"IMMACULATE CORRUPTION"

"So the presentment says Brimmeier and six others broke the law to benefit legislative leaders and governor, but the legislative leaders and governor are not charged. Kane said that was because there was no evidence that showed those folks knew what was happening on their behalf." -- Capitolwire Bureau Chief Pete DeCoursey, "Turnpike probe results in alleged 'Immaculate Corruption," Capitolwire 3/13/13 (subscription required)

Could someone please run over to the offices of the Senate Republican leadership and check to see if the doors are marked with the blood of a spring lamb?

Decoursey  wonders why only one legislative leader was charged in a corruption scandal in which witnesses plainly testified that contracts went to campaign donors for former Governor Ed Rendell, ex-Sen. Vincent J. Fumo,  ex-Senate Majority Leader Robert Jubelirer and others.

The presentment is riddled with lists of contributions to Rendell and Senators #1, #2, #3, #4 and #6 - and those are only the contributions of those contractors whose records were examined.  Senators #1, #2, #3, #4 and #6 aren't charged - and who knows who else may have benefited from the pay-to-play scheme?

Attorney General Kathleen Kane and said no other elected officials were charged because investigators found no evidence of wrongdoing. We ask the same question we have asked before: did they look?

While the presentment is heavy on the testimony of Mellow's former Chief of Staff, there appears to be not a single reference to testimony from any Senate Republican staffers:

"A former Chief Operating Officer of the Turnpike explained, “the choice of who the - - which firms they are, as I said, typically, there was always a 60/40 rule, . . . that selection, depending on what year, and who the governor was, and who was on the State Senate, it would either come out of the Senate leadership or out of the Governor’s office.” In practice, the Senate provided direction to the Commission through their staff persons." 

Assuming that 60% of the contracts went to Democratic donors during the Rendell Administration - though Republicans had and retain a majority in the Senate - why is there no testimony about how 40% of the contracts were awarded? Why is the Democratic Chief of Staff the only legislative employee named in the presentment? Did any other staff member testify?

Throughout Tom Corbett's politically-motivated investigation of illegal campaign work among the General Assembly, his failure to charge certain suspicious officials consistently was glossed over with the pseudo-excuse that the Grand Jury found no evidence of their culpability.

That's because no one brought it to them. Not a single Senate Republican staffer was subpoenaed to testify in that case.

In 2008, prosecutors at least made a (hilarious and clumsy) attempt to justify why no charges were filed against Bill DeWeese regarding the use of a state-paid contractor for purely political work, despite emails from DeWeese and his top aides Tom Andrews and Kevin Sidella blatantly directing the state-paid contractor to perform purely political work: DeWeese had used his campaign email account, and not his official House account, to misappropriate the taxpayers' money (we told you it was hilarious and clumsy).

Not even a token effort was made in the Turnpike investigation explain why no Senate Republicans were charged in a scheme which was directed in part by Senate Republicans and clearly benefited Senate Republicans.

Senior Deputy Attorney General Laurel Brandstetter - who began the investigation under then-AG Corbett just prior to the launch of his gubernatorial campaign - and who prosecuted the politically-motivated B.I.G. case against Mike Veon - appears to have given Corbett's friends and supporters a pass yet again.

As DeCoursey wrote:

"If you say, as this presentment does, that governors and senators created a climate of corruption at the Turnpike commission, how is it that Kane admitted to having no proof or insufficient proof to name any of them but Mellow?

I guess it is appropriate that on the day the new Pope was named we have the miracle of a presentment that outlines an entire culture of corruption where the middlemen are named and charged with crimes but the folks they were allegedly obeying while doing the crimes, are neither named nor charged.

Up until now, especially in Pennsylvania, I had never heard of Immaculate Corruption."

WE DIDN'T FIND ANYTHING

"We didn't find anything," is not an excuse for never looking.

That hasn't stopped Tom Corbett from offering it as an excuse for not one, but two colossal blunders: his failure to indict any Senate Republicans during his wide-ranging investigation of the General Assembly, and his failure to indict Jerry Sandusky for nearly three years.

Whenever he has been confronted with the staggering length of time between receiving the first Sandusky complaint in March 2009 and arresting Sandusky in November 2011, Corbett's stock excuse has been, "We needed to find more victims."

But Team Corbett never found another victim through its own efforts. Of the eight victims whose cases were prosecuted, none was discovered by an investigator. Victims 1 and 6, or their mothers, approached investigators on their own initiative. Victims 3, 4, 5, and 7 were identified by the mother of Victim 6. Victims 2 and 8 were not identified before the trial. 

It's of course a lie that Corbett couldn't proceed on the complaint of one victim - he did it often when he was Attorney General. But even if you accept that he needed more than one victim to proceed, it doesn't explain what on God's green earth he was doing with the case for nearly two long years.

And even though the first "big break" in the case finally came right after the gubernatorial election in November of 2010 (through no efforts of the Attorney General's office) the lead (and for a long time, sole) investigator (a narcotics agent, not a child predator expert) says, "I never asked for help until 2011."  

Corbett, by then,  already was safely ensconced in the Governor's Office.

The "we didn't find anything" excuse is even lamer in the case of the Senate Republicans, because we know that a whistleblower tried to give Corbett evidence on former Sen. Jane Orie, and Corbett's office turned her away.  After some initial scrambling, Corbett settled on the story that a receptionist in his office told the whistleblower to call the Allegheny County D.A.'s office. Not only are we expected to believe that a receptionist is the one who makes the decisions about which cases the state Attorney General's office will and won't investigate, but this whopper followed months of Corbett faux-begging the public to call his office to report suspected the legislative wrongdoing his investigators just could not seem to find:

"People have to come forward. We need evidence. If people have evidence, pick up the phone and call. Come and see my agents." -- Corbett in the Patriot-News in February of 2008

 "As we obtain additional information, we always consider other charges against other individuals. And, that being the case, I would suggest to you, Larry, if you do have that information you forward it to the Office of Attorney General ... I can get very tired when I hear these people complain about that we haven’t charged other individuals if they have information and they haven’t passed it along. So, I’m going to urge you, Larry, to pass that information along.” -- Corbett on PCN in January 2009.

Furthermore, Corbett allegedly  subpoenaed the Senate Republicans for the very evidence that the Allegheny County D.A.'s office used to indict Orie  in February of 2008.  Yet there it remained, on the Senate R servers, until the spring of 2009.

On top of the Orie fiasco, Senate Rs awarded the largest bonuses in the General Assembly to employees who did campaign work:

• $22,500 to Mike Long, former top aide to then-Senate President Pro Tempore Robert Jubelirer. 

• $19,647 to Drew Crompton, then a top lawyer on Jubelirer's staff.

•  $15,000 to Erik Arneson, former chief of staff to then-Senate Majority Leader David Brightbill.

Despite all this staring him in the face, Corbett never subpoenaed a single Senate R member or staffer. 

And he still thinks the question is whether he found any evidence on either the Senate Rs or Sandusky? The question is why didn't he look.

CAN'T FIND WHAT YOU'RE NOT LOOKING FOR

"If we’d found anything, we’d have prosecuted." -- Tom Corbett, during a Feb. 20 meeting with the Patriot-News editorial board, on his "mind-boggling" failure to prosecute any Senate Republicans during the apparently six-year-long investigation of the General Assembly (the grand jury still meets).

The problem is that there was something to find. We know, because Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen Zappala found it. And he didn't even have to look. Intern Jennifer Knapp Rioja called him up to tell him so.

Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin, sister of convicted former Senator Jane Orie, today was convicted of illegal campaigning as a direct result of a tip that Rioja tried to give to Tom Corbett, but was turned away.

Former Sen. Orie was convicted nearly a year ago of the very same type of illegal campaign work for which Corbett prosecuted House Democrats and (belatedly) House Republicans. Evidence of her crimes was stored on Senate Republican hard drives until late spring of 2009, a year after Corbett supposedly subpoenaed the Senate Republican caucus for evidence of illegal campaigning. Not a single Senate Republican member or staffer was subpoenaed to testify before Corbett's grand jury.

In 2008, when Corbett's widely-publicized investigation of the legislature was in full swing, a hacker-fearing Orie - knowing full well that evidence of illegal activity was stored there - asked Corbett's office to examine her computers.

Was a guilt-stricken Orie subconsciously trying to get caught? Or was she merely supremely confident she had nothing to fear from Corbett or his investigators?

The question, dear Governor, isn't whether you would've prosecuted if you'd "found anything." It's how you managed not to find what was staring you right in the face.

"OUR JOB WAS TO FIND THOSE KIDS"

“[W]e felt like we had no shot” winning in court with just a single victim testifying against Mr. Sandusky, who “walked on water” as an assistant for 31 years to the famous Penn State head coach, Joe Paterno.

So they looked for other victims. “You very rarely find a predator in those circumstances who only molested one kid,” said Mr. Feathers, now retired. “Our job was to find those kids.”  -- "Investigation to Focus on Governor’s Handling of Penn State Abuse Case,"  New York Times, 1/29/13

"Our job was to find those kids." But they didn't. Not one.

The now-retired narcotics agent assigned to manage the Jerry Sandusky child sexual abuse case never tracked down a victim. From March 2009 to December 2010 - for 21 long months - not a single victim was identified. 

It was journalist Sara Ganim who prompted the mother of Victim 6 to contact investigators in December 2010, and it was Victim 6's mother who identified Victims 3, 4, 5 and 7 using Sandusky's autobiography - apparently it hadn't occurred to investigators to read it, if they even were aware of its existence.

Victim 6 was the boy whose complaint against Sandusky was dismissed by Centre County District Attorney's office in 1998. But Corbett's investigative team (by then, all of two investigators) never found him. His mother found them - 21 months after they claim to have started looking.

Victim 2, the boy whom then-graduate assistant Mike McQueary saw in the shower with Sandusky in 2001, was not identified before the trial. An anonymous email tip to the Centre County D.A.'s office in November 2010 alerted investigators to the incident. Victim 2 has since contacted lawyers and intends to sue Penn State. (Note; media accounts differ on the date the Centre County D.A.'s office received this email. According to the Inquirer's account of Investigator Anthony Sassano's testimony, it was in 2010. According to Time magazine, it was 2008. Other accounts do not list the date. McQueary testified that he was interviewed by investigators in November of 2010.)

Victim 8, the boy whom Penn State janitor Jim Calhoun witnessed engaged in a sexual encounter with Sandusky in 2000, has never been identified.  Another janitor contacted investigators in March 2011 to report the incident.

Eight victims. None of whom was discovered by an investigator. Victims 1 and 6, or their mothers, approached investigators themselves. Victims 3, 4, 5, and 7 were identified by the mother of Victim 6. Victims 2 and 8 were not identified.

According to Not PSU's timeline of the case, based on news accounts, the Freeh report and Victim 1's book, Silent No More, Corbett's office learned of the 1998 investigation involving Victim 6 in June 2009. How is it possible investigators never contacted Victim 6's mother until she called them 18 months later?

It's a blatant lie that Corbett couldn't arrest Sandusky on the complaint of a single victim. Prosecutors, including Corbett, do it all the time. But if he's insisting that he needed to identify more victims, why didn't he try to find them? 

INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATORS FOR YOU, POLITICALLY-MOTIVATED HACKS FOR ME

We're baffled by Governor Tom Corbett's suggestion that incoming Attorney General Kathleen Kane use "outside counsel" to conduct her probe into Corbett's own bungling of the Jerry Sandusky case. (Times-Tribune, 1/11/13)

After all, Corbett has said the use of outside counsel to investigate fellow politicians is illegal. (York Daily Record, 7/22/08)

"It's obvious [he] doesn't understand the law," Corbett's spokesman and ex-political candidate Kevin Harley sneered when John Morganelli (and pretty much everyone else) suggested that Corbett appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the legislature.

For the record, we're also baffled why the Times-Tribune editorial board didn't ask Corbett about the contradiction.

But they're just following tradition. No one blinked when Attorney General candidate David Freed suggested that, if elected, he could assign the case against his father-in-law, Leroy Zimmerman, to a special prosecutor. (Patriot-News, 12/6/11)

Tell us, Kevin Harley, does anyone in Pennsylvania, even our Governor, understand the law?

THE REAL "GAZILLION-DOLLAR QUESTION"

 “From March 2009 through November 2011, did Sandusky molest any young boys who were unknown to prosecutors and weren‘t part of the trial? It seems unlikely given the international news focus on the Sandusky case and litigation by victims well under way.” ~~ Tom Corbett apologist Brad Bumsted,  “Now comes the Kane probe ...” Tribune-Review, Jan. 19, 2013

International news focus? Litigation by victims? Between March 2009 and November 2011?

 The Patriot-News was the first to report, on March 31, 2011, that “Penn State football legend Jerry Sandusky is the subject of a grand jury investigation into allegations that he indecently assaulted a teenage boy.”

The first civil litigation brought by a victim in the case was filed in November 2011, after Sandusky's arrest, by "John Doe A."

How, exactly, did international news focus and litigation by victims, which didn't happen until 2011, influence Sandusky's behavior in 2009 and  2010?

Tom Corbett is certainly no less guilty of leaving a door wide open if no one walked through it, but given what we know about the behavior of sexual offenders, what are the chances that a lifelong predator in his 60's, whose victims likely number in the hundreds, simply ... stopped ... for more than two years?  Especially given that the "international news focus and litigation by victims" that Bumsted imagines might have inhibited him would not occur for another two years? (does anyone proofread Bumsted's column?)

If only Corbett had had access to experts, who might know a little something about the behavior of sexual offenders. Experts, perhaps, like the members of Corbett's much-vaunted Child Predator Unit.

Whether Sandusky continued to molest children after Corbett received the first complaint is what Bumsted calls "the gazillion-dollar question." Given that Corbett is guilty of the same offense whether Sandusky did or didn't, we appraise that question at slightly less than a "gazillion" dollars and propose instead a more valuable one: Why was an investigative unit that Corbett created specifically to respond to accusations of child abuse not involved in investigating the most explosive allegation of child abuse in Corbett's entire tenure as Attorney General?

Unfortunately for Corbett and his media cheerleaders like Bumsted, the obvious answer to that question -- they were too busy scrambling to indict  the previously ignored John Perzel and Bill DeWeese before Corbett formally announced his gubernatorial campaign  -- leads to an even more inconvenient one:  Why was Corbett scrambling to indict House members in 2009 when he'd supposedly spent the previous two years investigating all four caucuses?

LET DEWEESE TAKE A DIFFERENT OATH

Newly-inaugurated Attorney General Kathleen Kane finally gets to embark upon her much-anticipated quest to learn why it took a mind-numbing three years for gubernatorial candidate Tom Corbett to arrest serial child rapist Jerry Sandusky. The first person she should put under oath is Bill DeWeese.

Until recently, DeWeese fully expected to be taking a different oath this month, to be sworn in for another term in the House of Representatives.  He’s since been forced to abandon the fantasy that he could win reelection from his prison cell and be absolved of his felony conviction through appeal in time to take office.

He’s so far remained mum on his role in the chain of events that left the Office of Attorney General too short-staffed to investigate Sandusky in 2009. He may still be under the delusion he has a political career left to protect.  But he holds the key that unlocks the mystery behind Corbett’s inaction on Sandusky.

It’s possible – even probable – that Corbett slow-walked the Sandusky investigation for fear of antagonizing Penn State's vast fan base, or to keep the river of campaign cash flowing from Second Mile board members and associates.

But it’s undeniable that what transpired between Corbett and DeWeese affected Corbett’s ability, if not his desire, to pursue the Sandusky case.  

After all, what was Corbett doing when he should have been investigating Sandusky? He was investigating DeWeese.  And why would he need to be investigating DeWeese then, when he'd spent the entire previous two years investigating House Democrats?

Remember, the Sandusky case landed on Corbett’s desk in March of 2009, when Corbett should have been basking in the glow of his politically-motivated indictments of House Democratic staffers, a disgraced former Democratic Whip and the Democratic candidate for a competitive Senate seat.

Instead, what happened in March of 2009 was the revelation that Corbett – for some reason – had ignored rock-solid evidence that DeWeese was complicit in awarding taxpayer-funded bonuses for political work. At the time, Corbett already was under fire for leaving House Republicans out of his two-year investigation of the legislature and was scrambling to build a case against John Perzel. The additional pressure to find a way to indict DeWeese resulted in “a shortage of investigators,” according to Randy Feathers, a narcotics agent who inexplicably headed up the most important child abuse investigation of Corbett’s tenure in the OAG.

In October, Corbett  appointed Feathers to the state Board of Probations and Parole. 

No one doubts that DeWeese was complicit in awarding bonuses for campaign work. Not only is the “U R welcome” email a smoking gun that not even Corbett could fail to recognize, but DeWeese essentially admitted his guilt by “taking the Fifth” and refusing to testify at Mike Veon’s trial. Yet no one has explained why DeWeese never was charged in connection with  bonuses, even after Corbett spent most of 2009 investigating him instead of Sandusky. Does the answer lie in the 2007 negotiation between DeWeese and Corbett,  that resulted in DeWeese dropping his legal challenges to the probe and turning over evidence intended to incriminate others? If Corbett hadn’t struck a deal with DeWeese on bonus charges in 2007, would Corbett have had to spend most of 2009 looking for something else on which to indict DeWeese?

And if he hadn’t had to do that, could he - would he? - have gone after Sandusky the way most Pennsylvanians believe he should have?

A JUNIOR MEMBER OF THE MINORITY PARTY CAUCUS?

State Representative Jesse White is under fire for recently revealed email exchanges with Range Resources, a company extracting natural gas from the portion of the Marcellus Shale formation underneath his district.  The gas company released the emails in an effort to portray White as a craven politician forcing favors like Super Bowl perks and campaign contributions in exchange for support for Range Resources and the gas industry in general. (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 11/15/12)

Perhaps that is the case.  The emails exist.  Contributions were solicited.  Policy positions were staked out.  Votes were cast.  More votes are to come.

On the other hand, it can be argued just as easily that Range Resources is simply trying to discredit a state official who had the temerity to change his mind.  White appears to have gone from an ally of the industry to an increasingly vocal skeptic.  Once he crossed the line from being helpful to antagonistic, Range Resources sent a not too subtle message to other legislative allies to think twice about changing their minds (and votes) about the natural gas industry in Pennsylvania.

We think Range Resource's smear campaign is at least as interesting a story as that of a state legislator soliciting funds from an industry with business before the legislature.  As damnable as White's emails may appear, do they surprise anyone?  What is more troubling is that other legislators who may be inclined to change their minds (and votes) about natural gas drilling will be too afraid of a potential public relations jihad launched against them from the wealthy natural gas industry.

With that said, it isn't CasablancaPa's raison d'etre to defend one side over the other.  White may have crossed the line.  Range Resources may be engaged in a massive, collective blackmail of the Pennsylvania state legislature.  What interests us is the potential for yet another hypocritical investigation that could erupt from Range Resource's campaign against White.

State Representatives Stan Saylor and Brian Ellis, both members of the GOP House Leadership team, are calling for a criminal investigation of White:

"'I'm appalled,' said Majority Whip Stan Saylor, a York County Republican, who cited one email in particular in which White appeared to link fundraising and legislation.  'I think this calls for a criminal investigation.'...'We have an attorney general coming in with guns blazing, and maybe it is something she would look at," said Rep. Brian Ellis, R-Butler County." (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review 11/22/12)

Saylor and Ellis are calling for an investigation because Range Resources released emails and documents related to a single legislator. We wonder how urgently Saylor and Ellis would be calling for a criminal investigation if it meant the Office of Attorney General would subpoena not just White's office, but every legislator and every natural gas company for emails and documents (and testimony from staff) related to campaign fundraising and their positions on legislation affecting the natural gas industry.

Are Saylor and Ellis (and their political and state House staff) willing to answer subpoenas or testify under oath before a grand jury about the thousands of dollars they've taken from the Range Resources and the votes Range Resources has asked them to make?  It's highly unlikely that a Range Resources lobbyist hasn't visited their offices or sent them letters or emails on some date very close to a vote they've made on natural gas industry legislation.  Neither man has been shy about taking thousands of dollars from Range Resources since the company formed a PAC in 2009. (Range Resources Campaign Finance Reports)

If there is a criminal investigation, it must be comprehensive, including the most powerful faction in the legislature - the Senate Republican caucus.  Not only has its leader, Senator Joe Scarnati, accepted a free Super Bowl trip from the gas industry (or at least it would have been free if bad publicity hadn't forced him to pay full freight), but between his personal and Republican State Senate Campaign Committee accounts he has accepted campaign contributions from the gas industry - including Range Resources - that dwarf those to White. (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 2/14/11)

Furthermore, an investigation should target Governor Tom Corbett's fundraising operation and his policy positions.  Shouldn't the tens of thousands Range Resources has contributed to Corbett raise eyebrows as high as the $10,000 given to White does?(Campaign Finance Reporters - Range Resources to Corbett)  Especially given Corbett's refusal to tax the natural gas industry and giving the state authority to override local zoning laws when it comes to drilling?  Will  Corbett's campaign fundraisers and policy staff receive subpoenas?

We aren't holding out hope.  A very clear precedent has been set on how Pennsylvania's elected officials are investigated, and Saylor alluded to it in his call for an investigation of White:

"White's emails are reminiscent of recent scandals that rocked the legislature, Saylor said, referring to eight former House and Senate leaders from both parties convicted of public corruption.  Email evidence was key to several of the investigations, guilty pleas and trials.  Even if White did nothing illegal, his actions leave an impression that reaffirms the public's view that 'we are all a bunch of slimeballs,' Saylor said." (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review 11/22/12)

That's right.  Any investigation of White likely will mirror the Bonusgate investigation - only a select few will be scrutinized while the vast majority of the legislature will be let off the hook.  Corbett's own grand jury said as much about Bonusgate in the report it issued regarding members of the legislature using taxpayer resources for political campaigns:

"An interesting item in the report noted that while 25 legislative staffers and lawmakers were indicted in connection with Corbett's probe of the General Assembly, 'hundreds of legislative employees who, although paid by taxpayer dollars to do legislative work, do campaign work on state time.'  The numbers seem to bolster claims that selected legislative staffers who did campaign work on the taxpayers' dime have been indicted.  'It struck me that the grand jury was sending a message to the attorney general that 'We're not really happy because everyone does this and why are you picking these people?' [PA ACLU Executive Director] Walczak said." (Patriot News 5/25/10)

If there is an investigation of the relationship between campaign contributions and natural gas industry legislation, it should include the state government players who hold the power over legislative calendars and wield a veto pen.

Subpoenas should be issued for not only emails but for the testimony of campaign staff, legislators, legislative staff, and lobbyists regarding their communications dealing with campaign donations, legislative votes and activity.

Range Resources released emails that may put the cross-hairs on White.  He may have crossed a line, and  an investigation may be warranted. But Range Resources has chosen to single out White, a critic.

Range Resources should be forced to answer subpoenas regarding all its dealings with every government official it supports financially.  Every legislator who took campaign contributions, along with his or her staff, should answer subpoenas about their dealings with the company.  How can anyone pretend to justify an investigation of targeting only State Representative Jesse White, junior member of the minority party caucus?

WE'VE HEARD THIS BEFORE

Governor Tom Corbett seems to be unraveling a bit, and in a quite familiar way.

The former Attorney General of Pennsylvania's vigorous denial of slow-walking the Jerry Sandusky investigation and welcoming of Attorney General-elelct Kathleen Kane's investigation is quite similar to a very well-known proclamation from another prominent politician.




Here's Philadelphia Inquirer reporter Angela Couloumbis' report on remarks Corbett made yesterday:

"'But for a true investigation, there has to be some criminal act.  I know I didn't commit any criminal act.  None. Zero.'[said Corbett]...Corbett then launched into another impassioned defense of his handling of the Sandusky probe, saying he never asked anyone to slow it down - nor did anyone ask him to do so - for political or other reasons." (Inquirer 11/10/12)

Here's the Patriot News' Charlie Thompson's report on the "impassioned defense" Corbett then "launched":

"There is no communication from to anybody to slow down an investigation.  There is no communication from anyone to me that they were going to slow down for any political reason, and I wouldn't want them to." (Patriot News 11/9/12)

The Sandusky investigation took way too long.  Riots following the firing of Penn State Football Coach Joe Paterno illustrated the political risks then-gubernatorial candidate Corbett faced in bringing charges before the 2010 election.  Is it a coincidence?

Maybe not, and if not a political calculation on Corbett's part, then the 33-month investigation to take a child sexual predator off the street must be chalked up to extreme incompetence.  Either way, Kane has strong, credible reasons to investigate how Corbett and his deputies conducted the investigation of Sandusky.

TOM CORBETT THINKS YOU'RE AN IDIOT

"I know Linda Kelly very, very well.  She doesn't do anything political." - Governor Tom Corbett (WHTM 11/2/08)

Sure ... unless you count her more than $9,000 in contributions to Corbett's political campaigns. (PA Department of State Campaign Finance Records)

... unless you count her politically-motivated defense of Pennsylvania's overtly partisan Voter ID law. (Patriot-News, 9/9/12)

... unless you count the politically-motivated legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act. (Patriot-News, 6/28/12)

... unless you count absolving the Senate Republicans in the Bonusgate investigation who gave some of the largest bonuses to staffers who worked on political campaigns - a move that even some GOP State Senators believe was politically motivated. (Tribune-Review 7/12/12)

Speaking of Bonusgate:

"Back in the Bonusgate investigation, the attorneys said pretty much the same thing: it's politically motivated." - Governor Tom Corbett (WHTM 11/2/08)

You know who else said pretty much the same thing? Governor Tom Corbett. He scoffs when others label an investigation politically-motivated, but he was the first to cry "playing politics" when the investigative eye turns on him:

"This [the call for Federal investigation of Sandusky investigation] is all politics being played by the other party." (Patriot-News 10/25/12)

Why does Tom Corbett say such ridiculous things? Because he gets away with it. 

ONLY AN INVESTIGATION WILL SORT THIS MESS OUT

Is there anyone out there who doesn't believe Governor Tom Corbett should be investigated over his conduct  in the tardy Jerry Sandusky investigation?

If so, then today provides even more rationale for a probe of then-Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Corbett's lack of action that allowed a violent child-predator to walk the street for years after his heinous crimes came to light.

Agent Randy Feathers tells the Patriot News today that:

"'Anyone who sat through that trial knows it was a thorough investigation,' he said.  'I don't care what it looks like.  I know because I was there.  There was no holding back.'" (Patriot News 11/1/2012)

Yet, just hours later at the news conference to announce charges against former Penn State University President Graham Spanier, a reporter paraphrased State Police Commissioner Frank Noonan regarding why only one state trooper was assigned to the investigation for more than a year:

"Noonan:  does not wish, in hindsight, for more personnel.  'there would have been nothing for them to do.'" (Ganim Tweet 11/1/2012)

Well, what was it? Was it the no-holds barred, aggressive, turn-over-every-stone, pursuit of a dangerous sex offender that Feathers described?  Or, the leisurely investigation Noonan describes where only one trooper was enough?

It's tough to tell, given even Feathers contradicts himself nearly in the same breath:

"'I didn't want a whole lot of investigators on this case,' he continued.  'You don't want 20 different investigators going after a bunch of kids.  You want to keep it as small as possible.'" (Patriot News 11/1/2012)

No holding back or keeping it as small as possible?  Which was it?

Furthermore, it is becoming murky now as to who was actually calling the shots.  Feathers clearly is fall guy Corbett will use if an investigation is initiated in 2013.  Here is Feathers taking responsibility for the assignment of a single trooper to the Sandusky case:

"Feathers also says he, not Corbett, made the decision to limit personnel on the case until January 2011.  Until then, there was one state police trooper working with his supervisor, plus an agent working under Feathers.  Feathers was supervising a unit out of Altoona and also worked on the case himself.  'I was asked weekly if I had enough personnel,' Feathers said.  'I never asked for help until 2011 when we had more subpoenas and more evidence.  Then, I got eight more troopers and four more agents.  If anyone wants to criticize, I'm the one to criticize because I made that decision weekly." (Patriot News 11/1/2012)

But, in Victim #1's book, the brave young man and his psychologist make it clear that at every turn they were told it was then-Attorney General Tom Corbett who was the final authority on all things Sandusky:

"Gillum writes about conversations with [Senior Deputy Attorney General] Jonelle Eshbach, and how she kept promising that an arrest would come - first in March 2010, then in the summer of that year, and continuously until it finally happened in November 2011.  Each time, Gillum writes that Eshbach wouldn't give a straight answer for a delay, but instead says that her 'hands were tied' or that her boss, Corbett, makes all the final decisions." (Patriot News 10/25/2012)

Under oath, will Eshbach stick with her original story, or shift to Feathers' newly found sense of responsibility?

Perhaps the most telling bit of information is the biggest "no-shit-sherlock" statement out of the Office of Attorney General up to this point.  Again, here is a reporter's paraphrase via tweet from today's Spanier news conference:

"Grand jury process was much more effective after the Nov. 5 charges [against Sandusky] were filed last year." (Ganim tweet 11/1/2012)

Of course the investigation got easier and more victims came forward...Sandusky was "off the street" and under supervision.  Very vulnerable victims for the first time could finally feel safe to step forward and know they were not alone...as with all similar investigations.

Was the investigation aggressive and robust or slow and incremental?  Was Feathers calling the critical shots or did the buck stop with Corbett?  And, how was the OAG so daft not to understand a quick arrest of Sandusky would make the investigation go so much more smoothly?

Only an investigation in 2013 will sort this mess out.

"INSIDERS WALK" ... RIGHT INTO THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE

Committee for Justice & Fairness, the political action committee of the Democratic Attorneys General Association, has raised Republican hackles with a new ad pointing out that candidate David Freed defended Tom Corbett's inexcusably lengthy investigation of serial child rapist Jerry Sandusky.

It also inadvertently shines a light on a forgotten chapter in the career of contentious Corbett spokesman Kevin Harley

The ad begins, "When David Freed refused to prosecute campaign violations, one of  Harrisburg's most corrupt politicians walked."  It accuses Freed of "letting insiders escape accountability."

The campaign violations Freed refused to prosecute are the anonymous "robocalls" former House Speaker John Perzel unleashed against fellow Republicans in 2008. Freed said he would investigate, but never followed through. Perzel "walked," but he didn't get far, as Corbett later incorporated those charges into his 2009 indictment of Perzel. (Capitolwire 12/21/08)

Another "insider" who "walked" on identical charges - using the very same crooked consultant as Perzel - was Kevin Harley.

In 2000, Harley was one of five candidates in the Republican primary for the 37th House District in Lancaster County. On the eve of the election, the district was blanketed with illegal, anonymous robocalls targeting two of Harley's rivals.

Just like Perzel, Harley refused to take responsibility for the calls.  Harley claimed his campaign consultant, Don Raymond, "took it upon himself," to order the calls, and Raymond's lawyer issued an apology on his behalf. (Lancaster New Era 4/14/00 & Intelligencer-Journal 4/27/00)

Just as in the Perzel case, the local district attorney initiated an investigation, and just as in the Perzel case,  he dropped it without filing any charges. (Lancaster New Era 5/13/00 & 5/25/00)

In the aftermath of Raymond's "apology," Intelligencer-Journal columnist Jeff Hawkes wondered, "Does he think he'll work again as a political consultant? What candidate is going to hire a consultant that can't be trusted to consult with the candidate?" (Lancaster Intelligencer-Journal 4/27/00)

Raymond was named executive director of the House Republican Campaign Committee before the ink was dry on his "apology" and he maintained his prosperous relationship with House Republicans right on through the Perzel robocall scheme that now dogs Freed.

Hawkes admitted, "Boy, was I naive."

The editorial board of the Intelligencer-Journal was not, so much:

"Before everyone believes the only explanation given -- that a political consultant, acting on his own initiative and without a candidate's knowledge, initiated 2,800 smear calls at great expense -- some people might want to ask a few more questions. Among them:

'Even if the courts eventually threw out this case, wouldn't it be worth presenting it simply to determine all facts? Right now, ideas vary about who is ultimately responsible for this dirty deed. Are some innocent people still being smeared?

'Within weeks of the election, why has Don Raymond landed a top political job working for House Republicans?

Raymond served as political consultant for losing candidate Kevin Harley and has taken full responsibility for ordering the calls and has apologized for them through his attorney. But some people believe a consultant does not do such things without authorization.

Some people might think that a consultant who could initiate these negative calls all by himself could not be trusted to work responsibly as executive director of the House Republican Committee, a campaign oversight and coordinating group.

Some people might even think that Raymond received this plum job in exchange for falling on his sword and protecting others in relation to the smear campaign." (Lancaster Intelligencer-Journal 5/31/00)

NOTHING TO SEE HERE

It started with a clandestine deal to build a politically-motivated criminal case against Democrats, who'd recently taken the majority in the House. It led to a three-year delay in taking a child rapist off the street. And House Republicans appear willing to go down with the ship to protect their captain's secrets.

Yesterday, Rep. Tim Briggs attempted to use a parliamentary maneuver to force the House to vote on a resolution calling for a review of Tom Corbett's shockingly lengthy investigation of child rapist Jerry Sandusky.  Rather than follow procedure and debate HR 520, which Republicans have kept bottled up in committee for nearly a year, Speaker Sam Smith abruptly shut down proceedings and House Republicans fled the chamber.   

Now with a solid majority in the House, Republicans have more than enough votes to defeat the resolution and maintain their wall of silence on the politics behind Corbett's inexcusable delay.
But despite trotting out their spokesman to make their lame excuses, Republicans don't have the courage of their purported conviction.  If HR 520 is bad policy, as their spokesman claims, why not simply vote it down and move on?

Because Pennsylvanians overwhelmingly disapprove of the way Corbett handled the Sandusky case, and they desperately want answers to the questions behind the years-long delay.

The conundrum House Republicans now face is how to protect their party's leader from scrutiny that would reveal Corbett's shockingly self-serving and callous motivation for putting the investigation of a child rapist on the back burner, while still protecting themselves from consequences of an unpopular vote.

But, as the song goes: if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.  A vote to kill the resolution probably would've made House Republicans appear slightly less ridiculous than fleeing the chamber in terror did.

In March 2009, when the original Sandusky complaint landed on Corbett's desk, the Office of Attorney General was reeling from the public revelation of a "smoking gun" email implicating House Democratic Leader Bill DeWeese in awarding taxpayer-funded bonuses for campaign work.

Any examination of Corbett's actions at that point in history would inevitably lead to the reason why DeWeese had not been charged in the "Bonusgate" scandal - a shady "negotiation" between Corbett and DeWeese that resulted in DeWeese turning over thousands of documents and e-mails to implicate others while abandoning a legal crusade to quash subpoenas and exclude evidence in the case. DeWeese previously had vowed to fight "all the way to the Supreme Court" and the legal wrangling could've taken a year or more.

In 2007, Corbett made a political decision to spare DeWeese in the "Bonusgate" investigation so he could make a splashy indictment in time for the 2008 elections.  In 2009, Corbett made a political decision to pursue DeWeese - instead of Sandusky - so he could make a splashy indictment in time for the 2010 election.

As a result of those political decisions, a child rapist remained on the street for years. Whether Corbett ever has to face the consequences of his craven self-dealing depends in part upon the willingness of House Republicans to continue to act as human shields.

YOU CANNOT ARGUE WITH A CONVICTION RATE

"The jury verdict is a vindication of the thoroughness of that investigation. 45 of 48 counts cannot be argued with." Kevin Harley, spokesman for Governor Tom Corbett, Scranton Times-Tribune, 9/27/12

As criticism mounts of the creeping pace of Tom Corbett's nearly 3-year investigation of child rapist Jerry Sandusky, Corbett's go-to defense is that Sandusky was convicted on nearly all 48 counts.

According to Corbett, this fact alone justifies the investigation's many, many flaws.

As Attorney General Candidate Kathleen Kane points out, there's no reason to believe Sandusky wouldn't have been convicted on most - or all - counts if the case had been brought years earlier. How the investigation was served by waiting nearly two years even to begin interviewing witnesses is unclear.

But if a conviction rate alone is proof of an unimpeachible criminal investigation, what then should we infer from the fact that defendants affiliated with the House Democratic Caucus who went to trial were acquitted of 117 of the combined 139 charges against them?

If Corbett thinks conviction on a majority of charges means an investigation was pure and ethical, what does he think acquittal on a majority of charges means?

We don't need the dismal conviction rate to know the investigation of Mike Veon and a crew of staffers was flawed, starting with the fact that the Leader of the House Democratic Caucus, H. William DeWeese, was permitted to pick and choose what evidence to turn over to Corbett.

DeWeese himself was not charged in connection with any of the evidence he turned over, nor were his top aides Tom Andrews and Kevin Sidella, despite the fact that emails in the case directly implicated them.

Virtually every witness in the case against Team Veon was represented by a lawyer hired and paid by Caucus Leader DeWeese. The very prosecutor who carried out Corbett's case against Veon acknowledged - in another case - that such an arrangement represented a conflict of interest "because the lawyers ... were being paid by the [institution] while advising potential witnesses whose testimony could hurt the [institution] and its leaders."

"You don't have to stretch your imagination to see the chilling effect that will have," the prosecutor said.

The witnesses' lawyers in the case against Team Veon were being paid by the Caucus while advising potential witnesses whose testimony could hurt the Caucus and its leaders. But Corbett wasn't concerned about any "chilling effect" on the witnesses in that case, because he'd already decided not to charge DeWeese before even examining the evidence (that DeWeese himself had personally selected) or hearing from those witnesses (who were counseled by lawyers hired and paid by DeWeese).

That decision to spare DeWeese would, of course, come back to haunt Corbett in 2009 when a "smoking gun" email surfaced, in which DeWeese acknowledged awarding taxpayer-funded bonuses in exchange for campaign work. That revelation was followed by a wider examination of an abundance of evidence implicating DeWeese and his aides.

His scheme to spare DeWeese now exposed, Corbett became desperate to build a separate case against DeWeese as a distraction.

Corbett already was facing accusations of partisanship, having charged only Democrats in his signature corruption case, and was on an equally desperate mission to build a case against deposed Republican Speaker of the House John Perzel.

Corbett had to bring both indictments by the end of 2009, or "he risks being accused of using [the investigation] to launch what many expect will be a gubernatorial bid in 2010," according to the Patriot-News.

It was precisely when DeWeese's "U R welcome" email surfaced, in March 2009, that the Sandusky complaint landed on Corbett's desk. Faced with a choice of trying to salvage his politically-motivated legislative investigation in politically-expedient time, or taking a serial child rapist off the street, Corbett chose politics over protecting children.

Kane says she will review Corbett's Sandusky investigation, precisely to determine where Corbett went wrong.