WHERE ARE ONORATO'S "SWIFT BOAT" ADS?

In a stroke of tactical genius, the Republicans in 2004 kept John Kerry out of the White House using campaign judo that turned a Kerry strength into a controversial liability. We're referring, of course, to the infamous "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" ads that called into question Kerry's Vientam War combat record.

Kerry's war record should have been an unassailable positive for the Democratic nominee, yet the Republican establishment funded a series of ads that recounted a different - and false - narrative of Kerry's service that muddied the waters just enough to cost Kerry in closely-fought states like Ohio.

Why aren't the Pennsylvania Democrats and the Dan Onorato campaign doing the same to Attorney General Tom Corbett and his seemingly unassailable strength - his "Bonusgate" investigation? Unlike the Swift Boat Veterans, Pennsylvania Democrats actually have the truth on their side.

Make no mistake: "Bonusgate" is one of the top two campaign issues for Corbett - otherwise he would not have emphasized it over jobs in his very first campaign ad. Polling on the issue was overwhelming enough that he blatantly broke a campaign promise never to mention it.

Given all the well-documented ammunition Onorato has to attack Corbett, it's a mystery why he hasn't.

Imagine, if you will, a Democratic Attorney General running for Governor. Imagine that his campaign centerpiece were a "corruption" investigation.

Imagine that he concluded a two-year reign of investigative intimidation by arresting Republican Senators Robert Jubelirer and David Brigthbill, along with "campaign guru" Mike Long, while leaving Mike Veon, Bill DeWeese and Mike Manzo off the hook.

Imagine that in the immediate wake of these arrests, Democratic campaign operatives used the scandal to unseat five incumbent Republican legislators.

Imagine that the Democratic Attorney General only began even to create the impression of investigating Democrats after prominent editorials accused him of partisanship.

Imagine that former Rep. Matt Wright had been arrested (only after the a newspaper revealed that Democratic A.G. had ignored the evidence against him, of course) while former Rep. Steven Stetler remained unindicted.

Imagine that a whistleblower had approached the Democratic Attorney General to report Democratic malfeasance, but was turned away, leaving a Republican District attorney to make the stunning arrest of a Democratic lawmaker.

Imagine that Republican Rep. Mauree Gingrich had been indicted for forging her nominating petitions, while Democratic Rep. Linda Bebko-Jones got off scot-free.

Imagine that overwhelming evidence of malfeasance against a Democratic legislative leader had been thoroughly documented by the media, yet that leader remained unidicted on that particular malfeasance (oh, wait; that already happened).

Imagine that the Democratic Attorney General had sent law enforcement agents to intimidate a Republican legislator who dared to criticize him publicly.

Finally, imagine that evidence revealed that this Democratic Attorney General and his taxpayer-funded staff were had used state resources for political purposes, all while prosecuting others for the same type of behavior.

Oh, and imagine that a major supporter and chair of the Democratic Attorney General's exploratory committee were a convicted felon.

You can bet that the Republican establishment in Pennsylvania would be peeing its collective pants in its rush to attack. You wouldn't see a campaign ad without the words "partisan hypocrite" delivered in a tone of voice reserved for biblical disasters. And convicted felon Bob Asher's millions would be bankrolling the effort.

In fact, we're sure that's why Corbett was so hell-bent on unmasking the merry pranksters here at CasablancaPA. He and his campaign staff surely saw the politically-damaging potential of the boneheadedness, hypocrisy and underhandedness we so happily document here.

"LOOKING FORWARD, NOT BACKWARD"

Kelly said he approached Corbett at the Republican State Committee meeting in June and complained about the fraudulent petition challenges that city Republican leaders had filed in March.

"I said, 'Mr. Corbett, I have some grave concerns about these guys. They're criminals.' He looked me right in the eye and said, 'I'm looking forward, not backward.' " (Philadelphia Daily News, 8/11/10)

Wow.

That's a far cry from "Follow the evidence wherever it leads." Then again, there were no reporters around when Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett said he's not interested in "looking backward" at any crimes that may have been committed by his political allies in the Philadelphia Republican Party.

It's not like this case is an unsolvable whodunit: in an effort to keep candidates for state committee off the ballot, party leaders challenged their petitions. At least 30 people whose signatures appeared on the challenge documents said they never signed, and one of the signatures was that of a dead woman.

Party chairman Vito Canuso Jr. and general counsel Michael P. Meehan admit the signatures are fogeries: "Meehan and Canuso blamed the bogus signatures on overzealous ward leaders whom they declined to identify."

But when a concerned citizen tried to report the crime to Corbett, he couldn't have been less interested.

Is forging signatures a crime? Corbett thought so when he charged Democratic Rep. Linda Bebko Jones and a staffer for forging signatures on her nominating petitions. Did he "look backward" to do it? He charged her in 2008 for alleged crimes committed two years earlier. Kevin Kelly was trying to report something that happened three months earlier.

Is it only a crime when Democrats do it? Corbett's opened an investigation into alleged forgery of nominating petitions of an independent candidate for Congress whose candidacy poses a threat to the Republican Corbett's supporting, Pat Meehan.

Is it a crime when Republicans do it? Apparently not.

Corbett had no trouble "looking backward" when it came to a highly publicized investigation of House Democrats that not only raised his public profile just as he was preparing to run for Governor, but also gave his Republican allies in the House enough fodder to knock off five Democratic incumbents in their effort to regain the majority.

Of course, Kevin Kelly should have known better than to expect Corbett to launch an investigation of his political allies just because someone tries to report suspected wrongdoing. By then everyone had heard the story of how Corbett's office blew off intern Jennifer Knapp Rioja when she tried to report the taxpayer-funded campaign operation Sen. Jane Orie allegedly ran out of her district office. It's still not clear even now whether Corbett has settled on either of his lame, contradictory excuses: either there's no record the intern ever called (oh, wait; there is.) Or, Corbett routinely allows his receptionist to decide which cases his office will investigate.

Corbett's tendency to overlook accusations of wrongdoing against his political allies is well established. Apparently he's so comfortable with this reputation he's not even bothering to offer lame excuses anymore.

KEEP 'EM GUESSING

John Burkoff, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, said the prosecution typically needs a very good reason to put trials together, and usually it is only done when the same list of witnesses will be used against both defendants. (Pennsylvania Independent, 9/2/10)

Witnesses cited in the Bill DeWeese Presentment:
Kevin Sidella
Jon Price
Pat Grill
Melissa Frameli
Carol Bohach
Susan Stoy
Debra Konosky
Angel Kirby-Willard
Mike Manzo
Sheilah Novasky
Walter Casper

Witnesses cited in the Steve Stetler Presentment:
Dan Weidemer
Jessica Walls
Erin Madison
John Paul Jones

Well, what do you know: not a single witness in common. (No doubt the Office of Attorney General staff - when they're not chatting it up with campaign staff - are now scrambling to identify a couple of witnesses who can testify in both cases; we shall know them by their weak testimony.)

Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett hopes that by joining the two cases, he can keep the public confused about who's charged with what, and no one will start to wonder why DeWeese isn't charged for his involvement in awarding taxpayer-funded bonuses for campaign work, using a state contractor for campaign work, and directing caucus staff to perform campaign work for candidates other than himself.

WHAT RECORD?

Brabender yesterday said that the commercial does not specifically mention the word Bonusgate and refers instead to Corbett's overall record on fighting corruption.

"When we're talking about corruption we're basically talking about the sheer magnitude of it," said Brabender, adding that the campaign will not mention Bonusgate or use any images from related press conferences or court hearings in that investigation. (Philadelphia Daily News, 9/1/10)

Okay, Team Corbett; if you're not talking about onusgate-bay (wink, wink), what public corruption are you claiming to have fought? (And tsk, tsk, Chris Brennan, for not asking)

What public officials have you indicted outside of onusgate-bay?? (And don't try to claim credit for Jeff Habay; Jerry Pappert indicted him before you even took office. You prosecuted the case and failed to convict on half of it.)

Did you indict York County D.A. Stan Rebert, accused of abusing his office for personal and political gain? You did not.

Did you indict Bedford County D.A. Bill Higgins, accused of raping an intoxicated woman in his office? You did not.

Did you indict McKean County Commissioner candidate Al Pingie, accused of campaign finance reporting irregularities? You did not.

Did you indict state Rep. Mauree Gingrich, accused of forging signatures on her ballot petitions? You did not.

Did you indict Crawford County Treasurer Fred Wagner, accused of using his office to campaign? You did not.

Did you indict former state Rep. Eugene McGill, accused of personally profiting from a non-profit he founded that received state funds? You did not.

Even within the Bonusgate milieu, did you indict State Senator Jane Orie, accused of using taxpayer resources to campaign - even after her intern tried to give you the goods on her? You did not.

Did you indict Bill DeWeese in connection with bonuses, "LCOMM" or directing caucus staff to work on campaigns other than his own? You did not.

Of course, the real problem is not that you failed to indict them, but that you didn't recuse yourself from the investigations (when you bothered to "investigate"). You know, like you howled your primary opponent Bruce Castor should have done.

Did Brabender's weasely defense of Corbett's broken promise remind anyone else of a kid brother in the back seat of a car, chanting "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!" while waving his fingers a half-millimeter away from your face?

Are we reduced to treating campaign promises like a game of "Simon Says?"

CORBETT'S ETERNAL PANT-FLAMES

"I can tell you now that we will not be talking about Bonusgate -- ever -- in the governor's race." -- Corbett for Governor media strategist John Brabender (Post-Gazette 3/24/10)

"The politicians were just as skeptical when I promised to fight corruption in Pennsylvania. Boy, were they wrong." -- Tom Corbett (campaign ad, 8/31/10)

"ANYBODY WHO VIOLATED THE LAW IS GOING TO GET IT"

....Well, almost anybody.

Since Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett seems to believe any legislator who uses taxpayer funds for campaign purposes is linked to the same criminal enterprise, we expect him to file a motion any day now to join the case of Matt Wright with those of Bill DeWeese and Steve Stetler.

Oh, wait, that's right: Wright isn't charged with any crime, despite the finding of the state Ethics Commission that he engaged in precisely the same behavior as DeWeese.

It says right there in the Ethics Commission ruling that: "Matthew Wright ('Wright') a public official in his capacity as the Representative for the 142nd District of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from January 1991 until December 2006, violated Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ("Ethics Act") 65 Pa. C.S. ss 1103(a) when he used staff, office space, equipment and materials of his legislative District Office and his Capitol Office to further his re-election campaigns."

Isn't the alleged use of legislative staff, office space, equipment and materials to further election campaigns why DeWeese, Stetler and others are awaiting trial or sentencing or serving prison time? Isn't using taxpayer resources for political purposes a violation of the law? And didn't Senior Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina tell the Patriot-News way back in July of 2008 (before the Ethics Committee ruling on Wright) "Anybody who violated the law is going to get it?"

Just for giggles, let's compare and contrast the Ethics Comission's ruling on Wright with the DeWeese grand jury presentment:

* Wright ruling: "From at least 2003 through 2006, office space, equipment, computer software and employees of both his District and Harrisburg Office were used in furtherance of Wright's re-election campaigns."
* DeWeese presentment: "Representative DeWeese's legislative staff and campaign staff were virtually one in the same [sic.]"

* Wright ruling: "Wright did not rent or lease an office facility to serve as campaign headquarters when running for re-election."
* DeWeese presentment: "DeWeese had no campaign apparatus beyond his legislative staff.

* Wright ruling: "Legislative staff utilized the District office and equipment to coordinate election related activities, including receipt of campaign materials from vendors, making and receiving telephone calls (Phone calls? Oh, no!) related to campaign activities, storage of campagin literature on computer files, receipt of campaign contributions and nominating petitions. Staff from both Wright's District and Harrisburg office arranged purchases, [met] vendors, updated lists of campaign contributors, scheduled fundraisers, circulated nominating petitions and accepted and delivered campaign contributions related to his re-election efforts.
*DeWeese presentment: "Practically every aspect of his campaign, whether fundraising, mailers, advertisements, signs or door to door canvassing, was performed by legislative employees."

Well, you know what they say: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." Silly voters: you can't expect everyone to be treated equally under the law.

FLIP-FLOP

PIXIE DUST

Bill DeWeese is accused of using taxpayer funds to employ a full-time political fund-raiser, Kevin Sidella, and directing his taxpayer-funded staff to work on his own campaigns.

Steve Stetler is accused of using taxpayer funds to employ a full-time political fund-raiser, Erin Madison, and directing taxpayer-funded caucus staffers to conduct opposition research on political candidates.

The charges were recommended in separate grand jury presentments (DeWeese presentment, Stetler presentment). Neither is accused in participating in the alleged criminal activity of the other. Prosecutors do not allege that Stetler was involved in the employment of Sidella, or in directing DeWeese's staff to work on DeWeese's campaigns. Neither do they allege that DeWeese was involved in directing legislative staff to work on opposition research for other candidates, or in the employment of Erin Madison. They are not charged in the same "criminal episodes," to use Deputy AG Marc Constanzo's term.

Trying DeWeese and Stetler together makes as much legal sense as trying either one of them together with John Perzel, who also is accused of using taxpayer funds for political purposes.

One thing the Stetler and DeWeese cases do have in common is that both were charged only after Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett was embarrassed by public revelations that he ignored evidence against them.

So why does Corbett want to join the two cases? Because he hopes that linking the cases will confuse voters into thinking DeWeese is charged in the caucus-wide activities at the center of "Bonusgate."

After Corbett's inaction on evidence against Stetler was revealed, the eventual charges were based on that same evidence.

Not so with DeWeese.

DeWeese was not charged in connection with bonuses, despite e-mails showing he knew about the bonuses, despite the testimony of his former top aide that he knew about the bonuses, and despite the testimony of his assistant that he approved the bonuses.

DeWeese was not charged with employing anyone other than Sidella based on political work, despite e-mails showing he based personnel decisions on political work.

DeWeese was not charged with directing state contractor Eric Buxton to do political work, despite e-mails showing DeWeese directed Buxton to do political work, and aides Sidella and Tom Andrews directed Buxton to do political work. (Corbett blatantly acknowledged this transgression in the presentment against the original 12 defendants, noting, DeWeese "always communicated with Buxton through his campaign account.")

He is not charged with directing staff other than Sidella and his district office staff to do political work, despite e-mails showing he actively supervised caucus staff working on campaigns through the House Democratic Campaign Committee.

Corbett has never explained his failure to charge DeWeese in the caucus-wide activities, instead hoping that the charges related to Sidella and his district office employees would distract the public.

As we have noted before, in the fall of 2007, DeWeese was waging a furious legal battle over the admissibility of evidence seized and subpoenas ordering staff to testify to the grand jury.

Resolution of DeWeese's court challenges could have taken months - perhaps even years.

Suddenly, in November, DeWeese dropped his legal challenges, then made great fanfare of firing seven staffers and delivered to the Corbett campaign enough hand-picked evidence to indict those staffers.

Corbett won't say whether his failure to charge DeWeese in the scandal is related to DeWeese's decision to drop the legal challenges and turn over evidence implicating others.

And he's hoping no one will ask.

TRANSPARENCY

Harley said he could not explain why Corbett said in March that [the pledge] barred fees.
Associated Press, 8/25/10

[Frederiksen] was unsure who placed the campaign literature on the table.
PA2010.com, 7/29/10

Frederiksen told Capitol Ideas that he did not know who put the materials on the tables...
Capitol Ideas, 7/29/10

Kevin Harley, said later the owner of a plumbing company, whose name he did not know, told Corbett he had workers who did not want to return...
Inquirer, 7/10/10

Campaign spokesman Kevin Harley said he did not know the name of the candy company.
Patriot-News, 7/12/10

During his deposition Mr. Corbett indicated he could not recall or did not know the answers to more than 35 questions put to him...
Pennsylvania Independent, 4/16/10

Harley said that supervisors had sent the agents to Galloway's office and that he didn't know if Corbett had been involved in that decision.
Philadelphia Daily News, 4/9/10

As for why calls appear to be made from others in Corbett’s campaign staff to state phones, Harley said he didn’t know.
Patriot-News, 2/6/10

Corbett said the Perzel meeting and Preski fundraiser came at a time when "we didn't have all the facts in front of us ..."
Philadelphia Daily News, 11/17/09

CORBETT'S PANTS: STILL ON FIRE

Corbett For Governor spokesman Kevin Harley, August 24, on Capitolwire.com:

"[In Corbett’s] “taxpayer protection pledge, fees are not included in that, just taxes are.”


Tom Corbett, March 8 on KDKA:

Jon Delano: "You're pledging no tax increases of any type? Fees, taxes, state income tax, the sales tax - can you be precise as to what you - "

Corbett: "The pledge as it's written - and I don't have it written here - is no tax increases during the course of the next term. That's exactly what it says. That's what we're gonna aim for. No tax increases whatsoever."

Delano: "And that would include ... "

Corbett: "Those are state. Those are states."

Delano: "...fees on use of services, things like that?"

Corbett: "That's right."

Delano: "Everything?"

Corbett: "That's right."

INDEPENDENT PROSECUTORS ARE FOR WIMPS

Quiz time! What's the difference between the investigations into alleged wrongdoing by New York Governor David Paterson and the alleged use of public resources for political campaigns among Pennsylvania's legislators?

Give up? Paterson's being investigated by an independent prosecutor because the Attorney General of New York, Andrew Cuomo, recused himself to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.

What's that you say? Independent prosecutor? Avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest? Yes, it's pretty foreign stuff here in Pennsylvania, where no one blinks an eye at a candidate for Governor conducting a wide-ranging investigation of his own closest political supporters.

Or, should we say not conducting any investigation of his political supporters at all?

Or, should we say, conducting an investigation of a political supporter - or at least pretending to - then refusing to prosecute?

Repeatedly?

Or should we say, determining whether a target is, in fact, a supporter before conducting an investigation?

One wonders how that candidate might react if one of his opponents failed to recuse himself from an investigation involving a political supporter. Oh, wait: he'd be apoplectic.

WHEN WILL THEY LEARN?

Not long ago, the Times-Shamrock newspaper editorial writers worked themselves into high dudgeon over the fact that allegedly crooked lawmakers have apparently learned nothing from the experiences of those gone before.

More specifically, the one gone before, the one newspaper editorial writers apparently believe is the only legislator before Mike Veon ever to be accused of using state resources for political campaigns, the one against whose experiences all others must be judged, Jeff Habay.

"What will it take?" the flabbergasted editors fume. "Given [legislators'] failure to [mandate transparency] after Habay's conviction, it's possible that they are incapable of learning."

While we're no fan of the legislature, they're smarter than the Times-Shamrock editors give them credit for being. Of course they've learned from the experiences of those who've gone before.

What did we learn from the experiences of James Lynch, whose Ethics Commission decision followed closely on the heels of Habay's, and who was found to have engaged in identical conduct? Instead of a criminal investigation and subsequent conviction, Lynch faced only a fine of less than $5,400.

See, most legislators know - better than the Times-Shamrock editors know - that an outcome like Habay's is exceedingly rare. And an outcome like Veon's requires a perfect storm of lingering public outrage over the 2005 pay raise vote, the unmatched cravenness of a former Majority Leader trying to divert an investigation and the shameless political opportunism of an Attorney General running for Governor.

The reality of what a legislator risks by campaigning on the public dime is a lot closer to Lynch than to Veon or even Habay.

Even Tom Corbett ... knows it.

HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT

It will come as no surprise that we at CasablancaPA take great delight whenever Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett's frequent boneheaded moves create a minor media stir.

As you can imagine, his mind-boggling declaration that Pennsylvanians would rather collect unemployment than work was music to our ears. Pleasantly, his gaffe was reported by all the major news outlets in the state, including the Inquirer, the Post-Gazette, the Morning Call, the Patriot-News, WDUQ, and of course the outlet that broke the story, WITF.

Similarly, Corbett's failed attempt to use a grand jury subpoena to expose a couple of anonymous online critics tickled us pink. Even better, that gaffe was picked up by major national media outlets, including The New York Times, USA Today, Wired magazine, Politico, Talking Points Memo and TechCrunch.

What makes us weep into our whiskey down at the Blue Parrot are all of Corbett's boneheaded moves that gather little or no media attention. For example, not a single news outlet pointed out that Corbett's refusal to recuse himself from investigating political supporters (Or this one. Or this one.) directly contradicted his howls of indignation four years earlier over his opponent's much less significant lapse.

The secret meeting between investigation target John Perzel and Corbet and his campaign manager, and the Corbett fund-raiser hosted by target Brian Preski was reported in precisely one newspaper.

The Daily News was also the sole outlet to report on Corbett's appalling use of state agents to intimidate a legislator who criticized him.

And only one newspaper and one television station have reported on the hundreds of phone calls Corbett's state-paid staff exchanged on their state phones during state time with Corbett's campaign workers. (Neither managed to get even a well-crafted lie out of Corbett in his own defense).

Even though both the Patriot-News and Tribune-Review reported that House Republican computers were replaced mid-investigation with Corbett's knowledge and permission, neither they nor any other news outlet seemed to recall that salient fact when Corbett nearly blew a gasket over all that missing evidence. Nor did anyone seem to remember John Morganelli's all-too-true prediction, which earned him only the threat of a lawsuit from the now-curiously-quiet Sam Smith.

While the mountain of evidence linking Bill DeWeese to Bonusgate is well-documented, guess how many outlets have questioned why (or even noticed that) DeWeese escaped indictment in the case? That's right: Zip. Zero. Nada.

Corbett's comments about the unemployed reveal that he's ignorant. And his Twitter subpoena reveals that he's a thin-skinned bully. But his lesser-noticed blunders reveal something far more dangerous than an ignorant, thin-skinned bully.

THESE ARE NOT THE DROIDS YOU'RE LOOKING FOR

Cognitive dissonance.

It's reached epidemic proportions among the political press. It may even have affected a journalist you know.

For example, according to grand jury presentments, the House Republicans' alleged scheme to divert millions of dollars in taxpayer funds to political activity supposedly began just after the 2000 elections. The House Democrats' alleged plot to reward political volunteerism with taxpayer-funded bonuses supposedly kicked into gear during the 2004 election cycle.

Even according to the Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett, House Republicans had been unfairly and illegally kicking House Democrats' asses for four years before Mike Manzo and Scott Brubaker came up with an equally-illegal plan to help the Democrats level the playing field.

But even though the Democrats' alleged illegal scheme was much smaller in scale and was initiated four years later, it's somehow portrayed as having given the Democratic candidates a wildly unfair advantage over Republican candidates.

Witness the Post-Gazette's hilariously melodramatic (and shockingly misleading) account of plucky underdog Jim Marshall, whose earnest supporters rolled meatballs and hand-addressed fund-raising letters from Marshall's home-based headquarters. Not a word did reporter Tracie Mauriello write - was she even aware? - of the blizzard of professionally-produced television ads, robo-calls and slick direct mail that swept through the district in the final weeks of the campaign, all funded through the state Republican committee.

Apparently Mauriello will believe anything she's told as long as it reflects poorly on Mike Veon. She didn't even bother to check Marshall's campaign finance reports, which reveal more than $150,000 in funding from the state party. And that's just the support that was legally reported. If Corbett's allegations against Perzel are true, a virtual army of taxpayer-funded House Republican staffers were using millions in taxpayer-funded resources to support Marshall and other Republican candidates.

If you want to try to set up a David vs. Goliath analogy, you kind of need someone to play the role of David, and there's no suitable candidate in this situation. It's not an "advantage" if both sides are cheating.

The Tribune-Review's Brad Bumsted chimes in, characterizing the bonus scheme - for which even he admits "Veon didn't write the script," as a direct result of Veon's "unquenched thirst for more power." Bumsted's been covering the legislature for a long time; he must know that when the bonus scheme which Veon didn't concoct was launched, the Democrats had virtually no power in the legislature. At that point, according to Corbett, the Democrats were being victimized by a multi-million-dollar taxpayer-funded Republican campaign blitzkrieg.

For that matter, Bumsted places responsibility for the scandal on Veon because Veon "signed off on it" as the "de facto leader of the House Democratic Caucus." But it was Bumsted himself who first revealed that the actual leader of the House Democratic Caucus - the only one who had the legal authority to disburse caucus funds - was well aware of the scheme. Yet somehow DeWeese never faced charges in connection with it, and Bumsted apparently has no problem with that?

How can you help combat cognitive dissonance among political reporters? Just a few seconds of critical thought a day could mean the difference between substantive analyzis and mindless rhetoric. Please, take the time to care.

AGAIN WITH THE PHONES?

It must be witchcraft, the spell that Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett casts upon reporters during interviews that renders them incapable of recalling contradictory statements he's made in the past.

Again, today, in an interview with Pittsburgh's KDKA, Corbett yammered on about how he carries one phone for state work one phone for campaign work.

"I carry two Blackberries. I left one out in the car so it wouldn't go off [during the interview]. The other one is sitting over on the side table over there, and I can go back and forth between the two at any time."

For those of you keeping track, this back-and-forth, does-he-or-doesn't-he, why-can't-he-keep-his-story-straight ridiculousness started in September, with Corbett bragging to ABC27 News that he carries two cell phones:

"He says he has a separate BlackBerry for his campaign work and one for his 'work' work. Separation of government and campaigning is big with this attorney general." (Stop, you're killing us.)

But when ABC 27 confronted him with cell phone bills that showed calls between Corbett's sacred campaign-only phone and state workers on state phones during state time, he claimed, "It's easier to keep it on one."

Then why did you claim that you use two? (A journalist might have asked, if one could have been found.)

He had no defense, we remind you, for the hundreds of calls between those state workers (on state phones during state time), the state staff of Republican legislators (on state phones during state time), and the cell phones of his campaign staff. Not that he needs a defense, apparently, when no one dares to question anything he does.

In November, in response to a question from Associated Press reporter Mark Scolforo, Corbett again claimed he uses his "personal" cell phone (the one his campaign is paying for) for both state and campaign business, and he doesn't even know the number of his state-issued cell phone. (Again, no one bothered to ask why he changed his story.)

But he must have remembered the number by January, when he was back to bragging about his double-fisted technology. On WITF-FM on Jan. 7, Corbett said technology - "cell phones, BlackBerries" - allows him to simultaneously prosecute members of the legislature while seeking their support for his gubernatorial campaign. "I carry two, by the way," he said. (But he doesn't know the number of one of them, which he claims he never uses, except when he does.)

Then, in a February interview with the Patriot-News, Corbett's team went back to claiming he uses only one cell phone. "If anything, [Deputy Attorney General Marc Costanzo] said, Corbett is saving the taxpayers money by not using his state phone." (Remember? He doesn't even know the number!)

By now Corbett may have settled on sticking with the two-phones story, since it's been pointed out to him (you'd think he'd have known it before) that using his campaign-paid phone for anything other than campaigning is a violation of campaign finance and reporting laws.

Good thing for him nobody noticed. Or ever notices. Anything.

BIRDS GOTTA FLY, FISH GOTTA SWIM

The Pennsylvania political establishment seemed nonplussed and even a bit bemused by Republican Congressional candidate Patrick Meehan's awkward attempt to link his opponent to the Bonusgate scandal.

Our response? Well, duh. Birds gotta fly, fish gotta swim, and Republican candidates for office in Pennsylvania gotta tie their opponents to Bonusgate. It's just the natural order.

The scandal's entire raison d'être is so Republican candidates could sputter with feigned outrage. Meehan just happens not to be very good at it.

We pointed this out more than a year ago. While attempts to link Democratic candidates to Bonusgate failed to regain control of the House for the Republicans, they did manage to knock off five Democratic candidates using Bonusgate smears.

Why mess with success?

Even better news for Republicans, Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett should be announcing even more indictments just in time for Election Day.

Democrats can't say they weren't warned, though. But their fear of being targeted by Corbett's investigation kept them silent as Corbett crafted the ultimate campaign issue.

And it's so efficient, too! It slices, it dices, it works for state House candidates, state Senate candidates, Congressional candidates, Gubernatorial candidates, and tough stains ordinary political scandals won't budge.

"CORBETT IS LAUGHING AT YOU"

We're not surprised by the halfhearted coverage of the hearing on a Bonusgate defendant's  motion for a modified sentence.

We are surprised, however, that the letters written by the jurors who acquitted the defendant of 39 criminal counts continue to be ignored.

We imagine its because the jurors' comments raise inconvenient questions for Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett, and we all know what happens when Corbett faces inconvenient questions.

The 800-pound gorilla in the courtroom: why did Corbett strike deals with the masterminds in order to secure testimony against "such a small part of the issue that he probably should not have been in that courtroom?"

Were you waiting for the Capitol press corps to ask? Silly!

At the risk Corbett will send the goon squad to the secret CasablancaPA bunker (deep in the catacombs under the Capitol), allow us to point out some inconvenient facts.

Long before Corbett struck any deals with the vast majority of his informants, and long before anyone was indicted, one defendant was on record calling Corbett's investigation a "witch hunt." Does anyone underestimate the impression that comment made on the notoriously thin-skinned Corbett eight months before the indictments? Before, in fact, most of the witnesses ever glimpsed a grand jury.

But wait, there's more. (You knew that, didn't you?) Corbett was obsessed with anonymous criticism (which he blamed on one particular defendent) long before he used a sentencing hearing as an excuse to subpoena Twitter for his critics' identities ... long before the defendant was acquitted of 93% of the charges against him .... long before Corbett started publicly attacking the defendant as an anonymous online critic ... and long before anyone agreed to a plea deal. (Really? Yes, really.)

Buried deep within the transcript of Corbett's six-and-an-half-hour deposition in Thomas Kimmett's whistleblower lawsuit is a glimpse into Corbett's long-running obsession with anonymous criticism.

Q: Do you have any idea who operates the e-mail Corbett Is Laughing At You?
A: Oh, I have some ideas, but I'm not going to go into it right now while the trial is going on, but it's one of the defendants (Ha! "I'm not going to say, but I'll just say it." How cagey!)
(snip)
Q: Okay. This e-mail from, I'll just refer to it as Corbett Is Laughing at You for lack of further identification.
A: Um-hum.
Q: [Campaign manger] Brian Nutt got that from Joe Gertis, and then Brian Nutt forwarded it to Kevin Harley, William Ryan, Richard Sheetz and Annmarie Kaiser. Do you know who Richard Sheetz is?
A: Yes.
Q: Who is Richard Sheetz?
A: He's the head of my Criminal Division.
Q: Okay.
A: And I assume he forwarded it because letting us know what's out there concerning the investigation.
Q: He who forwarded it is Brian Nutt.
A: Right.
Q: He's sending it to these people like Bill Ryan, Kevin Harley, Richard Sheetz, Ms. Kaiser who didn't, who weren't paid members of the campaign.
A: No, they were members of the office.
Q: Right. Anyone other than Ms. Kaiser that you know of volunteer on the campaign?
A: Kevin would.
Q: Kevin was a volunteer on the campaign?
A: Kevin was a volunteer. I don't know that Bill really volunteered at all. He might've showed up at events or something. Rick, earlier today you asked me about people contributing. Rick and Bill more than likely contributed to the campaign. I don't know that they really did any volunteer work.
Q: Okay. You said your understanding is that Mr. Nutt would've forwarded this because it had to do with the then on-going investigation.
A: That's right. Somebody really doesn't like me, do they?
Q: I'm betting based on your position it's more than one person out there.
A: Oh, yes. On both sides of the aisle.
Q: Do you have any understanding why Annmarie Kaiser would respond with, "not good?"

So, what we have here is an email conversation among Corbett campaign staff and state OAG staff concerning a criticism of Corbett that was disconcerting enough that at least one staffer labeled it "not good." (Do these really strike you as people who take criticism in stride?) And you have Corbett admitting that he believed the author of this disconcerting criticism was someone whom he prosecuted.

The email in question was widely distributed among legislators, staff and Capitol press in September 2008, weeks before Corbett's pre-election show-hearing, before plea deals were struck. Whatever do you suppose the Corbett campaign team found "not good" about it?

MIKE MANZO: PROFESSIONAL WITNESS

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

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

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

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

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

"A MINIMAL PART OF THE ISSUE"

Taken together, the message of the grand jury that issued a campaign document on legislative reform for Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett, and of the jurors who acquitted Team Veon of most of the charges against them, is this:

Corbett could have indicted almost anyone in the legislature, and chose to indict someone who "was such a small part of the issue that he probably should not even have been in that courtroom."

As usual, the eternally unanswered question is: why?

Reporters who covered the grand jury report on reform - an improper use of the grand jury, by the way - delighted in relating Judge Barry Fuedale's observation that grand jurors were "mad as hell" to hear from numerous witnesses that "no one's guilty because everybody does it."

These same reporters fail to point out that even though "everybody does it," Corbett's original Bonusgate indictments included only a single sitting legislator, who wasn't even a member of leadership.

“It struck me that the grand jury was sending a message to the attorney general that ‘We’re not really happy because everyone does this and why are you picking these people?’” ACLU legal director Vic Walczak told the Patriot-News.

Why, indeed?

Because of the typically shallow media coverage of all things Bonusgate, the general public knows only that "two jurors agree" that the first sentence handed down to a Bonusgate defendant was "extremely harsh."

But the letters that accompanied the defendant's motion to have his sentence reduced tell a different tale. Both letters indicated that the jury asked Judge Richard A. Lewis "for leniency to those we convicted." Why?

"...we stressed how much we felt that the defendants were a minimal part of the issue and that those who accepted pleas and immunity were more to blame," the juror wrote.

So, not only did Corbett indict someone who "probably should not have been in the courtroom," he struck deals with those who "were more to blame" in order to secure their testimony against him.

These are the conclusions of jurors who were spoon-fed nothing but specially-formulated Corbett Chow for weeks on end.

Again, the question is why? Attorney Bryan Walk said during a sentencing hearing for his client Brett Cott that he tried to talk to the Attorney General's Office about a deal, but the prosecutors refused. They offered deals to those who were "more to blame" in order to convict "a minimal part of the issue."

As we have allowed before, perhaps we are witnessing a sophisticated legal strategy that is beyond our feeble comprehension. Or perhaps Tom Corbett has led the most spectacularly inept prosecution in legal history. During the trial, Harrisburg lawyers repeatedly dropped by the Bonusgate courtroom to see if the rumors they were hearing about the case were true.

Who knows what would have happened if Corbett had offered Cott a deal? Perhaps he would have scored better than a 16% conviction rate. Perhaps not. But we'll never know, and we'll probably never know why.

"MORE THAN CHILLING"

While the Twittersphere has been abuzz with outrage over Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett's use of a grand jury subpoena to unmask anonymous critics, legal experts have even graver concerns.

Questions regarding Corbett's motive still abounded, but it was his use of a grand jury for a purpose other than securing an indictment that proved even more chilling for some people. The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania further described as "completely inappropriate" a cover letter that accompanied the subpoena sent to Twitter.

The cover letter, signed by the investigating grand jury's executive secretary, asked that Twitter not reveal the existence of the subpoena.

"It's more than chilling," said Vic Walczak, the ACLU's legal director. "If I'm not a constitutional lawyer, I'm not going to say 'boo' to anybody, even though I have a right to do so."

Very few of us are constitutional lawyers - or lawyers at all, a fact that Corbett's office relies upon as it drags people before a grand jury for any reason that strikes Corbett's whim.

Most people won't ignore a subpoena. (Most people who aren't cabinet officials.) Most people assume that a subpoena from the highest-ranking law official in the state is legitimate. Most people assume the questions they're being asked in a grand jury are in the furtherance of a legitimate investigative purpose.

Investigating grand juries are for investigating crimes. The jurors, not being lawyers, may not be expected to know this. But surely the esteemed Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania may be expected to know this.

Or not: "...deputy attorneys general the ACLU talked with during the Twitter affair had a reaction of, 'We do this all the time. What's the problem?'" Walczak told the Legal Intelligencer.

We do this all the time? What's the problem?

"I hope somebody is going to look into whether this is a legitimate use of law enforcement authority," said Sam Bayard, the assistant director of the Citizen Media Law Project at Harvard Law School's Berkman Center for Internet & Society.

Bayard clearly hasn't spent much time in Pennsylvania, where journalistic curiosity and political courage are in severely short supply.