WHO COULD IT BE?

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

HILARIOUS

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

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

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

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?

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

“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

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

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

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

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)

FACTS MATTER

28th Statewide Investigating Grand Jury Presentment No. 2:

"The 25th Statewide Investigating Grand Jury, on February 26, 2008. served a series of subpoenas upon the House Republican Caucus ... to produce before the Grand Jury evidence of "any and all evidence of campaign work" that a listed number of employees may have performed.

"Two days after the service of this subpoena, an employee of the Pennsylvania Legislature appeared in person at the offices of the Attorney General and stated that political and campaign material was being removed from a room, identified as Room B-02, located in the basement in the Irvis Office building in the Pennsylvania Capitol ... The following day, on February 29, 2008, the supervising judge of the Statewide Investigating Grand Jury issued a subpoena upon the House Republican Caucus ordering the immediate production of "any and all campaign documents or materials removed from Room B-02, in the basement of the Irvis Office Building, on February 26, 2008, or the sixty days preceding. You are ordered to disclose the location of any and all other materials removed from this location during the period described."

"Subsequent investigation* ... revealed that there had, in fact, been boxes containing political and campaign materials - as well as boxes containing direct evidence of campaign work performed by public employees - in Room B-02 on and before February 26, 2008. On that same date, employees of Representative Perzel directed House Republican Caucus messengers to remove boxes of materials from B-02 and transport them to Representative Perzel's office suite ...

"[Perzel Chief of Staff] Paul Towhey instructed [Perzel's secretary, Lori Lochetto] to transport all the campaign materials, as well as some non-campaign related items, to Representative Perzel's office suite. He further instructed her to then have the campaign materials and evidence of campaign work immediately extracted and moved out of the capitol to the House Republican Campaign Committee offices ..."

How does the Post-Gazette's Tracie Mauriello describe what happened?

"Boxes were moved as atty general investigators were about to execute a search warrant in GOP offices."

The obstruction charges against Team Perzel may seem a small part of the 400 criminal counts alleging a $20 million taxpayer-funded campaign operation Perzel operated out of the Capitol from 2000 to 2007. But Governor-Elect Tom Corbett himself told reporters the obstruction charges bother him the most: "If there's one thing in all of this that annoys me? Obstruction's the worst."

In this case, the distinction between executing a search warrant and issuing a subpoena is enormous, not just legally, but politically.

Set aside the fact that if what Mauriello reported were true, someone in the Attorney General's office would be guilty of a grievous crime by alerting the targets of a search warrant in advance of its execution. If Mauriello really believes that's what happened, it's inexplicable why she would have glossed over such a serious miscarriage of justice. More frightening is that she's unaware of the difference between a search warrant and a subpoena.

The important distinction between an search warrant and a subpoena in this case is that if Corbett had executed a search warrant on House Republican offices - as he'd done to House Democrats a full six months earlier - Team Perzel wouldn't have had an opportunity to hide or destroy evidence.

(Of course, he'd still have risked the possibility that Perzel would follow the lead of then-House Democratic Leader Bill DeWeese and tie him up in a court battle over the admissibility of evidence siezed - a battle that coincidentally ended when DeWeese agreed to turn over hand-picked documents implicating others.)

What's important to remember here is that Corbett says he was informed in February of '08 that Perzel's staff withheld evidence. But he didn't even begin to interview (much less subpoena) staff - that "subsequent investigation*" he mentions in the presentment - until July.

The evidence is overwhelming that Corbett never intended to investigate Republicans in earnest until political pressure forced him into it. Months into the so-called investigation, Corbett gave House Republicans the go-ahead to switch out all their computers. As late as eight months into the so-called investigation, Corbett allowed future defendant Brian Preski to host a fund-raiser and met privately with future defendant Perzel. His excuse? "We didn't have all the facts in front of us."

Because you can't find what you're not looking for.

"And I thought I had it tough....."

A BRIBE BY ANY OTHER NAME

The Pennsylvania political community is abuzz with the revelation that an elected official accepted financial considerations from business owners with the understanding that he would use his elected office to steer favors toward those businesses.

Think we're referring to Sen. Ray Musto, accused of accepting $35,000 from an unnamed construction company in exchange for his help to secure government funding?

No, we're referring to the $1 million Governor-Elect Tom Corbett accepted from the natural gas industry in exchange for his help in blocking a state severance tax on natural gas production and reversing a moratorium on new drilling on state forest land.

While the accusations against Musto are criminal and could land the 81-year-old Democrat in jail, Corbett's transactions appear to be perfectly legal and landed the 61-year-old Republican in the Governor's Office.

While we've accused Corbett of hypocrisy for prosecuting legislators for activity in which he himself is engaged, we can't make that claim in this case. Because despite a multi-million-dollar, four-year investigation of all four legislative caucuses (or so Corbett has claimed), Corbett didn't uncover a hint of Musto's alleged crimes.

Or Sen. Jane Orie's.

Or Sen. Bob Mellow's.

In fact, even though Corbett claimed to be investigating the Senate - particularly the Republican caucus, which awarded the largest individual bonuses to staffers who spent most of the year campaigning - and had publicly claimed he would not accept contributions from Senators, he privately told those same Senators it was OK to launder their contributions through the coffers of his running mate.

Once again, the question we must ask is whether Corbett is incompetent or corrupt.

After all, either Corbett really has been investigating the Senate for four long years, (all while indirectly accepting campaign contributions from the targets of the investigation, which actually would make him both corrupt and incompetent), and somehow missed Orie's alleged illegal campaign operation, Musto's alleged kickback and bribery scheme, and Mellow's alleged campaign finance violations. (And, let's face it: God knows what else.)

Or, he never really was investigating the Senate at all and simply put on an act to deflect accusations of conflicts of interests.

It certainly wouldn't be the first time.

But in the case of Musto, we're willing to believe Corbett simply didn't see the crime in exchanging personal financial consideration for government largess.

GRATITUDE

Are we the only ones who see the irony?

A candidate for governor whose main claim on the office is his prosecution of government corruption, placed into office by an ex-con convicted of multiple felonies in one of the darkest government corruption cases in Pennsylvania's history.

In his victory speech on Tuesday night, the very first person Corbett thanked, after his family, was convicted felon Bob Asher.

The 1980s bribery and racketeering case that sent Asher to federal prison has mostly faded from the public memory, and is notable mainly for the tragic public suicide of State Treasurer R. Budd Dwyer.

Asher's involvement? He threatened to withhold campaign funds and political support from Dwyer unless Dwyer awarded a multi-million dollar state contract to a handpicked crony.

Got it? He threatened to withhold campaign funds and political support from an elected official unless that elected official used his influence to benefit Asher's allies and cronies.

In 2004, Asher initially recruited and supported Montgomery County District Attorney Bruce Castor to run for state Attorney General. But when Castor opposed Asher's appointment Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, Asher switched his support to Castor's primary opponent, Tom Corbett.

The lesson is clear. And Corbett appears to have learned it.

One of Corbett's earliest supporters in his campaign for governor, Asher served as co-chair of Corbett's exploratory committee. Asher's formidable support came as Corbett was in the throes of the political corruption investigation that would serve as the foundation of his gubernatorial campaign.

Remember, Asher tends to withhold support from public officials who don't do his bidding.

If we were the Patriot-News editorial board, this would be the part where we say, "We're not saying that Asher may have used his gargantuan influence to determine the direction of the Bonusgate investigation. But we can see where some people might be disturbed by the appearance of a possible conflict of interest."

Presidential Candidate Rudy Guiliani was foolish enough to be embarrassed by Asher's public support, and hastened to distance himself from the ex-con.

Corbett had no such qualms.

JUSTICE FOR SALE?

Does Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett raise any money from people he's not supposed to be investigating?

We know it's an old habit dating back to his prosecution of Jeff Habay. He was caught again soliciting Steve Stetler while Stetler was under investigation. He allowed former House Republican chief of staff Brian Preski to host a fund-raiser while the caucus was under investigation for the period when Preski ran the caucus. PA Turnpike Vice-Chairman Tim Carson also hosted a fund-raiser, even though Corbett is actively investigating the Turnpike. And most recently, he solicited indicted Rep. John Perzel - at his Capitol office, no less.

Despite the fact that Corbett declared contributions from legislators off-limits, it turns out that campaign cash can be safely laundered through the coffers of his running mate, Jim Cawley.

According to Capitolwire, "Cawley’s campaign finance reports also show more than $104,000 in contribution since the May primary from state lawmakers – a group from whom Cawley’s running mate has declined to accept contributions.

"Most of those funds came through two donations of $50,000 apiece – one from Senate President Pro Tem Joe Scarnati, R-Jefferson, and another from the Senate Republican Campaign Committee."

Y'all know, not a single member or staffer from the Senate Republican Caucus has been tarnished in Corbett's never-ending investigation of the legislature, despite the fact that the Senate Republicans handed out the largest individual bonuses - much of it to staffers who spent half the year working on political campaigns.

Although Corbett claimed he had no idea lawmakers were contributing to Cawley, "Drew Crompton, Scarnati’s chief of staff, said there was 'an acknowledgement' from the Corbett camp that a contribution from Scarnati to Cawley would not be returned."

Crompton also said Scarnati was “more than happy to give to his campaign,” and that Cawley has participated in events with various Senate Republican candidates. Some mailers also have been printed that list Senate candidates as well as the governor and lieutenant governor. The contribution toward Cawley’s campaign expenses recognizes those “shared efforts,” Crompton said.

That's Drew Crompton, taxpayer-funded legislative employee, acting as campaign spokesman for Scarnati and other Senate Republican candidates.

That would be the same Drew Crompton who received a nearly $20,000 taxpayer-funded bonus in a year when he spent most of his time working on Lynn Swann's failed gubernatorial campaign.

Need we point out that the Senate Republican Campaign Committee also represents Sen. Jane Orie, whom Corbett steadfastly refused to indict despite the fact she allegedly ran a campaign operation out of her district office right under the nose of Corbett's staff during his alleged investigation?

Kudos to Capitolwire for practicing actual journalism among the usually-compliant Capitol Stenographers Corps. But with less than a week until Election Day, it's too little, too late.

CONSISTENCY

"We, too, are concerned at the length of time this process is taking. If this goes much further Corbett risks being accused of using it to launch what many expect will be a gubernatorial bid in 2010." (Patriot-News, 7/12/09)

"The investigation is not completed." (Tom Corbett, Gubernatorial Debate, 10/16/10)

"We endorse Corbett." (Patriot-News, 10/17/10)

SURPRISE!

In a surprise reversal of position, Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Corbett said Saturday that he would not consider making workers contribute more of their paychecks to help the state repay a $3 billion loan from Washington to cover the cost of unemployment benefits. (Allentown Morning Call, 10/16/10)

The Morning Call has a really low threshold for surprise. Next, they'll be reporting that the sun surprisingly rose this morning.

Ol' "Weather Vane" Corbett routinely changes direction with the slightest gust of wind.

For years, advocates begged Corbett to investigate questionable decisions by the Hershey Trust board of trustees, including a shady real estate deal that benefited a trustee. As recently as a few weeks ago, Corbett belittled their concerns and called their allegations "nothing new." Then, poof! a front-page story in the Inquirer spun him in the opposite direction, and suddenly he's announcing an investigation.

After a former aide to then-chair of the House Democratic Campaign Committee Steve Stetler testified in July 2008 to a grand jury that Stetler authorized campaign work by legislative employees on state time, Corbett was perfectly content to let it slide. He even allowed Stetler to ignore a subpoena with no consequences.

A year later, the Post-Gazette revealed the aide's testimony and the Tribune-Review the subpoena. In short order, Stetler was facing indictment.

After nearly two years of investigation, Corbett saw no need to indict Rep. H. William DeWeese, despite evidence of his complicity in awarding bonuses for campaign work, use of a state-paid contractor for campaign work, and supervising staff working on campaigns around the state.

Although Corbett never did charge DeWeese for his involvement in the caucus-wide activities at the center of Bonusgate, public revelations of the evidence put enough pressure on Corbett that he - whoosh! - finally dredged up a separate case

Charging Republicans in connection with Bonusgate was so far from Corbett's mind in the summer and fall of 2007 - in the thick of his investigation of House Democrats - that he allowed the House Republicans to replace all their computers. He thought nothing of meeting privately, with no attorneys present, with the Republican former House Speaker John Perzel. A fund-raiser hosted by the former chief of staff of the caucus he was supposed to be investigating? No problem!

But then editorial pages started throwing around phrases like "if not corruption then certainly politicking," (Lebanon Daily News)," and ""skepticism about his impartiality," (Allentown Morning Call) and "politics creeps into everything," (Harrisburg Patriot-News), and even fellow Republican Sen. John Eichelberger called the investigation "a joke," creating enough gust to airlift Corbett into Republican indictments.

It's not surprising for Corbett to "reverse position" ("I use two phones! No, one phone! Two! One! No, definitely two!" ... "We won't campaign on Bonusgate! No, we will campaign on Bonusgate!" ... "A fee is a tax! It's a fee, not a tax!)

What's surprising is that he gets away with it.

CORBETT: INVESTIGATING POLITICAL ALLIES IS UNETHICAL! - I MEAN, OK, IF IT HELPS MY CAMPAIGN!

Time for another quiz! What do legislative Republicans and two Republican District Attorneys have in common with The Hershey Trust?

The investigative arm of the Tom Corbett for Governor campaign announced this week it is investigating the Hershey Trust - more than four years after its purchase of a failing golf course, for as much as triple its value. The purchase directly benefited a trustee who was an investor in the club.

Activists have been begging Corbett to investigate the trust for this and other questionable decisions for six years.

It was only after a scathing front-page article appeared in the state's largest newspaper, a month before the gubernatorial election, that Corbett grudgingly announced he will investigate.

Watchdog group Protect the Hershey's Children called the announcement "political theater:"

“A month ago, the Attorney General issued a public statement belittling our concerns and calling PHC’s allegations ‘nothing new,’ just as he has done for six straight years. Now he claims that he was actually investigating at the time and asks us to believe that the timing of his ‘investigation’ has nothing to do with his election bid. This is political theater at its most absurd. We hope that Pennsylvania voters, Republican and Democrat alike, will see through this flimsy ruse.”

Why did candidate Corbett wait so many years to initiate an investigation?

For starters, the Chairman of the Board of the Hershey Trust is Republican former Pennsylvania Attorney General Leroy S. Zimmerman.

In January, Campaigns & Elections named Leroy Zimmerman one of the Top Republican Influencers in Pennsylvania. PoliticsPA describes GOP fundraiser Zimmerman as "a power broker in Central Pennsylvania" who "contributes heavily to state and national Republicans."

Zimmerman, who earns $500,000 a year as Chairman, isn't the only prominent Republican raking in Hershey School-related dough. According to the Inquirer, Philadelphia investment manager James Nevels was compensated $325,359 on two Hershey-related boards. Former Gov. Tom Ridge earns $200,000 a year on the Hershey Co. board, and former gubernatorial candidate Lynn Swann makes $100,000 a year on the board of the company that operates Hersheypark.

So, once again, candidate Corbett finds himself in the position of "investigating" political allies accused of wrongdoing. But, again - only after negative publicity forced his hand.

News that Corbett had subpoenaed House Republicans was leaked only after Capitolwire and Morning Call editorials questioned Corbett's partisanship in the Bonusgate investigation. Only after Corbett's opponent in the Attorney General race accused Corbett of conflicts of interest did news emerge of Senate Republican subpoenas.

News that that Republican staff had been interviewed appeared only after a Patriot-News analysis mused, "Is state bonus probe partisan?" Governor Rendell called on Corbett to come clean about investigations of Republicans, and the Chambersburg Public Opinion agreed with Rendell.

Even though Corbett and his taxpayer-funded political operatives are savvy enough to create the illusion of "investigating" political allies, such investigations rarely amount to much: Corbett exonerated Bedford County District Attorney Bill Higgins of a rape accusation. Accusations of malfeasance and misconduct against York County District Attorney Stan Rebert "did not warrant any charges." And state Senator Jane Orie allegedly continued to direct a campaign operation out of her district office with impunity even as Corbett claimed to be investigating the Senate Republican Caucus.

What does Corbett think of a prosecutor investigating his own political allies? It's "unethical!" It creates "the appearance of impropriety!" It's an "ethical conflict" and a prosecutor who does it should apologize for "the appearance that the top law enforcement office in Pennsylvania is for sale in exchange for political and legal favors."

But that's only when someone else does it.