NOT GOING TO TOUCH IT

Since his election to the State House in 2006, Congressional candidate Bryan Lentz has had a front row seat for Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Corbett's transparent show of political expediency when deciding whether or not to investigate fellow Republicans. We're guessing that is why he is calling on the US Department of Justice to investigate his opponent's apparent nominating petition chicanery. ("Meehan opponent asks feds to probe forged petitions" Philadelphia Daily News, 4/2/10)

Lentz is well aware of Corbett's proven selective priorities when it comes to investigating petition irregularities. He watched Corbett use his state-wide grand jury to investigate ("Former lawmaker from Erie target of grand jury inquiry" Post-Gazette 11/4/07) and prosecute his Democratic colleague, Linda Bebko-Jones for her illegal petition gathering methods ("Ex-Pa. lawmaker, aide plead in election fraud case" AP, 8/5/08)

Yet, when Corbett was presented with extensive evidence of Republican State Representative Mauree Gingrich's petition irregularities, he ignored it outright. ("Challenger accuses Gingrich of forging nominating papers" Lebanon Daily News, 3/20/08)

Lentz knows he can't depend on impartial justice when Corbett's taxpayer funded political mouthpiece Kevin Harley says "We will conduct a criminal investigation and follow it wherever the evidence leads." ("Lentz seeks federal probe of Meehan's ballot petitions" Inquirer, 4/2/10)

After all, Corbett has shown repeatedly that he will ignore GOP misdeeds in order to further his political ambitions, especially when potential targets are campaign donors or political allies.

Oh, and don't think for a minute that State Representative John Perzel didn't blow his chance at avoiding the investigation that resulted in his ultimate arrest when the subject of the gubernatorial campaign came up during a highly improper meeting with Corbett and his taxpayer funded campaign manager, Brian Nutt, in 2007 while an active investigation of the state legislature was under way. ("Corbett guv run tainted by conflict of interest charges?" Philadelphia Daily News 11/12/09) Perzel is rumored to have plenty to say in upcoming court filings about what Corbett asked of him in regard to his gubernatorial bid and what Perzel refused to do in exchange for a wink and a nod.

Lentz is making a smart move in his effort to have an impartial investigation of Meehan's petitions. Corbett has proven over and over and over he won't touch those who have helped or can help or will help his political aspirations.

HELL FREEZES OVER

Given the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review's unconditional hero-worship of Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett and its unceasing vilification of Mike Veon, it's worth noting whenever the Trib allows anyone within its pages to acknowledge that Team Veon just might have a point. ("'Strong issues' may aid Veon" 3/31/10)

Lawyers for Veon and his co-defendants have asked for a mistrial based on the jury's attempt to conduct its own investigation. The lawyers also have indicated their intention to raise several issues on appeal: "replacement of a juror after five days of deliberations; limits placed on cross-examination; the judge's denial of 'selective prosecution' as a defense; and accusations of intimidation and bullying of House staffers by the attorney general's agents and lawyers during their investigation."

The Trib's response to pretty much every point Team Veon has raised in the last year and a half since indictment has been mocking derision. ("Veon's lame rationale" 6/7/09) So, based on past practice, the Trib would be expected to haul out legal experts to explain why each and every one of these issues is a piddling matter beneath the court's attention as well as to point out that the defendants' mothers wear combat boots.

Instead, the Trib deigned to include Pitt law school professor John Burkoff's observation that "Criminal convictions have been reversed on each and every one of those issues."

Wow.

WHAT'S THE BUZZ?

It may not mean much as a legal argument, but the "everybody does it" defense seems to be putting Tom Corbett in the hot seat. Proceedings against former House Democratic Campaign Chair Steve Stetler have been delayed while the prosecutorial arm of the Corbett campaign scrambles to answer charges that Corbett himself used state resources to campaign.

As reported by ABC 27 back in October and again by the Patriot-News in February, taxpayer-funded state Attorney General staff exchanged hundreds of phone calls during work hours on their state phones not only with Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett himself, but with campaign workers Marie Conley and Joe Murzyn.

Curiously, Corbett has chosen to defend himself against accusations of one crime - using state resources for campaign purposes - by confessing to another: using campaign funds for non-campaign purposes. “This has nothing to do with using government resources for campaign purposes. It’s the exact opposite of that,” [Corbett spokesman Kevin] Harley said. Yeah, that's a crime, too, Kev. There are laws restricting the use of campaign funds to, you know, campaign work.

The defense is not only ludicrous, but incomplete: "As for why calls appear to be made from others in Corbett’s campaign staff to state phones, Harley said he didn’t know."

Six months' worth of itemized bills from Marie Conley's campaign phone and two months' worth from Joe Murzyn's phone show hundreds of calls to and from at least a dozen state phones during work hours - not only in the Office of Attorney General, but also the state offices of Sen. Domenic Pileggi, Sen. Jeff Piccola and Rep.Dan Moul. View the itemized bills and copies of the campaign checks here.

The Corbett campaign may think it's plausible enough that Corbett could have been discussing state business with state workers on his campaign-funded phone (did we mention it's a crime to spend campaign funds for non-campaign purposes?), but we are just dying to know what these state workers were discussing with campaign staffers.

Whether Corbett will face charges based on the accusations remains to be seen. But the blatant hypocrisy could and should be a factor Corbett's gubernatorial campaign. After all, those taxpayer-funded state OAG workers probably weren't discussing the weather during their hundreds of phone calls on state time with campaign operatives.

What were campaign operatives Marie Conley and Joe Murzyn discussing with state workers on state time on their state phones? Will we ever get more than a feeble "I don't know" from the Corbett campaign? (Or from Pileggi, Piccola and Moul, for that matter?) If they worked for anyone in the Capitol other than Tom Corbett, they'd have been hauled before a grand jury and forced to answer under oath.

Side note: While it may not rise to the level of a crime, we're disturbed by Corbett's repeated and disputed claim that he uses two phones - one for state work and one for campaign work. He first made the claim to ABC 27 in September. Then in November, under questioning from the Associated Press, he claimed he uses his "personal" cell phone for both state and campaign business, and he doesn't even know the number of his state-issued cell phone. But in January he again made the claim on WITF-FM ("I carry two, by the way"), and then denied it again to the Patriot-News, saying he uses his "personal/campaign Blackberry" to make and receive all calls (did we mention it's a crime to spend campaign funds for non-campaign purposes?) If he thinks it's all hunky-dory to use one campaign-funded phone for both state and campaign calls (it's not), why does he keep claiming to use two?

LEGAL FAILURE, POLITICAL SUCCESS?

Of the 322 criminal charges Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett filed against 12 House Democrats that have been adjudicated, there have been 50 convictions. Yes, that's a success rate of 15.5%.

There were 35 charges brought against Mike Veon and Annamarie Perretta-Rosepink in connection with Beaver Initiative for Growth that were dismissed.

There were six charges brought against Sean Ramaley in connection with his employment as a Veon staffer. Ramaley was acquitted of all six.

There were 114 charges dismissed against defendants who pleaded guilty.

And the other four defendants who went to trial were acquitted of 117 charges.

The defendants have asked for a mistrial based on the jurors' wildly-improper attempt to investigate the allegations on their own, and they have indicated they intend to appeal. If their efforts are successful, Corbett's conviction rate drops to less than 9%.

Corbett and his supporters were bound to claim victory even if only a single charge out of the hundreds stuck. But no matter how much of a political victory Corbett and his supporters want to claim, anyone familiar with criminal proceedings would call the 15.5% conviction rate for the investigation a dismal failure.

Which, of course, is fine with the Corbett team, because the charges were brought for their political value and not their legal validity. Besides, no one's going to call the future Governor's investigation a failure publicly.

The Corbett campaign has tried to downplay the millions of dollars in taxpayer money and thousands of hours of manpower it has invested in this fiasco, pointing out that the dozens of state employees who've devoted a majority of their work hours to this case would have been paid whether working on this politically-motivated case or some other.

(Ironically, the prosecutorial arm of the Corbett campaign scoffed at that very line of reasoning when it was offered as a defense in the Veon trial)

Lead prosecutor E. Marc Constanzo sputtered that Veon was convicted in seven of the 11 "criminal episodes" the Corbett campaign developed. (He's wrong: Veon was charged in 12 "episodes") But if that's the measure by which the Corbett campaign wants to be judged, what does it say that a jury cleared one defendant in all three "episodes" in which he was charged, another in eight of nine "episodes," and another in four of five? Throw in Ramaley's acquittal and the dismissal of the BIG charges, Corbett's success rate as measured by "episode" units is still only 28% for the five defendants who went to trial.

The voters have to examine two possibilities:

1)The Corbett campaign knew prosecutors couldn't prove the vast majority of the charges they brought, and proceeded anyway, wasting vast amounts of taxpayer resources on political gain.

2) The Corbett campaign mistakenly thought prosecutors could prove the vast majority of the charges they brought, wasting vast amounts of taxpayer resources on their own ignorance and incompetence.

117 ACQUITTALS

It will be forgotten by tomorrow, as the Tom Corbett Gubernatorial Campaign spins his less-than-16% conviction rate as an enormous victory, but let's pause for a moment and imagine how it felt for Team Corbett to hear the words "not guilty" 117 times in a row.

Three years, millions of taxpayer dollars, countless state staff man-hours ....only to hear again and again, "not guilty....not guilty ... not guilty."

And just think: he still has to try a dozen more defendants on similar charges ... with similar evidence and similar witnesses.

WAITING AT THE FINISH LINE

At this moment, on the hard drives of at least a few editorial writers around the state, there reside two versions of an editorial.

According to one version, Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett's case against Mike Veon and company was weak, his witnesses not credible, the evidence thin. Boo!

According to the other, Corbett's case was airtight, his witnesses steadfast and true, the evidence overwhelming. Yay!

The case is over, of course, and the jury continues to deliberate. Anyone who paid attention to the six-week trial has long since drawn conclusions about the worthiness of Corbett's case. What will determine which version of the editorial sees the light of day is not the worthiness of the case, but the verdict.

We doubt there is an editorial writer in the state who is willing to call the case weak if the jury convicts on most charges, or vice versa. To be completely honest, we doubt there is an editorial writer in the state who's paid enough attention to the case to have developed an informed opinion, not that that will stop them from opining. The reporters in the courtroom, and those who followed their Twitter feeds, have a pretty good idea of what transpired. But "mainstream" media coverage has been shallow, cursory and scant.

Our prediction: rather than offer readers a useful analysis of how candidate Corbett has spent millions of taxpayer dollars and countless state worker man-hours over the last three years, editorial boards will treat the case as they treat most complex subjects - like a horse race.

COME ON IN, THE WATER'S FINE

Uninformed commentary - it's all the rage! All the cool kids are doing it, and now the Post-Gazette's Ruth Ann Daily is getting into the act.

There are so many inaccuracies, both on Daily's part and the part of her sources, we hardly know where to begin.

First of all, please point us to the portion of the week-long defense case in which any of the defendants or their lawyers argued anything close to "Sure, these guys broke the law, but only a little bit and hey, everybody's doing it." What the defense has argued is that the prosecution did not prove its case. Witness after witness testified they took their direction from Mike Manzo, Jeff Foreman or Scott Brubaker. All of whom, by the way, have admitted they broke the law and have pleaded guilty to multiple felonies, and testified in exchange for the possibility of reduced sentences.

Which leads us to Tim Potts' ludicrous argument that an acquittal for Veon and company will give lawmakers and staff free rein to campaign on state time and on the state dime. Has Potts forgotten that people have been held accountable? Do their convictions not serve as the deterrent Potts thinks lawmakers so desperately need?

We wish that, instead of trotting out some meaningless "law & order" rhetoric, Daily had actually attempted some journalism and pressed Potts on exactly what he means by "the evidence everyone has seen." We've followed the case closely and have seen an abundance of evidence and testimony that Mike Manzo and Scott Brubaker, with the blessing and cooperation of Bill DeWeese, coordinated and executed a plan to reward campaign volunteerism with bonuses, and that Jeff Foreman directed staff to campaign on state time and seek state reimbursement for their expenses. Three of the four have been held accountable, have pleaded guilty and await sentencing

If Potts is worried about allowing anyone to "get away with" anything, he should be asking Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett why DeWeese has escaped indictment in the scandal.

The idea that anyone would look to the experience of the four current defendants - who, even if they're acquitted, have lost their jobs and reputations, have seen personal relationships destroyed, and likely face years of debt for legal bills - and take that as encouragement to follow the example of Manzo, Brubaker, Foreman and DeWeese defies logic.

IF YOU CAN'T EVEN GET THE NAMES RIGHT....

It's bad enough the Patriot-News hasn't bothered to send a reporter to a trial that culminates a story it broke with its own reporting.

But if today's "commentary" by Laura Vecsey is any indication, no one at that Patriot-News is bothering to read anyone else's coverage of the trial.

First of all, Vecsey (and anyone proofing the copy over there), the name of Mike Veon's attorney is Joel Sansone, not Santone.

And the name of the lead prosecutor is E. Marc Costanzo, not Constanza. (Perhaps Vecsey and the Patriot-News staff are spending their time watching Seinfeld reruns instead of paying attention to the trial!)

After a six-week trial that raised significant questions of prosecutorial intimidation, the credibility of witnesses, the accuracy of exhibits, the thoroughness of the investigation, the motivation of both investigators and witnesses and the very foundation of Pennsylvania's legal, governmental and political institutions, Vecsey is concerned with just one point: Why were the the closing arguments so loooooooooong?

We're sorry you were bored, Laura. Those who've actually followed the trial, both in the courtroom and on Twitter, know that attorneys for each of the four defendants were limited to just two hours. Those who've covered the courts for more than part of one day know it's unusual for an attorney to be held to such a limit. Anyone who'd given a single moment's thought to the entirety of the trial could probably figure out that two hours is a pretty short time to sum up six weeks of testimony.

We wonder if Vecsey is even aware that the trial has been going on for six weeks. The column reads like she just accidentally stumbled into a random courtroom and based her assumptions on nothing more than what she heard in the few hours she was there.

It's a shame that the Patriot News couldn't be bothered to spend more than a few hours on a six-week trial - especially since it wants to portray the story it broke as enormously significant.

Brace yourself, Patriot-News: the prosecution today will be allowed to drone on for four hours! Better bring a comic book to keep yourself entertained.

DEWEESE: I DID NOT DELEGATE RESPONSIBILITY TO VEON

KDKA'S Jon Delano: "In a February 2008 interview with me, [Bill DeWeese] stated categorically he had no knowledge of the large legislative bonuses, saying he delegated authority to staff and others."

DeWeese: No leader can be involved at that tactical level day in day out, if you have that many people. There are just too many people. And in the Marine Corps we were taught to choose good subordinates.

Delano: "Ultimately, DeWeese fired Manzo and other staffers for their role in Bonusgate.

"But in the same interview with me, I asked DeWeese specifically about Veon's role in the bonuses."

Delano: Did you delegate to him responsibility for allocation of bonuses?"

DeWeese: No.

Delano: It was to your senior staff people?

DeWeese: I'm ... gonna ask the attorney general to ... come forward and see exactly what they think is the case.

Delano: "Veon's lawyers had hoped DeWeese would help exonerate Veon. But by taking the Fifth, jurors at Veon's trial won't hear DeWeese's words under oath.

"Now, again, DeWeese cannot be compelled to testify if he believes his testimony will incriminate himself. Today, DeWeese's attorney said of the Veon trial, quote, this is not DeWeese's fight. But given the finger-pointing among these top Democrats, it's no surprise Veon wanted jurors to hear the Democratic Leader say Veon was not delegated responsibility for bonuses.

DEWEESE TAKES THE FIFTH

Former House Democratic Caucus Leader H. William DeWeese, who has proclaimed far and wide his innocence in the "bonus" case now before Dauphin County Court, refuses to testify in the case lest he incriminate himself.

For the one or two sycophants (posting comments to this blog from deep inside DeWeese's rectum) who still cling to delusions of DeWeese's innocence, "I had no idea" is not an incriminating statement.

Therefore, "I had no idea" is a statement that DeWeese could not make truthfully under oath. And since DeWeese has been saying "I had no idea," for about three years now, that means he's been .... anyone? That's right, class: lying his worthless ass off.

Now, either the Gubernatorial Candidate who's been investigating this case for three years knows that DeWeese's protestations of innocence are false, and engaged in some shady deal to protect him from indictment, which makes him ... anyone? That's right, class: a repugnant hypocrite.

Or, the Gubernatorial Candidate who's been investigating this case for three years doesn't know that DeWeese's protestations of innocence are false, which makes him ... anyone? That's right, class: breathtakingly incompetent.

But, since no one in the Capitol media corps seems the least bit interested in figuring out exactly why Tom Corbett gave DeWeese a pass, it's likely that Pennsylvania will end up with a governor who is either a repugnant hypocrite or breathtakingly incompetent. Nice work, press corps. Three cheers!

ILLEGAL OR NOT?

During a campaign stop this week, Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett called for some changes in the law.

Problem is, he's already charged someone with violating this new law that he hasn't invented yet.

Capitolwire reporter Laura Olson wrote yesterday:

"[Corbett] also pointed to the accusations against [former state Rep. Mike] Veon as an example of the need to switch the legislative daily expense system from a flat amount to reimburse only for actual expenses. Veon and others allegedly used taxpayer funds to pay for meals after weeknight basketball games. 'They double-dipped' by taking per diems and charging meals to legislative accounts, he said."

If there's a need to change the law, then what Veon did must not be illegal yet. But Corbett charged him with a crime (quite a few, actually), so what he did must already be illegal. But if it's already illegal, there must not be a need to change the law.

Oh, politically-motivated criminal prosecutions are so confusing!

Many members of the House, who commonly used contingency accounts to purchase meals and still collected full per diems also were confused, so House Comptroller Alexis Brown issued a memo to clarify:

"We have received an advisory opinion from a tax attorney assuring us there are no tax consequences for members receiving a per diem when the employer (the House)provides a meal for the benefit of the member on the employer's premises [as all Veon's Tuesday night dinners were]. Thus, when the Chief Clerk provides meals in the rear of the chamber due to our session schedule, or when a meal is provided during a caucus or committee meeting [such as a meeting of the deputy whips], there are no tax consequences for members, and thus, no need to adjust any per diems for that day."

The memo was issued September 8, 2008, two months after Veon was arrested for abiding by the very advice contained in the memo.

And now, nearly two years after indicting Veon for claiming per diems after consuming House-paid meals, Corbett calls for outlawing the claiming of per diems after consuming House-paid meals.

We're pretty sure Corbett attended law school (though perhaps not a "Top Ten" school like one of our recent commenters); did his law professors ever mention that prosecutors can charge people with violating only existing laws, not imaginary laws that the prosecutors wish existed?

And it shouldn't take a law professor to recognize that if a prosecutor wants to pretend that the law already exists, (since he's already charged someone with violating it) perhaps he shouldn't go around the state demanding that it be created.

HEDGING ITS BETS

Far be it from us to speculate on the motives of the Tribune-Review, which heretofore has been Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett's biggest cheerleader.

But as the prosecution's "bonusgate" case against Mike Veon and company appears to be crumbling around Corbett, the Trib appears to be clearing a little room on its dance card.

The disaster unfolding in Courtroom One of the Dauphin County Courthouse is not listed among the reasons Rohrer might best Corbett in the upcoming Republican primary. No, Rohrer deserves a second look because he "understands budgets better than the vast majority of lawmakers." He'll "be a formidable debater." Or perhaps it's just that he "might be in the right place at the right time."

Unspoken is the fact that Corbett just may have wasted three year's time, millions of dollars and untold Commonwealth resources on a politically-motivated investigation with very little to show for it.

If Corbett's biggest boosters are now searching for an escape hatch, can the crashing and burning be far behind?

THE BEST LAID PLANS O' MICE AND POLITICALLY MOTIVATED PROSECUTORS.....

The prosecutorial arm of Tom Corbett's gubernatorial campaign is not having the best month.

"What we hope's going to happen and what actually plays out in a courtroom, as (has) been demonstrated for almost four weeks now, it doesn't always work out that way," Senior Deputy Attorney General E. Marc Costanzo told reporters.

We want to show you something: It's our shocked face.

We are not lawyers here at CasablancaPA, but we do know that you're bound to bump into things when you're walking backward. A successful criminal prosecution begins with a crime and leads to a suspect. Tom Corbett's gubernatorial campaign began with a suspect and searched for a crime.

Know what you get when you stumble backward through a prosecution? Witnesses who contradict the central premise of your case. Just yesterday former Mike Veon staff member and immunized prosecution witness Rich Pronesti testified that he did not volunteer for political campaigns in 2004 and did receive a bonus. He volunteered for political campaigns in 2005 and did not receive a bonus. In 2006, he did not volunteer for political campaigns and did receive a bonus.

In case it's unclear, the Tom Corbett gubernatorial campaign is trying to prove that bonuses were awarded in return for political volunteerism. So, naturally, they called a witness who testified to the contrary. The Tom Corbett gubernatorial campaign is trying to prove that staff members feared for their jobs if they did not volunteer on political campaigns. So, naturally, they called a witness who not only retained his job after declining to volunteer, but received bonuses, raises and promotions.

The Tom Corbett gubernatorial campaign called Pronesti's testimony an anomaly. When their star witness shredded his own credibility, they stammered, "he's not that vital a witness." (Well, he did testify to his own lack of vitality. Tee hee. Ahem. Sorry.)

Almost exactly 70 years ago, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson foresaw the potential disaster of the Tom Corbett gubernatorial campaign:

If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his cases, it follows that he can choose his defendants. Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted. With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him. It is in this realm—in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies.

OBSESSED WITH THE GRIM REAPER

Because we're following the "Bonusgate" case on Twitter, we think we've finally figured out what's wrong with Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett's case. He's prosecuting the wrong defendant.

According to Roxbury News' Tweets:

"Foreman asked me [former Mike Veon staff member Rich Protnesti] to go to Beaver Co in the general election 2006, I refused, my wife was pregnant"

"Raynak- who told you [Pronesti] to lie A- Jeff Foreman, and things are getting very heated"

"Pronesti Foreman asked me to fly to Nashville TN pick up Mike's Harley - objection no charges were filed for a motorcycle in TN"

"Pronesti- after the payraise Foreman warned him - "people will be watching"

"Pronesti admitting working on campaigns without taking state leave, he was asked to work on the Albert campaign by Jeff Foreman"

Post-Gazette reporter Tracie Mauriello's Tweets:

"Pronesti says Jeff Foreman told him to lie on reimbursement form"

"In 06 Foreman told Pronesti, [former Veon staff member] Melissa Lewis & others to accrue compensatory time so they would have time to campaign."

"Foreman wanted Pronesti & others to move to Beaver for 10 weeks leading up to 06 primary. Pronesti refused."

"Pronesti: Jeff Foreman (who pleaded guilty in #bonusgate) asked him to go to Beaver to campaign against Veon political foe James Albert."

"Pronesti: Travel expenses were paid by caucus, too. Jeff Foreman told staff to submit those expenses for reimbursement by caucus"

"KSB [Karen Steiner Blanar, former Veon staff member]: Foreman told her and PJ Lavelle "to delete information and start protecting ourselves."

"KSB- Foreman wanted me to uproot and move to Beaver Co for 3 or 4 months I got out of it by crying, I was very upset"

ABC 27 reporter Andy Briggs' Tweets:

"[Former Veon staff member Esther] Reever sez Foreman was "persistent" in pushing campaign work. Sent her emails and came to her desk."

Hey, guys? Foreman already pleaded guilty! You can stop now.

"THE COMMONWEALTH HAS BOUGHT EVERYBODY'S TESTIMONY"

Defense Attorney Bryan Walk: The Commonwealth has bought everybody's testimony. It's clear. Everybody's getting a deal or they got immunity. And when you dangle that in front of them, they will say whatever they need to say to please the Commonwealth.

Witness after witness, as soon as we get on cross, the whole demeanor changes, the whole attitude - and these are people who worked with everybody. But they are scared to death of losing immunity, or losing their deal.

Here's a woman who lied to her boss, to tell him she loves campaigning. You read those e-mails. How would anybody reading that not think Karen Steiner loves to campaign? But now - "Oh, it was all a lie, just to do this." But now? She's got to please the Commonwealth now, to keep her immunity deal.

The focus with these witnesses is, they're avoiding criminal charges, they're destroying evidence and avoiding criminal charges, they're getting free counsel - they don't have to spend a penny out of their pocket - and, they're either avoiding paying back the bonus or they're getting a sweet deal as far as what possible sentence they could get.

Associated Press reporter Mark Scolforo: Something's come up in little bits and pieces, and it came up again today. I mean, there is an issue, isn't there, about the role of the lawyers in all of this? I mean, they seem to be showing up at times and giving people advice about what to do. But that's kind of tangential to this case, right?

Walk: And where does that start? The lawyers are all under whose control? William DeWeese. Bill DeWeese's control. That's not unusual. It's a common theme that the prosecution wants to keep objecting to and keep out, that the fact of the matter is that DeWeese's office is controlling the tenor of this case from the beginning. And they still control it, by meeting with witnesses and telling them, "Hey, we might do this, we might do that, get rid of stuff," you know? And that's the problem you have here. These witnesses all are being told things to do, and are trying to please the Commonwealth.

And I don't that's lost on the jury. The jury's not stupid. They're sitting up there, they're very smart, and they're listening to these witnesses. And they see the difference. We're battling, every single question, to get a simple answer. And Melissa - er, Karen Steiner, how many times did she ask me to repeat the question? And how many times did she ask Blessington to repeat a question?

Scolforo: Or read from the transcript.

Walk: "Let me think about my answer before I answer that?"

Scolforo: What does that tell you?

Walk: She's stalling. She's been coached very well and prepared very well by the prosecution. They meet with these witnesses, and they've got that hanging over their heads. Now they're coming in, who do they want to please now? The Commonwealth. That's who brought them into this mess, That's going to be - it's been that way from beginning to now and it'll continue that way with all these witnesses.

VITO: SPY FOR MY BOYFRIEND

Prosecution witnesses continue to cast an ever harsher light on Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett's error-riddled, politically-motivated, multi-million-dollar investigation of the legislature.

Those in the public who are following the trial through "traditional" media only are missing the real story. According to Post-Gazette reporter Tracie Mauriello's "Tweets," an Rendell Administration cabinet member asked a witness to "inform" on the Grand Jury:

"KSB [Karen Steiner Blanar, a former member of Mike Veon's staff]: Around the time she 1st testified before grand jury Sandi Vito asked her to be an informant to Jeff Foreman."

"Vito is state labor secretary & girlfriend of Foreman, who was later arrested in #bonusgate probe. He entered a plea agreement."

"Foreman testified last week in this trial. He was not asked whether Steiner Blanar discussed grand [jury] w/ him."

This revelation would raise questions, if ever it occurred to anyone in the Capitol newsroom to ask questions. House employees who testified to the grand jury were under a gag order during the investigation. If Blanar told Foreman what she told the grand jury, she would have been in contempt of court and should have been prosecuted, but she was not - probably because it would have damaged her credibility as a witness, and the prosecution's witnesses are already pretty low on credibility.

Did Corbett investigate Vito's role in a conspiracy to violate the judge's order? Or did he - as he attempted to do with another Rendell cabinet member - overlook allegations of wrongdoing on the part of administration officials?

After the Tribune-Review's Brad Bumstead exposed Corbett's wink-and-nod to Revenue Secretary Steve Stetler, the embarrassed Corbett backtracked and found something with which to charge Stetler. Will he now do the same to Vito?

ELEPHANT? WHAT ELEPHANT?

Embarrasing details continue to pile up for Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett, as witnesses in the Bonusgate trial expose inexplicable gaps in Corbett's three-year, multi-million dollar investigation.

Today, convicted conspirator P.J. Lavelle admitted that then-Majority Whip, now Speaker of the House Keith McCall hired him on the state payroll to do political fundraising. (Associated Press 2/19/2010)

Today was certainly not the first that Corbett's crack investigators have heard this allegation. Page after page of e-mail evidence, turned over to defendants by the prosecutors and submitted as exhibits in Mike Veon's pretrial motion in July, detail the political work Lavelle and other staff did for McCall on state time.

Mike Veon is on trial on multiple felony counts for his employment of Lavelle. Corbett can't deny that he knew when he charged Veon that the same allegations applied to McCall, but he can't explain why he left McCall alone and went after Veon.

Corbett promised to follow the evidence wherever it led, but he didn't explain what he would do with it when he got there.

WHOM TO BELIEVE?

If immunized prosecution witness Eric Webb is telling the truth, then John Estey, former Chief of Staff to Governor Edward G. Rendell, asked House Democratic staff to do opposition research on state time.

According to the Post-Gazette, "Mr. Webb testified that John Estey, former chief of staff to Gov. Ed Rendell, ordered opposition research to be conducted on 2006 Republican gubernatorial hopefuls Bill Scranton and Lynn Swann. Mr. Webb said that work was assigned to state workers who on state time had been digging up court filings, voting records and other material on political foes."

Estey apparently was far from unique. Prosecutors introduced as evidence an e-mail in which Rep. Mike Gerber asked Brett Cott for opposition research, and Cott forwarded the request to Webb. Incredibly, the e-mail was introduced as evidence against Cott, not Gerber.

Cott's facing felony charges for being the apparent middleman in this alleged transaction, and others like it. Webb was threatened with prosecution for being third in the line. Estey and Gerber, however, and the many other elected officials who allegedly relied on state employees to do political work, remain unscathed.

It's possible, of course, Eric Webb isn't telling the truth. He testified that political volunteerism soared in response to the alleged bonus scheme. Defense attorneys showed that the number of volunteers inched by just 31 people out of hundreds during the time of the alleged scheme.

Webb testified both that he knew his political work was wrong, and that he was completely baffled as to whether it was legitimate: "It would have been nice to have a lawyer on staff give some guidance," he said.

Estey vehemently denies Webb's accusation.

Whether he realizes it or not, Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett faces a dilemma (or, he would, if anyone actually cared about his integrity): He must either admit his witness is a liar, or explain why Estey and Gerber aren't facing the same charges as Cott and Veon. After all, he swore to follow the evidence.

CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE

You can almost hear the horror in Tribune-Review columnist Brad Bumstead's voice as he utters the unthinkable: "Mike Veon could walk."

Clearly such an outcome would be a crushing blow to the Tribune-Review, which idolizes Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett and holds Veon as the embodiment of political evil on earth (AKA: a Democrat). But the "blame" for the direction of the trial thus far does not lie with Veon's defense team, skilled and charismatic though they may be.

We remind Mr. Bumstead that the defense has not yet begun to present its case. We'll wait until we actually see it before we label it, "inventive" or otherwise. This shambling stream of muddy testimony that has eroded the Commonwealth's case for the last two weeks has been brought to you courtesy of the prosecution.

Even though the Office of Attorney General subpoenaed more than 80 witnesses, according to rumors around the Capitol it planned to call fewer than two dozen. So confident were prosecutors in the power of star witnesses Michael Manzo and Jeff Foreman - formerly the highest-ranking staffers in the House Democratic Caucus - that they believed the testimony of underlings would not be needed.

It was not the idea of Veon's defense team to stake the outcome of a multi-million dollar, three-year investigation (and a pillar of Corbett's gubernatorial campaign) on the testimony of a dissembling thief known to colleagues as "the Grim Reaper" and a philanderer who expended as many state resources on arranging trysts with his mistress as on winning elections.

We're sure the time for praise of Veon's capable defense team will arrive when it actually launches a defense. But if you're already fearing (or cheering) the possibility of a Veon acquittal, you have the Keystone Kops at the Office of Attorney General to thank.

"MANZO" MEANS "MEAT" IN ITALIAN

We've actually lost track of the many ways disgraced government witness Michael Manzo pulverized the prosecution's case during the first week of the "Bonusgate" trial.

For one, he testified that he told prosecutors about conversations with Mike Veon long before prosecutors claim he did. Prosecutors would have the court believe that in four appearances before the grand jury and who knows how many interviews with investigators over the last year and a half, Manzo never mentioned that he'd discussed bonuses with Veon until just after the deadline for turning evidence over to the defendants. So:

* either he did tell investigators before, and the prosecutors never turned the evidence over to the defense as they are required by law to do, or

* he didn't talk to investigators about the central allegation in a three-year investigation until weeks before the start of the trial, and the prosecutors may have abetted perjury by allowing him to testify otherwise.

For another, he testified that Brett Cott, who is being tried on multiple felony charges for his role in awarding bonuses for campaign work, had nothing to do with awarding bonuses for campaign work. According to Post-Gazette reporter Tracie Mauriello's "Tweets" from the courtroom:

* Manzo: Cott had no power to give bonuses to his future wife, future sis-in-law or anyone else

* "Manzo doesn't recall Cott [ever] directly saying how much money should be given to particular staffers as bonuses.

* Manzo: Brett Cott was not involved in the genesis of the #bonusgate scheme

We are not lawyers here at CasablancaPA, but this seems to contradict the prosecution's accusations. Perhaps we are witnessing a sophisticated legal strategy that is beyond our feeble comprehension.

Finally, according to the latest update on the Post-Gazette, Manzo testified yesterday that his sexual affair with former Miss Rain Day Angela Bertugli ended around the time of his marriage. Defense attorneys today confronted Manzo with "a string of e-mail messages" proving that the two continued their physical relationship well into 2008, long past Manzo's 2005 marriage. In true Clintonian fashion, Manzo claimed his previous testimony was not a lie, because even though their physical relationship continued, he and Bertugli stopped having sexual intercourse because "I had some inability to perform." ("Manzo" actually means "beef" in Italian, not "meat;" we have a juvenile sense of humor.)

Nice work, prosecutors. We can't wait to hear from convicted thief Jeff Foreman next!