Let's face it, this isn't the only politiking Miller's staff has done over the years. Furthermore, who believes that Miller didn't order this work to be done?

Blessington was only too happy to see legislative staff who did this exact same type of activity go to prison. Now that Blessington is patrolling a much smaller pond than the entire Commonwealth, can we expect him to bring the hammer down on Miller and her taxpayer-funded political operation?

We're not holding our breath. While this case is a mirror image of the "bonusgate" charges, it also closely resembles the case of former Rep. Matt Wright, (AP 1/29/10), who in 2009 was given a complete pass by Corbett's investigators - including Blessington - even though they adamantly maintained, "Anybody who violated the law is going to get it." (Patriot News 8/3/08)

Perhaps we have Blessington all wrong. Now that he's no longer under the direction of Corbett, maybe he'll live up to the high standards of "following the evidence wherever it leads" - a standard to which Corbett paid only lip service during his investigation of the state legislature. Perhaps, Williams won't be afraid of taking down clearly guilty elected officials and not just irrelevant entities and a bunch of staff

Maybe, just maybe, Blessington will even use his freedom from the GOP-dominated Attorney General's office to take on Corbett's taxpayer funded political machine that was operated out of the OAG since the day Corbett took office in 2005. Make no mistake, the Philadelphia District Attorney - or any district attorney in the Commonwealth - has the authority to do so.

DOING AS YOU'RE TOLD

2011-10-19T11:43:00.000-04:00

A portion of former Speaker and star "computergate" witness John Perzel's testimony yesterday offers the best example yet of the obtuseness of Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett's investigation of the legislature.

"Perhaps Perzel's most tantalizingtestimony was about people not seated at the defense table. At one point, he was asked aboutcurrent House Speaker Sam Smith (R., Jefferson), who was not charged in theComputergate case. Perzel testified that Smith, thenalso in the House GOP leadership, controlled the caucus' checkbook and had tosign off on the computer-software contracts. 'Sam would do whatever I askedhim to do,' said Perzel." (Inquirer 10/19/11)

One of the many illegal things Perzel asked Smith to do was sign these taxpayer-funded contracts with GCR, worth over $4 million, that were mainly for campaign work, not official legislative functions.

Now, compare Perzel's testimony that Smith did what he was asked to do regarding millions of dollars with this testimony from a "bonusgate" witness regarding campaign work done by legislative staff while on the taxpayer payroll using taxpayer resources:

"No one ever said, 'This is part of your job.' I was just asked to do it and I did it." (Post-Gazette 3/2/10)

Dozens and dozens of staff from both sides of the aisle were put under enormous pressure and peril by Corbett's investigation. They were threatened with arrest, put in fear of losing their jobs after witnessing other staff being fired, dragged before a grand jury, and then thrust into the public spotlight during the well-publicized trials. All because they were "asked to do it and did it."

Yet, Smith who was asked to approve millions of dollars of taxpayer money for what "everyone" knew to be illegal campaign work was never forced to testify before the grand jury and isn't on the government's witness list for the "computergate" trial. The only reason that Smith will have to answer publicly, and under oath, about his clear involvement in the "computergate" scheme is because the defense is calling him as a witness. (Tribune-Review 10/19/11) The prosecution wouldn't go so far as to inconvenience him.

Smith's experience mirrors that of every other elected official from both parties when it comes to Corbett's investigation. With the sole exception of defendant DeWeese, not a single legislator, past or present, was brought before a grand jury to testify for these investigations or used as a government witness in any of the trials, even though dozens and dozens of them show up in trial exhibits, grand jury testimony, and Corbett's own presentments.

At the end of the day, who is really being held accountable? Members of staff doing what they were told? A mere handful of washed-up current and ex-members of the legislature, like Perzel, Feese, Veon, DeWeese, and Stetler, who have absolutely no influence on the success or failure of now-Governor Corbett's legislative agenda?

If all this illegal campaign activity had occurred in a vacuum that included only those indicted, then this would make sense. But that simply isn't the case. Testimony, trial exhibits, and just plain ol' common knowledge proves that huge swaths of the current membership of the General Assembly knew, condoned, benefited from, and even participated in the use of both caucus' resources for their own re-elections.

Shame on Corbett for conducting an investigation in this manner. Shame on those of us who work in and around state government for letting Corbett proceed in this fashion. And, shame on all those members of the legislature for sitting by watching others, particularly staff, take the fall.

NOT IN A VACUUM

2011-10-14T11:14:00.001-04:00

Anyone taking the press coverage of the "bonusgate" and "computergate" trials at face value, would think that all campaigning on state time was limited to the offices and directions of Mike Veon, John Perzel, and Brett Feese. In two future trials, Bill DeWeese and Steve Stetler will be added to the list.

Yesterday's testimony in the "computergate" trial from Al Bowman is a perfect example. The Associated Press - the sole outlet to produce an article - creates the impression that Bowman discussed only his former employer, Brett Feese. (Associated Press 10/14/11)

However, the AP fails to mention Bowman's significant testimony regarding how ubiquitous campaigning in the Capitol was among every legislator's office and all staff people. The Inquirer's Angela Couloumbis' Tweets from yesterday's trial reflect this truth:

"Bowman also testifies that prior to #computergate investigation, House R staffers routinely did political work during legislative day"

"But after 2007, when state AG investigation began, everyone got scared and started changing caucus policies #computergate"

The Tweets - seen by a tiny fraction of the public - paint the more accurate picture of the landscape that actually existed in the state legislature.

Something fundamentally unjust occurred with Corbett's investigation of the state legislature. Especially considering the supposedly high standard for criminality that Corbett's team publicly set from the very beginning of the investigation. As summarized by Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina, "Anybody who violated the law is going to get it." (Patriot News 8/3/08) Deputy Attorney General Marc Costanzo reiterated the standard: "That this kind of activity [illegal use of taxpayers funds for political campaigns] will not be tolerated, and people will pay for their crimes." (Post-Gazette 5/21/10)

In the period covered by Corbett's investigations, multiple instances of the same type of malfeasance have been presented to Corbett by:

-- his own grand jury witnesses regarding their employers like former Majority Leader Todd Eachus (Associated Press 12/23/09) and former Speaker Keith McCall (Associated Press 2/19/10)

-- informants contacting his office like the former intern for Senator Jane Orie (Post-Gazette 1/6/2010)

-- and, the Pennsylvania Ethics Commission regarding members of the legislature like former Representative Matt Wright (Associated Press 1/29/10)

Yet, Corbett knowingly and deliberately let these law-breakers and so many others go free.

NEAR MISSES?

2011-10-12T11:31:00.001-04:00

The Patriot-News reports this morning on former Republican staffer Eric Ruth's testimony regarding a misdirected invoice in 2004 that could have exposed the House GOP's "computergate" scheme:

Ruth said that in late 2004 a GCR invoice listing such work was accidentally sent to the Bipartisan Management Committee of the House. He and other conspirators knew that invoice “revealed that campaign work was being paid for with state money,” Ruth said. (Patriot 10/12/11)

This near-miss is interesting, but not nearly as interesting as the House Republican political operation actually being exposed in 2007 by former Philadelphia Inquirer reporter Mario Cattabiani. (Inquirer 2/18/07)

In his report, Cattabiani related how the House GOP servers had political videos, photos, and campaign manuals stored on them. But, what really interests us is how this clear, unambiguous peek into the multi-million dollar "computergate" scheme resulted in no investigation by then Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Tom Corbett.

If Corbett really was investigating "computergate" in 2007, would he have give permission to House Republicans to replace their computers and servers? (Patriot 8/3/08)

If Corbett really was taking a hard look at John Perzel and Brian Preski, would Corbett and his taxpayer-funded campaign manager Brian Nutt have enlisted Preski to raise money for Corbett's campaigns? Or held private meetings with Perzel about the gubernatorial campaign? (Daily News 11/12/09)

A careful examination of the timeline of Corbett's "computergate" investigation shows it was one of political expediency that would net only small fish and has-beens like Perzel and Feese, not active power-brokers like Sam Smith.

GONE, BABY, GONE

2011-10-07T10:14:00.001-04:00

With all the talk about what a "powerful" lawmaker former Speaker John Perzel once was, many have forgotten that following the 2006 general election, former Perzel was out...gone....sent off to "Speaker Emeritus" land.

Perzel had absolutely no authority within the House Republican Caucus in 2007. Sam Smith and his staff took the reins in the caucus. Perzel and his former chief of staff, Brian Preski, were non-entities.

That's why we were very interested in this bit of testimony from Tony Painter that Pete Jackson with the Associated Press reports today from the computergate trial:

"Tony Painter, who served as the caucus' director of information and technology from 1994 to 2007, said Feese - a former state representative from Lycoming County and one of two defendants - approached him about replacing the caucus email system in February 2007, shortly after the GOP lost control of the House and Feese became the caucus' lawyer. Painter said he was stunned when Feese told him legislative and campaign activities must be kept separate. He said Feese, who had previously served as House GOP whip and head of the House Republican Campaign Committee, knew that tapping public funds for political purpose had become routine among caucus leaders. "It was a phony meeting" designed to make Feese appear innocent, Painter said. "Within three or four days of this meeting, it's business as usual." (Associated Press 10/7/11)

Note that Painter says the use of taxpayer dollars - in early 2007 - "had become routine among caucus leaders." That's "leaders," plural. Not "leader," as in just Perzel. There's not a soul in Harrisburg, much less within the House Republican Caucus, who would not consider Smith one of the leaders throughout the entire period covered by the "computergate" trial.

Most telling is that this meeting was held in 2007 when Perzel was no longer in charge. Every decision was Smith's to make. Yet, Painter says that, regardless of what was said at this "phony meeting," within days it was back to "business as usual."

"Business as usual" was the continuation of the House Republicans using taxpayer resources for campaign purposes. Only now, instead of simply knowing about this illegal activity, Smith was in charge of it, and allowing it to continue under his watch.

ASK THE RIGHT QUESTIONS

2011-10-01T12:50:00.001-04:00

For the third time in two years, (not the second, Inquirer) the Commonwealth is being treated to a parade of witnesses trotted into court to testify that yes, legislative employees worked on campaigns, often between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., often using state equipment, and yes, some of those-state paid employees did nothing but campaign, and yes, much of that equipment was purchased solely for campaigns.

Each time, these now-commonplace admissions are treated with breathless urgency, as though the Capitol Stenographers Corps have not been fully aware for at least a decade that the practice ran rampant among hundreds of employees in all four legislative caucuses.

News flash: WE KNOW.

What we don't know is why some employees were prosecuted, some given immunity to testify, and the vast majority left alone completely, and more importantly why nearly every single elected official who supervised, sanctioned and paid for the political work with taxpayer dollars was given a free pass by then-Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett.
(Well, we do know, but the Capitol Stenographers Corps are constitutionally unable to report "it's raining," simply because they see with their own eyes that rain is falling from the sky. They must wait for a person in authority to say "it's raining," and then - for balance - they must find someone, anyone, to declare that it's not raining. That's called "reporting the news.")

When Speaker of the House Sam Smith takes the stand in the "Computergate" trial, Pennsylvanians will for the very first time have the opportunity to gain some insight -- Insight into the the reasons why Corbett's investigation bypassed most of the legislature and landed mainly on a relatively small group of staffers, and not a single legislative leader (the only legislators with the authority to allocate caucus funds)

Former House Democratic Leader Bill DeWeese, who was not charged in "Bonusgate" (as he desperately wants us all to know) essentially admitted his guilt in that very scheme when he pleaded the Fifth rather than testify.

Smith, whose fingerprints are all over "Computergate" no longer feels as bulletproof as he did when he said:

"I think anything as big as that [bonus] program they had going, I think he [DeWeese] was aware of it. … As the Republican leader, I know that ultimately the buck stops with me, and I’m responsible for the actions, even if I really wasn’t. … As leader you’re aware of most things. Some minor details I don’t see that go on from day to day that go on in terms of operations. But I think anything as big as that program they had going, I think he was aware of it.” (Tribune-Review, 12/20/07)

Smith had every reason to believe that statement, about an alleged criminal enterprise less than one-tenth the scope of "Computergate," would never come back to haunt him. House Republicans had - with Corbett's blessing - replaced all of their computers months before. Investigating House Republicans was so far from Corbett's mind then that he was happily accepting Brian Preski's fund-raising support and holding political meetings with John Perzel.

But the pressure to indict an expendable Republican finally overwhelmed Corbett, much to Smith's humiliation (but significantly, at no legal or legislative cost to him). Keep in mind that the grand jury identified $20 million in taxpayer funds diverted to political use, but apparently were able to pin only $10 million of that on Perzel.

Now Smith risks perjury if he doesn't testify truthfully. If he pleads the Fifth, he can't count on the Capitol Stenographers Corps - or the voters in his district - remaining as blasé about it as they've been about DeWeese.

This dilemma is rendered moot, however, if attorneys don't ask the right questions when they finally get Speaker Smith on the stand, under oath.

"WE'RE DONE PLAYING WITH THESE GUYS"

2011-09-29T10:54:00.001-04:00

Allegheny County District Attorney Steve Zappala announced yesterday that he will issue subpoenas to Republican State Senate staff. His frustration with the the Senate GOP regarding his investigation of State Senator Jane Orie was clear:

"Someone started deleting these documents about two weeks after the trial. We were notified by attorneys for the Senate caucus that documents were missing. We're done playing with these guys." (Tribune Review 9/29/11)

Especially notable about Zappala's announcement is that these are the very first subpoenas issued for testimony from Senate Republican staff, even though it's been nearly five years since then-Attorney General and Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett claimed he would investigate all four legislative caucuses and their alleged use of taxpayer resources for political campaign purposes.

There's no doubt these subpoenas will allow Zappala's investigators will uncover problems with Orie, but if they ask the right questions, then Mike Long, Drew Crompton, former Senator Bob Jubelirer and former Senator Chip Brightbill have much to fear.

Corbett and his Republican Attorney General successors have allowed the Republican State Senate Caucus to self-investigate and self-report any evidence of campaigning illegally by its members and staff. In fact, the only contact between the Office of Attorney General and the Senate GOP has been the two voluntary appearances of former General Counsel Stephen MacNett, one of the very Senate staff members who performed campaign work on the state's dime over his many years as an employee of that caucus.

Clearly, Corbett's tactic of allowing the Senate Republicans to investigate themselves has been an abject disaster, most clearly exhibited by its failure to uncover the rampant illegality occurring in Orie's offices. If they "missed" that, then it is highly likely they've "missed" Mike Long's well-documented campaign activity and the taxpayer-funded bonus Drew Crompton' received for working on Lynn Swann's 2006 gubernatorial campaign.

For too long, Corbett and the Office of Attorney General has been playing a cute little game of hide the sausage with the Senate Republican Caucus. Well-deserved investigative scrutiny finally being is brought to bear by Zappala. Subpoenas, testifying under oath, and the threat of perjury convictions tend to elicit the truth from even the most reluctant of witnesses.

Let's hope Zappala asks the questions of those under oath that Corbett and his successors have refused to ask for over five years.

WILL SPEAKER SAM SMITH SEE HIS SHADOW?

2011-09-27T08:52:00.000-04:00

The biggest news from the first day of what has been dubbed the "Computergate" trial wasn't any bombshell revelations in the opening arguments. Rather, it was the Tribune-Review's Brad Bumstead's revelation that House Speaker Sam Smith will testify.

The pride of Punxsutawney risks perjuring himself if he continues asserting under oath on the stand he knew nothing about what was happening in the House Republican Caucus right under his nose. (Tribune Review 11/18/09)

Remember, Smith was incredulous about Democratic House Leader Bill DeWeese's contention that he knew nothing about the "bonusgate" scandal that unfolded under his watch:

“I think anything as big as that [bonus] program they had going, I think he [DeWeese] was aware of it. … As the Republican leader, I know that ultimately the buck stops with me, and I’m responsible for the actions, even if I really wasn’t. … As leader you’re aware of most things. Some minor details I don’t see that go on from day to day that go on in terms of operations. But I think anything as big as that program they had going, I think he was aware of it.” (Capitolwire, 11/18/09)

Now, Smith says he had no idea that the computer contracts he signed were for political purposes.It's simply not credible for Smith to say he knew nothing about the technology contracts he signed with GCR totaling nearly $6 million. (Grand Jury presentment pages 53 and 54)

Don't take our word for it. Here's what then-Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Tom Corbett's Grand Jury presentment had to say about the work GCR was doing for the House Republican Caucus:

“The existence and use of GCR’s Candidate Connect was widespread and notorious.” (page 67)
“…it was clear and well known that the HRCC was not paying GCR for any of this work.” (page 73)

In addition to GCR, Smith signed a technology contract with Aristotle (page 100) and the presentment said that "...the HRCC was known to be receiving the benefit of Aristotle's voter data without cost." (page 102)

In fact, an email Smith received was used in the presentment to illustrate the overtly political nature of the work being done by the technology contractors. (page 81)

Another technology contract that doesn't get as much attention as the GCR arrangement is that between Weiss Micromarketing Group and the House Republican Caucus:

“On June 16, 2004, Weiss came to Harrisburg and gave a presentation to Perzel, Smith, Tomaselli and possibly Preski and Feese. Weiss testified that presentation was essentially focused on whether the term “voter” could be substituted for “consumer” in order to market an issue or a candidate. He further testified that his potential work for the Caucus was clearly understood to be for both legislative and campaign purposes.” (page 129)

Yet another email to Smith is mentioned in the presentment to illustrate the blatantly political nature of the Weiss contract with the House Republican caucus:

“Weiss identified an email about these predictive election model projects The email involves Tomaselli, Bowman, Feese, Preski, Perzel, Seaman, Smith and Dull. It discusses one of the meetings Weiss had in New Orleans and specifically references building the model to predict the outcome of elections.” (page 130)

Plus, Smith's top aides were in most of these meetings according to the presentment. Are we to believe Sheila Flickinger and Anthony Aliano said absolutely NOTHING about all the campaign work happening via these technology contracts, especially given that their boss signed most of them?

Flickinger was a full-time "Special Projects Coordinator" for Smith in 2006, earning $58,539. She appears over and over in the Republican presentment as an insider who knew everything that was going on under Perzel's and Feese's watch at both the House Republican Campaign Committee and the Republican Caucus' Office of District Operations.

Smith knew these technology contracts were paying for political campaign activities using taxpayer dollars. It is a mystery why Corbett went to all the trouble of including Smith in the presentment over and over and over while not indicting him.

It reminds us how he went out of his way to mention of Bill DeWeese's illegal use of a state contractor for political work, but never charged him for it. (Inquirer 4/6/09) Is it perhaps a secret signal? A taunt of some kind?

Unlike Punxsutawney Phil, Smith wasn't asleep in a hole for months at a time while the caucus operated on cruise control. He heard everything the grand jury witnesses heard. Plus, Smith was physically in many of the meetings discussing the these technology contractors and their political applications. Finally, Smith received emails clearly detailing the political nature of the work being done by the contractors.

Without perjuring himself, we're not sure Smith can avoid the sunlight testifying under oath tends to cast on the truth.

WHY IS THIS MAN SMILING?

2011-09-23T13:10:00.022-04:00

As the Feese/Preski/Seaman trial fast approaches, we here at CasablancaPA are reviewing the grand jury presentment from 2009. A few names are popping up that have us scratching our heads.

One in particular is Shannon Royer, the Deputy Secretary for External Affairs and Elections in the Department of State. For those not familiar with the DOS, he's the guy who oversees all the elections in Pennsylvania.

A too-often overlooked, yet substantial aspect of the charges against Feese/Preski/Seaman revolves around the rampant abuse of taxpayer resources through the House Republican Office of District Operations. This is how Corbett's grand jury described it:

"[District Operations] for at least the period from 2001-2006, and to a lesser extent after 2006, was virtually a wholly owned campaign subsidiary of the House Republican Campaign Committee (HRCC). This arrangement, which included the use of taxpayer money for campaign work performed by [District Operations] staffers, was organized, coordinated, and approved at the highest levels of the House Republican Caucus..." (Page 157, Grand Jury presentment 11/09)

Royer was a Regional Coordinator with the Office of District Operations during this entire period. Here's what the grand jury had to say about that position:

"...all but a handful of these staffers actually worked out of their homes across the state, not in the Capitol. The Caucus, in response to a number of Grand Jury subpoenas, has produced little to no documentation about what these coordinators did or how much time they actually spent doing legislative work during the time period which was the focus of the Grand Jury's investigation. That dearth of documentation regarding legislative work became understandable to the Grand Jury once the Grand Jury learned about what most of the Regional Coordinators and other [District Operations] staffers actually did while being paid by the taxpayers." (Page 158)

He's even mentioned by name within the grand jury presentment as participating in illegal activities on pages 164 and 165.

Furthermore, in 2006, Royer was a candidate for state representative while working as a Regional Coordinator. QUIZ: Was a staff member running for the legislature more or less likely to engage in campaign work on state time than a staff member who was not?

Royer's apparent climb up the career ladder courtesy of Governor Corbett is particularly galling when you consider that Corbett arrested former State Represenative Sean Ramaley on charges that he used state resources inappropriately while running for state representative as a House Democratic Caucus employee. (Harrisburg Patriot-News 7/18/08)

How ironic that Corbett, the supposed scourge of political chicanery in the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the Commonwealth's elections generally, would make such an important appointment even though he knew Royer had blatantly broken the laws governing the process Royer now oversees.

According to Deputy Attorney General Marc Costanzo, General Assembly employees should be "[sent] a loud and clear message that this kind of activity [illegal use of taxpayers funds for political campaigns] will not be tolerated, and people will pay for their crimes." (Post-Gazette 5/21/10)

Clearly, that's a lie.

Throughout the entire investigation Corbett selectively picked who to investigate and prosecute from among members and staff of the General Assembly who universally used taxpayer resources for political campaigns.

In fact, rather than being arrested, the vast majority were let off the hook. A select few were given plumb appointments -- just like Deputy Secretary Shannon Royer.

CRAVEN LIAR ACCIDENTALLY MAKES A GOOD POINT

2011-09-21T12:01:00.021-04:00

Lord knows we don't agree with craven liar H. William DeWeese too often, but his rant to the Philadelphia Inquirer makes an excellent point we've trying to get across for nearly two years.

It is, as DeWeese whines, "a factual inaccuracy - and a sad testament to the standing of the Fourth Estate - to say that former Republican attorney general (and now Gov.) Tom Corbett charged [DeWeese] in connection with legislative bonuses. The record shows he clearly did not."

DeWeese, of course, would have you believe the fantasy that Corbett didn't charge him in connection with bonuses because DeWeese ("U R welcome") wasn't culpable. That is, of course, not true.

The "sad testament to the standing of the Fourth Estate" is not only that it keeps repeating the lie that DeWeese was charged in connection with bonuses, but that no one has bothered to investigate why the obviously culpable DeWeese was not so charged.

Keep in mind that the incriminating "U R welcome" email - along with dozens of other incriminating emails and documents - were not turned over until after months of legal wrangling with Corbett's office. It was only after DeWeese lost his bids both to exclude evidence seized under a search warrant and to quash subpoenas of House staffers that DeWeese finally negotiated to turn over to Corbett documents and emails that DeWeese himself selected.

Despite the evidence to be found among the documents DeWeese and his attorneys selected, even after DeWeese's chief of staff, Mike Manzo, testified in open court that DeWeese knew about the bonuses, and despite the testimony of DeWeese's executive assistant, Kat Manucci, that DeWeese approved awarding bonuses for political work, Corbett still declined to charge DeWeese with bonus-related crimes - as DeWeese himself wants us all to know.

He just maybe doesn't want us to know why.

DeWeese claims in his Inquirer rant that he cooperated with Corbett's investigation for "35 months" - a blatant and obvious lie. Counting backward from his early December 2009 indictment (on non-bonus-related charges) to the earliest possible moment his "negotiation" with Corbett could have occurred, in late October of 2007, gives us only 25 months. Again, no one ever bothers to contradict DeWeese when he claims he cooperated with Corbett since "Day One," as if all those months of legal obstructionism never happened.

Finally, DeWeese claims that "Corbett surely knew that I would be one of his premier antagonists on the House floor," but from the moment of DeWeese's late-October or early-November 2007 "negotiation" with Corbett until shortly before DeWeese's December 2009 indictment (on non-bonus-related charges), DeWeese never uttered a single word of antagonism against Corbett, on the House floor or anywhere else. On the contrary, he told KDKA in February 2008, "I have no doubt that this investigation will be fair." He called the day his colleague Mike Veon and several staffers were indicted "one of the best f***ing days of my life."

Ultimately, DeWeese's quest for the media to make a distinction between bonus-related charges and others is probably futile. Brad Bumsted over at the Tribune-Review keeps insisting "ten people were convicted in connection with a $1.4 million bonus scam among House Democrats," when he knows full well that two of those people were actually acquitted (that would be the opposite of convicted) of all bonus-related charges and one of them never even was charged with any bonus offenses. There were 322 charges filed against the original 12 "Bonusgate" defendants, and only 99 of them had anything to do with bonuses. (And, only 50 - less than 16% - resulted in convictions.)

However, if DeWeese wants to maintain the illusion that he's not culpable with regard to bonuses, we can't imagine why he'd want closer scrutiny of the distinction.

FROM THEIR OWN LIPS

2011-09-18T16:36:00.019-04:00

Remember 2004?

Such an innocent time. Back then, it never occurred to anyone in the General Assembly that people could go to jail on accusations of using public resources for political purposes.

So innocent, in fact, that Republican Senators and staff alike had no qualms about admitting to a newspaper reporter that the caucus was paying a political operative, using taxpayer funds, to conduct opposition research on political candidates.

Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett did his best not to uncover any evidence against Senate Republicans by refusing to subpoena a single one of them, but even his best efforts couldn't keep them from incriminating themselves.

"From what I understand, [political operative Ron Harper Jr.] was very influential in helping Sen. Rob Wonderling defeat his opponent in Montgomery County," Sen. Gib E. Armstrong told the Lancaster Intelligencer-Journal and New Era. "Apparently, Wonderling's opponent did work with a redevelopment authority down there and was putting properties in his own name. Well, when that came out, it was over."

Breathtaking, isn't it? Taxpayer-funded political operative Mike Long didn't even try to hide the fact that the opposition research was conducted on the public dime: "Long said Harper earns $3,000 a month from the Senate Republican Caucus to research people and subjects important to the Senate."

Some of the other "people and subjects important to the Senate" back then were anti-pay raise activists working to unseat Senate Republican President Pro Tempore Robert Jubelirer, Senate Republican Leader David "Chip" Brightbill and Republican Caucus chairman Sen. Noah Wenger. Young Conservatives of Pennsylvania said Harper "threatened and harassed" them.

Also "important to the Senate" was former Blair County Commissioner, now Senator John Eichelberger, who defeated Jubelirer in the 2006 primary. Harper allegedly "stalked" and harassed Eichelberger both during the 2006 Senate primary against Jubelierer and during a 2003 county commission primary, when Eichelberger ran against a Jubelirer-backed candidate.

Was Steve MacNett, in his voluntary appearances before the grand jury -the sole Senate GOPer to appear - asked about Harper's contract? Or Drew Crompton's months on the Lynn Swann campaign in 2006 and his subsequent taxpayer-funded bonus? Or the campaign work "political guru" Mike Long ran from his state senate office, and his corresponding bonuses? We're quite sure MacNett didn't "volunteer"' the information.

It's not 2004 anymore. You can't count on Senate Republicans freely admitting that taxpayer dollars were spent on political opposition research. In 2011, only a subpoena will get tongues wagging like it's 2004 again.

PAYING THE PIPER, PART II

2011-09-08T13:55:00.005-04:00

The state-paid legal fees did not cover the defense of officials once they were charged. They went to the cost of representing caucuses in the investigation and to ongoing bills for counsel for scores of House and Senate employees subpoenaed to testify. (Tribune-Review, 9/8/11)

During 2007 and 2008, when the House Democratic Caucus was the sole focus of Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett's investigation of the General Assembly, H. William DeWeese was Majority Leader.

DeWeese was not among the original defendants indicted, despite ample evidence of his culpability.

In 2009, Todd Eachus replaced DeWeese as Leader of the now-Minority House Democratic Caucus. In 2009, DeWeese was indicted, but Eachus was not, despite ample evidence of his complicity.

In 2009, Sam Smith was Leader of the Majority Republican Caucus. John Perzel, for all his former power, held no formal leadership role in his caucus. When Corbett finally got around to indicting Republicans in 2009, Smith was not among them and Perzel was, despite the fact that Smith signed the shady contracts at the center of Perzel's alleged crimes.

Under Pennsylvania's caucus system, the only person authorized to spend caucus funds, whether for bonuses or for computer contracts or for legal fees, is the Leader. Not the Whip, and not the "Speaker Emeritus."

As we have noted before, at least one judge in Pennsylvania recognizes that witnesses are reluctant to implicate the people paying their legal bills. One might say an entire investigation could be tainted by such an arrangement.

It's "interesting" that of the three sitting lawmakers indicted, none of them were in a position to pay the lawyers counseling the witnesses who testified to the grand jury, and no one who controlled the purse strings during the testimony was indicted.

LYING PROSECUTORS ARE A-OK WITH PHILLY PUNDIT

2011-09-06T10:56:00.005-04:00

But there’s nothing unusual or suspect about a prosecutor picking and choosing his battles. Resources are limited, after all, and the point of a justice system is not just to punish the guilty, but also to deter crime in the first place. Going after high-profile targets, like Perzel, is a good deterrent to bad behavior. (Patrick Kerkstra, Philadelphia Magazine, 9/6/11)

Whether there's anything unusual or suspect about a prosecutor picking and choosing his targets aside (there is), prosecutors in this case have repeatedly and emphatically denied that's what they've done:

"Anybody who violated the law is going to get it," Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina told the Patriot-News.

CasablancaPA has repeatedly demonstrated what a huge lie Fina's statement is.

Now Kerstra also admits Fina's statement is a lie, but that's just fine by him.

HOW MUCH CAN POLITICAL SUPPORT BUY?

2011-09-03T10:10:00.008-04:00

[Governor Tom] Corbett reminded reporters today that he received campaign contributions from former House Speaker John Perzel in 2004, adding: "It didn't do him any good, did it[?] (Patriot-News, 9/1/11)

Or did it?

Back in early 2007, when media reports revealed that all four caucuses had awarded questionable bonuses, Corbett declined to begin investigating Republicans (despite his public statements to the contrary.) That was pretty good for Perzel and other Republicans who supported Corbett.

When House Republicans wanted to replace all their computers in July of 2007, in the midst of Corbett's so-called "investigation," Corbett told them to go right ahead. That was pretty good for Perzel and other Republicans who supported Corbett.

When Corbett executed a search warrant for documents, he seized only House Democratic documents, giving House Republicans the opportunity to destroy evidence and hide documents. That was pretty good for Perzel and other Republicans who supported Corbett. (Are judges really "laughing out of court" applications for search warrants and subpoenas that don't include probable cause that evidence sought is being destroyed? What's laughable is that no one questioned this lame explanation.)

Eight months into the "investigation," Corbett and his campaign manager met with Perzel. Subpoenas were issued three weeks later, suggesting that, had the meeting gone another way, subpoenas might not have been issued. That opportunity could have been great for Perzel (and any for other Republicans who supported Corbett, who may have had meetings we don't know about that did go another way.)

And even though House Republicans apparently didn't bother to comply with those subpoenas (could it be they had reason to believe Corbett wasn't serious about investigating them?), contempt hearings "held for the purpose of forcing the caucus into compliance with subpoenas and court orders" did not take place for an entire year. That was pretty good for Perzel and the other Republicans who supported Corbett.

Ten months into the "investigation," Corbett accepted a campaign contribution from Perzel's former chief of staff and allowed him to host a fundraiser, something he would never have done if Perzel and his former chief of staff were under investigation. Not being under investigation was pretty good for Perzel and his former chief of staff and the other Republicans who supported Corbett.

And even though investigators learned when they executed the warrant on House Democrats that House Republican records also were stored in the basement, Corbett never executed a search warrant for them. That was pretty good for Perzel and the other Republicans who supported Corbett.

And even when Corbett finally got around to issuing a subpoena for those records in February 2008, and immediately learned the boxes had vanished, Corbett didn't bother interviewing House Republican staffers about them until late July 2008. That, also, was pretty good for Perzel and the other Republicans who supported Corbett.

Finally, facing 82 felony counts for his alleged theft totaling $10 million (out of $20 million misappropriated; apparently no one is responsible for the other $10 million), Perzel was permitted to plead to just 8, fewer even than Mike Manzo, a staffer, who was charged with 47 felony counts in a $2 million crime. That's pretty good for Perzel (though we don't know, and may never know, what he promised to reveal - or not to reveal - in exchange for that deal. Up to now, this humble blog is the only outlet commenting on the glaring holes in Corbett's "investigation" of the House Republicans. A full-blown trial would make it hard for even the Capitol Stenographers Corps to avoid reporting on them.)

Did Perzel's political support for Corbett do him any good? In the end, it wasn't enough to get him off scot-free, but it took him pretty far. He supported Corbett for Attorney General in 2004, and that appears to have bought him some goodwill early in the "investigation." But after that meeting in October 2007, when Corbett was lining up support for his gubernatorial campaign - which he never got from Perzel - that goodwill appeared to dry up. Even lukewarm support might not have been enough to counteract the mounting pressure to prove the "investigation" wasn't partisan.

As we have seen with the so-called "investigation" of Corbett's longtime ally LeRoy Zimmerman, political support might have staved off investigation - watchdogs had been begging Corbett to investigate for six years. But when the state's largest newspaper, a month before the election, exposed the alleged corruption Corbett had been overlooking, he was forced at least to pretend he would investigate. And Zimmerman is a far more valuable ally than Perzel ever was.

Oh, by the way: has the more than $1.6 million in contributions Corbett received from natural gas drillers done them any good?

LET'S MAKE A DEAL

2011-08-31T15:17:00.012-04:00

While Harrisburg's self-proclaimed pundits and gasbags attempt to explain what former state Rep. John Perzel's guilty plea really means, (or more likely, whom he agreed to throw under the bus), we think it's worth examining what led to this moment.

First, though, we must correct an inexplicably ubiquitous error in the chronicling of the Perzel story. You will read and hear in nearly every media report that Perzel is accused of misdirecting $10 million in taxpayer funds. This is blatantly false, and we can't comprehend why it's been so consistently misreported. As anyone who has read the grand jury presentment concerning Perzel - admittedly, that probably doesn't include most of the Capitol Stenographers Corps - can tell you, Team Perzel is accused of misappropriating $20 million in taxpayer funds.

It's right there on the first page: "This presentment will disclose that a vast array of public expenditures, exceeding twenty million dollars, were spent between 2000 and 2008 by the House Republican Caucus ..."

Let's add it all up:

$9.3 million to GRC & Associates
$1 million in "labor and benefits" from the House Republican Information Technology Department
$6.2 million to Aristotle International, Inc.
$3.8 million to Constituents Direct LLC
$400,000 to Weiss Marketing Group
$100,000 in politically-motivated "junkets"

That's $20.8 million right there, without including the unspecified costs of "miscellaneous uses of public resources for campaign work" and the salaries and benefits of the Office of District Operations - "a taxpayer-funded, wholly owned campaign subsidiary of the House Republican Campaign Comittee."

What's the big deal? you may ask. Isn't $10 million serious enough? Aside from being inaccurate, the $10 million figure simply doesn't convey the true scope of the House Republicans' alleged criminal enterprise - an enterprise that Gubernatorial Candidate Corbett was more than willing to overlook, until questions about partisanship arose, and until a secret meeting with Perzel that belatedly appeared to trigger the investigation. Subpoenas were issued three weeks after the meeting.

In other words, according to Corbett's own investigation, House Republicans allegedly misappropriated more than $20 million in taxpayer funds over an eight-year span. House Democrats allegedly misappropriated about $2 million over a four year span. Yet investigation of the Democrats' alleged crimes took precedence over investigation of the Republicans.

While Corbett was busy lying that the case against the Democrats was a priority because they were (wrongly) suspected of destroying evidence (a suspicion that didn't arise until more than six months after the investigation began), the House Republicans were busy actually destroying evidence. Who could have predicted that would happen after Corbett himself gave House Republicans permission to switch out their computers?

We remain at a loss to explain why Corbett, ostensibly a trained lawyer, claimed that he needed probable cause that evidence was being destroyed in order to seek evidence.

Not that he had any intention of seeking any kind of evidence against House Republicans at that time. Months after executing a search warrant on House Democrats, Corbett was still accepting campaign contributions from and secretly meeting with the supposed targets of his "investigation."

Because Corbett treated Perzel's alleged crimes like an afterthought, the reporters who lap up his every pronouncement as gospel have treated them that way, too - not even bothering with more than a cursory glance at a press release. Even though the very "facts" they were reporting showed that Perzel's alleged crimes were far more serious and far-reaching than Veon's, they took their cue from Corbett and proceeded as if Perzel's crimes paled in comparison to Veon's.

We have no idea what the Office of Attorney General promised Perzel in exchange for his guilty plea, or what else Perzel threw into the bargain, but it's worth noting that an elected official facing 82 felonies, representing $20 million, was permitted to plead to fewer counts than a staffer facing 47 felonies, representing less than $2 million.

We hope prosecutors found a better bargain in Perzel than they got in Mike Manzo.

UPDATE: One member of the Capitol Stenographers Corps tells CasablancaPA that the Office of Attorney General claims although the House Republican Caucus spent in excess of $20 million, Perzel himself was responsible for only $10 million of that. Which of course begs the question - unasked by the Stenographers, naturally - why no one was charged in connection with the other $10 million. Eh, it's probably not important .... right?

CORRECTION: Mike Manzo was originally charged with 47 felonies. The original post misstated the number. We made the mistake of relying on a Post-Gazette story by Tracie Mauriello. Yes, we should have known better.

"GUILTY" PEOPLE ARE MORE INNOCENT THAN "NOT GUILTY" PEOPLE

2011-08-16T19:18:00.005-04:00

[Rachel Manzo] is "perhaps the least involved and least culpable" of the Bonusgate defendants who have appeared before [Dauphin County Common Pleas Judge Richard Lewis]. (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 8/10/11)

All due respect, Your Honor, but how the hell would you know?

You never heard one word of testimony or laid eyes on a single piece of evidence in the Commonwealth's 12-count felony case against Mrs. Manzo.Is there a crystal ball hidden beneath those robes? Or do you just feel somehow that she was the "least involved?"

What we really want to know is how you can say that someone who pleaded guilty to involvement in a crime was "less involved and less culpable" than people who were actually found not guilty of that same crime?

And everyone's buying it?

The problem here is everyone knows that the charges against Mrs. Manzo were withdrawn in exchange for her husband's testimony. Not her own - she never testified in the case. But prosecutors for some reason can't admit that they used charges against one person to leverage testimony from another.Instead, Chief Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina mumbles some unproveable nonsense about providing investigators with valuable information - so valuable, apparently, that it never was entered as evidence in a courtroom anywhere on this planet.

Fina admits that Mrs. Manzo participated in "a plan to distribute more than $1.8 million in tax dollars to House Democratic staffers as rewards for campaign work." She pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor theft charge in connection with that "plan."

Yet every staff member who went to trial on charges related to that "plan" was found not guilty of those charges.Maybe Judge Lewis forgot that they were acquitted?

Either Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett erroneously charged Mrs. Manzo with 12 unwarranted felony counts, or he believed she was guilty of serious crimes and let her off for reasons other than her own lack of culpability.

If the former is true, the prosecutor screwed up. If the latter is true, the judge screwed up. But no one seems to be owning up to either one.The fact that neither the judge nor the prosecutor can admit the truth about Mrs. Manzo's deal speaks volumes.

HIDING THE EVIDENCE

2011-07-29T22:04:00.008-04:00

“I do not think it’s an accident those notes were destroyed,” Fetterhoff said. (Patriot News, 7/27/11)

Neither do we, Bill. Neither do we.

Courts have consistently and unequivocally ruled that defendants are entitled to notes from interviews, or proffer statements, conducted during a criminal investigation.

In fact, such a ruling was part of the criminal trial of former House Democratic Whip Mike Veon.

Judge Richard Lewis, who just today rejected a motion to dismiss the charges against former Rep. John Perzel and seven staffers, did not make that ruling in the Veon case. He deferred that decision to Judge Barry Fuedale, who supervised the grand jury that indicted Veon.

Fuedale ordered prosecutors to turn over proffer notes to Veon's lawyers. The very same prosecutors who then destroyed notes from 94 interviews in the Perzel case.

Prosecutors apparently are now lying that the notes were turned over to Veon "by mistake." It was no mistake; they were ordered to turn them over.

There is, quite simply, no way that prosecutors didn't know that the defendants were entitled to those notes. And they destroyed them anyway. In the immortal words of Vice President Joe Biden, this is a big f-ing deal.

It will be years before an appeals court has an opportunity to review Lewis' decision, given that the Perzel trial is expected to take at least six months and it's unlikely it even will begin until 2012. Governor Tom Corbett, who as Attorney General supervised the investigation and cruised into office on the publicity, will be safely past his reelection campaign by then.

And while we agree with Fetterhoff that the notes were deliberately destroyed, we don't think it's because they exonerate the defendants. But rather, because they might reveal the embarrassingly selective nature of the prosecutors' investigation - just as the evidence turned over to the Veon defense revealed.

Is there any doubt that prosecutors would have destroyed, had they known the embarrassment it would cause, the "U R welcome" email written by then-House Democratic Leader Bill DeWeese, never indicted in connection with bonuses for campaigning, in response to a staffer thanking him for the "bonus for campaigning?" Or the emails showing that DeWeese and his top aides, who were not indicted for working on campaign issues with a state-paid contractor, in fact worked on campaign issues with a state-paid contractor? Or that he based state hiring decisions on campaign work? Or evidence that the unindicted then-Campaign Committee Chair Rep. Todd Eachus directed staff to produce political research and perform political work, acquiesced to paying bonuses for campaign work, and coordinated "official" appearances by Cabinet secretaries in the districts of vulnerable incumbents? Or documents and emails showing that unindicted Rep. Keith McCall, later Speaker of the House, used state staff and resources for campaign work

Is there any doubt that, if they had it to do over again, prosecutors would have destroyed, rather than highlighted in black(!) documents that showed how DeWeese staffers, never indicted on charges of destroying evidence, scrambled to destroy evidence in 2007?

And how much did prosecutors wish they had destroyed the evidence that showed the very man who decided for them what evidence would be used to prosecute the original 12 "Bonusgate" defendants is, essentially, a megalomaniacal nutjob?

It's dangerous to let defendants have access to too much evidence. Better to get rid of it.

DON'T GO THERE

2011-07-20T10:00:00.009-04:00

We must admit, we are baffled by the latest demands of professional attention whores Tim Potts and Eric Epstein. They're calling on the Office of Attorney General to make further arrests in the "ongoing" investigation of the legislature known as "Bonusgate."

Is Linda L. Kelly running for higher office?

We're not ruling out that a carefully-selected Senate scapegoat might face token charges, just to allay suspicion that the Senate was completely overlooked - even though Senate staffers who worked on campaigns received some of the largest bonuses in the legislature.

But even professional attention whores can't pull off the pretense that the Office of Attorney General led by then-gubernatorial candidate Tom Corbett ever seriously and thoroughly investigated the Senate - or that any 11th-hour charges that might be filed are the result of a serious and thorough investigation of the Senate.

Corbett's refusal to investigate a member of the Senate even after a whistleblower's complaint - much less the fact that he didn't discover the wrongdoing on his own - is sufficient proof that the Senate never was a target.

Even stronger proof is that Corbett aborted his investigation of the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board without filing any charges. With the Gaming Board, as with the Senate Republican Caucus, all roads lead to Bob Jubelirer and David "Chip" Brightbill. And Corbett certainly wasn't planning on going there.

As leaders of the powerful Senate majority, they held strong sway over the Gaming Control Board. Very little happened without their approval. It would be difficult to make a case for criminality among the Board - much less the Senate Repbulican Caucus - without implicating Jubelierer or Brightbill. (Look what happened when he tried to leave Bill DeWeese out of House Democratic indictments. Team Corbett may not be geniuses, but they do learn their lessons)

Brightbill, at least, understood this from the beginning. In September 2007, Brightbill created the Great Valley Leadership Fund for the sole purpose of disguising a $6,000 contribution to Corbett's campaign. The $6,000 was, at the time, the only contribution to the PAC - from Brightbill - and the only contribution from the PAC - to Corbett. Corbett didn't return the contribution until seven months later, after questions were raised. But there certainly were other avenues though which Brightbill could pay tribute - According to Capitolwire, Team Corbett reassured Senate Democrats that contributions laundered through the coffers of running mate Jim Cawley would not be returned.

This tangled mess have been avoided if Corbett had done the right thing from the beginning and appointed an independent prosecutor. Nearly five years later, we remain flabbergasted that the press and public passively accepted Corbett's insistence upon investigating his own political adversaries and allies - even as they acknowledged the political advantage he gained from the investigation. Especially since he campaigned on the very same issue.

WHAT'S (CHOCOLATE) SAUCE FOR THE GOOSE ...

2011-06-24T13:02:00.005-04:00

We've always found it curious that then-Gubernatorial Candidate, now Governor Tom Corbett charged Mike Veon with a crime for allegedly bartering a contract with Delta Development, Inc., in exchange for a job for his brother, yet no one at Delta Development was charged in connection with this alleged crime. (Tribune Review 3/27/09)

Now we know why: Delta Development is partially owned by the son-in-law of powerful Corbett crony LeRoy S. Zimmerman, Anthony Seitz. (Inquirer 6/19/11)

The same LeRoy Zimmerman that Corbett pretended he would investigate, after six years of complaints, only after he was embarrassed by a front-page story in the Philadelphia Inquirer a month before the election.

The same LeRoy Zimmerman whom Campaigns and Elections named as one of the Top Republican Influencers in Pennsylvania.The same Leroy Zimmerman whom PoliticsPA described as "a power broker in Central Pennsylvania" who "contributes heavily to state and national Republicans."

The same LeRoy Zimmerman who paid his son-in-law's firm $290,000 (so far) in non-profit Hershey Trust funds to develop a revitalization plan for Hershey. (Inquirer 6/19/11)

What's that you say? Why is it a crime for Veon to use non-profit funds to engage a firm that employs his brother, but not for Zimmerman to use non-profit funds to engage a firm partially owned by his son-in-law?

We are at a loss, dear readers. What could possibly explain this blatant double standard?

WHY WORDS MATTER

2011-06-14T14:25:00.005-04:00

The headline: "DeWeese Wants Bonusgate Trial Moved Out of Harrisburg."

The only problem is, DeWeese isn't charged in "Bonusgate," and won't be having a "Bonusgate" trial at all - neither in Dauphin County nor Greene County.

By using the lazy and simplistic appellation "Bonusgate" to refer to a whole subset of criminal cases, the Harrisburg Stenographers Corps not only paints a grossly inaccurate portrait of political corruption in Pennsylvania, but also actively aids and abets Tom Corbett in a massive ongoing campaign of mendacity.

The idiotic term "Bonusgate" was coined in response to allegations that all four legislative caucuses in the General Assembly may have paid taxpayer-funded bonuses to staff in return for work on political campaigns. Under the original definition, only a single (Democratic) lawmaker and several (Democratic) staffers have been charged in "Bonusgate." And only a single person, lawmaker or staff, has been convicted by a jury of "Bonusgate" crimes.

Tom Corbett, of course, is all to happy to have these facts obscured. Every time a sycophantic journalist refers to Bill DeWeese's alleged crimes as "Bonusgate," Corbett becomes more and more insulated from questions about the arrangement that kept Bill "U R welcome" DeWeese from being charged in the actual "Bonusgate" case. Or why he never filed a single charge against Senate Republicans, who awarded the largest bonuses, to staffers who were most active on political campaigns.

Apparently, it even helps him create the impression that Sen. Jane Orie is charged in "Bonusgate," even though he pointedly refused to investigate complaints about alleged illegal campaign activities in her office, (and then lied about it). The Philadelphia Daily News (after some initial confusion) now insists that Corbett charged 26 people in "Bonusgate." Only by counting Jane Orie could the News arrive at such a number, as Corbett has charged only 25 people in his legislative corruption investigation, "Bonusgate" or otherwise.

Of course, John Perzel and company aren't charged in "Bonusgate," either, though they might have been if there hadn't been a larger alleged diversion of taxpayer funds for political purposes for Corbett to exploit.

But DeWeese wasn't charged with such large-scale diversion of public resources for political activity as the $9.3 million House Republicans paid GRC & Associates, or the nearly $1 million in "labor and benefits" from the House Republican Information Technology Department, or the $6.2 million in payments to Aristotle International, Inc., or the $3.8 million paid to Constituents Direct LLC, or $400,000 to Weiss Marketing Group, or $100,000 in politically-motivated junkets.

(If you add all this together, along with "miscellaneous uses of public resources for campaign work" and the salaries and benefits of the Office of District Operations - "a taxpayer-funded, wholly owned campaign subsidiary of the House Republican Campaign Comittee" - using journalism math, somehow it comes to a little more than $10 million.)

DeWeese, on the other hand, is charged with the relatively commonplace transgressions of directing his district office staff to perform political work on state time, using state resources, and employing a full-time political operative on his legislative staff. As we have mentioned before, Corbett could've chosen the name of any pre-2007 legislator out of a hat, subpoenaed records and questioned staff under oath, and had a better-than-average chance of discovering similarly questionable campaign activity.

Despite ample evidence of his involvement, (and he admits he can't speak honestly about it without incriminating himself), DeWeese was not charged with awarding bonuses for political work, or the other caucus-wide activities at the heart of the case. But the relatively minor nature of DeWeese's charges is obscured by the use of the term "Bonusgate," and no one to date has even asked what his negotiations to incriminate others entailed.

Keep up the good work on behalf of Corbett's campaign, scribblers. Perhaps you, too, will be rewarded with a six-figure taxpayer-funded job!

SHELL GAME

2011-05-23T11:50:00.006-04:00

Bill DeWeese's reputation as a lazy, self-absorbed showboat served him well in early 2007, when then-Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett was beginning his investigation of House Democrats.

Corbett claimed in February 2007 he was investigating the entire legislature, but he was lying. He wouldn't begin investigating House Republicans until much later, in response to accusations of partisanship, and apparently never did investigate the Senate at all.

In 2007, Corbett's main rival for the Republican gubernatorial nomination would be U.S. Attorney Pat Meehan, then garnering statewide headlines for his high-profile Vince Fumo prosecution. "Bonusgate" appeared to be Corbett's ticket to the show.

The problem was, Bill DeWeese was being a pain in the ass. He sought to quash subpoenas and claimed "legislative privilege" on materials seized through a search warrant.

He vowed to fight "all the way to the state Supreme Court." That could take months - maybe more than a year. Corbett's reelection and the unofficial launch of his gubernatorial campaign were imminent.

Enter "risk management" consultant (and Corbett campaign contributor) Bill Chadwick. Chadwick is the "Republican former prosecutor" DeWeese is always raving about having "hired to cooperate" with Corbett. Only DeWeese can fully explain why he continually harps on Chadwick's political affiliation.

But it may explain why Chackwick was able to negotiate an arrangement in which DeWeese turned over emails and documents incriminating his former colleague Mike Veon and others - including DeWeese's own Chief of Staff and other high- and mid-level DeWeese staffers.

DeWeese, in turn, was not charged in the Bonusgate scandal. And everyone got to pretend the previous months of legal challenges and obstructionism never happened. "I've been cooperating since Day One!" DeWeese lied, and no one corrected him.

We're not lawyers, but there doesn't appear to be anything illegal about such an arrangement. But it's hugely embarrassing for both parties. If DeWeese admits he engaged in machinations to avoid being indicted, he admits there was cause to indict him. And Corbett risks the appearance of sacrificing the integrity of his investigation for political expediency.

At first blush, the arrangement probably appeared risk-free for Corbett. It wasn't until after Corbett received the incriminating evidence that DeWeese's involvement in Bonusgate became apparent. And then there was DeWeese's reputation as a passive figurehead more interested in being wined and dined by lobbyists than managing the legislative or political affairs of the caucus.

It didn't help matters that one of Corbett's main sources of information about the workings of the caucus apparently was Frank Lagrotta, then desperately battling misconduct charges of his own. The same Lagrotta who recently pleaded guilty to drug charges.

The general public wasn't as gullible as Corbett. Before the indictments were announced, everyone expected DeWeese to go down. "It's hard to see how DeWeese survives Bonusgate" ... "The wrong folks lost their jobs in Harrisburg" ... "Is time running out for DeWeese?"

When the indictments failed to include DeWeese, the pundits were sure it was just a matter of time: "Cat-like DeWeese probably on his ninth life" ... "More questions raised on DeWeese's role."

Corbett found himself in a quandary. The evidence clearly showed letting DeWeese off the hook was a big mistake, and it didn't appear the public was going to overlook it.

Nor would Mike Veon's lawyers, who filed a massive pre-trial motion outlining DeWeese's involvement in the crimes for which Veon was accused.

Nor did it help that during a court proceeding, former DeWeese chief-of-staff Mike Manzo listed DeWeese as one of the legislators who had knowledge of the bonus "scheme." Oops! To guard against future slip-ups, sentencing of Manzo and his wife, Rachel, has been postponed - evidently until after DeWeese's trial. Has anyone ever heard of a defendant being offered a deal not to testify against his boss?

So, almost three years after launching his investigation, Corbett indicted DeWeese - not on charges involving bonuses or petition challenges or the use of a state-paid consultant for political work, all of which was detailed in media reports and Veon's pre-trial motion - but on less-serious accusations that his district office staff performed political work on state time and using state resources, and that he employed a full-time political operative using taxpayer funds.

Lest this be seen as some investigative triumph, Corbett could've chosen the name of any pre-2007 legislator out of a hat, subpoenaed records and questioned staff under oath, and had a better-than-average chance of discovering similarly questionable campaign activity. In fact, all he had to do was answer his phone.

It's no secret that DeWeese is apoplectic with chagrin over Corbett's perceived betrayal. And that's now a huge problem for Corbett.

It's clear that DeWeese would like nothing more than to harm Corbett politically, and admitting what happened back in 2007 would certainly accomplish that in spades. But DeWeese still believes he has a political future to protect. If the Attorney General's office is successful in convicting DeWeese of felony charges - and DeWeese is subsequently forced to resign from the House - it will remove the one incentive DeWeese has to keep mum. Unless, of course, there is a formal, legal immunity agreement which requires DeWeese's silence, but a DeWeese with nothing to lose might consider a contempt of court charge a fair price to pay for embarrassing his nemesis.

TOM CORBETT: DRAGON SLAYER?

2011-05-10T12:22:00.010-04:00

We're not sure how he managed it, but Tom Corbett has earned the reputation of a dragon-slayer without so much as stepping on a salamander's tail.

Just a few of the latest examples:

Delco Times: "The “Bonusgate” scandal was the most recent [instance of corruption], with political leaders handing out some $4 million in taxpayers’ money to legislative staffers to work on political campaigns."

Philadelphia Daily News: "...the Tom Corbett who, as attorney general, brought down 22 legislators in the Bonusgate scandal ... "

Patriot-News: Tom Corbett as Pennsylvania attorney general brought down some of the most powerful lawmakers in the state.

As these organization are well aware, whese characterization are blatantly false. Why they're willingly participating in Tom Corbett's campaign of misinformation, we have no idea.

Who are the "political leaders" accused of handing out bonuses for campaign work? Who are the "22 legislators" or "powerful lawmakers" whom Corbett "brought down?" They don't exist. They are figments of the media's imagination.

Mike Veon, the only elected official or former elected official to be charged in connection with awarding bonuses, was not even in office when he was indicted. His own constituents must take the credit for "bringing him down" after denying him relection - largely because of his refusal to repudiate his pay raise vote - two years before Corbett indicted him.

John Perzel, who has yet to face trial, similarly was deposed of his leadership post by his colleagues in the House Republican Caucus three years before Corbett indicted him. Furthermore, the pace and timing of the investigation of Perzel & Co. clearly shows Corbett originally had no intention of indicting any Republicans at all.

Sean Ramaley, the only sitting lawmaker among the original indictments, (and but for negative publicity, the only one, period.) was a rank-and-file sophomore who was not accused of any bonus-related crimes. He also just happened to be the Democrat running in a competitive state state Senate race at the time. He was acquitted of all charges, but his prosecution was a victory for Team Corbett nonetheless. Ramaley was forced to withdraw from the Senate race, which went to Republican Elder Vogel Jr.

Bill DeWeese, the only defendant who was a legislative leader at the time of his indictment, also has yet to face trial and was not charged with any bonus-related crimes. In fact, he would have escaped criminal charges completely if not for media reports exposing his culpability in bonuses and other caucus-wide scandals. Yet he was not charged in these episodes, and evidence obtained by prosecutors through "negotiation" with DeWeese was used to indict DeWeese's staffers and underlings. As for whether he's been "brought down," last we heard he was reelected and still is clucking away on the House floor, trying his best to excoriate for the record the prosecutor and prosecution he once praised (he called the day of the original indictments "the greatest day of my life.") Hypocritical as his attempts to condemn Corbett are, that he was gaveled down and denied permission to speak is even more offensive.

By charging as many staffers as possible connected to as few actual lawmakers as possible, Corbett created the illusion of cleaning House when he merely kicked a few dust bunnies under the rug.

By the numbers:

Sitting lawmakers indicted by Corbett on any corruption charges: 3
Lawmakers, past or present, accused of awarding bonuses for political work: 1
Legislative leaders indicted by Corbett: 1
Legislative leaders "brought down" by Corbett's indictments: 0
Total number of lawmakers, past or present, indicted by Corbett on any corruption charges: 6

CONSISTENCY

2011-04-01T14:52:00.006-04:00

The Tom Corbett administration suddenly is all about consistency.

It's just not fair, you see, that some natural gas drillers are being charged with violations when other drillers are doing exactly the same things, and aren't being charged.

And the Corbett administration is about nothing if not consistency when it comes to enforcing the law.

In order to rectify this heart-rending injustice, the Secretary of Environmental Protection must personally approve all enforcement actions and notices of violation. But only for natural gas drillers.

Of course, the only way this will bring about consistency is to issue no enforcement actions against any natural gas drillers whatsoever. After all, if the Corbett administration knows that other drillers are committing the same violations, why aren't they being charged?

See how complicated this gets when you start to think about it?

Let's simplify it:

Inconsistent enforcement of environmental regulations is bad. (Apparently, any enforcement of environmental regulations is bad, when it comes to natural gas drillers)

Inconsistent enforcement of ethics laws, conflict of interest and abuse of public office is A-OK!

When it comes to fouling the state's natural resources, "everyone does it" actually is a valid defense (but only for natural gas drillers). The Corbett administration apparently believes if they can't charge everybody, they shouldn't charge anybody (at least not natural gas drillers).

Obviously, that's a direct contradiction of Corbett's policies when it came to charging politicians accused of abusing their offices for political and personal gain.

Need we list again the many examples? Former Rep. Matt Wright. Former Rep. James Lynch. York County D.A. Stan Rebert. State Budget Office executive Jem Pagan. Terry Bryant, whose decision seems to have disappeared from the Ethics Commission Website, but who "utilized Commonwealth facilities, equipment, personnel, and supplies in support of his outside employment with real estate companies" and was fined $2,000 with no referral to law enforcement. State Rep. Mauree Gingrich. Former State Rep. Eugene McGill. State Sen. Jane Orie. State Rep. Bill DeWeese.

We could go on. (And we have)

We're just surprised Corbett officials don't burst into flame when they try to claim consistency is a goal.

WHO PAYS THE PIPER CALLS THE TUNE

2011-03-24T20:21:00.007-04:00

Last week in Philadelphia, Judge Renee Cardwell Hughes lashed out at a financial arrangement between a criminal defendant and his employer, concerning the payment of his legal bills.

Such an arrangement, she said, would give the defendant a disincentive to speak against his employer.

In the case of Rev. James Brennan, a Catholic priest accused of rape, the Philadelphia Archdiocese agreed to pay his bills only if he were acquitted. This, Hughes said, would dissuade Brennan from implicating the Archdiocese, even if doing so were in his own best interest (or in the interest of justice in general).

We wonder if it ever occurred to any other judges in Pennsylvania that people are disinclined to implicate the people paying their legal bills?

For example, virtually every single witness who testified to the "Bonusgate" grand jury in 2007 and 2008 was represented by a lawyer who was paid and assigned by the House Democratic Caucus.

"Who the hell is the caucus?" grand jury Judge Barry Feudale famously wrote in his commentary on 28th Statewide Investigating Grand Jury Report Number One.

The caucus, in 2007 and 2008, (and all the way back to 1990) was H. William DeWeese.

As the leader, as no one seems to comprehend, DeWeese was the only person with the authority to disburse caucus funds. For bonus payments or for legal fees. Responsibility rested with DeWeese. Decisions were made by DeWeese.

In other words, Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett in 2007 set out to investigate a caucus that had been led for the better part of two decades by DeWeese, with witnesses counseled by lawyers chosen, assigned and paid by DeWeese.

At least one Pennsylvania judge seems to understand the conflict of interest that might create.

"GOOD NEIGHBORS" DON'T INVESTIGATE ONE ANOTHER

2011-03-20T17:25:00.004-04:00

"'That indicates to me that the Legislature and everyone needs to take a look at how moneys ... are being spent and how it's being directed,’ [Gubernatorial Candidate Tom] Corbett said at a Pittsburgh news conference where he announced the charges against [former state representative Mike] Veon.

Corbett's continuing investigation into the Beaver Initiative for Growth , Veon's nonprofit, nicknamed BIG, includes a look at how taxpayers' money moves through the state budget and into the bank accounts of nonprofit groups. The inquiry also will scrutinize grant money given to nonprofit groups headed up by other legislators, although Corbett, a Republican, did not identify any.” (Associated Press, March 25, 2009)

No, but we did.

Among them was "Operation Good Neighbor," headed by former U.S. Senator and likely 2010 Presidential candidate Rick Santorum.

Nearly two years later, there's no indication Corbett looked at any non-profits headed by legislators other than Veon, and certainly not Santorum's. Completely coincidentally, Santorum endorsed Corbett about eight months after Corbett announced he would be investigating legislators' non-profits.

Santorum's non-profit incorporated in Pennsylvania closely mirrored what Corbett alleges Veon to have done with BIG.

There was a shockingly low ratio of giving to overhead. (“Sen. Santorum’s home mortgage foundation outlays raise questions” Philadelphia Daily News, 2/21/06)

There was a completely unacceptable blending of the non-profit operations with his legislative and political operations. (“Santorum’s Operation Good Neighbor is low on giving, high on fees” Associated Press, 2/25/06)

And, there was plenty of evidence of government contracts being awarded to friends of the non-profit and Santorum’s political causes and personal campaign. (“Big donor to Rick’s charity was seeking federal aid” Philadelphia Daily News, 3/2/06; “Group tied to Santorum campaign gets $250,000 grant” Philadelphia Daily News, 3/24/06)

Perhaps now that Santorum is actively seeking the Republican nomination for President, it's time for a fresh look at what Corbett pointedly chose to ignore.

ESSENTIAL SERVICES? NO! BLOATED LEGISLATURE? YES, PLEASE!

2011-03-09T13:06:00.006-05:00

In late May of last year, the New York Times non-fiction best sellers were Laura Bush's memoir, Spoken From the Heart and Michael Lewis' account of the 2008 stock market crash, The Big Short.

But here in Pennsylvania, the political and legal world was engrossed in a literary work known as
28th Statewide Investigating Grand Jury Report Number One.

You remember it. It was chock-full of staggering examples of the wasteful, spendthrift ways of the bloated state legislature. You were mesmerized by the revelation that nearly 1,300 employees work for the legislature, more than 9 for each representative and 17 staff for each senator.

Nobody was able to justify such a large number of employees for this body. On the contrary, there was a virtual consensus among those who have worked inside the legislature for many years that the number of employees could be significantly cut with no measureable decrease in the ability of each Member to perform his legislative duties and to serve his constituents. In some instances, the reason for requesting additional staff members has been to compensate for the incompetence of existing staffers. Instead of firing those incompentnt woworkers, you would just add more people. The grand jury finds that the vast overstaffing problem is linked to the patronage system within the legislature. Many staff members are hired at the request of a specific elected member, regardless of the prospective staff member's qualifications (or utter lack of qualifications)

Grand Jury Report Number One didn't stop with a simple recommendation to drastically reduce the number of legislative employees. It noted that while all legislative districts contain the same number of people, some representatives have more than one district office - purely for the purpose of providing more patronage jobs. Rank-and-file member H. William D. Weese, for example, has four district offices.

And per diems? The Grand Jury had plenty to say about per diems: Not having to submit receipts for expenses is bad enough, but the Grand Jury also found that the House Republican Caucus "schemed" for members to acquire additional per diem payments "by periodicaly adding extra 'token' days to the schedule. Any member who appears in the caucus room and does nothing more than sign the sheet will receive full per diem payment for that day."

Appalling! Remember how outraged you all were? Remember how outraged Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett was?

Duplicative print shops, information technology departments and human resource departments, extraneous "PennDOT specialists," hoarding of surplus monies, secret "slush funds" known as Special Leadership Accounts ... the list of wasteful spending went on and on.

Since there's so much excess, unnecessary spending going on in the legislature, and the state is in such financial trouble, and Corbett you'd be pretty sure our budget-cutting governor would propose a sizeable reduction in the legislature's allocation.

Right?

As exactly no one seemed to notice, Corbett proposed cutting legislative spending by approximately ZERO PERCENT.

Funding for education? Slashed. Economic development? Decimated. Biomedical research? Snip, snip, snip. He'd eliminate another 1,500 jobs from a state workforce already trimmed to the bone by Governor Rendell's recession budgets.

But the bloated, wasteful legislature, according to Corbett, should not sacrifice one thin American dime.

(By the way, we're sure there's a completely innocent explanation, but that mesmerizing report was signed by the jury foreperson on February 24th, but not released to the public until May 24th. Don't look for the signature page on the version posted on the Attorney General's website; it's not there. It's just a remarkable coincidence.)

UNRAVELING

2011-03-01T14:02:00.008-05:00

For someone with so much to hide, Bill DeWeese can't seem to shut up. Inexplicably, the Capitol Stenographers Corps is only too happy to provide him with fawning puff pieces and a forum to ramble unchecked.

It's too bad he's so rarely confronted with a tough question - we so enjoyed the deer-in-headlights look on his face when he realized that he'd just admitted to KDKA's Jon Delano that he never delegated responsibility for awarding bonuses.

But PCN's Bill Bova is no Jon Delano. The unasked questions could fill - well, a blog post.

"Corbett was coming after me with very unhappy headlines. With handcuffs and with jail cells."

When were you in handcuffs or in a jail cell? Oh, that's right - never.

"I was with him [Corbett] at the Superbowl - paid my own way."

Yeah, with campaign funds. How is that a legitimate campaign expense?

"In February of '07, with our lawyers in the room - the investigation's been going on a couple weeks at this point - with Manzo, and others in the room, Corbett said "You tell Bill DeWeese he brought this on himself." This was within a couple of weeks of Bonusgate. After five years, I've never been involved in the Bonusgate. I was not charged with Bonusgate."

If you've never been involved in Bonusgate, why did you plead the Fifth when called to testify in the Bonusgate trial? How could you incriminate yourself in a scheme in which you had no involvement?

"The allegations - and I asked you a few moments ago, and you are very, very au courant, if I might use some of the limited French that I have - you're a very educated character in what's going on in the Capitol, and you couldn't even tell me what I'm charged with. The nebulosity of that statute is such - the conflict of interest - he charged me with two of my people campaigning before five o'clock without a leave slip."

What was your response when two of your former colleagues and 10 staff people were charged under that statute? Isn't it true you said it was the greatest day of your life? Did you think the statute was nebulous then? Those "two of my people" - do you mean Kevin Sidella, who worked as your campaign fund-raiser full-time, at taxpayer expense, for almost 6 years, and Sharon Rodavich, who "did nothing but politics?" Does that include Melissa Frameli, Carol Bohach, Susan Story, Debra Konosky and Angel Kirby-Willard, who said campaign work was expected from them from the date of their hire? Does it include the Harrisburg staffers you stopped in the hallways of the Capitol and asked, "Why aren't you in Greene County?"

Also, what did you mean when you told Sidella "our saving grace is that everyone does it?"

"So, then he charges me 35 months later, after I cooperated, after I hired Republican prosecutors to cooperate with him, 35 months later, he charges me."

Yeah, why do you suppose there was such a long lag time between Sidella's incriminating grand jury testimony in 2007 and your indictment in December 2009? We're very curious about that, too.

Speaking of "cooperating," in September of 2007, you were contesting subpoenas served on caucus staff and seeking to have seized evidence excluded. In October of 2007, courts ruled against you on both the seized evidence and the subpoenas. Shortly after that, you negotiated with the Attorney General to turn over incriminating e-mails. What did those "negotiations" entail, and what persuaded you to begin cooperating? How did you decide which staffers to fire and which to provide with legal representation?

And why is it significant that you hired "Republican prosecutors" to cooperate with him?

"A couple counts because two people did campaign work - allegedly - I'm not sure they did - and they were told many times along with the whole team to never campaign on government hours."

But didn't you admit to the grand jury that campaign work " was not unusual?" Didn't you say, "That was part of the culture. Looking back it was wrong. We shouldn't have done it but it was part of the political culture on Capitol Hill."

(By the way, did anyone else get a very weird vibe from this non sequitur? -
"His agents have always been very, very polite and very, very professional - especially that muscular, charismatic, warm-hearted young gentleman that drove him for so many years, Brian Westmoreland. Wonderful guy." Then, later: "I'm very fond of many aspects of his world, including his wife and Brian Westmoreland, his bodyguard." What's up with that?)

For the record, we agree that cancellation of SCI German was political, and most likely personal. It's ironic, considering that DeWeese himself insulated himself against accusations of wrongdoing by his former chief of staff by firing him and exposing his extramarital affair. When the accusations came, DeWeese deflected the accusations with "You can't believe him; he's pissed me for firing him. And besides, he's a lying philanderer." Let us be the first to predict that when DeWeese starts making unsavory accusations against Corbett, Corbett will respond with "You can't believe him; he's just pissed at me for canceling his prison."

QUESTIONS FOR A GOVERNOR'S SPOKESMAN

2011-02-27T15:21:00.010-05:00

Earlier this month, CasablancaPA remarked upon how well Dennis Roddy's anonymously-sourced reporting served the Tom Corbett for Governor campaign, and how Roddy was rewarded with a cushy administration job.

An intrigued reader has drawn our attention to one of Roddy's stories from September of 2008 - shortly after Corbett had decided charges against Republicans would be a political necessity.

The story, headlined "Pa. House GOP's use of computer investigated," does not explain how Roddy learned the subject of the grand jury's investigation, or how he knew that, the previous month, "six House Republican technology staff members were summoned before the grand jury and asked about the use of House computers and possible political work."

But what's most interesting is that the original story, posted to the Post-Gazette's website on Sept. 11, 2008, contained this sentence:

"Among questions was an inquiry about one top Republican aide who prosecutors believe received a free communications wiring upgrade at his home."

By the next day, that sentence had been excised from the story.

(The only other difference was the truncation of a long Steve Miskin quote.)

Did Roddy show a little too much initiative for Corbett's taste when reporting that story? Why would he remove that particular sentence unless the OAG asked him?

Back then, Corbett may have worried that inconvenient questions might arise if the voters learned about the huge discrepancies between what Corbett knew and the charges that he filed.

In September of 2008, Corbett was facing increasing criticism for the partisan nature of his investigation.

"Is state bonus probe partisan?" a news analysis in the Patriot-News asked.

Governor Rendell also suggested partisanship was guiding Corbett's hand:
"I don't understand why after two years you only could make your decision on Democrats," he told the Tribune-Review.

"...the pressure's on to demonstrate a bipartisan dedication to reform ...If he fails to charge Republicans between now and November, he will certainly open himself up to claims that he's politicized the reform movement..." the Chambersburg Public Opinion opined.

With Election Day approaching, and his opponent in the Attorney General race accusing him of "botching the investigation," Corbett needed to convey that he was now investigating Republicans.

Because he'd spent most of the previous year schmoozing House Republicans at fund-raisers, secretly meeting them with his campaign manager, giving the go-ahead to swap out computers, there was no way he'd be ready to announce indictments in time for Election Day.

(And besides, that might hurt the Republicans' chances of recapturing the House.)

He needed stories like Roddy's to counteract accusations of partisanship. But he couldn't reveal too much about the evidence he was gathering until he had decided whether or not he would act upon that evidence.

The complications for Corbett of too much independent reporting about the evidence later would be revealed. For example:

When fellow Post-Gazette reporter Tracie Mauriello developed information that campaign aide Dan Wiedemer had implicated Steve Stetler to the grand jury a year earlier, Roddy scrambled to insert into the story - anonymously sourced, of course - Corbett's ludicrous, face-saving contention that investigators were still deciding, a year after the fact, whether to indict Stetler.

With the cat now out of the bag, Corbett did indict Stetler - nearly a year and a half after he was implicated and the original indictments had been announced.

Was it a coincidence that it was Roddy's rival at the Tribune-Review who broke the story that Corbett had ignored the implications of an email in which Bill DeWeese responded to a staffer who thanked him for a bonus "for campaigning," with "U R welcome?" (The Trib also was skeptical enough about Roddy's motives to link to our previous post.)

And although Corbett's failure to pursue charges against Sen. Jane Orie - even turning away an intern who tried to report Orie's activities to the OAG - has raised eyebrows at other news outlets ("Orie charges political dynamite;" "Orie indictment could raise questions about Corbett’s probe") the Post-Gazette has raised no such concern.

We've no doubt that "sources" indeed told Roddy in Sept. 2008 that investigators were pursuing allegations of a "top Republican aide" receiving a communications wiring upgrade at his home at taxpayer expense. The question remains, who then told him to keep it quiet, and why?

THE REAL CRIME

2011-02-25T08:26:00.010-05:00

As if there were any question remaining, the trial of Sen. Jane Orie has laid absolutely bare the politically-selective nature of Tom Corbett's so-called investigation of legislative corruption.

It doesn't take a genius to connect the dots: Fearing hackers, a paranoid Orie in 2008 asked Corbett's office in to examine her computer network - the same network where county investigators discovered that political material resided until 2009. ("Testimony reveals that up until late spring of 2009, some of those very campaign and political records of Orie's were maintained on computer hard drives that were part of the state computer system.")

At least one member of the mainstream media has finally begun to face the facts. Not every reporter is angling for a job in the Corbett administration. (Just watch out for the goon squad, Laura.)

Orie was so confident that she had nothing to fear from Corbett's "investigation" that she not only continued overt taxpayer-funded political activity long after the "Bonusgate" scandal frightened nearly everyone else into going legit -- she actually invited the cat-in-chief to rummage around in the mouse-hole.

It was only after she learned a law-enforcement agency other than Corbett's had been tipped off that she made even the slightest effort to keep up appearances.

We wouldn't put it past Corbett's cronies in the OAG to rustle up some charges against a Senate Republican or two (or at least an ex-legislator and a crew of staffer) now that his selectivity has been so undeniably exposed.

After all, he got away with a belated, cover-yer-ass "investigation" of House Republicans after spending the better part of the previous year schmoozing them at fund-raisers, secretly meeting them with his campaign manager, giving the go-ahead to swap out computers and who knows what else?

He got away with dredging up some after-the-fact, unrelated charges against Bill DeWeese after it became apparent that letting him slide on "Bonusgate" was the political and prosecutorial screwup of the decade.

He got away with indicting Steve Stetler months after he was embarrassed by the revelation, a year after the fact, that he had ignored incriminating testimony and let him blow off a subpeona (did you know they were optional?).

He got away with letting Todd Eachus off the hook after going to the trouble of making it appear as if charges against him were imminent.

He got away with announcing an investigation of years-old Hershey Trust shenanigans only after he was embarrassed by an Inquirer expose. He has gotten away with cozying up to those self-same trustees in the midst of the so-called investigation at an establishment owned by the very charity they manage.

And if he announces, at this incredibly late date, more than four years after "launching an investigation," indictments of Senate Republicans to cover his ass yet again, he'll probably get away with that, too.

WHO COULD IT BE?

2011-02-17T11:29:00.010-05:00

Admitted felon Robert Powell handed "cash-stuffed envelopes" to a "prominent state lawmaker" as the two walked off Powell's plane together in late 2006, according to a witness in a Luzerne County corruption trial.

The witness claimed Powell has testified to a grand jury about "paying off" the lawmaker.

The prominent state lawmaker was not identified.

There may be plenty of prominent state lawmakers who've flown in Powell's plane; it could be anyone. Really. However, we know of only one who has admitted it.

Former House Majority Leader Todd Eachus said last year that he flew with Powell on Jan. 31, 2007. He initially lied about the flight, saying he accepted it because he had to rush back to Harrisburg to cast votes, and later backtracked when confronted with the facts. He has refused to respond to a report that he has flown with Powell more than once.

At the time, Powell was trying to develop a cargo airport and Eachus supported legislation that would have allocated $495 million in taxpayer dollars for the project. Eachus abandoned support for the project after Powell admitted paying judges to sentence juveniles to a detention center Powell co-owned.

Eachus accepted $18,000 in campaign contributions from Powell, according to the opponent who defeated him in November's election.

A little over a year ago, Eachus allegedly received an invitation to testify before a state grand jury investigating legislative corruption.

Though they were originally not indicted in then-Attorney General Tom Corbett's gubernatorial campaign-launching investigation, Eachus, former Majority Leader Bill DeWeese, and former Campaign Committee Operations Chair Steve Stetler drew widespread attention after press leaks revealed that Corbett had ignored or overlooked evidence implicating them. Corbett later attempted to gloss over his embarrassment by belatedly indicting DeWeese and Stetler (DeWeese on unrelated charges), but Eachus remained untouched.

It's not clear whether Powell is supposed to have testified before the investigative arm of the Corbett for Governor campaign or some other grand jury, but an active federal investigation might explain why Eachus was not part of Corbett's December 2009 attempt at damage control.

IT'S ALL SO HILARIOUS ... UNTIL THE GOVERNOR HAS TO EXPLAIN HIMSELF

2011-02-15T10:20:00.016-05:00

HILARIOUS

2011-02-09T12:31:00.005-05:00

Under questioning from Costopoulos, Contino said the commission found that several politicians in the state have violated ethics laws over several years but were not charged criminally. (Tribune-Review, 7/20/10)

"Anybody who violated the law is going to get it." - Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina (Patriot-News, 8/3/08

MEDITATIONS ON A POLITICAL PROSECUTION

2011-02-07T17:27:00.003-05:00

Everyone does it.

It's a statement that was met with mocking scorn when Mike Veon raised it to highlight flaws in Corbett's investigation, and with shocked indignation when presented as the conclusion of a grand jury. Bill DeWeese said it would be his "saving grace."

When Veon argued selective prosecution in a pre-trial motion, some likened his arrest to a speeding ticket. It's true that police know they can't possibly ticket every speeder, but the main purpose of issuing speeding tickets is to serve as a deterrent.

Is that what Governor Tom Corbett intended? To prosecute a few in order to deter the rest?

The Office of Attorney General has gone to great pains to declare quite the opposite:

"Anybody who violated the law is going to get it," deputy AG Frank Fina told the Patriot-News.

That's a blatant and shameful lie, as CasablancaPA has documented time and time again. And again.

Was it a desire to punish "anybody who violated the law" within the legislature that led Corbett launch an investigation of one caucus only (while claiming to investigate all four), only to have to go back and initiate a real investigation of another after questions of partisanship threatened to derail his political plans?

(For the last time, the lame rationale that Corbett investigated only one caucus because he suspected evidence was being destroyed is not only false, but makes no sense. Corbett didn't hear such a rumor until August (Agents “rushed” to seize the records “after receiving a tip that they were about to be destroyed.”) - months after launching the Democrats-only investigation. Even as Corbett's lackeys brandish this discredited theory to defend his investigation of only one caucus, they conveniently ignore that it contradicts his claim that he was, at the time, investigating all four caucuses.

That Corbett's original intention was to indict only a few select Democrats, despite evidence of misconduct in in all four caucuses, is obvious beyond question. As Corbett's 2008 opponent for Attorney General John Morganelli said, "If I have four potential targets, and I think they all might be involved in the same thing, and if I go to house A and take all the evidence out and wait two years to go after B, C and D, there’s not going to be any evidence in B, C and D."

In response, Corbett's spokesperson unbelievably claimed he couldn't go after "B, C and D" - also known as the House Republicans, Senate Democrats and Senate Republicans - because he didn't have reason to believe that "B,C and D" were "destroying" evidence. Which raises two important points. First of all, we're not lawyers, but do you have to have probable cause that evidence is being destroyed in order to seek that evidence? Ironically, Corbett later did discover - long after serving subpoenas on the House Republicans, that they, and not the House Democrats, did destroy evidence. Just as Morganelli (and the rest of the sentient world) predicted. However did Corbett obtain subpoenas for House Republicans if he never learned that they were "destroying evidence" until long after the they were served?

And secondly, the only reason Corbett developed that particular (false) information on one caucus and not the other three is precisely because he was investigating only one caucus at the time. Even though he didn't develop the information that they were destroying evidence - which would have allowed him to initiate an investigation - until six months after starting an investigation. Which apparently he couldn't start until he learned they were destroying evidence. Despite the fact that he claimed in February 2007 that he was investigating all four caucuses.

If Corbett had really intended to probe all four caucuses (eventually?), it would have been nothing short of idiotic to launch a loud and leaky investigation of only one without taking any action on the others for months on end. And we really don't believe Corbett is that much of a idiot. Others may disagree.

He certainly seems determined to make us believe that he is; in October 2007, he and his campaign manager met privately with eventual defendant John Perzel. And in December 2007 he allowed eventual defendant Brian Preski to host a fund-raiser for him. Even though he supposedly had been investigating all four caucuses since February 2007, "we didn't have all the facts in front of us." The caucus' highest-ranking member and his chief of staff, involved in any caucus shenanigans? Is there anyone who couldn't have guessed this maybe could be the case even without interviewing a single witness or subpoenaing a single document (which apparently you can't do until you have probable cause that evidence is being destroyed)

And even though he claimed he wouldn't accept contributions from legislators while conducting his investigation, Senate Republicans happily laundered their contributions through the campaign of Corbett's running mate, with Corbett's knowledge and approval.

If he had intended to prosecute all four caucuses from the beginning, he'd have investigated all four caucuses from the beginning; it's that simple. He didn't. And it matters why.

The fact that "everyone does it" is significant not because of what it says about the defendants, but what it says about Corbett.

TRY A LITTLE HONESTY

2011-02-04T13:51:00.006-05:00

The Bill DeWeese public relations machine, led by former human Paul Sunyak, is running in overdrive.

Resplendent in a Marine Corps jacket, (was it his idea to shoot from that angle to make him look more heroic?) DeWeese "soldiers on," breathing "rhetorical fire" with a "certain bravado." (Seriously? Retch.)

The swooning Inquirer article makes scant mention of the charges against him - and none at all of the charges he escaped, and why he escaped them.

If DeWeese wants attention so badly, let's give him some. But let's get the facts straight:

Sept. 19, 2007: DeWeese fights probe of bonus payments
Attorneys for House Majority Leader Bill DeWeese sought to pre-empt subpoenas requiring several caucus employees to appear before a statewide investigating grand jury.

Oct. 16, 2007: DeWeese loses motion to exclude seized files
DeWeese's attorneys appealed Feudale's order to the state Supreme Court, citing federal and state "legislative privilege" protections for the seized material.

Oct, 27, 2007: DeWeese loses motion to quash subpoenas
The state Supreme Court denied DeWeese's petitions to block subpoenas compelling seven staffers to testify to the grand jury.

November 2007: DeWeese "negotiated" with Corbett to turn over emails implicating others
"It was negotiated through representation from the House ... specifically Mr. Chadwick." It's unclear what considerations DeWeese received in exchange for the evidence or why Corbett agreed to the arrangement.

11/18/08: DeWeese insists he's not a target
DeWeese said he's been cooperating with Attorney General Tom Corbett's investigation of legislative practices "Since Day One." He was not asked how his attempts to quash subpoenas and motions to exclude evidence qualified as "cooperating."

Big fat lies to the contrary notwithstanding, DeWeese obviously was not cooperating with Corbett's investigation well into October of 2007. But by mid-November at the latest, he'd "negotiated" an agreement to turn over emails, fired the staffers implicated in the emails, and arranged to provide caucus-paid attorneys for staff who testified to the grand jury.

Nov. 18, 2007: Bill DeWeese, ahead of the avalanche
"He has the goods on every single member of that [Democratic] caucus, and right now they are scared,'' Mr. Potts said. "He knows what everybody is afraid of and could tell tales if he wanted to and everybody knows it. It's every man for himself."

What changed between October and November? What did the "negotiations" entail? And do they explain why DeWeese was never charged in the caucus-wide activities at the center of the Bonusgate case? Big fat lies to the contrary notwithstanding, the evidence against him was undeniable:

February 2008: DeWeese admits he never delegated authority to award bonuses
DeWeese is visibly shaken when he realizes what he just admitted to KDKA's Jon Delano. The admission contradicts earlier statements about bonuses.

July 13, 2008: DeWeese's legislative assistant testifies DeWeese approved awarding bonuses for political work
Manzo came to Bill and said several epople were coming up for their annual evaluations. They were gung-ho, go-getters, always volunteer ... they volunteered to do campaign work. Bill said, craft something you think is appropriate.

Oct, 9, 2008: Ex-aide accuses DeWeese in probe
DeWeese "had full knowledge of the bonuses. He directed that certain bonuses be given."

March 16, 2009: E-mail may tie DeWeese to scandal
Karen Steiner thanked DeWeese for a "bonus for campaigning." DeWeese responded with "U R welcome."

April 7, 2009: DeWeese OK'd extending Peter Schweyer's employment, records show
Rep. Jen Mann sought, and received, permission from Bill DeWeese to keep an aide under contract after a Democratic staffer pointed to his campaign work.

April 6, 2009: Bonusgate records contradict DeWeese
Documents show that DeWeese's campaign tapped a state-paid computer consultant - a key figure in the Bonusgate probe - to perform a long list of political tasks...exchanged campaign-related messages with his legislative staffers on state e-mail accounts ...replied "UR welcome" to an email thanking for a bonus "for campaigning" ...and approved the extension of a legislative aide's contract based on his campaign work.

The media haven't always been so willing to overlook the implications of the evidence against Deweese.

April 7, 2009: Persistent cloud: More questions raised on DeWeese's role
Time and again, though, information comes forward that seems to contradict Mr. DeWeese's assertions regarding his knowledge of taxpayer money being used to underwrite political campaigns.

Inevitably, though, as time went on and predictions about DeWeese's imminent arrest on bonus charges fell flat, scrutiny of DeWeese's role in Bonusgate led to questions about Corbett's failure to charge him.

And so far, nobody's been willing to open that can of worms.

JUST OLD FASHIONED LEGWORK

2011-02-02T20:36:00.014-05:00

When we learned the news that intrepid Post-Gazette reporter Dennis Roddy had accepted a lucrative job in newly-elected Governor Tom Corbett's administration, we couldn't help but reflect on the Post-Gazette's plethora of anonymously-sourced Bonusgate reporting.

For example:

In August of 2007, "sources" told the Post-Gazette the grand jury was investigating "[former Rep. Mike] Veon, as well as a half-dozen other Democratic activists, state employees and former legislators." (Post-Gazette, 8/30/07)

"As many as 100 people are expected to be called before the grand jury, a source close to the investigation told the Post-Gazette" in September 2007. (Post-Gazette, 9/21/07)

"Sources close to the investigation” told the Post-Gazette that disgraced former legislator Frank LaGrotta “has given extensive details to the attorney general's office about inside dealings in the Democratic caucus.” (Post-Gazette, 10/7/07)

"Sources close to the investigation" told the Post-Gazett that Corbett was "deciding whether to pursue obstruction charges against those thought to be responsible" for ordering the shredding of documents. (Post-Gazette, 11/22/07)

Also in December 2007, e-mails that “are a key component in an investigation by Attorney General Tom Corbett” were “obtained” by the Post-Gazette. (Post-Gazette, 12/16/07)

"Sources close to the probe" in April 2008 gave the Post-Gazette a detailed account of what LaGrotta told investigators. The sources also described an investigation into whether campaign checks to Democratic lawmakers from a Lackawanna County partnership were legal. It was unclear what law the contributions might have violated. (Post-Gazette. 4/11/08)

The Post-Gazette interviewed an intern who confirmed that he told the grand jury he'd shredded documents when he worked for the House Democrats. The newspaper did not disclose how it learned of the intern's testimony. In the same article, “sources close to the probe” said the shredding could complicate the investigation. (Post-Gazettte, 5/11/08)

A month later, the Post-Gazette interviewed four more grand jury witnesses, without disclosing how it learned of their testimony. (Post-Gazette, 6/8/08)

That same month, the Post-Gazette published more e-mails related to the investigation that it had “obtained.” (Post-Gazette, 6/15/08)

In July 2008, “sources” told the Post-Gazette that “a statewide grand jury has returned a presentment recommending criminal charges against several former state aides as well as at least one high ranking former state legislator. (Post-Gazette, 7/10/08)

After Corbett was embarrassed by the revelation that a House aide had implicated unindicted former House Democratic Campaign Committee Operations Chair Steve Stetler, the Post-Gazette helped soften the blow, citing "sources close to a continuing investigation," that "investigators are trying to decide whether they have enough to build a case against Mr. Stetler." (Post-Gazette, 6/19/09)

A "recently discovered box of files," according to "sources close to the investigation," appear to suggest widespread campaign activity inside Mr. DeWeese's Harrisburg and district offices during state work hours. (Post-Gazette, 6/28/09)

"Sources connected to the probe" revealed that the grand jury had invited Revenue Secretary Steve Stetler, former House Minority Leader Bill DeWeese and then-Majority Leader Todd Eachus (who never was charged) to testify. (Post-Gazette, 12/4/09)

According to the Grand Jury Act, persons sworn to secrecy during grand jury proceedings shall be held in contempt of court if they reveal any information which they are sworn to keep secret. Each participant in the grand jury proceeding: the prosecutor, the jurors, and the investigators, must take an oath not to reveal anything that occurs inside the jury room.

And what does the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists have to say about anonymous sources? "Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability ... Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity."

What could possibly be the motive behind leaking damaging information about Democrats in the months before a critical legislative election, and upon the unofficial launch of a Republican prosecutor's gubernatorial campaign? The prolific anonymously-sourced reporting mysteriously dried up during Corbett's ass-covering investigation of House Republicans.

Enjoy your new job, Mr. Roddy. You've earned it.

STENCH? WHAT STENCH?

2011-02-01T18:41:00.001-05:00

As the trial of Republican state Sen. Jane Orie begins next week, we wish - but are not hopeful - that someone would ask our intrepid Governor how his so-called investigation of his friends in the Senate Republican Caucus managed to miss such a blatant misuse of state resources for political purpose.

Then-Attorney General (now Governor) Tom Corbett supposedly subpoenaed the Senate Republicans for records on Feb. 8, 2008.

There are several possible scenarios:

1) No subpoenas were issued, and both the source who leaked the information and the Senate Republican staffer who confirmed it were lying.

2) The subpoenas were issued, the Senate Republican Caucus did not comply, and Corbett never pursued its refusal to comply -- even after learning through an Allegheny County grand jury presentment the full extent of the information the caucus withheld.

3) The subpoenas were issued, the Senate Republicans fully complied, and Corbett did nothing with the information he obtained.

We can't imagine a plausible scenario that does not put Corbett deeply, deeply in the wrong, but we're nothing if not open-minded. We're always willing to entertain the possibility that Corbett isn't corrupt, but simply mind-blowingly incompetent.

Keep in mind that more than a year after the Senate Republicans were subpoenaed for records, Corbett's office turned away a whistleblower who tried to report the shenanigans in Orie's office.

And despite Corbett's ban on contributions from legislators, it turns out Senate Republicans had been forking over cash all along - laundered through the coffers of Corbett's running mate, but with Corbett's knowledge and approval.

Corbett's "investigation" of Senate Republicans smells to high heaven. Even Corbett sycophant Brad Bumsted thought so at one time. But getting all worked up about injustice is just so exhausting for the Capitol Stenographers Corps. Fortunately it doesn't happen often and it doesn't last long.

FOLLOWING THE EVIDENCE ... WHEREVER IT LEADS

2011-01-25T12:41:00.006-05:00

“Crime doesn’t have a notion of whether it’s Democrat or Republican .... we are following the evidence and we will follow it wherever it goes.” -- Tom Corbett (Patriot-News, 1/18/11)

Really? Did you follow it when it led toward:

....Delaware County GOP Operative Paul Summers, who allegedly submitted falsified nominating petitions for Congressional candidate Pat Meehan and state House candidate Maureen Carey?

....State Rep. Mauree Gingrich, also accused of forging signatures on her nominating petitions?

....Philadelphia GOP party officials, also accused of forging signatures on official documents?

....State House Majority Leader Mike Turzai, who (like many, many other legislators) collected full per-diem payments without deducting the cost of meals paid from his committee contingency account?

....Former Senate Republican Whip Jane Orie, accused of running a full-scale campaign operation out of her district office?

....Former Speaker of the House Keith McCall, who allegedly used state staff and resources for campaign work according to evidence in Mike Veon's trial?

....Former House Democratic Leader Todd Eachus, who according to evidence in the Veon trial directed staff to produce political research and perform political work, acquiesced to paying bonuses for campaign work, and coordinated "official" appearances by Cabinet secretaries in the districts of vulnerable incumbents?

....Former Rep. Matt Wright, who "used staff, office space, equipment and materials of his legislative District Office and his Capitol Office to further his re-election campaigns," according to an Ethics Commission ruling?

....York County D.A. Stan Rebert, accused of abusing his office for personal gain?

....Bedford County D.A. Bill Higgins, accused of rape?

....Former state Rep. Eugene McGill, accused of personally profiting from a non-profit he founded that received state funds?

It's long past time for the Capitol Stenographers Corps to wipe off their chins and face the undeniable fact that Corbett used his prosecutorial power to for political gain, while ignoring the misdeeds of his allies and potential allies as long as it was politically feasible.

THE KILLER RABBITS OF CAERBANNOG - ER, HARRISBURG

2011-01-18T14:35:00.021-05:00

History books will bear out that Tom Corbett as Pennsylvania attorney general brought down some of the most powerful lawmakers in the state. -- Patriot-News (1/18/11)

Only if the history books are based upon the erroneous reporting of the Patriot-News.

Need we remind you (and apparently, we need), Tom Corbett charged precisely one legislative leader in his entire four-year investigation of the legislature? And only after it became crystal clear that political reality required charging him with something. (Ironically, the indictment of this singular "powerful" lawmaker followed a concerted effort on the part of both Corbett and the lawmaker in question to persuade the public he held almost no power at all.)

It's beyond question at this point that the scope of Corbett's investigation originally extended no further than the House Democrats. After all, as Corbett's 2008 opponent for Attorney General John Morganelli pointed out - and as Corbett's own subsequent investigation confirmed - launching a very public investigation of one caucus could only serve as an opportunity for the other caucuses to destroy evidence and devise obstructions.

As we know, Corbett's original indictments - and but for public outcry, his only indictments - included a single sitting legislator, a rank-and-file sophomore who was not even implicated in the main allegations of the case. How brave of Corbett! Rep. Sean Ramaley, who oh-so-coincidentally was a candidate in a competitive state Senate race, was acquitted of every charge in the whisper-thin case against him.

As far as can be discerned from Corbett's own presentment against House Republicans, his office did not even pretend to investigate in earnest until July 2008 at the very earliest. It's true he served House Republicans with a subpoena for records in February 2008 - a full year after announcing that he would investigate all four caucuses. But the frenzy of obstruction that followed those subpoenas does not appear to have come to Corbett's attention before at least late July, when Corbett's office allegedly began interviewing House Republican staffers. It was not reported that subpoenas were issued until mid-August, well after headlines such as "Is State Bonus Probe Partisan?" and "Rendell has a good point on Bonusgate parity issue," had begun cropping up around the state.

And when political necessity forced Corbett to indict Republicans, so he could claim to be even-handed, did he indict any "powerful" members of House Republican leadership? Don't be ridiculous; he again indicted a single rank-and-file member.

By what measure does the Patriot-News claim that Corbett "brought down some of the most powerful lawmakers in the state?" While Mike Veon, John Perzel and Steve Stetler may once have held positions of influence in the legislature, by the time Corbett set his sights on them, they'd long been deposed from any legislative power they once had. Veon and Stetler weren't even members of the legislature anymore, and Perzel had long been demoted. Among the three of them, they controlled exactly one vote. Saying Corbett brought down powerful lawmakers is like beating up the 70-year-old Muhammad Ali and claiming to have defeated the heavyweight champion of the world. Only House Democratic Whip Bill DeWeese could arguably be described as a "powerful lawmaker," and Corbett very pointedly avoided charging him until political necessity forced his hand. (And we reserve judgment on whether Corbett even now has "brought him down." Office pool odds favor DeWeese never even going to trial. But we shall see.)

Perhaps the Patriot-News was bamboozled by Corbett's feints at House Democratic Leader Todd Eachus. According to a well-timed leak, Eachus allegedly was invited to testify to the grand jury. And why not? Email evidence and grand jury testimony certainly implicated Eachus in political work on the state dime. But whether Corbett never really was investigating Eachus or abandoned whatever investigation he started, he certainly can't claim to have "brought down" Eachus. Nor can he claim to have "brought down" then-House Republican Leader (now Speaker) Sam Smith.

The tale of Corbett's Bonusgate investigation is certainly full of sound and fury, told by ...um, journalists... and signifying, if not nothing, then a whole lot less than the "journalists" make it out to be.

NO PARKING

2010-12-29T11:48:00.003-05:00

The masters and mistresses of obliviousness in the Capitol Stenographers Corps are baffled - baffled! - over the decision by Tom Corbett's taxpayer-funded campaign manager, Brian Nutt, not to continue to be his taxpayer-funded campaign manager.

What's baffling is that there ever was a moment when anyone thought he could become the Chief of Staff to the Governor. It's not the kind of job where you simply park between campaigns, like, say, Chief of Staff to the Attorney General. You kind of actually have to run the state government. And that would require at least some experience in knowing how the government works.

From The Inquirer: Nutt said he would continue to be Corbett's political adviser and chief strategist. "I'm not going anywhere. I will just have a different address outside the Capitol," Nutt said.

In other words, "I'm just going to keep on doing what I've been doing all along, even when I was on the state payroll."

Can anyone think of anything Nutt did during his years of state employment that would qualify him to run the state government? Or is his experience on the public dime more suited toward "political advisor?"

He "oversaw" an office full of taxpayer-funded employees who spent their taxpayer-funded time on their taxpayer-funded phones conferring with Corbett campaign operatives.

While he was "officially" campaign manager, he conferred with taxpayer-funded OAG staff over politically-sensitive matters.

He was on the state payroll while negotiating sensitive political endorsements.

Under his watch, state contract work and campaign contract work became intertwined.

Taxpayer-funded OAG employees somehow found themselves distributing campaign literature on taxpayer-funded time.

For those who haven't been paying attention, Corbett criminally prosecuted staff members, or threatened them with prosecution to secure their testimony, on accusations of doing political work on state time.

(Unless, of course, your taxpayer-funded campaign work on behalf of Republicans earned you the frequent designation "political guru." More than one journalist who frequently discussed political matters with a "political guru" who was on the state payroll, in his taxpayer-funded office, on taxpayer-funded time, on a taxpayer-funded phone, defended acquiescence in this illegal arrangement in the name of "access." You know who you are.)

DOUBLE-DIPPING

2010-12-19T12:15:00.023-05:00

The Tribune-Review's Brad Bumsted once again has his panties in a bunch over "per diems," which are taxpayer-funded payments to legislators to cover food and lodging, and which require no receipts.

This time, however, he's full of admiration for new leaders - Speaker Sam Smith and Majority Leader Mike Turzai - for "moving forward on something of symbolic importance to voters: tightening their own belts ... they want to end per diem abuse as well."

What Bumsted neglects to mention is that Turzai has been as guilty as anyone else of "per diem abuse."

As Bumsted notes: "Influential legislators have often put the arm on lobbyists to buy expensive dinners and, of course, never deducted those meal costs from their per diems. On busy days, the House or caucuses brought in catered food.

"It's called double dipping."

An examination of Turzai's per diem payments and charges to his contingency account - every committee chairman and leader controls one - shows plenty of examples of "double dipping."

In 2007 and 2008, Mike Turzai collected more than $32,000 in per diems, nearly $11,600 of it for non-session days. He also was reimbursed from his taxpayer-funded contingency account for thousands of dollars worth of meals.

For example:

* On April 13, 2007, Turzai not only collected a $148 per diem - for food and lodging expenses incurred in doing his job - he also charged the taxpayers $19.63 for a "policy breakfast meeting."

* On June 5, in addition to collecting a $148 per diem, Turzai charged his contingency account $21.60 for another "policy breakfast meeting."

* On June 11, 2007, the taxpayers bought the Policy Committee lunch for the bargain price of $218; Turzai still collected his full per diem of $148.

* On June 21, 2007, Turzai received a $148 per diem. He also charged his taxpayer-funded contingency account $218.18 for a "policy hearing lunch".

* On June 27, 2007, another day for which he collected a $148 per diem, he charged the contingency account $70 for a "policy hearing dinner meeting."

* On August 14, 2007, another full $148 per diem day, Turzai collected $31.54 from the contingency account to cover the cost of breakfast.

* On August 29,2007, the taxpayers coughed up $275 for "policy lunch and dinner," plus another $31 for "policy lunch," while Turzai collected another full $148 per diem.

Caucus policy committees, it should be noted, do not officially act on legislation. They are quasi-political entities which stage hearings designed to drum up public support for caucus priorities.

* The committee held one such hearing in Warren on September 7, 2007, regarding "mental illness and substance abuse." Turzai collected $148 for attending. He also charged his contingency account $27.52 for lunch.

* On September 12, 2007 - a non-session day, the Policy Committee met in Berwyn. Taxpayers footed the bill through the contingency account for both lunch - $178.25 - and dinner - $176.65 and then another $27.84 for dinner. Turzai - and presumably the other members of the committee - also collected a $152 per diem.

* Just five days later, on Sept. 17, 2007 - another non-session day - Turzai collected both a $152 per diem and charged $107.17 to the contingency account for lunch.

* October 29, 2007, was a bargain day for the taxpayers. While Turzai collected his full $152 per diem, he charged the contingency account only $86.28 for a lunch meeting and $80.02 for a dinner meeting.

* Turzai must not have been very hungry on November 13, 2007. Although he collected his full $152 per diem, he charged the contingency fund only $25.67 for breakfast.

* For some reason, on January 9, 2008, "lunch" ($56.35) and "drinks" ($14.13) were charged separately to the contingency account. Turzai collected his full $152 per diem.

* Turzai was being especially frugal on January 30, 2008, when he collected only $22 from the contingency account for dinner - along with his full $152 per diem, of course.

* On April 2, 2008, Turzai charged the contingency account $106.72 for dinner and collected a per diem of $152. On April 8, 2008, taxpayers were charged only $32.13 for Turzai's lunch - along with $152 for his other expenses.

Turzai's Policy Committee contingency account didn't pay for every meal Turzai or his committee members consumed when the House was in session or the committee met. Some of those meals, as Bumsted notes, may have been bought by lobbyists. And Turzai is a member of committees other than his own, which certainly provided other meals.

Turzai certainly did nothing out of the ordinary in charging meals to his contingency account while collecting his full per diems. (Nor did Mike Veon, who was charged with five felonies - of which he was acquitted - for doing the very same thing.) But Bumsted's attemps to cast Turzai as a hero of reform fall a little flat.

WORK RELEASE FOR THE UNEMPLOYED

2010-12-19T09:30:00.004-05:00

The Dauphin County Work Release Center ... is a Community Corrections facility utilized by the Courts to incarcerated sentenced offenders in order to provide an opportunity for them to maintain previously secured or newly gained employment. (Dauphin County website)

Mr. Foreman was ordered to report to the Dauphin County Work Release Center, which allows inmates to leave daily to go to jobs in the community. Mr. Foreman, 59, is unemployed ...(Post-Gazette)