Skip to main content

Should Tom Corbett be investigated for dragging his feet through the original Sandusky investigation?  In this article, I have posted the details about when he received the case, and the money ties Corbett has to Second Mile, Jerry Sandusky's foundation.

This is an excerpt and the rest of the article can be found on the Raging Chicken PressWebsite.

As Linda Kelly, Pennsylvania Attorney General, was answering questions about Jerry Sandusky’s verdict this past Friday night, a bystander at press the conference asked, “what about Governor Corbett?”  He repeated his question over and over again, quite loudly, and was heard pretty clearly over all the news networks that were broadcasting live. I think it would be fair to say that Linda Kelly, a Corbett appointee, was visibly uncomfortable with the question.  She eventually replied, “we’ll answer that at the end”  of the news conference. The question shouted from off camera was not without a history. As posted on Raging Chicken Press the night of the Sandusky’s guilty verdict, there have been on-going questions about why Sandusky’s prosecution did not happen sooner, in particular, why Corbett, when he was PA Attorney General, did not bring charges.

 Governor Corbett, a Penn State board member, cavaliered the campaign to oust revered Penn State head football coach Joe Paterno and long-standing Penn State President Graham Spanier for doing too little in response to allegations against Sandusky as far back as 2002.  As we all are familiar with now, in 2002, Mike McQueary witnessed Jerry Sandusky raping a child in the locker-room shower.  He then reported the incident to Joe Paterno, who then relayed the message to Graham Spanier, but no further actions were taken.  The parties involved did the bare minimum and didn’t take the allegations seriously. But given Corbett’s own record of involvement in the Sandusky case, why should he come away looking like the hero?

Friday night, Governor Corbett released a statement, via Facebook, about the Sandusky verdict.  It said:

“First, I want to thank the jury for their willingness to serve on such a difficult case.”

    “I also want to commend the multiple victims in this case who had the courage to come forward and testify in court, confronting Sandusky, and proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of these reprehensible crimes.”

    “The agents and prosecutors of the Attorney General’s Office, as well as the Pennsylvania State Police, also deserve a great deal of credit for today’s verdict. They pursued every lead, gathering evidence from multiple victims, in order to bring this man to justice.”

The public reaction it sparked could develop into a political relations nightmare for the governor’s office because of the allegations that Tom Corbett took his time while initially receiving the investigation in 1999.

In 2009, Tom Corbett’s Attorney General’s office received an allegation that Jerry Sandusky abused another child.  The allegation was made by a mother in Centere County and the local district attorney, Michael Madeira, forwarded the case to Corbett’s office because of Madeira’s ties with Sandusky.  At the time, Tom Corbett was in the midst of his governor’s campaign and only assigned 1 investigator overlooking the case (something that Corbett’s people dispute, but have not shown adequate evidence to the contrary).  Last fall when the scandal exploded, Governor Corbett shot down the claims that he was dragging his feet on the original investigation, but in early 2011, after he was elected governor, Frank Noonan, the former investigation supervisor for the attorney general’s office and current state police supervisor, put 7 investigators on the Sandusky case.  Tom Corbett replied to his criticism by saying “people that are saying that are ill-informed as to how investigations are conducted, how witnesses are developed, how backup information, corroborative information is developed, and they really don’t know what they’re talking about.”

So if Tom Corbett wasn’t stalling the initial investigation for his governor’s race, then did his financial connections with former and current Second Mile board members play a role in kicking the investigation down the road?  Last November, Luke O’Brien exposed Tom Corbett’s financial ties to Second Mile board members, in the Deadspin article “Past and Present Board Members of Sandusky’s Charity and Their Businesses or Families gave 641,481.21 to Gov Corbett.”  Tom Corbett received $201,783.64 from Second Mile Board members, and received a total $647.481.21 from families and businesses associated to Second Mile Board members.  These donations were lining Corbett’s campaign pockets right around the time he picked up the case as Attorney General. How convenient.   Some of these donations came from some of the most influential businesses in the state.  For instance, donations came from: Bill Greenlee, a Second Mile board member until 2004 and founder of Pennsylvania’s largest lobbying firm, Greenlee Partners, gave $36,000; Louie Sheetz, executive for Sheetz Inc and current board member, gave $106,000 and Lance Shaner, a director for Second Mile, gave $155,550.  That is just a small sample of the laundry list of donations the governor received for his governor’s campaign.

With the influence of “pay-to-play” politics establishing itself as the norm under Governor Tom Corbett’s tenure, the amount of money he received by people closely associated with Second Mile and the fact it took over 2 years for this investigation to pick up, should Governor Tom Corbett be investigated for his (in)actions in the Sandusky scandal?


Should Corbett be investigated for his inactions in the Sandusky Trial?

98%334 votes
1%6 votes

| 340 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site