Bagwell's latest. CR should be here any minute now.
- Thread starter lionlurker
- Start date
Nothing personal, but I am very suspicious of any Suevos-come-latelies.
good and I think we should all be interested in what isn't in the Freeh report
Tomalis's employment calendar showed many weeks with little or no activity including 20 weeks that appear to have no work-related appointments at all at anytime.
Also, the Commonwealth's Tomalis's Travel Records were not recorded, unavailable and unable to being provided nor any Reimbursement Records in support of his work
Tres Huevos......3 eggs...........also, maybe slang for 3 testes.
File this under Know The Players......
http://www.cozen.com/people/bios/schultz-james
"Jim also counseled all 14 state system colleges and universities on various transactions and litigation matters as well as Title IX and Clery Act compliance."
"He oversaw all major procurements, transactions, litigation and the preparation of legislation and regulations on behalf of the administration and commonwealth agencies under the governor’s jurisdiction."
"As general counsel of the commonwealth, he provided legal counsel to the governor and his executive staff, as well as oversaw nearly 500 lawyers who served as counsel to 36 executive agencies and independent boards and commissions."
.......................................
Deputy Schultz was only a Deputy in the Office of General Counsel when the email was written...and was promoted to General Counsel later. I do not know who was General Counsel at the time of the email.
.............................
The fact that the email exists tells me that it was meant as CYA if needed at a later date, and that it likely was not their idea.
However, I am aware that I may feel that way due to confirmation bias.
Ummmmmmm ..... who said Chertoff was the first choice?
Did you happen to notice Chertoff, Freeh and O'Connor have their names listed in alphabetical order?
Ummm..did you happen to notice the actual email itself said they "would recommend them in the order listed".
Did you even read the freaking email? Come on man...
I think we have seen the worst of it. I was speaking more to the exculpatory information left of the report.
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
Predicable and right on cue the old gas bag appears with nothing to contribute. It's abundantly clear, you so wish you were me! Did I make your day by recognizing you?
"More at ease with the media" = just like what he did with Richard Jewell and Wen Ho Lee.
Louis Freeh impressed in his interview. Perhaps The Honorable Judge Freeh provided evidence of producing the preferred conclusions of his clients? Some forensics work may demonstrate that emails used in the infamous Freeh Fable were doctored?
Seems that Spanier was only indicted because of Baldwin. They better have more than her testimony if they want those charges to stick
Yeah, I'm sure that Chertoff would have turned into a quivering bowl of jelly in front of the media. And, Freeh did a real bang-up job in front of the cameras.
The decision I'm sure had nothing to do with the interview, and instead, was motivated by Pepper Hamilton stroke with Tom Corbett.
Spanier was indicted because he was Fina's target all along. It didn't really matter if there was evidence or not.
Yep, "I think Spanier's a liar because Freeh says so," isn't going to be compelling testimony.
Trey, surely you've heard the line about a ham sandwich and grand juries. Don't be ridiculous.
I didn't mention anything about a conspiracy.......my reference was to your feigned naivete regarding the workings of the judicial system.
Just to keep things straight.
I'll give you that much. But when it comes to the net, don't tell me the fix was in and the fish were on it too.
If someone wants to say 'Fina suckered them into it' that's an entirely different statement.
Try this:
Justice Department statistics recently obtained by Legal Times, which reveal that 99.9 percent of the defendants called before federal grand juries are indicted, buttress the belief -- and concern -- that prosecutors today almost always get what they want from a system originally set up to protect citizens from governmental overreaching.
and this:
"The grand jury, as we now know it, is a foolish anachronism," says Arnold Burns, who was deputy attorney general in the Reagan administration and currently serves on a National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers task force to change the grand jury system. "It is 100 percent in the control of the prosecutor."
Now granted, this article is from 1999 and is about federal grand juries, but you get my drift.
The famed ham sandwich quote:
In 1985 Sol Wachtler, a former chief judge in New York, told the New York Daily News that “district attorneys now have so much influence on grand juries that ‘by and large’ they could get them to indict a ham sandwich.” Nearly three decades on it is still rare for a grand jury not to return an indictment. According to one calculation, federal attorneys brought 162,000 cases before federal grand juries in 2010. Only 11 did not result in an indictment.
Clearly, if the DA wants to indict, they will indict.
Justice Department statistics recently obtained by Legal Times, which reveal that 99.9 percent of the defendants called before federal grand juries are indicted, buttress the belief -- and concern -- that prosecutors today almost always get what they want from a system originally set up to protect citizens from governmental overreaching.
and this:
"The grand jury, as we now know it, is a foolish anachronism," says Arnold Burns, who was deputy attorney general in the Reagan administration and currently serves on a National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers task force to change the grand jury system. "It is 100 percent in the control of the prosecutor."
Now granted, this article is from 1999 and is about federal grand juries, but you get my drift.
The famed ham sandwich quote:
In 1985 Sol Wachtler, a former chief judge in New York, told the New York Daily News that “district attorneys now have so much influence on grand juries that ‘by and large’ they could get them to indict a ham sandwich.” Nearly three decades on it is still rare for a grand jury not to return an indictment. According to one calculation, federal attorneys brought 162,000 cases before federal grand juries in 2010. Only 11 did not result in an indictment.
Clearly, if the DA wants to indict, they will indict.
Just so you know. I didn't throw that in there to piss anyone off. I was just making the point.
I'm making an honest attempt to NOT let my emotions or assumptions get into the way.
That may be true.....but it is definitely true that the OAG NEVER - from Day 1 until now - pursued this case with the goal of determining the full truth.
If they had, they would have been expending at least as much energy investigating the goings on at the 2nd Mile, the role of the many state-related agencies charged with safeguarding at risk children, etc etc etc.
But all of that remains a "third rail" in this entire fiasco.
One might reasonably propose the question of "Why?". Their entire focus from Day 1 has been to color this as a uniquely "Penn State" issue....in fact, as an issue unique only to a small sub-set of Penn State, when - AT BEST - it is an issue which involves Penn State as a relatively minor player (relatively minor in comparison to the 2nd Mile, CYS, etc etc)
Of course it wasn't random. When he was AG, Corbett had no intention of pursuing the Fisher allegations.That's why the case sat on the shelf for two years. But when Spanier publicly humiliated Corbett, it made a great weapon to use against Spanier & Penn State. That's why "The Second Mile was never investigation." Corbett didn't have a beef with Jack Raykovitz; he had a beef with Graham Spanier.
You have it backwards. Curley & Schultz were supposed to cut a deal and flip on Spanier. When that didn't work and it became a sure thing that Corbett was going to lose control of the OAG, they cooked up the Baldwin BS so they could indict Spanier before the clock ran out.
Everything falls into place if you just stop believing the lie that McQueary told anyone anything about sexual abuse.
It explains why Mike didn't intervene. It explains why Dranov didn't call the cops or childline. It explains CSS's deliberation on how to handle Mike's report. It explains why Raykovitz testified that Curley told him about "horseplay."
Mike told people that he saw Sandusky horsing around in the shower with a kid and it creeped him out. He was right to report it. He was wrong to lie about what he told people.
The TSM board was LOADED with Corbett financial supporters, their associates and their family members. If TSM had taken the fall as the grooming charity it was (and I think many of them knew it to be) in 2008-9, Tommy C would have remained on Cheap Street for the rest of his life. When the sums of dough which had been delivered to him by the board members of the grooming charity during his campaigns for AG became public, when his name and his campaign became associated with the Grooming Charity and its board, he would have lost the 2010 Governor's Race.
That is why ( I believe) it took them until early 2011 (after Corbett moved into the Gov's Mansion) for the OAG to commence actually investigating Jerry Sandusky. No indictments were handed down in the case until more than THREE YEARS after the kid first complained at Central Mountain HS.
That's why we need full discovery, and access to the emails that they won't release. And maybe that is why all the TSM files have been shredded.
Dude, seriously--if you did not know that TSM shredded its files long after the investigation began but BEFORE Corbett's hand-picked replacement got around to subpoena-ing them, then I am not sure there is much we can do for you here.
Similar threads
