The Attempt To Rehabilitate Penn State

Penn State and Pittsburgh Steeler legend Franco Harris has launched a crusade to rehabilitate his former coach Joe Paterno, who was left stained by the Jerry Sandusky scandal, along with the school itself.

He is the front for a group of 15,000 PSU alumni called Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship who say the guilty party is not Penn State but Sandusky’s charity, The Second Mile; State College police;  Centre County Children and Youth Services; and the state Department of Public Welfare.

Well, the group has a point. It is about time that someone started making noise about  the lack of an investigation by the appropriate authorities — including missing D.A. Ray Gricar — into the 1998 report of a molestation by Sandusky.  And while JoePa was certainly no hero, he is not a villain  either, and it is quite inappropriate to make him the face of the tragedy. Why would one be upset about an aging football coach’s failure to investigate when those charged to do investigations failed to investigate, especially considering that Paterno did pass on the report of the crime?

Penn State’s institutional role, however, can’t be ignored. School administrators all the way up to former  President Graham Spanier covered up Sandusky’s crimes and the The Second Mile was certainly well-connected with PSU.

Even more damningly Spainer appears to have pointedly ignored at least one other accusation of child molestation involving a school celebrity — namely special education teacher John T. Neisworth.

Still, we are glad Franco’s group is stirring the pot and shining the light on the ignored heart of the scandal. Something really stinks in Happy Valley.



The Attempt To Rehabilitate Penn State

Corbett’s Penn State Folly: Suing NCAA Will Not Save Him

July of 2012 was notable for several reasons: the hottest month on record, both parties gearing up for the presidential campaign, and the voluntarily acceptance of harsh NCAA sanctions by the Penn State Board of Trustees, which includes Governor Tom Corbett.
A half -year later, all have evolved predictably: it’s cold, the President won, and Corbett has flip-flopped in an ill-fated attempt to bolster his image in the PSU/Jerry Sandusky scandal. The Tom and Jerry Show — a tragic comedy — just keeps getting better.
In a nakedly obvious political calculation, Corbett has reversed himself on the penalties, and is now suing the NCAA for “overreaching and unlawful sanctions.”
Wow. What a change of heart, since it was only last July when he stated, “part of the corrective process is to accept the serious penalties imposed by the NCAA on Penn State University and its football program.”
The $64,000 question is “Why?” Why the 180-degree change, and why now, instead of when the sanctions were announced? For those answers, let’s play Corbett’s version of Let’s Make A Deal:
Corbett answer behind Door Number One: “I wanted to thoroughly research the issue to make sure we were on solid legal footing.”  Uh, sorry, but no prize.  For months leading up to the announcement, even the most remote Eskimos knew severe sanctions were a certainty. The NCAA bylaws aren’t all that complicated, so Corbett (himself a former U.S. Attorney and twice the state’s Attorney General), his General Counsel, his attorney Chief of Staff, and an army of other Administration lawyers could have easily determined — way ahead of time — if A. the NCAA could legally impose sanctions; B. if so, what sanctions should be off the table; and C. if the Administration had legal footing to sue the NCAA should it impose them anyway.  And as a Trustee, Corbett clearly would have been party to discussions with the NCAA about the forthcoming sanctions.
Corbett’s Door Number Two: He waited so that the football team could avoid another distraction.  Wrong again! Football season doesn’t start in July, and the football team was already dealing with Sandusky fallout.  Ironically, a Corbett lawsuit in July would have had the opposite effect— becoming a rallying cry for the team that someone was standing up for them.
Door Three: “I didn’t want to make the same mistake the NCAA made by carelessly rushing in.” Well, that one fits, since Corbett, as the Attorney General investigating Sandusky, made absolutely no rush to get a serial predator off the street, taking a staggering three years to make an arrest, conveniently after his gubernatorial election. True “carelessness” was Corbett assigning two narcotics agents to investigate Sandusky, while scores of agents (including child predator units) pursued a headline-generating political corruption case in which no children were at risk.
Door Four:  “After months of research and deliberation, as well as discussions with alumni, students, faculty, business owners and elected officials, (Corbett) concluded that the NCAA’s sanctions were overreaching and unlawful.” So is the suit because the NCAA is violating its bylaws, or because souvenir shops aren’t selling as many Nittany Lion magnets? And, despite the vast legal knowledge of those constituencies, since when do they factor into whether a lawsuit should be filed?
Taxpayers should understand that the substantial cost of this lawsuit will be footed by them, since neither Administration lawyers nor the Attorney General will handle it. Instead, that prize goes to top-of-the-line law firm Cozen O’Connor.  Cozen (and its attorneys and family members) contributed almost $100,000 to the Governor’s campaigns, and is the former firm of Corbett’s new General Counsel.
Now let’s get serious and look at the real reasons behind Corbett’s newfound love of Penn State. While he is now busy acting like its savior, let us not forget his grandstanding, doing his best impression of a Roman Emperor wanting to raze Penn State and sow its fields with salt, just like Carthage.
Has Corbett finally realized he is about to become the first governor to lose a second term? He is already one of the nation’s least popular governors, and, with the exception of demagoguing on Penn State (when convenient), is spotted in public less than Bigfoot. Now, he is at the point in politics where they separate the men from the boys, and he is frantically reaching for something with wide appeal.
Suing the NCAA won’t help Corbett, even if his lawsuit is successful, as Pennsylvanians see right through his ploy.  Many view him as part of the process which went overboard in destroying Penn State’s reputation and giving Joe Paterno a premature death. And even more think he deliberately understaffed the Sandusky investigation — leaving children to potentially suffer at Sandusky’s hands — so that he wouldn’t alienate Penn State alumni while running for governor. Corbett’s blatant pandering has only furthered the resolve of so many to end his tenure with a resounding sack.
And maybe Corbett is trying to distract incoming Attorney General Kathleen Kane, the first Democrat ever to hold that office, who not coincidentally wasn’t consulted about the Governor’s lawsuit.  Kane, it is worth noting, just won more votes than anyone in Pennsylvania history (including the President), a feat directly attributable to one issue: cleaning up Harrisburg, starting with an investigation into how Corbett handled the Sandusky investigation.
Put another way, would Tom Corbett have filed this lawsuit had his hand-picked candidate for Attorney General beaten Kane?
But we do have the lawsuit, and with it, two more major Corbett inconsistencies: 1. “conservatives” like the governor always rail against activist judges — until, like now, they need one.  And 2. Corbett stated that, if successful, he will urge the Board to use the $60 million to help groups working against abuse. While a nice thought, is that not completely undermining his argument that the fines are creating an unacceptable burden on so many in the PSU community? Is there anyone in the Governor’s office who has really thought this lawsuit through?
Truth is, this woefully miscalculated effort will accomplish only one thing: a major backfire.
For the record, this author stated his opposition to the sanctions when they were first imposed. A courageous Board of Trustees would have fought the NCAA as former UNLV basketball coach Jerry Tarkanian did — who eventually won a multimillion settlement. But they, including Corbett, chose not to pursue action, voluntarily accepting the punishment from an organization to which Penn State voluntarily belongs.  One can debate the prudence of the Board’s decision, but the University’s message is clear: it wants to put the Sandusky matter behind it as quickly as possible, which is why it is not party to the lawsuit.
Corbett had his chance, but for whatever the reason — indecisiveness, incompetence, political motivations — he failed to act, and that ship has long sailed.
But the Tom and Jerry Show is far from over. The Governor is on a collision course with voters (especially his own Republicans) who demand answers about Sandusky — answers that Corbett refuses to give. These are questions that go to the very core of Tom Corbett’s true character. And they are questions that may well lead him to the dustbin of political history — or, depending on what Kane finds, worse.
How will this show end? Attorney General-elect Kane, the floor is yours.


Elmo Not Penn State, Um, Really

Penn State has removed from its Flickr feed the below photo of Elmo receiving a PSU t-shirt last march.

Kevin Clash, the actor who portrayed Elmo on Sesame Street, resigned from the role today, Nov. 20, amid allegations he molested underage boys.
Elmo Not Penn State
Sesame Workshop said “the controversy surrounding Kevin’s personal life has become a distraction that none of us want.” It’s a statement worthy of a PSU athletic director. Or president even.

So Who’s Abusing Children Now?

Here’s the latest from Jim Vanore of Good Writers Block.

NCAA President Mark Emmert recently placed punitive sanctions on Penn State University for allowing a known pedophile to victimize boys on their campus from 1998 to 2011. That felon has been dealt with by the legal system and is now facing a lifetime behind bars.
The “big four” administrative department heads responsible for allowing this abuse of children, are University President Graham Spanier, Vice President Gary Schultz, Athletic Director Timothy Curley, and head football coach Joe Paterno.  Paterno died earlier this year, and the other three face their own day in court.
Emmert said, “…the cultural, systemic, and leadership failures at Penn State had to be addressed, and that the NCAA’s  approach demands that Penn State become an exemplary NCAA member by eradicating the mindset that led to this tragedy.” 
His words.  You see, he just wants to eliminate the “mindset” that placed football above the welfare of innocent children.
So who is he punishing? Obviously, Emmert thinks that the football team (all of whom were in grammar school when this crime began) must answer for those who were complicit in these crimes. That’s sort of like the IRS telling your children that they must take a year off from their 7th grade studies and do time in prison, because you cheated on your tax return.

A Defense Of Joe Paterno

Paul Mirengoff on has posted an article, “The Case Against Joe Paterno: Weak To Non-Existent On The Current Record” based on a letter from a lawyer friend.

He says the friend reviewed the Freeh Report  and concluded that it did not establish wrongdoing by JoePa, and “misrepresented Joe Paterno’s culpability in the Jerry Sandusky matter.”
The article says: The claim seems to be that Mr. Paterno knew about a 1998 allegation and did nothing, and that in 2001, when he learned about Mike McQueary’s information, he waited a day before he reported the information to the athletic director (Curley) and the vice president in charge of the University Police (Schultz) and then did nothing else.
It notes that regarding the 1998 incident that Sandusky was investigated by police, the district attorney and the Department of Public Welfare which found that there was no indication of child abuse.
The article says: The Freeh Report’s expression of outrage may sound compelling now, with the benefit of hindsight and the evidence that now exists about Sandusky’s criminal misconduct. But given that (1) law enforcement officials and other people investigated the 1998 incident and found no wrongdoing; (2) Seasock’s report exonerated Sandusky; (3) the District Attorney declined to prosecute the case; (4) Sandusky denied the allegations; and (5) the complete lack of evidence about Mr. Paterno’s knowledge, involvement, and actions, it is difficult to see how Mr. Paterno can be subject to ridicule because he “allowed” Sandusky to retire “not as a suspected child predator.”
Regarding Paterno’s silence after passing on what Assistant Coach Mike McQueary saw in the shower, Mirengoff’s friend says:

Furthermore, if Mr. Paterno had reported the McQueary information to me (were I, like Schultz, the official in charge of the University Police), I would have told him to keep his mouth shut going forward and let the authorities handle the matter. Otherwise, Mr. Paterno could have tainted the investigation. And, because he was a potential trial witness (to McQueary’s prior consistent statements, see Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B and Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence613(c)), any further statements or action by Mr. Paterno could have become cross-examination fodder for the defense. Any further action by Mr.Paterno could only have damaged the integrity of the investigation and any prosecution against Sandusky.

Indeed, Mr. Paterno explained his actions before he died by saying that “I was afraid to do something that might jeopardize what the University procedure was. So I backed away and turned it over to some other people, people I thought would have a little more expertise than I did.” Freeh Report at 77-78. This statement makes perfect sense, and the notion of a football coach supervising a criminal investigation is ridiculous. It is very possible that Curley or Schultz or both told Mr. Paterno to stay out of the matter; in fact, Schultz should have told him as much. But we don’t know because Schultz and Curley are under indictment and not talking, Paterno is dead, and the Freeh Report did not find any information about this issue.

Maybe the most damning thing from Freeh can be found in his statement summing up the report:  Based on the evidence, the only known, intervening factor between the decision made on February 25, 2001 by Messrs. Spanier, Curley and Schulz to report the incident to the Department of Public Welfare, and then agreeing not to do so on February 27th, was Mr. Paterno’s February 26th conversation with Mr. Curley.
If the NCAA had a big more guts (and brains and heart) they might have waited until Tim Curley, who is facing perjury charges, got around to testifying as to what Joe Pa said before giving his record the nonperson treatment.
By the way, did you see that former PSU President Graham Spanier got a security job with the federal government?
A Defense Of Joe Paterno

Corbett’s Response On Sandusky Fails To Answer Questions

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

‘Top-Secret’ Spanier, Paterno And Priorities

So they’ve taken down the Joe Paterno statue at Penn State and that is fine but one does wonder at priorities.

Former school president Graham Spanier, the real administrative villain concerning what happend to the once-respected institution; the man who covered up for molester Jerry Sandusky because it was the “humane” thing to do; the man who reportedly covered up other child molestation scandals at the school; has a top-secret clearance with the federal government and is bragging about it.
Call one crazy, but one thinks it far more important to get a guy who thinks it humane to cover up child molestation out of places where he would need a top secret clearance than it is to remove a statue.
For your convenience, here is the press release from Spanier’s lawyers:

July 16, 2012


The Freeh report ignored many important facts, including the conclusions of a far more independent and thorough investigation of Dr. Graham Spanier conducted simultaneously by federal officials responsible for our national security.

Dr. Spanier has for some time held a top secret security clearance in connection with his work with the federal government. This clearance required a re-review when the Sandusky matter surfaced in November. Federal investigators then conducted a four-month investigation of their own in which they interviewed many of the same individuals the Freeh Group interviewed and other relevant individuals Freeh did not interview.  At the conclusion of the investigation the government reaffirmed Dr. Spanier’s clearance.

Although Dr. Spanier told Mr. Freeh directly about the federal security investigation and its result, there is no mention of it anywhere in the Freeh report.

The Freeh report is not an independent judicial evaluation. Mr. Freeh, no longer a judge, runs a company that was retained by the Board of Trustees of the University. His report contained numerous inaccuracies and reached conclusions that are not supported by the data.   Meanwhile, Mr. Freeh unfairly offered up Dr. Spanier and others to those insisting upon a finding of culpability at the highest level of the University. Mr. Freeh’s conclusions are not judicial or law enforcement pronouncements.

Dr. Spanier looks forward to the opportunity in the future to set the record straight and as we have previously said, all of our thoughts and prayers remain with the young people who are at the center of this terrible ordeal.

Attorneys for Dr. Graham Spanier





Say It Ain’t So, Joe

Jim Vanore gives his take on the Freeh Report and Penn State at his site, Good Writers Block

I was hoping I’d never have to write this piece, but recent revelations regarding the Penn State cover-up of Jerry Sandusky’s sexual predations dictate that I do.
If the information uncovered by the Freeh investigation is accurate—and I’ve little reason to believe it isn’t—then Joe Paterno did indeed take an active part in hiding the deeds of his assistant coach. Deeds that were both illegal and monstrous.
The damaging evidence can be inferred from the “Timeline” section of the report on page 23, wherein the plan devised by University President Graham Spanier, Vice President Gary Schultz, and Athletic Director Timothy Curley on February 26, 2001 includes a three-fold action: 1. Confront Sandusky, 2. Notify the Department of Public Welfare (DPW), 3. Notify the Board of the Second Mile Foundation.
However, this plan is “downgraded” to just confronting Sandusky after it is discussed with Paterno. The ‘new’ plan is to offer Sandusky professional help. If Sandusky does not then cooperate, the notifications to the DPW and Second Mile can proceed.
I read this as Paterno having the ultimate authority here. What else could I infer?
I at first gave Paterno the benefit of the doubt—doubt motivated by my lack of knowledge about what exactly he knew, and what exactly he could have done. I believed he followed the rules strictly and took what action he was mandated to take.
Now, e-mails attributed to Paterno indicate that he not only advised those around him to keep silent about Sandusky’s crimes, but his inaction even allowed this predator to continue his odious assaults for more than 10 years following the discovery of the crime.
Say It Ain’t So, Joe

Questions For Corbett Regarding Sandusky

By Chris Freind

An open letter to Pennsylvania’s governor, who refuses to answer disturbing questions about his role investigating the Penn State sex scandal:

Bursting with righteous indignation, his cheeks flushed with rage, the governor banged the podium in disgust while berating a journalist – in fact, chastising the entire media – for the audacity to ask questions on the issue.

We’re not talking about New Jersey’s Chris Christie, who gets away with such outbursts because of his stellar track record and pure gravitas.

No, this tantrum came from Pennsylvania’s Tom Corbett after being queried about his incredibly long investigation of child predator Jerry Sandusky

And it backfired in spectacular fashion. Why?

Because Tom Corbett is no Chris Christie.

Since questions on this matter remain unanswered, it seems only fitting, on behalf of the media and public, to pen an open letter to Mr. Corbett.

For the record, no media commentator in Pennsylvania supported Corbett’s ideas more than Freindly Fire during the 2010 campaign, from increased Marcellus Shale drilling to school choice to liquor privatization. In fact, FF even backed Corbett’s decision to subpoena Twitter during the Bonusgate corruption probe – a highly unpopular position. Bottom line: this isn’t personal, and it’s not partisan. It’s only about one thing: the truth.

Dear Gov. Corbett:

Since there are a number of questions which you have failed to answer concerning your investigation of Jerry Sandusky, on behalf of the media and the public, I respectfully ask for clarification in the following areas:

1.  Based on a decade’s worth of evidence of Sandusky’s predatory activities, why did it take the Attorney General’s Office three years to arrest him? I fully understand that it takes time to conduct an investigation, but as numerous prosecutors have stated, you could have arrested him quickly and continued building the case.

Tragically, it is probable that Sandusky continued to molest victims during your epic investigation, as predators do not stop preying unless forced to do so. Had he been arrested early, (standard procedure in many cases with a lot less evidence), Sandusky would have had to post bail, had restrictions placed upon him, and, most important, been under an ultra-intense media and community spotlight – every minute of every day until his trial.

In short, children would finally have been safe. And contrary to your assessment, this would have created a much more favorable environment for additional witnesses to come forward, knowing their bigger-than-life demon could hurt them no more. Arresting Sandusky quickly would have in no way jeopardized the strength of the case.

One of two things seems to be true, as there is no third option. Either   you were an incompetent attorney general, which virtually no one believes, or the investigation was deliberately understaffed and drawn out because you did not wish to be the gubernatorial candidate who took down fabled Penn State – with its massive and intensely loyal alumni network – and the beloved Joe Paterno. Since doing so would have presented difficult campaign challenges, many are asking if politics was placed above children’s safety. Which leads to the next question.

2. Why was the investigation so understaffed? Yes, you just now claimed – after eight months – that media reports are wrong that only one investigator was assigned the case for the first 15 months. The real number, as you now state, was a whopping two. We know you were busy with Bonusgate, but political corruption never threatens anyone’s physical well-being, particularly defenseless children.

And the two investigators assigned were narcotics agents. While Sandusky’s heinous crimes were many, drug offenses were not among them.

Yes, they were former police officers. But wouldn’t the reasonable course have been to assign agents with experience in child molestation cases? Did their inexperience lengthen the investigation more than normal … say, past your election in November 2010?

Additional resources were available. Upon becoming governor, you placed state police on the case. You could have made that same request to Gov. Ed Rendell, and, given the stakes, there is virtually no possibility he would have refused. And since you are a former United States attorney, you undoubtedly realized that federal assistance was also available.

3. Do you believe ethical and moral lines were crossed when, after investigating Penn State as Attorney General, you then participated as a member of the Board of Trustees upon becoming governor?

In other words, knowing full well that the investigation was still in full swing, conducted by your handpicked attorney general successor, you nonetheless chose to sit on the very board you had been – and still were – investigating!

Did you ever consider recusing yourself from board activities until the investigation was concluded? Since governors rarely attend board meetings, this would have in no way raised suspicions.

4. As governor, why did you personally approve a $3 million taxpayer-funded grant to Sandusky’s Second Mile charity, given your knowledge that Sandusky was under investigation for multiple child rapes?

Your statement that blocking the grant would have tipped people off to the investigation is utterly disingenuous, particularly since the media reported on the investigation in March, and you did not approve the funds until July 2011.

Vetoing the charitable grant would have simply been viewed as another financial cutback in a budget full of slashed programs.

So one has to ask if the $640,000 in campaign donations from board members of the Second Mile, along with their businesses and families, had anything to do with your actions?

If not, fine. But how did such a massively significant point slip your mind – until the media brought it up? And was that question also out of line?

Since these are matters of grave concern, I and many others look forward to your immediate response.

The media talks about Penn State’s Big Four casualties: Joe Paterno, former President Graham Spanier, Senior Vice President Gary Schultz, and Athletic Director Timothy M. Curley. But perhaps they are missing the biggest: Tom Corbett.

He has always claimed to hold himself to a higher standard, and has roundly criticized Paterno and others for not doing more to stop Sandusky. But when it came down to it, when Corbett had the power to put a speedy end to Sandusky, he didn’t.

If mistakes were made, fine. People can accept that. But to stonewall reasonable questions on such an important matter, and then stalk off , is something that should not, and will not, be tolerated.

Tom Corbett has a choice, perhaps the biggest of his career. He can either answer now – or in 2014.


Questions For Corbett Regarding Sandusky

The Banality Of Evil At Penn State

Here is Louis Freeh’s report released, today, July 12, 2012 regarding Penn State’s handling of reports it received that Coach Jerry Sandusky was molesting children. Freeh, a former director of the FBI, was tasked by the Penn State Board of Trustees on Nov. 11 to investigate the University’s failure to appropriately respond to allegations that former football Coach Gerald A. Sandusky sexually abused children

What Freeh found is the perfect illustration of the phrase banality of evil.

At this link is the complete text but the official pdf can be found here

The pdf of the entire report can be found here.

It should be noted that while Freeh’s scope was limited to the University, the report notes the slowness of the Unviersity Police Department in investigating a 1998 allegation of a child molestation by Sandusky and the unwillingness of the Centre County District Attorney’s office to pursue matter.

And, while not in the report, it should be noted that the D.A. at the time Ray Gricar, would disappear in 2005 shortly after announcing that the would not run for re-election. Imagine that, a major law enforcement figure disappears and there is barely a ripple in the state’s media.

And while not in the report, it should also be noted that the Sandusky matter was not the only instance of a allegation of a homosexual child molestion coverup involving Penn State and its president Graham Spanier.

Read the statement here with a link to a download of a pdf of the report.

The Banality Of Evil At Penn State