By Chris Freind
In a speech before the world’s press, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett said, “We must keep in mind that when it comes to the safety of children, there can be no margin for error, no hesitation to act.” It was the same authoritative tone he took when chastising Joe Paterno for not doing more to stop Jerry Sandusky.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
It is Tom Corbett himself who is most guilty of hesitating. Hesitating to appropriately staff the Sandusky investigation, and hesitating for years to make an arrest – both of which may have jeopardized the safety of children. That hesitation, and the stonewalling that Corbett has now employed, has created an intense firestorm around the governor.
Given the unprecedented nature of the Penn State scandal, this issue is not going away. In fact, if Corbett doesn’t come forward with answers, it promises to be the Number One issue in his 2014 re-election campaign.
Last week, the Governor responded to Freindly Fire’s Open Letter, which had requested specifics on key issues. But rather than answering any questions, the Corbett response raised even more red flags.
The Corbett response stated, “Grand juries take time. Evidence in decades-old molestations must be reassembled. A moral certainty of conviction must be reached … Where does Mr. Freind think that decade’s worth of evidence came from? It had to be gathered, reluctant witness-by-reluctant witness, with accompanying corroborating evidence.”
Absolutely correct – and precisely Freindly Fire’s point. Corbett is admitting that this high-profile case required a tremendous amount of work. So why were so few investigating it?
Here’s the bottom line. The Sandusky investigation took three years, was reportedly staffed by a single investigator at the outset, and later spearheaded by two narcotics agents, neither of whom had any experience in child molestation cases. Compare to this to the army of investigators Corbett used in the Bonusgate political corruption probe, including, sources say, agents from child predator units.
Given those facts, it seems logical that there can be only one of two explanations:
1. Politics
It doesn’t take a genius to know that sullying the reputation of the state’s largest university and taking down its legendary football coach would be a monumental challenge to any candidate running for governor. This would have been particularly true in Corbett’s case, given that his opponent, Dan Onorato, was a Penn State alumnus.
And the might of Penn State’s massive alumni network was just illustrated, where 76,000 alumni donated much of the $208 million the university raised this year.
So was the understaffed investigation dragged out in such a fashion that the arrests were not made until after the 2010 gubernatorial election?
2. Priorities
Or was the Sandusky case mishandled because Tom Corbett did not prioritize catching child predators?
If politics played no role, then Tom Corbett clearly prioritized corrupt politicians, who we will always have, over taking a serial child rapist off the street. One can only wonder how many more victims Sandusky molested while he was under investigation.
There are a number of quotes, some by Corbett himself, that are quite telling.
Randy Feathers, the head of the Attorney General’s Bureau of Narcotics Office in State College who eventually headed the investigation, stated, “During the Bonusgate investigation, we had a shortage of investigators in Harrisburg.” (Altoona Mirror, June 24, 2012)
Corbett was obviously proud of the fact that he pulled no one from Bonusgate, stating, “We used a completely different unit from Bonusgate … (the agents working the Sandusky case) were pure narcotic investigators from up in that region.” (Corbett press conferences, July 12, 2012, and July 14, 2012).
And Corbett admitted worrying that Sandusky could still be victimizing boys during the lengthy investigation, stating, “It was a calculated risk.” (CBS Philadelphia/KYW New Radio, June 26, 2012)
So Corbett knew of the risk, and yet decided that investigating a child-victimizing monster was worthy of only two investigators.
What’s even more telling is the fact that, upon Corbett becoming governor, he immediately ordered state police resources to the case. Why wasn’t that done before? So again, the question has to be asked whether Corbett, as attorney general, ever requested additional assistance from then-Gov. Ed Rendell, himself a highly respected former prosecutor. It’s not a trick question, and only requires a Yes or No answer.
And did Corbett ask the Feds for assistance, especially if additional state police resources were denied by Rendell and no one could be pulled from Bonusgate?
If the answers are in the negative, as they appear to be, what were Corbett’s motives in choosing to stay with such a bare-boned investigative staff?
♦
No one has suggested that Sandusky should have been arrested before evidence was gathered. Common sense dictated that at least two or three solid cases be assembled before an arrest was made, and numerous prosecutors with no ax to grind have stated that strategy would have been a viable one.
But, as has been stated in the media, Corbett waited to have at least 10 cases before making an arrest, which just boggles the mind.
Once several victims were identified and an arrest was made, with the spotlight on Sandusky, more witnesses would come forward. More importantly, Sandusky would have been closely watched and children would have been safe. But that didn’t happen.
Instead, a predator was given three more years to victimize his prey.
No wonder the governor doesn’t want to answer questions.
So the stonewalling continues. There are still no answers as to why Bonusgate investigators were not ordered to work the Sandusky case, and why, sources say, Attorney General agents, including those in child predator units, were pulled from other cases to assist with that corruption probe.
♦
Gov. Corbett also failed to answer the Open Letter’s other questions, including why he did not consider it a conflict of interest to serve on the Penn State Board of Trustees while simultaneously investigating it, and why he approved the $3 million taxpayer grant to Sandusky’s charity, The Second Mile, when he could have simply done nothing or vetoed it without raising one eyebrow.
The latter is particularly compelling since $640,000 in campaign contributions were made from Second Mile board members and affiliates to Corbett’s Attorney General and gubernatorial races.
♦
The Open Letter received an astounding response from across the political spectrum. It was Facebooked and Tweeted thousands of times, published in media outlets and websites across the nation, and was the hottest topic on talk radio, with Freindly Fire discussing it from coast to coast. Most telling is that 99.9 percent of that dialogue had one common theme: why was there so much hesitation to act by Attorney General Corbett?
Rather than invoking “space aliens,” as he did in his response, Gov. Corbett would be better served by coming clean with the only thing that matters: the truth.
There is no such thing as “fair and balanced.” There is only truth and accuracy. It is time for Tom Corbett to tell the whole truth – accurately – regarding the very troubling Jerry Sandusky investigation.
The best place to start? Answer the questions. And the truth shall set you free.
Corbett’s Response On Sandusky Fails To Answer Questions
Like this:
Like Loading...
