OK

Tom Corbett
(Via Joe Hermitt, The Patriot-News)
Last week, a prominent conservative columnist in the Phila suburbs challenged Tom Corbett's handling of the PSU rape scandal during Corbett's tenure as Attorney General.

Y'all told me that if Corbett every responded, I should tell you.  Okay. Here's what his Office wrote to the Delco Times:

While conspiracy theories have become a regrettable staple in our national dialogue, the length of the investigation into Jerry Sandusky reflected thoroughness, not politics. Grand juries take time. Evidence in decades old molestations must be reassembled. A moral certainty of conviction must be reached.

Freind cites "a decade's worth of evidence" against Sandusky as the reason he should have been charged sooner. 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.

Freind actually suggests Corbett should have arrested Sandusky and built the investigation afterward. Under what Constitution would he do this?

One recurring theme invoked by Freind is the assertion that Corbett accepted donations from members of the board of Sandusky's charity, The Second Mile. This board included just about anyone in the state with a Penn State connection and a successful business. And like most successful business people, they belonged to multiple boards of charities....

Four other agencies were advised of his predations as long ago as 1998. None acted. Tom Corbett did.

Gosh, what could be wrong with that? Chris Freind, again:
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, then later spearheaded by two narcotics agents, neither of whom had any experience in child molestation cases. Compare to this 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. Tom Corbett played politics with Sandusky investigation.

...

2. Tom Corbett did not prioritize catching a child predator.

.... 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-Governor Ed Rendell, himself a highly respected former prosecutor. It’s not a trick question, and only requires a yes or no answer.

Freind also notes that "Governor Corbett also failed to answer my 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."

This isn't over.  And one person who'll make sure it's not over is Kathleen Kane, the former sex crimes prosecutor and Democratic nominee to serve as our next Attorney General. As she told the Harrisburg Patriot-News:

Kathleen Kane
Kane said that any case of this magnitude deserves a review as to whether it was handled in the best interests of the public and the victims.

“We have a responsibility to find the truth, uncover any mishandling of the case, and take steps to make sure this does not happen again in Pennsylvania,” Kane said.

If elected, Kane has said, she will give a top-to-bottom look at the office’s handling of the Sandusky case.

“Was the investigation given sufficient priority? Were enough investigators and prosecutors with the right expertise assigned to the case? Was the case moved along as quickly as possible? These are questions that beg for answers,” Kane said.

Originally posted to Adam B on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 11:00 AM PDT.

Also republished by House of LIGHTS.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.