"WE HAD A SHORTAGE OF INVESTIGATORS"

"During the Bonusgate investigation, we had a shortage of investigators in Harrisburg." -- Randy Feathers, Regional Director, Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, 6/24/12.

While Attorney General and candidate for Governor, Tom Corbett first received a sexual abuse complaint against Jerry Sandusky in March of 2009, agents from the Attorney General's Office were not assigned to the case until just before the election in November 2010.

Sandusky was not arrested until a year after that.

Ever since Patriot-News reporter Sara Ganim revealed these unfortunate details, Corbett's feeble propaganda machine has desperately sought to persuade an increasingly skeptical public that a three-year investigation of child rape is perfectly normal.

In a moment of uncharacteristic candor, Randy Feathers - a narcotics investigator, not a child abuse or sex crimes expert, by the way - blows Corbett's reassurances out of the water.

Feathers confirms what most Pennsylvanians already knew: When Corbett should have been trying to take a serial child rapist off the street, he was scrambling to fix his botched "Bonusgate" investigation in time for the election.

No one would argue that John Perzel and Bill DeWeese should not have been prosecuted for their crimes (DeWeese never was prosecuted for his most serious crimes). But by the time Corbett received the Sandusky complaint, he'd been "investigating" the legislature for more than two years.

The only reason he was chasing after Perzel and DeWeese in 2009 is because he'd deliberately left them out of the original investigation - just as he deliberately left out the state Senate. Politics, not justice, forced him to revisit the legislature.

If Corbett were conducting a real investigation of House Republicans in 2007 and most of 2008, would he have allowed them to replace their computers? Would he and his campaign manager have been meeting with Perzel? Would he have allowed the House Republican Chief of Staff to organize a campaign fund raiser for him? Would he have waited more than a year to enforce subpoenas for documents?

Fact: Corbett was not investigating House Republicans throughout 2007 and most of 2008. He was lying about that.

If Corbett were conducting a real investigation of Bill DeWeese in 2007 and most of 2008, would he have allowed DeWeese himself to select what evidence to turn over to investigators? Would Corbett have disregarded a mountain of evidence linking DeWeese to the activities at the core of the "bonusgate" case?

Fact: Corbett may have been investigating DeWeese in the first half of 2007, while DeWeese was desperately fighting to quash Corbett's subpoenas and shield evidence. But he most definitely was not after Deweese agreed to turn over hand-selected evidence and drop his legal challenges to the probe.

Months before receiving the Sandusky complaint, Corbett was feeling the heat for his failure to investigate Republicans. He convened hearings to force House Republicans to respond to subpoenas he'd let languish for a year. Just as he realized that he'd need to indict a token Republican or two to appear impartial, it was becoming clear that House Republicans hadn't sat on their hands for most of the previous two years. Missing evidence made the investigation more difficult, sucking up more manpower and resources.

As investigators were struggling with missing documents and well-prepared witnesses to make a case against Perzel, a bombshell hit: The Tribune-Review revealed that Corbett was in possession of a smoking-gun email in which Bill DeWeese acknowledged that bonuses were awarded for campaign work.

Three weeks later, the Inquirer laid out a comprehensive case linking DeWeese to bonuses and other illegal campaign activities.

Facing accusations of partisanship, it would have been unseemly to charge another Democrat without first indicting a Republican or two. But remember: missing documents and well-prepped witnesses were hindering the investigation of Republicans.

Is it any wonder there was a shortage of investigators in Harrisburg?

Who's to say how Corbett would have handled the Sandusky investigation even if he hadn't tied up all of his agents playing catch-up on "bonusgate?" Even after Perzel and DeWeese were safely indicted, at least 10 agents from the OAG were spotted in the courtroom during each day of Mike Veon's trial, while others were busily trying to unmask Corbett's anonymous critics.

When Corbett and his cronies talk about how long the Sandusky investigation took, they're talking about the year between the time OAG agents first were assigned to the case and Sandusky's November 2011 arrest. They've studiously avoided a thorough accounting of the investigation's progress between March 2009 and Election Day 2010.

"ONE THING YOU DO NOT WANT TO DO AS A PROSECUTOR IS ...."

The credibility of Tom Corbett's pathetic excuse for waiting 18 months to begin a serious investigation of accused child rapist Jerry Sandusky suffered another blow today.

The sports journalism website Deadspin reports that prosecutors are standing by with the complaints of additional victims, ready to file charges in case Sandusky is acquitted.

But Corbett, who was Attorney General when the first complaint about Sandusky surfaced, claimed the investigation took so everlastingly long precisely because he wanted to avoid filing additional charges after an acquittal.

“[If] you were to lose that one case, it would be much more difficult to bring charges in other cases because it would be seen by you, by the public, as vindictive,” Corbett told the Pennsylvania Press Club in November.

Corbett claimed "the one thing you do not want to do as a prosecutor" is make an arrest on a single complaint (even though prosecutors, including Corbett himself, do it all the time). But Corbett made almost no effort to identify any other victims until 18 months later, when investigators from the Office of Attorney General finally were assigned to the case

Does Corbett think the prosecutors are making a huge, vindictive mistake? Do the prosecutors think the former Attorney General's legal strategy is full of hooey?

Or was Corbett just talking out of his ass, as usual, when he scrambled to make excuses for why he allowed an accused serial child rapist to remain free for nearly three years after receiving the complaint?

After all, could Corbett admit that he gave the Sandusky investigation short shrift because his investigators and his attention were tied up fixing his botched investigation of the legislature in time for the gubernatorial election?

We're not surprised that Corbett lied. We will be surprised if he gets away with it.

DOUBLE STANDARDS, PHILLY STYLE

"How many times do you have to get hit in the face with a brick to know what's what?" – Prosecutor Patrick J. Blessington, during closing argument in "Bonusgate" trial.

How many times, indeed, Patrick J. Blessington?

According to the Legal Intelligencer, Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams's campaign improperly sent an email to his deputies on their public email addresses, inviting them to a fundraiser.

Patrick J. Blessington, the former deputy Attorney General who prosecuted state officials and staff for precisely this kind of abuse of office, is one of those deputy district attorneys.

Did Blessington - who proclaimed unequivocally that "It's against the law, a crime, to use taxpayer money to help somebody win an election" - open an investigation into this abuse of authority?

He did not. Which is not surprising, given his long history of overlooking illegal campaign work when it's performed by his own employer.

His office prosecuted state legislators for putting political operatives on the state payroll, but Blessington looked the other way when his own boss did the same thing.

His office prosecuted state legislators and staff for doing political work on state time, using state equipment, but Blessington didn't seem bothered by his own colleagues' political work on state time, using state resources.

John J. Contino, executive director of the state Ethics Commission, specifically compared the email to the "Bonusgate" case that Blessington prosecuted. He said the conflict-of-interest clause in the state Ethics Act has been interpreted to prohibit political activity when the public official uses aspects, benefits or attributes of the currently held incumbent office to advance those political or pecuniary interests.

Public election law expert Gregory M. Harvey said the fund-raising email could be construed as a violation of the "criminal prohibition of the use of public resources to carry on political activity.

Another lawyer called it "political macing" and said it could be a violation of both the state Ethics act and the federal Hatch Act.

Another said the email could be construed as "coercion."

Make no mistake, a similar email from a state legislator would have prompted Blessington to investigate. But when the perpetrator is Blessington's boss, Blessington sees no evil.

DOUBLE STANDARDS

An especially mean-spirited editorial in the Beaver County Times (we won't link to it) highlights the incredible double standard the Times applies to former Rep. Mike Veon and to his successor, Jim Marshall.

Yes, the Times' favorite whipping boy Veon was convicted of using state resources for political campaigns. But so was Republican John Perzel - and no one benefited more from Perzel's nefarious interventions than Marshall.

After Perzel directed a veritable tsunami of both legitimate spending and ill-gotten resources to Marshall's campaign in 2006, the very first vote Marshall cast upon assuming office was for Perzel for Speaker.

Marshall accepted Perzel's illegal campaign assistance in exchange for his vote for speaker. Make no mistake: Perzel never would have committed the resources to Marshall's campaign were he not assured of Marshall's Speaker vote. Marshall was a willing participant in the very same game the BCT finds so repugnant when Veon is the player.

And, of course, the mixing of politics and state work continued after Marshall assumed office.

Tom Corbett's own grand jury called the House Republican Office of District Operations "a wholly-owned subsidiary of the House Republican Campaign Committee." It was that taxpayer-funded Office that supported Marshall's campaign, with Marshall's full knowledge and consent.

And while there's nothing illegal about Marshall selling his vote for Speaker, can we honestly argue that Harrisburg would be better off if Marshall had gotten his way and Perzel had been re-elected Speaker?

TO REIMBURSE, OR NOT TO REIMBURSE

Former Sen. Jane Orie has been sentenced to 2-½ to 10 years on crimes Tom Corbett refused to investigate.

It's undecided whether she should repay the taxpayers $1.3 million in legal fees.
Her attorneys argue she shouldn't have to reimburse the state, because Bill DeWeese, John Perzel and Mike Veon never had to repay legal fees incurred by the taxpayers.

There's a good reason Veon never was asked to repay legal fees - the taxpayers never spent a dime on Veon's legal fees. Veon was deposed from office long before the prosecutorial arm of the Tom Corbett for Governor Campaign even dreamed of the word "bonusgate." It was widely reported (then apparently forgotten) that Veon's lawyers unsuccessfully tried to have the House Democratic Caucus cover his legal fees.

DeWeese is another story. He paid a well-connected legal dealmaker at least $1.7 million in taxpayer funds to insulate himself from Corbett's initial investigation. He also used taxpayer dollars to pay the legal fees of staff members who agreed to testify against DeWeese's chosen targets.

Your taxpayer dollars nearly succeeded in keeping DeWeese out of hot water, until a leaked email revealed that Corbett had evidence of DeWeese's wrongdoing, and Corbett put the Sandusky investigation on the back burner while he scrambled to put together a belated, ass-covering indictment of DeWeese (suspiciously, not on bonus-related charges).

Because the House did not directly pay DeWeese's legal fees in connection with those non-bonus-related charges, DeWeese has not been asked to reimburse the taxpayers.

DeWeese's ability to bleed the taxpayers will not be hindered by his incarceration. His refusal to remove his name from the ballot, even though he will be ineligible to serve if he is elected, could cost the state another $150,000 for a special election. It's possible that before all is said and done, the citizens of the 50th Legislative District will have gone an entire year without representation in the House. Who will reimburse them?

HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN?

Bill DeWese just cannot believe what is happening to him.

He puts on the bluster when tv cameras are around, boasting that he'll make new friends and stay fit behind bars, but behind the scenes, trust us: he is apoplectic with indignation.

This wasn't supposed to happen. DeWeese paid a former Republican prosecutor $1.7 million in taxpayer funds to make sure DeWeese wasn't swept up in gubernatorial candidate Tom Corbett's politically-motivated "investigation" of the General Assembly.

Though he initially rebuffed Corbett's efforts, DeWeese in the fall of 2007 abruptly dropped his legal challenges, fired seven staff members and handed over to Corbett documents and emails intended to implicate the fired staffers and a former colleague.

On the jubilant day the colleague and staffers were indicted, DeWeese was sure he was in the clear. And he would have been, but for one tiny email that was leaked to the media.

It's unclear whether DeWeese turned over the email inadvertently, or he was convinced nothing he turned over would have any adverse consequences for him. Although he didn't realize it at the time, DeWeese's fortune turned on March 16, 2009, the day the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review revealed that Corbett was in possession of an email DeWeese sent to a staffer who explicitly thanked him for the bonus she received for campaigning.

U R welcome.

DeWeese, whose signature was on the letter accompanying the bonus checks, claimed he hadn't sent the email. If investigators ever had believed it, the implausibility and sheer idiocy of the excuse finally dawned on them. What's worse, now the entire state knew that Corbett knew DeWeese had acknowledged bonuses were awarded for campaigning.

How would Corbett ever explain why DeWeese hadn't been charged in the bonus scandal? Fortunately for him, no one ever asked. And when Corbett belatedly covered his ass by charging DeWeese with unrelated crimes nine months later, everyone assumed justice had been served.

Everyone but DeWeese, that is. Whatever the actual terms of DeWeese's agreement to turn over evidence and drop his legal challenges, DeWeese clearly believed that agreement covered the crimes for which he eventually was indicted in addition to the crimes at the heart of the bonus investigation.

Why else would DeWeese so carelessly admit to a grand jury that his staffers did campaign work during business hours from their desks in legislative offices? DeWeese felt no need to choose his words carefully; he was sure the law couldn't touch him.

Pennsylvania will have to wait to learn whether DeWeese's interpretation of his agreement with Corbett is legally sound. As long as there is even a shred of a chance DeWeese will triumphantly return to elected office, he will cling to the fiction that lack of evidence is the reason he wasn't indicted in connection with bonuses.

IT IS ONLY SOMETIMES VERY OUTRAGEOUS WHEN THESE THINGS HAPPEN

In the days following the sentencing of former Rep. Bill DeWeese and former Sen. Bob Mellow’s guilty plea in federal court (for crimes former Attorney General Tom Corbett either failed to detect or deliberately ignored in his so-called investigation of the Senate), editorialists around the state have treated readers to a litany of lawmakers' transgressions.

The Montgomery News lamented the crimes of Mellow, DeWeese and John Perzel. Patriot-News guest editorialist Bishop A.E. Sullivan, Jr., links the “bonusgate” and “computergate” scandals under the clever heading of “politricks.” Even Philadelphia Daily News columnist John Baer’s offhand mention of the legal expenses of Sen. Jane Orie (whose crimes Corbett also either missed or ignored) warranted the inclusion of “Fumo, Veon, DeWeese, Perzel, etc.”

Missing from the mass umbrage is any mention of a politician who put his own chief political operative on the state payroll, whose state-paid staffers conferred regularly with campaign workers on state phones during state time, who raised political contributions from the target of his own investigation, whose state-paid staffers distributed campaign literature on state time , and who used his government position to protect his political allies - over and over again.

When Corbett's own top deputy made it crystal clear that all transgressions of this type would be prosecuted as crimes, he didn't mention that senators and would-be governors were exempt.

Although he’s clearly committed the same sins for which he prosecuted others, Corbett inexplicably is spared the outrage. If it’s wrong for Orie, “Fumo, Veon, DeWeese, Perzel, etc.” to abuse their offices for political gain, why isn’t it wrong for Corbett?

MANZO'S DeWEESE GAG ORDER

A little over three years ago, after Mike Manzo agreed to cooperate with then-Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett, a Reliable Source told us about a curious provision in Manzo's plea agreement. In addition to the requirement that he speak about the alleged crimes of co-workers and colleagues, there was a requirement that he not speak about some alleged crimes of co-workers or colleagues.

The Source had never before heard of such a provision, and the Source was baffled. However, we were not, nor was anyone who witnessed prosecutors' panicked courtroom reaction to Manzo's October 2007 implication of his former boss, H. William DeWeese, in the bonus-for-campaign-work scheme.

Manzo's admission that DeWeese was involved in the scheme - while no surprise to anyone familiar with the structure of a legislative caucus - was big news for a few days. These were the innocent days when most Capitol-watchers believed that the arrest of DeWeese's second-in-command and a crew of staffers (along with an eventually-acquitted Democratic state Senate candidate, on non-bonus-related charges) was a preliminary to the indictment of DeWeese himself in the bonus scheme.

As DeWeese himself will trip over his own tongue to tell anyone and everyone, he never was charged in the bonus scheme, and Manzo never again publicly accused him.

The closest he came was after his sentencing on April 16, when Manzo said he was frustrated with others "who refused to step up to the plate and take responsibility," and acknowledged that he was speaking of DeWeese, among others. He also mocked blaming "the culture" of the Capitol. DeWeese famously blabbed to a grand jury that illegal electioneering was "part of the political culture on Capitol Hill."

Why would DeWeese make such an incriminating statement to a grand jury (which promptly indicted him on his admitted crime?) The answer lies in the prosecutors' panicked reaction to Manzo's testimony about DeWeese. Journalists covering the hearing made no mention of it, but the proceedings slammed to a temporary halt upon Manzo's accusation.

Corbett and his team didn't want Manzo accusing DeWeese in the bonus scheme because they'd already decided not to charge DeWeese in the bonus scheme. And DeWeese mistakenly believed Corbett's decision not to charge him on bonuses was some kind of blanket immunity. The folly of this decision became clearer about five months later, when even more damning evidence of DeWeese's involvement in the bonus scheme came to light. In a pre-trial motion filed a few months after that, Mike Veon's attorneys questioned why Veon was criminally charged and DeWeese was not, when Corbett possessed unequivocal evidence of DeWeese's involvement in the same activities.

Veon's question was dismissed as "finger pointing." And though the question remains officially unanswered (actually, unasked, aside from Veon's lawyers), it's clear that the reason is tied to DeWeese's 2007 negotiation with Corbett to turn over self-selected documents and release staff members to testify against Veon and others.

With DeWeese facing sentencing tomorrow on non-bonus-related charges as we're sure he'll make quite clear, there's still a chance for the public to question this glaring Corbett blunder.

"I WANTED TO STOP HAVING THIS ENGULF MY ENTIRE LIFE"

Agents for the state Office of Attorney General cleverly made it impossible to judge whether the 18-to-48-month sentence of "Bonusgate star witness" Mike Manzo is fair. At his hearing today they cited his cooperation in yet-to-be-revealed investigations of state government.

Since Manzo was fired from state government five years ago, and most major felonies carry a five-year statute of limitations, we view the prosecutors' claims with skepticism. Most likely, their claims are simply a ploy to head off criticism of Manzo's sentence as too lenient.

If Tweets from the courtroom are to be believed, little emphasis was placed on Manzo's "star" testimony in the 2010 trial of Mike Veon and three staffers. Manzo's testimony in that case was so riddled with inconsistencies that the OAG temporarily became a laughingstock in the Dauphin County legal community. Lawyers handling other cases in the courthouse made time to stop by Judge Lewis' courtroom to see for themselves whether the rumors of prosecutorial bungling were true.

Ironically, Manzo testified in that trial that he'd pleaded guilty because "I wanted to stop having this engulf my entire life" Now, 3½ years after that plea, he's still engulfed, and will be for another seven years. Copping a plea probably seemed at the time like an easy way out. Now he'll spend more than a year in prison (probably 13.5 months according to Pennsylvania's Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive guidelines) and most of the following six years on parole or probation. Rumors have flown since Manzo's October 2008 preliminary hearing testimony (when he let slip that his unindicted former boss, H. William DeWeese, was complicit in the bonus scheme) that Manzo had been promised no jail time in exchange for his cooperation.

It was easy to believe, as no one could imagine why else Manzo would agree to plead guilty to 10 felony charges. No other defendant pleaded to as many counts, and of the defendants who went to trial, only Mike Veon - who originally faced more than 50 charges - was convicted of as many.

Former House Speaker John Perzel was permitted to plead to only eight counts. And though the "Computergate" case dwarfed "Bonusgate" in size and scope, Perzel will be off parole before Manzo is.

UNBELIEVABLY, CORBETT'S MINIONS STILL OBSESSED WITH US

Got a couple of desperate Republican political defendants over a barrel? Would you maybe try to use your leverage as a prosecutor to ferret out further corruption in the General Assembly? Or would you instead take another pathetic shot at unmasking your anonymous online critics?

As a matter of policy, Team CasablancaPa will not disclose the names of anyone who offers to share information with us.

Not even if that offer is part of a ploy to gain favorable consideration from a prosecutor as part of a plea bargain or sentencing negotiation in the "Computergate" case.

Sadly, both Republican defendants who tried to gain information as to the identity and whereabouts of Team CasablancaPa failed. But we give you an "A" for effort. Did the Office of Attorney General do the same?

We were puzzled, but not overly suspicious, when the first Republican defendant contacted us about a year ago. Neither a plea bargain nor a sentencing hearing appeared to be on the horizon at the time. But as our extensive viewership of television crime dramas has taught us, plea bargains often are kept a secret so defendants can retain the trust of co-conspirators and gather incriminating information on prosecutors' behalf.

As far as we can glean from the media coverage, this tactic was employed to no avail in the Mike Veon case. And we may never know all the factors that led to John Perzel's guilty plea.

In February of 2011, we received the following email:

Sent: February 7, 2011, 12:54 p.m.
From: [Defendant #1]
To: Signor Ferrari
Subject: No Subject

From time to time, I may have some information to add to the discussion, can you give me an address to which to send?

It was not signed, "Hugs and kisses, Defendant #1," but we were touched nonetheless. Alas, our hopes for a beautiful friendship were dashed when Defendant #1 failed to respond to our suggestion that information could be scanned and emailed. We never heard from Defendant #1 again.

When the second defendant contacted us, we knew the second defendant was probably involved in discussions with the OAG at the time. And, just like the first defendant, the second defendant quickly ceased communication with us when it became clear that we would preserve our anonymity.

Our correspondence with Defendant #2 was a bit more extensive. In January of this year, we received this email.

Sent: January 26, 2012, 8:02
From: [Defendant #2]

To: Signor Ferrari

Subject: How can I send documents and information to you regarding Corbett and company?

Yes, all that was in the subject line. Defendant #2 is maybe not so skilled at using email. We made the same suggestion that we had made to Defendant #1: that documents be scanned and emailed. Defendant #2 claimed an inability to scan (not surprising, given Defendant #2's struggle with email!) After agreeing to send the information through a third party, Defendant #2 also abandoned us.

Corbett's minions have a history of abusing the power of the OAG in an effort to expose anonymous online critics. Their ill-fated and highly improper effort to subpoena Twitter for information about our account made national headlines in 2010.

What concerns us more than protecting our own identity is the idea that prosecutors could offer consideration in criminal matters in exchange for information irrelevant to any criminal investigation (yes, it's still legal to criticize a public official anonymously). If a prosecutor can make a deal for information about our identity, can he offer consideration in exchange for, say, a hand-drawn coupon for one free hug?

OOPS. AGAIN.

One state senator is on trial on accusations of illegal campaign work. Another is about to plead guilty to charges of illegal campaign work. Yet not a single pundit, politician, watchdog or journalist finds it worth mention that the Governor of our fair Commonwealth, while Attorney General, claimed to have investigated the Senate for illegal campaign work and came up with zilch.

Nearly two years ago, when the Allegheny County District Attorney arrested then-Senate GOP Whip Jane Orie, a few Capitol-watchers briefly lifted their heads from their desks. Laura Vecsey of the Patriot-News sniffled:

If the Bonusgate probe did what the Attorney General’s office said—that is, probed all four caucuses of the state legislature—how come Senate Republican computers were allegedly still storing campaign files?

And the Philadelphia Daily News' John Baer mused:

I ask, since Corbett spent years investigating (he says) all four caucuses, why a fellow-Republican senator in leadership never shows up on his radar.

Why, indeed?

We don't yet know - and may never know - what documents or testimony led federal prosecutors to accuse former Senate Democratic Leader Bob Mellow of illegal campaign work. But we do know that one of two scenarios transpired:

1) Tom Corbett examined the same documents and testimony and chose, for unexplained reasons, not to indict anyone connected with the Senate.

2) Tom Corbett never examined any documents or testimony related to either Senate caucus.

Once again we return to the age-old question: is Tom Corbett corrupt, or simply the worst prosecutor in the history of jurisprudence?

We know that an intern actually called Corbett's office to report illegal campaign work going on in the Senate, but Corbett's office blew her off.

At that point, Corbett's alleged investigation of all four caucuses had been going on for more than two years.

Though the Senate GOP claimed to have turned over "tens of thousands" of documents" to Corbett's office, not a single Senator or staffer was subpoenaed.

Yet, when county and federal prosecutors subpoenaed staffers in both caucuses, they apparently had plenty to say.

Even the most slavering Corbett sycophant now realizes that Corbett was lying when he claimed to have investigated the Senate, even as he squandered taxpayer resources going through the motions for sake of appearances.

From a practical standpoint, who can blame him for ignoring the Senate? He thought he had a nice, tidy campaign issue wrapped up with a bow when he indicted the long-deposed former Democratic House Whip and a handful of Democratic staff in 2008. But headache after headache followed when leaks revealed the holes in Corbett's case, and it turned out the voters expected at least a token show of nonpartisanship.

Corbett never had any intention of ferreting out corruption in the legislature. Remember, it was a disgruntled employee who first shed light on bonus payments, and activists and editorial writers who pushed Corbett to investigate. Corbett, whose most likely opponent for the Republican gubernatorial nomination was in the thick of a high-profile political corruption case, saw the opportunity for political gain, and nothing more.

The question is now whether the snowball he started rolling will roll right over him.

WHITHER EACHUS?

Remember Todd Eachus?

He became House Minority Leader in January 2009 after the original "Bonusgate" indictments shamed H. William DeWeese out of the post.

Although Eachus was overlooked in Gubernatorial Candidate Tom Corbett's original investigation, Corbett soon became embarrassed when evidence of Eachus' complicity was leaked to the media, and became became part of the official court record.

As part of the Corbett campaign's massive two-year attempt to cover his ass, Eachus was cordially invited to testify to a grand jury. Such invitations are regarded as a harbingers of impending indictment, and indeed, Eachus' fellow invitees, H. William DeWeese and Steve Stetler, were indicted.

Eachus was not, and we're still wondering what it means.

Possibilities include:

a) Corbett never intended to indict Eachus, who potentially was much more valuable to the future Governor as a grateful and indebted Democratic Leader than as a defendant, and the invitation to testify was a ruse intended to deflect questions about the the incriminating evidence Corbett never intended to reveal.

b) Corbett did intend to indict Eachus, but someone or something deterred him.

Any guesses?

COWARDICE

H. William DeWeese has been convicted of some crimes, and escaped indictment on other, more serious crimes. But he'll never face trial for his greatest offense: his deep and abiding cowardice.

DeWeese took every opportunity to blame others for his own misdeeds. He wasn't just willing, but eager to see the careers and reputations of his colleagues and staffers destroyed in order to protect his own.

His response, when those staffers who devoted nights and weekends to DeWeese's own cause were arrested: "Obvious, buoyant joy and ebullience." It was, he said, "one of the best days of my f-ing life." Colleagues said, "He was like a kid on Christmas."

It's one thing to say, "I didn't do anything wrong." It's another to say, "I didn't do it; they did." He not only stood by while others were blamed for his own crimes, he did everything he could to make sure they were blamed. And then chortled with unbridled delight.

In the run-up to the Mike Veon trial, Veon's defense was mocked for pointing out that dozens of lawmakers and staffers engaged in the same activities as those for which Veon was arrested. His message was simply, "If what I did was criminal, why aren't all these others charged with crimes as well?" His question remains essentially unanswered.

DeWeese, on the other hand, was happy to stipulate that crimes had taken place, as long as he could blame others for them.

DeWeese is under the wildly misguided impression that his appeals will be resolved in time for him to take office next January, if he is reelected. We predict his faith in his eventual exoneration is so strong that he will refuse to resign after his sentencing in April, and that he expects an expulsion resolution to fail.

One thing we do expect, is when DeWeese eventually is forced from the House, his colleagues will send him off with accolades, applause, and a standing ovation on the House floor. And for that, they should be ashamed.

DeWEESE'S INCONSISTENCIES

Here's a puzzle:

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LET'S MAKE A DEAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

REQUIRED VIEWING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DEWEESE PREPARES FOR TRIAL

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

And, scene.

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOXES GUARDING THE HENHOUSE

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

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

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

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

What a surprise.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"BIG" SIMILARITIES

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


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


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


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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Just more politically-motivated hypocrisy from Corbett.