We have been following the Penn State scandal and the school’s possible culpability in the matter. Now the long-awaited Freeh report has been issued (a copy is below). The report is a damning indictment of the school which is found to have failed to protect the children in order to protect the school from embarrassment. This included “striking lack of empathy for child abuse victims by the most senior leaders of the University.”
Both former president Graham Spanier and former head football coach Joe Paterno are found to have “failed to protect against a child sexual predator harming children for over a decade.” Former university vice president Gary Schultz and ex-athletic director Tim Curley were also found to have failed to protect the children. These officials effectively facilitated the abuse by continuing to give Sandusky the means used for the abuse: “Indeed, that continued access provided Sandusky with the very currency that enabled him to attract his victims. Some coaches, administrators and football program staff members ignored the red flags of Sandusky’s behaviors and no one warned the public about him.” The board of trustees is also mentioned as failing its responsibility in the face of what Freeh found was active concealment of the crimes: “These men concealed Sandusky’s activities from the Board of Trustees, the University community and authorities. They exhibited a striking lack of empathy for Sandusky’s victims by failing to inquire as to their safety and well-being, especially by not attempting to determine the identity of the child who Sandusky assaulted in the Lasch Building in 2001.”
Athletic director Tim Curley is found to have clearly revealed the alleged crimes to former head coach Joe Paterno but “they changed the plan and decided not to make a report to the authorities.” Indeed, while McQueary reported the assault to Paterno on Saturday, February 10, Paterno reported the incident to Curley and Schultz on Sunday, February 11 as Paterno did not “want to interfere with their weekends.”
Cynthia Baldwin, a former Board member and Chair, also is criticized as the school’s first general counsel. The report states that she failed to brief the board until such a briefing was demanded by a trustee and downplayed the significance for the school. She also failed to bring in someone experienced with criminal matters and opposed an independent investigation. Ironically, in the effort to avoid independent review and action, Baldwin contributed to a far worse result for her client.
The report will no doubt assist any lawsuit for negligence against the university. Penn State is a state university but may not be able to use sovereign immunity because it is not a member of the Pennsylvania System of Higher Education.
There is also the question of liability for the Second Mile organization. On March 19, 2001, Curley met with the executive director of the Second Mile and “shared the information we had with him.” The Second Mile leadership simply found the matter to be a “non‐incident” and took no further action.
It is a report that shows a consistent and disturbing series of failures in university and Second Mile officials taking the allegation seriously or taking meaningful action to protect these victims.
This is one of the areas where the threat of liability would be a good thing. There is no evidence of concern for the victims in this matter. What does come out of the report and earlier news account is a football culture that overwhelmed every other concern at the university. This has long been a concern among academics over the degree of reliance and identification of universities with their sports programs. The report describes Penn State as creating a “culture of reverence.”
Freeh notes “Our most saddening and sobering finding is the total disregard for the safety and welfare of Sandusky’s child victims by the most senior leaders at Penn State . . . The most powerful men at Penn State failed to take any steps for 14 years to protect the children who Sandusky victimized.”
Here is the report: freeh.report
Say it aint so Joe!
State Penn. Good moniker. If you are a parent DO NOT waste your money sending junior to a university that is involved in sports as its primary front.
The establishment media has not given as much coverage
on the call boy network run through the Reagan-Bush whitehouse
and other upper eschelon politicians?
… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehleJE5evBI …
Heaven forbid, however, that the media say anything about Craig J. Spence, and the goings on in the Bush I & II White House…
It’s not just Silvio Burlesconi and Dominique Strauss-Kahn and Brian Pierick and priests that like them young…
Joe Paterno. State Penn Warden.
Waste of resources.
Dont forget Severaid, Koppel, Saffire
And, just by coincidence, the Exonerate Paterno Offense kicked off just the other day. I could easily endorse Penn’s removal from the NCAA.
This was reported in the Washington Times…
… http://www.wanttoknow.info/890629washingtontimesfranklin …
Freeh’s job was to limit the scope to Penn State, not follow all leads.
I wonder if their insurance carriers placed a clause or clauses within their coverage contracts that does not cover child sexual abuse?
And, this could also mean financial support will suffer.
Incredible stupidity or perhaps an institution suffering from social dementia.
“Shocking” just doesn’t come close to describing the perverse conduct and lack of empathy for the child victims. Maybe “beastly” is more like it.
That persons in positions of trust and authority failed to protect children they knew were in the clutches of a fiend out of some misguided sense of loyalty to the reputation of a football team is beyond disgusting.
I’m rethinking my opposition to a Scarlet Letter.
bettykath:
“Freeh’s job was to limit the scope to Penn State, not follow all leads.”
****************************
In the 267 page report, Freeh specifically singled out, inter alia, PSU’s Board of Trustees, its Administration, its culture, and its President for blame. If he was paid to protect them, they deserve their money back.
This is so so so so common; the cover-up of child sexual abuse is so easy; it is so hard for the victims to do anything about it; it is overwhelming; there is not only no EMPATHY for the victims, there is outright hostility toward them if they get serious about holding someone accountable. It is one of the greatest and most perverse disgraces of our society.
State agencies responsible for the protection of children also engage in this in a big way and are not busted, as are churches and now schools. The CPS agencies are often guilty of the same and even worse cover-ups.
When this first broke I commented:
I would be surprised if the coverup does not reach beyond Penn State itself into other levels of government.
Mespo,
Yes, Freeh certainly laid out the Penn State liars and cowards.
Puzzling, Mespo That’s what I was alluding to. As usual, I didn’t say it well.
Dredd, most insurance companies with which I am familiar (mine included) provide professionals with a legal defense if accused, but if claims of sexual impropriety are proved, they will not pay damages. Additionally, the company may very well send a bill for the amount expended defending the accused.
@bettykath “Freeh’s job was to limit the scope to Penn State, not follow all leads.”
Well maybe, and I am sure there was a lot of bureaucratic momentum in that direction but on pg 11 of the report the issue of independence and scope of the investigation is addressed:
“No one is above scrutiny…complete rein to follow any lead…look into every corner of the University… get to the bottom of what happened…make recommendation that ensure that it never happens again”
The mandate seems pretty comprehensive. Actually the mandate given to Freeh seems well within today’s conventional wisdom for institutions dealing with bad news: ‘when it appears the bad news will out, be the first to get all the bad news out early’.
My guess is that the university will try to make these events seem to be the anomalous and inexplicable actions of the individuals in positions of responsibility at that time.
But I think we all have to wonder about the roll of institutional culture. What made these individuals think there was any reason or institutional interest to ignore and cover up criminal activity???
Mike
“What made these individuals think there was any reason or institutional interest to ignore and cover up criminal activity???”
I fear the answer is far too easy to determine. Think about Satuday afternoon in the fall.
Who around here would like to dig through the exhibits?
Skimming through Freeh’s report I ponder, “What is the difference between Penn State and the other major sports universities?” What I am left with is, NOTHING…..
DEL, pilots have a saying about forgetting to lower the landing gear. There are those who have and those who will.
In this information age, it is harder and harder to keep stuff secret. Tick….tock!
Very similar to the behavior patterns within the leadership of the Catholic Church. Save the institution; children be dam*ed.
“a football culture that overwhelmed every other concern at the university”
Celebrity worship – - – 1% pissing on the least of us – - – with wannbe defenders
Mythology and the New Feudalism, it just keeps rolling along
FYI, MSNBC started running an Op-Ed column yesterday titled “NCAA must give death penalty to Penn State”
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/48126484/ns/sports-college_football/
From someone who knows: Freeh pulled his punches: on the pimping out of boys to wealthy Second Mile Foundation donors and Governor Tom Corbett’s cover-up.
Very similar to the behavior patterns within the leadership of the Legal community. Save the Lawyer; victims be dam*ed.
——————–
Very similar to the behavior patterns within the leadership of the Financial community. Save the banker; victims be dam*ed.
——————–
Very similar to the behavior patterns within the leadership of the Governance community. Save the politician; governed be dam*ed.
——————–
Very similar to the behavior patterns within the leadership of the Medical community. Save the Doctor; victims be dam*ed.
——————–
Very similar to the behavior patterns within the leadership of the Criminal community. Save the crook; victims be dam*ed.
——————–
Prime motivation behind the behavior patterns within the leadership of the $$$ruled, anti- community community. Save the Ego; victims be dam*ed.
(sorry Blouise, couldn’t resist…)
@bettykath “Freeh pulled his punches: on the pimping out of boys to wealthy Second Mile Foundation donors ”
So, it seems that you are saying that all the stuff in the report re ‘follow any leads’ is just window dressing and that the real mission of Freeh was to limit damage by covering up facts and involvement.
If that is the gist of your remarks then it would seem that there is an even bigger story just waiting for exposure by reporters or attorneys filing for damaged parties.
I am assuming prosecutors will not take any action unless their hand is forced by public disclosure.
BFM, yes. Freeh was given free rein to go after Penn State but there are bigger fish being protected. Think how big the fish must be to let PS go down the tubes.
bettykath:
I think I was the one who misinterpreted you. Sorry. It’s all about PSU now. We’ll see in civil discovery if it goes any further.
“Think how big the fish must be to let PS go down the tubes.” (bettykath)
Well put!
“Save the Ego; victims be dam*ed.” (Woosty)
The real motive behind it all.
Anybody remember the The Franklin Scandal out of Nebraska?
yes, one guy went to jail for, what, tax fraud? something similar to that.
BLOUISE, very important point, very good of you to mention it
I have to find those pamphlets I have on that scandal — I once had about 20 of them, red covers, yes, I have to remind myself of the whole thing.
!!!!!!!
Mespo, I really wasn’t all that clear in what I was saying. Yes, it’s about PSU now. And the Freeh report.
And the Freeh report which is limited to only PSU.
bettykath,
Is your accusation to be taken literally, that is, boys were given to wealthy donors for sexual purposes? Can you name your source “one who knows”?
I think the Nebraska scandal pamphlet was called “The carefully crafted hoax.”
Sadly I must agree with Bettykath. This was a broader-based problem than is being let on. The self-serving hypocrisy of letting this loathsome predator continue illustrates that many people who are in positions of authority care more for themselves than their duty. While on some level self interest may be understandable in a given situation, when it comes to something as horrific as child sexual abuse, or indeed child abuse without sex, then the failure to act indicates someone who is essentially inhuman.
Otteray Scribe 1, July 12, 2012 at 11:16 am
Dredd, most insurance companies with which I am familiar (mine included) provide professionals with a legal defense if accused, but if claims of sexual impropriety are proved, they will not pay damages. Additionally, the company may very well send a bill for the amount expended defending the accused.
==========================
Seems quite reasonable to me.
Gene H. 1, July 12, 2012 at 12:32 pm
FYI, MSNBC started running an Op-Ed column yesterday titled “NCAA must give death penalty to Penn State”
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/48126484/ns/sports-college_football/
====================================
Seems quite reasonable to me.
Mike Spindell 1, July 12, 2012 at 2:22 pm
Sadly I must agree with Bettykath. This was a broader-based problem than is being let on. The self-serving hypocrisy of letting this loathsome predator continue illustrates that many people who are in positions of authority care more for themselves than their duty. While on some level self interest may be understandable in a given situation, when it comes to something as horrific as child sexual abuse, or indeed child abuse without sex, then the failure to act indicates someone who is essentially inhuman.
======================================
Right on Mike.
The “penn staters” are essentially parasites engendered by the universal bully religion dynamics that our nation has become host to.
As the song “Deth Starr”, by Tenacious D, points out, there is a mania about that wants this stuff spread throughout the galaxy.
It’s not inconceivable to me that more than the inner sanctum at Penn knew, or heard repeated rumors about child abuse by Sandusky and that the Freeh Report did not “go there”. But I am very skeptical that boys from Second Mile were made available to wealthy donors for sex and that it was not exposed during Sandusky’s trial. Perhaps I have misinterpreted bettykath’s statement. Can someone please address this concern?
Let’s just call it what it is. Most people don’t have the balls to do what they know they should do if it will impact them negatively.
Dredd-
“And, this could also mean financial support will suffer.”
Not yet: “Despite Sandusky scandal, Penn State draws $208.7 million in donations”
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-07-09/us/us_pennsylvania-penn-state-donations_1_sandusky-image-joe-paterno-and-university-sandusky-conviction
That’s the second highest figure of all time for them.
I am ready to be set straight about the Franklin Scandal – have at me. I had never heard of it and after a search on the web it looks like a bunch of hooey. Its web site presents a book that looks like a lurid. cheap, sexploitation full of conspiracy theories about high ranking government officals, cover ups, and mysterious deaths. On a par with the Vince Foster “murder”. I am unnerved that several commenters that I admire seem to believe that the Franklin Scandal was in fact true and not a hoax and are willing to link that case with an accusation that boys from Second Mile were “PIMPED” to wealthy donors. I have asked for clarification several times and have heard nothing. Of course no one is required to respond, but it’s rather ironic when we are complaining about the silence of onlookers…
“Paterno put ‘the brand’ ahead of human decency.”
Ray Ratto, Csnbayarea:
http://www.csnbayarea.com/ncaa/news/Paterno-put-the-brand-ahead-of-human-dec?blockID=739194&feedID=8349
Curious,
I have asked for clarification several times and have heard nothing. Of course no one is required to respond, but it’s rather ironic when we are complaining about the silence of onlookers…
====================================
Are you being silent? Can you find your own conclusions?
I had a friend when I was a kid, who was molested by a homosexual pedophile who was the organist at the church where the Southern Baptist Convention was founded & the minister did nothing, because HE was having an affair with a married woman.
Curious,
There is a synopsis on Wikipedia, which has a list of references at the end.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_child_prostitution_ring_allegations
There are some near the center of that case who are convinced there was at least one wrongful conviction. Suggest you read the novel, “Billy Budd,” which may give you some insight into the dynamics of what happened. Sometimes fiction explains real life better than wading through evidence files.
Penn State, new leaf after Sandusky? Marvelous — and Penn’s only one among hundreds, so I’m not having any.
This is what ivory tower bureaucrats do with serial life-threatening acts of moral turpitude. Shall we check up on how they’ve been handling the small stuff – little matters of trifling moral consequence, like wasted subsidies, bloated departments, inflated curricula, and the unsustainable abuse of debt financing to sustain an indefensible value proposition?
Matt Johnson,
No. I am not being silent and based on a quick search on the web, I concluded that the Franklin Scandal was hooey. However, I am open to and interested in more evidence should it be forthcoming. If not, I find the accusation of a cabal of child rapists among the wealthy donors of Second Mile more hooey and am taken aback that such an opinion would find support on this blog.
Curious,
What support?
Before the books close on this incident, Penn State will likely be a bankrupt institution. There is absolutely no doubt that the Freeh Report exposes the university and its leadership to liability for intentional wrongdoing.
Curious,
Hooey? That’s exactly the same thing many people said when the Catholic priest pedophilia rumors first surfaced. They continued to say hooey for years. Some even believe it’s still all hooey.
Editorial by John Ziegler
Contrary to What You Have Heard, the Freeh Report has Big Problems
7/12/2012
As someone who has been critical of what I have perceived as the media’s rush to judgment against Joe Paterno in the Jerry Sandusky scandal, I was very eager to hear the results of the report by former FBI director Louis Freeh. My primary concern through all of this is that the case against Paterno for knowingly protecting a pedophile had not yet been truly proven. If it was, then I would be the first to admit that Paterno’s legacy would be rightly shattered and that his statue at Penn State should be uprooted.
Now that the report has come out and I (unlike the media at Freeh’s press conference) have actually had time to read it, I will acknowledge that the report raises some very serious questions about Paterno’s role. I now think that it is “probable” that Paterno deserves some level of condemnation for how he handled the Sandusky situation.
However, despite what you have heard in the news media, there are also some very significant problems with the report itself and, at least at this point, there is still a whole lot more speculative smoke than actual evidentiary fire in its findings.
The most glaring omission in the report is that Freeh did speak to any of the primary witnesses in the case. Not Paterno. Not Tim Curley. Not Mike McQueary (whom he referred to as “McQuade” in the press conference). Not Jerry Sandusky.
How can any investigation possibly be considered remotely complete or come to any legitimate conclusions without even speaking to any of the most important witnesses?
How can we possibly fully evaluate Paterno’s actions if we don’t know exactly what Mike McQueary (who, it must be pointed out, misremembered the year he witnessed the episode in the shower, an incident for which there is still no actual victim) told him? How can we possibly understand fairly vague emails without even hearing from the guy who wrote them?
Secondly, Freeh seems to promise far more in his press release/conclusions than he actually delivers in real evidence. Most of the media of course, at best, only read the summary and not the actual report. Thanks to that, it appears that most people have no idea that the real evidence backing up Freeh’s conclusions is, given the strong language he uses, remarkably thin.
The key pieces of new evidence (and frankly, maybe the only significant ones) against Paterno are two emails cited on pages 48 and 49 of the report which Freeh concludes are “clear” proof that Paterno was fully in the loop on the 1998 investigation of Sandusky which resulted in no criminal charges.
There is no doubt that if Paterno really knew about the 1998 investigation then any defense of him falls apart like a house of cards. This is because if he knew about 1998 then he had no reason to give Sandusky any benefit of the doubt in 2001 and he actually had a significant incentive to cover up the McQueary episode because there would have been a history of inaction. His credibility would also be shot because he essentially testified to the Grand Jury that he had no knowledge of the investigation.
However, Freeh is grotesquely overstating his evidence.
A close examination of these two emails raises significant questions as to what they actually mean. The first email is from athletic director Curley to the university president with the subject line “Joe Paterno.” As far as we know, the only content of the email was “I have touched base with the coach. Keep us posted. Thanks.”
Based on this, Freeh concludes that because the email was sent after Curley knew of the investigation into Sandusky that Sandusky had to be the subject of their “touching base.” Even if this wasn’t a bit of an evidentiary leap (which it is), we have no idea what “touching base” really means and, again, Freeh has never even spoken to Curley to find out. The president didn’t even remember this email, which he referred to as a “vague reference with no individual named.”
The second email is just as problematic. In it Curley writes to the head of campus police, “anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands.” Freeh writes, without any actual evidence that, “the reference to Coach is believed to be Paterno.” We are to assume that “is believed” really means “believed by Louis Freeh.”
Could “coach” be Paterno? Absolutely. But interestingly the subject line of the email (which Freeh uses in the first instance to substantiate that “coach” means Paterno) is “Jerry.” Why is it not plausible that “coach” there actually means Sandusky, who was still a coach at Penn State at the time? Freeh seems to completely forget that Sandusky was engaged in retirement negotiations at teh very same time and there there are many emails in his own record marked “Sandusky” which have nothing at all to do with the investigation. Is it not very plausible that this email had nothing at all to do with sexual abuse? If this were to be the case, this would dramatically change many of the presumptions on which the report bases its conclusions.
One of the many elements of the report which the media is completely missing (because they obviously haven’t bothered to actually read it) is that Freeh essentially exonerates Paterno on a very important point which has bothered many Paterno defenders since the beginning of this story.
The report seems to prove (much more conclusively than it does other elements) that Sandusky being told that he would never be the head coach at Penn State had nothing to do with any allegations of sexual abuse. In fact, Paterno told him this before the 1998 investigation even began and his own hand written notes make it clear that the reason was because Sandusky, ironically, refused to give up his position as the head of the Second Mile charity, which was the source of his victims. Unfortunately, it is being routinely reported today that the report indicates the Sandusky’s resignation was proof Paterno knew of the problem in 1998. In actuality, the exact opposite is true.
Similarly, much has been made of the previously leaked email from February 27th 2001 in which Curley seems to indicate a change in plans to not report Sandusky to higher authorities after having spoken to Paterno. Not yet mentioned in any media coverage that I have seen is that the report divulges (on page 63) the existence of a February 12th 2001 note in which Curley discusses with the head of campus police coming to the very same conclusion, well before any evidence of influence from Paterno.
Why does this not at least bring into question the real role Paterno had in that decision, especially when the “evidence” is based almost entirely on mind reading through vague emails?
Perhaps the strangest argument Freeh attempts to make is that Paterno’s response to McQueary (to whom Freeh has never spoken) is proof that Paterno was immediately in some sort of cover up mode because the head coach told McQueary, “Now we’ll see what we want to do.”
What is amazing about what a huge deal Freeh made about this in the report and at his press conference is that he acts as if there is a recording of that conversation and we have Paterno’s actual words (which are obviously incredibly important is a situation like this). But that is just not the case. All we have is the testimony of McQueary TEN years after the conversation took place! And again, this is the same guy who inexplicably got the YEAR of the actual incident wrong. How in the world can you possibly conclude anything significant based on such a tenuous recollection?
One of the most blatant errors in the report with regard to both facts as well as their interpretation comes with regard to the two Penn State janitors about whom Freeh spoke so glowingly at his press conference. Here Freeh exposes himself and his report to very credible charges of malpractice.
Freeh claims that two janitors saw something “horrific” in the Penn State locker room in 2000. He says that they didn’t report the episode because they were terrified of speaking of what they saw to Paterno because going up against the football program was like taking on the “President of the United States” and they feared being fired. Freeh then concludes that this fear proved that there was a “chilling effect” within the football program, which was, in it self, is evidence of a culture of corruption.
These assertions by Freeh are simply as laughable as they are inaccurate.
First of all, whether Freeh realizes it or not, his team has never spoken to the actual witness in the 2000 episode because the lone witness now has dementia. The other janitor who testified at trial did so under a hearsay exception and only told of what the other janitor told him. Secondly, neither janitor would have been reporting to Paterno. Thirdly, Sandusky was a former football coach at that time. Fourthly, Freeh seems to completely disregard the obvious reality that these janitors desperately need an explanation for why they didn’t report the episode and that their claiming “fear” of a now dead man (without a shred of evidence) should be looked at with great suspicion. Finally, it seems totally lost on Freeh that these janitors who didn’t report the episode at all are being treated by him as heroes while Paterno, who did at least report allegations which he didn’t even witness, is seen as a pedophile protector.
I want to make it clear that it is quite possible that Joe Paterno did indeed know more than he let on and enough to justify him doing more than he did to stop the monster that was Jerry Sandusky. It is even possible that he actively helped cover it up. But the truth is that the evidence that any of this happened is just not nearly as strong as the media or Louis Freeh are portraying it to be.
All I want is for the truth to come out. We may never get the full truth, but it is important that people understand that, while there may have been some important progress, we didn’t get nearly as much of it from the Freeh report as everyone seems to want to believe.
Matt,
A unambiguous statement has been made that boys from Second Mile were PIMPED to wealthy donors. Three of my favorite commenters have responded to that statement in affirmation or in general support. Frankly, I thought the accusation was “quite a leap” and asked for clarification. Check out what Mike S, Blouise, and Malisha had to say. I will be only too glad to retract my statement about support should Mike, Blouise, or Malisha object.
Henry M – I can’t account for all the stupidity of those who think pedaphiles are not found among Catholic priests and that the Catholic Church, including the Pope(probably more than one), has not actively participated in the coverup of such crimes WORLDWIDE. I still think the Franklin Scandal is hooey and I have not read anything that supports the existence of a pedaphile sex ring at Second Mile.
I agree that there were probably many important people who had strong suspicions that “something” was off with Sandusky and their silence was a terrible thing. That does not make them part of a child sex ring.
Curious,
My only point is, you need to speak for yourself.
Curious, here’s my response to you about the Franklin case — Long long long ago I was working on a ton of child abuse cases all at once, and this crossed my already piled up desk. Since I had no “dog in the race” and there was no child involved at the moment who needed any advocacy or any kind of publicity maneuvers, I remember that I read the pamphlet, remarked on the fact that the cover was red with a black spider, and moved on to things that had deadlines on them. So when it was mentioned I remarked that I remembered it, that some of the copies of that thing were undoubtedly still around, and that’s all.
But let me address your general complaint that nobody is answering you and, in addition, the implication that nobody will deal with the issue of the veracity or falsity of this alleged “hooey” because of a perceived lack of evidence to back it up. Because that issue is important and I think your general desire to get to the bottom of things is important as well.
There ARE in fact cover-ups of wide, deep and almost unimaginable proportions involving conscience-shocking and credibility-stretching child abuse (and even other kinds of abuse) that involve some of the most prominent and even “respectable” persons in our culture, and the fact that these things are unbelievable to normal people helps the perpetrators keep them covered up, because those who insist that they are happening can be easily written off as lunatics, vengeful personal enemies, and liars. In fact, the concerted effort to paint any accuser as an evildoer or a madman is the hallmark of the really nasty cover-up.
There IS SUCH A THING as organized, sadistic child sexual abuse (and other forms of child abuse, but usually mixed all together in a sort of terroristic-threatening-pornographic amalgam that is hard to even hear about, much less believe). One characteristic of this kind of hideous activity (which, fortunately, is quite rare) is that it involves people who all have something on each other. This is an essential piece of the way it works. In other words, if one person who knew about such a thing were to tell, others would fall, yes, but that one person would probably fall the hardest — thus the self-made prepaid cover-up.
I don’t even remember the details of the Franklin cover-up and I don’t remember if, when I read about it, I believed it myself. This is a faint memory in a long history of knowing too much about lots of terrible things. But stop for a moment and think about one case that found its way into the news in a different light, and let me use it to explain what was carefully explained to ME (by law enforcement officers who were peripheral to the case itself).
JonBenet Ramsey.
Physical evidence in the case could not convict the father, nor could it convict the mother. The autopsy found that the child had a healed sexual injury indicating sexual penetration six months or so before her death. No one ever “broke” and no one ever “told” anything. There was a dead body.
How did this happen? Nobody rational believed there was an intruder who carried the tot from her upstairs bedroom down to the basement to kill her and leave her there and duck out again. None of the facts fit the conclusions (which were, essentially, NO CONCLUSIONS) reached by the police. What happened?
Just the point: Both parents, and probably even the brother, KNEW what had happened but none of them had actually killed the child. A non-family member had killed the child, but the family knew WHO that was. Yet they could not reveal who that was because if they did, the killer (who had not meant to kill the child, only to throttle her while he was enjoying himself that night) would reveal what he knew about THEM. (And of course, I am not ruling out that the killer was actually female — whoever the killer was, it was not an immediate family member.)
When you have a situation like that, and when the police do not use the various techniques and tools they have available to pin down who the perp was, you must presume that there were cops “on the inside” in the case, and they were part of whatever situation had led to the accident that blasted this across our front pages. THE COPS WHO HAD BEEN “RETAINED” either had enough power to mess up the investigation forever OR they obtained it as needed when the bad stuff hit the proverbial fan. And how?
Whoever tries to bust that cover-up gets busted for something else.
Whoever opposes the cover-up gets marginalized, undone, fired, convicted of an unrelated crime, welcomed in the psych ward, drugged, ECT’ed, whatever it takes. No witnesses remain to really undo the case or to cut through the Gordian knot.
If one judge needs to call another judge to make sure things go down as needed, so be it; there are interjudicial phone calls. If a judge needs to call al prosecutor from a different county to bring somebody in on a felony warrant for a crime that was never committed, so be it, let it happen, and it does happen. Deals are struck all over the place.
This is nothing bizarre. This is not just for TV. This is our country.
I am not saying the Franklin cover-up happened as it was told in that red pamphlet; I am saying, however, that it certainly COULD HAVE.
Penn State and the Catholic Church are not the kinds of closed systems breeding child sexual abuse because of sports and religion; they are what they are because in a large powerful institution handling lots of money and controlling lots of lives, THESE THINGS HAPPEN.
Curious,
‘The leadership of the charity for children started by Jerry Sandusky concluded that the report of Sandusky in the shower with a boy in 2001 was a “non-incident,” according to the report of the investigation of Penn State released this morning.’
‘Sandusky met boys he was convicted of abusing through The Second Mile.’
http://www.centredaily.com/2012/07/12/3259307/freeh-report-says-second-mile.html
Curious — I’m not objecting to anything you have said. I’m just explaining what I know to the extent that I know it from experience.
Another point I want to make is this: I have been suspicious of MANY nonprofits for essentially taking part, passively, in providing children for abuse. It started in orphanages, many of them run by churches. It is not an unusual scenario. “Throw-away kids” are basically provided to “philanthropic donors” for the alleged kindnesses shown to them and so forth blah blah blah. If you will look through the last few decades of these kinds of happenings, you will see a Nobel Prizewinner taking poor (and what I would call sub-poor) kids from a terrible background and, while molesting them, providing them with all sorts of benefits. Even the most prestigious and well-educated individuals can be heard to say, “But he did so MUCH for them…”
A case in Florida involved a guy going through a group home and identifying a boy he quite liked, and deciding that he would take that boy home and provide for him — rah rah how wonderful, who could possibly object? The mother’s rights were terminated so she couldn’t fuss about it (remember Matt Sandusky’s birth mother trying to complain about what was happening to her son? She didn’t get much respect, did she?). Who would object? Kid turns up 10 years later complaining about sexual abuse; who is listening? They claim that the boy was an opportunist trying to wring money out of his benefactor, and oh well, the kid had a poor and deprived background and he just became a little psychopath.
We are set up, as a society, to let the very powerful really take advantage of the very powerless. Who is more powerful than a wealthy donor? Who is more powerless than a throw-away child? It’s just what happens.
One thing that did shock me in my empirical education: A very wealthy, powerful, brilliant, celebrity New Yorker had a few “procurers” in his entourage who would scout out street kids to bring him for his “use” in an expensive midtown hotel. EVERYBODY KNEW what was happening when some scruffy unclean youngster was escorted in by a well dressed member of the inner circle. When I heard about it, I was gung-ho to bust the perp. NOT ONE MILLIGRAM OF ASSISTANCE — I GOT NOTHING, even from the appalled individuals who had told me all about what was going on. They all said that the perp was so well known and so brilliant that nobody should reveal this. NOBODY SHOULD REVEAL IT! Why? Some said that if there was a real bust and the perp was caught red-handed, the entire arts and intellectual structure of New York City would unite to make the allegation look like a hoax perpetrated UPON the molester as a sign of the hostility of some damnable enemy. I was assured that this would backfire in the worst way and that “after that nobody will ever be believed again about ANY CHILD ABUSE CASE!”
I tried four times to arrange a bust. Nothing. I couldn’t even get an interview with the folks in the police station who, I had it on good information, had received a half dozen complaints from various sources and who had not followed up on anything over a course of a decade. As health problems began to plague the alleged molester, various excuses were given and various medical reports were handed out. Meanwhile, folks in that community in New York even KNOW the particular preference this celebrity has — in age, looks and gender.
There are some people you CAN bust and some you CAN’T. Right now you can bust priests. Soon you may be able to bust folks like Sandusky. But there will still be those you cannot bust regardless of the obviousness of the activity and the widespread nature of the knowledge that there is abuse going on. I don’t have time to reexamine the Franklin case, and haven’t checked into the Second Mile case yet myself — many other things taking my attention. My advice is simply that it cannot be ruled out until it is RULED OUT.
Curious,
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/12/gov_tom_corbetts_team_defends.html
July 23, 2008 — UPDATE 1X. New details emerge about GOP-linked child kidnapping and prostitution ring
Evidence continues to surface that Omaha, Nebraska was “ground zero” for a child kidnapping and prostitution ring that had its tentacles extending into the top echelons of the Republican Party in Nebraska and the Bush 41 White House.
Noreen Gosch, the mother of 12-year old Johnny Gosch, who was kidnapped from his West Des Moines paper route in 1982 and enslaved by the child abduction cult largely based in Omaha, said that in August 2005, she received a call from an older man who claimed that he knew about brutal things that took place with children in the Hummel Park area of Omaha. The man said that he was also aware of unmarked grave sites where the bodies of children had been buried.
In September 2005, a man showed up at an invitation-only meeting at which Mrs. Gosch spoke. The man later was identified as one of two photographers that GOP African American Franklin Credit Union chief Lawrence (Larry) King used to photograph abducted children. On July 23, 2007, WMR reported: “Lawrence King, a rising star in GOP politics, was sued in 1999 in federal court by Paul Bonacci, claiming compensatory damages. Bonacci charged that King was part of a network, with links to the Bush White House, that engaged in child sexual abuse, Satanic rituals, and mind control. King did not contest the charges and a federal judge awarded Bonacci $900,000 in damages. King was convicted and imprisoned on unrelated fraud charges related to Franklin Credit Union.” King is now reportedly working in Fairfax County in northern Virginia.
WMR has written extensively about the role of U.S. diplomats and the State Department in procuring children for prostitution for VIP clients, especially in Southeast Asia. WMR can now report that based on information received from reliable sources, the State Department played a significant role in the procuring of children from Southeast Asia in the late 1980s and early 1990s for purposes of child prostitution in the United States. This was at the height of the “midnight tours” of the White House call boys scandal that rocked the Bush 41 White House and was extensively reported by The Washington Times. The Omaha/Franklin scandal also involved the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Omaha and Boy’s Town, the famous Catholic orphanage in Omaha.
WMR’s sources report that during the Bush 41 child prostitution scandal, aircraft contracted to the State Department, routinely flew children from Southeast Asia into Offutt Air Force Base outside of Omaha. The entire planes would be declared “diplomatic pouches,” which meant that there were no records — immigration, military, or otherwise — with a record of the passengers being brought into the country. The State Department lawyer who oversaw the legal arrangements for the trafficking of children into the United States through the “diplomatic pouch” contrivance was described as a “Mr. Jones” by a source familiar with the operation.
From Offutt, groups of Asian children were dispatched to two locations, Washington, DC and New York City, for purposes of prostitution. WMR has learned that among the clients of these child prostitution services were some of America’s top politicians, media celebrities, and Wall Street financiers.
UPDATE 1X: WMR has also learned that during the Bush 41 presidency, a luxurious home on Wyoming Avenue in northwest Washington, DC that belonged to GOP lobbyist and former ABC News correspondent Craig Spence, was used to bring together abducted children trafficked through Omaha with high-level politicians and other VIPs. A top GOP official in the Bush 41 administration, who used the moniker “Madam Pete,” was involved in the liaison between Spence and Omaha’s Lawrence King.
October 3, 2006 — Informed sources in Tallahassee, Florida have told WMR that Governor Jeb Bush was fully aware of ex-Rep. Mark Foley’s conduct with underage male pages but sat on the information to protect Foley and another top GOP Florida official, Attorney General Charlie Crist, who is currently running for governor to replace Bush. Today, Jeb Bush said he had not previously known about Foley’s behavior with the pages before being informed by House Speaker Dennis Hastert in a letter dated October 1, 2006. Bush said he was “dismayed and shocked to learn about Congressman Foley’s unacceptable behavior.”
However, according to our Florida sources, the FBI and Justice Department informed the Florida Governor’s office, Attorney General Crist, and the Florida AG’s Child Protection Cybercrime Unit at least a year ago about Foley’s predatory emails and instant messages. WMR was told that Crist’s conflict-of-interest in the case stems from Crist’s and Foley’s involvement in gay sex parties, some of which took place during 2003 in trendy Coconut Grove, Florida.
[photo]
Foley scandal reverberating in Florida gubernatorial race. Left to right: Crist, Foley, and Jeb Bush.
Informed Florida sources claim that up until now, Crist and Jeb Bush have been able to keep a lid on the once-divorced Crist’s life style, touting his conservative Christian credentials, but that the Foley revelations will severely impact the Crist gubernatorial campaign. The links between Foley and Crist are certain to harm Crist with his conservative backers who admire Crist for his anti-gay rights stance. Floridians begin early voting on October 23.
March 27, 2007 — BREAKING STORY. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ “loyal Bushie” U.S. Attorney for Western Texas covered up a major pedophile scandal with the connivance of the Justice Department’s Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division
publication date: Apr 29, 2007
Download Print Send a summary of this page to someone via email.
Previous | Next
March 27, 2007 — BREAKING STORY. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ “loyal Bushie” U.S. Attorney for Western Texas covered up a major pedophile scandal with the connivance of the Justice Department’s Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, already under pressure for firing several U.S. Attorneys not considered “loyal Bushies,” now faces another scandal. Albert Moskowitz, the Chief of the Criminal Section of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, sent a letter dated September 27, 2005, to the Superintendent of the Texas Youth Commission’s West Texas State School youth detention facility declining the prosecution of two of the Texas agency’s employees — Ray Brookins and John Hernandez — for engaging in sexual molestation of 10 underage males incarcerated at the facility. The charges of molestation were originally brought by Texas Ranger Brian J. Burzynski. Earlier, in a July 28, 2005 letter, the Assistant US Attorney for West Texas, Bill Baumann, who works for US Attorney Johnny Sutton, a close friend of Gonzales, sent a letter to Burzynski declining federal prosecution in the pedophile case. In a decision that indicates that the Gonzales Justice Department defines child molestation in very narrow and high threshold terms, Baumann wrote that the young men at the West Texas facility that claimed they were raped by Brookins and Hernandez did not sustain “bodily injury” or “bodily pain.” Baumann also defined aggravated sexual assault as resulting from a “perpetrator knowingly causing his victim to engage in a sexual act (which can include contact between the mouth and penis) by force against the victim or by threatening or placing the victim in fear that the victim (or any other person) will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury or kidnapping). Baumann stated, “I do not believe that sufficient evidence exists to support a charge that either Brookins or Hernandez used force to cause victims to engage in a sexual act.”
Astonishingly, Baumann also writes that “none of the victims admit they consented to the sexual contact” with the juvenile facility employees. However, Baumann then suggests that the underage males came on to the prison guards and were “simply ‘getting off’ on the school administrator. Baumann also indicates that “many students” were “retained at the West Texas State School long after their initial release date” but that “it would be difficult to prove that either Mr. Brookins or Mr. Hernandez prevented their release.” The clear indication is that Brookins and Hernandez kept the boys incarcerated in order to continue to sodomize them. Baumann, who appears to be borrowing heavily from the tracts of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), suggests that sex between the underage males and detention facility personnel is perfectly legitimate as long as the sex is consensual. There are also reports that detained youth in the Texas Youth system are transported from various facilities for purposes of prostitution.
After the allegations about abuse at the West Texas detention facility became public, Hernandez was forced to resign as principal at a Midland, Texas charter school. A Ward County grand jury is investigating the case.
There are now reports that pedophilia extends to other youth detention facilities in Texas. The Texas Sheltered Care Facility in Nixon, in south Texas, is being investigated for the abuse, including sexual molestation of detained Latin American immigrant youth housed at the center. The facility is operated by Away from Home, Inc. Some 72 children were relocated from the facility after the abuse charges were raised. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services investigated the Nixon facility and referred the case to US Attorney Johnny Sutton and the FBI. However, once again, Sutton decided “the alleged activity, which as the focus of the investigation, could likely be more effectively addressed by the state of Texas prosecutorial authorities.” FBI agent Erik Vasys told the Houston Chronicle that the FBI was “disappointed” in the failure of the Justice Department to bring charges. Presidential adviser Karl Rove has been implicated by child welfare advocates in Texas in the failure of the Justice Department to prosecute the Texas child abuse and pedophilia cases. Indictments in the case prepared by the US Attorney for West Texas were reportedly spiked on the orders of the White House and Justice Department.
Baumann states that Burzynski “thoroughly investigated the allegations brought to your attention by the Texas Youth Commission” and promptly interviewed all witnesses and victims, gathered appropriate documentation from school officials and executed a federal search warrant at the residence of Mr. Hernandez at West Texas State School in Pyote.” Baumann concludes, ” It is my opinion, however, that our office’s resources would be better employed investigating and prosecuting cases involving more clearly defined violations of federal criminal law.”
The decision of the Gonzales Justice Department to decline prosecution of pedophiles within the Texas Youth Commission juvenile detention system mirrors its failure to take prompt action last year in the case of former Representative Mark Foley (R-FL), whose e-mails with underage male congressional pages were turned over to the Justice Department for investigation. On October 3, 2006, WMR reported the following:
“WMR has learned from informed sources in the Justice Department that the salacious e-mails from Rep. Mark Foley were leaked to ABC News by career Justice Department prosecutors and FBI agents who are incensed that Attorneys General John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales covered up the House page scandal for political reasons. The back story of Pagegate is that there was a criminal conspiracy by the top political leadership of the Justice Department to cover up the predatory activities of Foley and other GOP members of Congress since at least 2003 and, likely, as early as 2001.”
haven’t found the PA article yet.
New details emerge about 1989 Bush I White House teen prostitute scandal: teens entered private quarters of the White House while George W. Bush was occasionally residing there while acting as his father’s hatchet man in the White House.
The Washington Times also stated, “White House officials have said that the midnight tours such as those arranged for Mr. Spence do not threaten the First Family’s security because they are allowed only in office areas and not the residence.” In fact, according to the Times, then First Lady Barbara Bush brushed aside the story of the teen prostitutes entering the White House for midnight tours, saying, “There haven’t been a lot of stories in our house about it . . . I’m not into all of this,” adding it was “good” that The Washington Post wasn’t following The Times’ story. However, WMR has learned that Spence was close to a number of Washington Post journalists as well as others working for The New York Times, CBS News, and ABC News. Spence was arrested in New York City for gun and cocaine possession and in November 1989 was found dead in a Boston hotel, fully clothed in a black tuxedo and white bow tie reportedly from a suicide. There were no signs of injury to Spence’s body.
And, although Fitzwater and Mrs. Bush claimed Spence’s male prostitutes never entered the private quarters of the White House, WMR has learned otherwise. WMR was told by one of the chief investigators on this story that one of the teen prostitutes said that he noticed damage to the underside of a cornice (a special molding along the top of a wall) in one of the bedrooms in the private quarters of ithe White House during one of his overnight stays. The Lincoln Bedroom and the Rose Guest Room are both located within the more secure confines of the private quarters on the second floor of the White House. The prostitute’s story about a damaged cornice in a corner bedroom of the private quarters was later confirmed by a White House source. Moreover, the damage to the cornice could have only be seen by someone who was lying on their back on the bed.
Damned awful business!
A very long time ago, Dwight Eisenhower was President and I was teaching. A couple of our teachers had gone to DC for some kind of teacher’s conference. They were sitting in the hotel lobby late one evening and as they described it:
“The first thing we knew, all these Secret Service guys came into the lobby, fanned out and told everybody to not get up and move about until they said it would be OK. Right after that, Eisenhower and several other old gobblers came in and went up the stairs to the mezzanine level. Every one of them had a sweet young thing on their arms. Neither one of us saw Mamie Eisenhower.” And I might add, did not expect to see Mamie that night.
Inquiring minds will want to know: 1) When jerko goes the second mile to the second State Penn; 2) When he gets anally intruded; 3) When Paterno’s family shuts up.
Like a rolling Stone……
Just to start, obviously Paterno and leadership are partially at fault and Sandusky is a horrible human being (if he can even be called human).
It is not fair to criticize the rest of the University. The leadership failed but the other members of the faculty had nothing to do with it. Penn State is still a teaching institution and does have other merits other than football (believe it or not). So, while the leadership should be chastised, the rest of the university is just as shocked and angry as the rest of us.
I used to teach at a different university and the professoriate is typically far removed from the actions of the athletic department.
Without a doubt, what happen was far beyond the pale of humanity and those at fault should pay for what they covered up. The rest of Penn State should be allowed to get along with the business of teaching.
That concludes my rant. In reading a few news stories about the Freeh Report, the phrase “Penn State did..” or “Penn State covered up…”, and if I were a member of the faculty I would be pretty pissed about being grouped in with those monsters.
DrMike,
Your point is well taken in that this scandal wrongly detracts from the fact that academically Penn St. is no doubt a very good University. What I think blackens the University’s name in this is that it’s football program in effect became the face of Penn State, which was used to raise money. This exists in many fine schools throughout the country where they use their sports teams as the “face” of their program. Big time College sports by their nature breed corruption in order for the teams to maintain their stature. That Paterno became the most powerful person at the school is an indictment of the whole institution that casts a shadow even on those who are blameless.
Typical to Pravda…start with one story move it around until it hits your political targets.
Start with Sandusky…move it to Jeb Bush…finally nail Pres Bush.
Straight from the Lenin playbook.
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/10301-from-penn-state-to-jpmorgan-chase-and-barclay-destroying-higher-education-savaging-children-and-extinguishing-democracy
Me,
You?
Dr. Mike: “Just to start, obviously Paterno and leadership are partially at fault and Sandusky is a horrible human being (if he can even be called human).”
Well he CAN be called human and he IS human and there are LOTS of humans who have many of his characteristics. That’s just the point, in my opinion. It always makes me mad when someone tries to refer to some dirtbag as “an animal” to show how bad they are. Most animals (mammals anyway) do not try to annihilate other whole groups of their own specier; most animals live in groups that do not do substantial harm to their own young; etc. etc. etc.
We are human and there are lots of child molesters among us; and THEY are human and they are entitled to all the constitutional rights that any bank robber or tax evader would have if charged with a crime. And they are entitled to any amount of sympathy that others feel like giving them, too. And I think it would be a lot better for us as a culture if we stopped hating them WORSE THAN OTHER PEOPLE WHO HARM THEIR CO-HUMANS because then we wouldn’t have to cover up their conduct so vigorously.
Let’s say we just said that someone who did what Sandusky did back in 2001 should be (a) STOPPED and (b) punished, and we didn’t go apesh*t about it. THEN perhaps the folks at Penn State who covered up so fanatically would not have had the same incentive. Perhaps they would have thought, “I don’t want to get into trouble for helping someone evade the consequences of his own actions” rather than, “We HAVE TO HANDLE THIS IN TOTAL SILENCE; WE CANNOT LET IT GET OUT NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS!”
A while back I proposed a decriminaliztion of certain kinds of child abuse WITHIN THE FAMILY specifically so that the perps could be treated humanely and not reviled, and the reason was that under those circumstances, there would be some more reasonable possibility of getting the child abuse to STOP and getting the parents to revise their behavior rather than getting into more and more vigorous defense including calling their own kids liars. This idea didn’t fly. My colleagues got mad at me for suggesting that child abusers should be treated like humans who have made mistakes.
Anyway, there’s my two cents’ worth…
“Mike Spindell
Me,
You?”
——————————————–
Not I
Mike S.
That Paterno became the most powerful person at the school is an indictment of the whole institution that casts a shadow even on those who are blameless.
=============
Life has its reality. You get painted with the same brush, even if you had nothing to do with it.
bettykath
Thank you for providing your sources and a further explanation. I find those sources lacking all credibility. The Washington Times was founded by the Rev. Moon – thought by most to be the head of a religious cult and a man with an unusual agenda and not much by way of journalistic credentials. It took me awhile to figure out WMR was the Wayne Madsen Report. He has too many conspiracy theories to list, but I did find his 2010 “blockbuster expose” interesting where he reveals that Obama is bi-sexual and left three dead lovers behind him on his way to the White House. However, that pales in comparison with your own Madsen citations. Ugly. Vile. Smears.
Curious, Madsen is frequently about 3 years ahead of MSM in his reporting.
@Mike Spindell & DrMike,
Mike and Mike seem to be getting at what should be done. We have individuals who have acted, at best, with poor judgement, and perhaps criminally, an institutional culture that made it easy for responsible individuals to feel that their actions were justified, and a large number of individuals who were not informed and played no role.
As satisfying as it might be to punish the university, punishment does not seem to lead to the right result.
So Mike and Mike, what is the right result and how do we get there.
Apparently the Freeh report has approximately 100 suggestions. At the very least the right result would seem to include making it impossible for individuals in responsible positions to ignore or cover up future criminal activity.
There seems to be a lot here to consider. But what fascinates me is institutional culture that made it possible for responsible individuals to believe that clear indications of criminal activity could be ignored or covered up.
It seems so clear to me that something like this was certain to go public and at that point there could be no reasonable explanation or excuse. Yet responsible individuals convinced themselves that their decisions were defensible.
How could they possibly believe that facts like these would stay hidden and how could they possibly believe that their decisions would be judged reasonable?
Wayne Madsen has been called out for being a “raging anti-semite”.
Malisha,
Thanks for your reply. I agree that there are many, many sexually abused children. For some time I have believed that such abuse can occur in most any family and your idea is a good one that we could better deal with it if we didn’t go bats**t over it But I’m lost when it comes to these vast conspiracies and sex rings. Especially those involving politicians, the State Department, the CIA, and plane loads of kidnapped children Except, of course, with Irish orphanages. But if the highest levels of the Roman Catholic Church have been exposed, I don’t know why anyone would now be reluctant to reveal a sex ring of “powerful State College,PA” Second Mile donors. But I will keep your advice in mind that it cannot be ruled out until it is ruled out. But I need sources that are much, much more credible than the Washington Times and the Madsen Report.
A raging anti-semite would be a compliment for this vile man who makes his living spreading such smears. Unless, of course, he is just stark, raving mad.
SwM,
Was D C hot enough for you?
Swarthmore mom 1, July 13, 2012 at 2:13 pm
Wayne Madsen has been called out for being a “raging anti-semite”.
———————
There is a difference between being anti-semitic and being against the Zionists oppression of the Palestinians and their way out of balance influence in the US government. Madsen knows the difference.
Those who don’t like his reporting of abuse and malfeasance are sweeping with a wide brush to marginalize him. Sounds like it’s been effective. I’m surprised to see it here.
An example of Madsen’s “journalism” and Obama’s weekly visits to Chicago’s premier gay bath house… I lost count of the number of politicians who have given Obama a blow-j**. Includes Mark Kirk, Rahm, Trent Lott, Bill Frist, some gay sex ring run by Jerimiah Wright.
http://atlah.org/2010/06/10/wayne-madsen-special-report-obama-and-emanuel-members-of-same-gay-bath-house-club-in-chicago/
Stark. Raving. Mad.
Then you’ll love his new book “”The Manufacturing of a President” by Wayne Madsen
BFM,
Re: your question as to how the could think they would get away with a coverup, I’d say denial isn’t just a river in Egypt. It is one of the most widespread of human defense mechanisms and the faultiest.
I’m holding my breath for the companion report on the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. Too many votes at stake for the Justice Department to f_ _ k with that can of worms.
Bettykath,
Far be it from me to deny conspiracy theories, because I believe in many. However, those people mentioned lining up to perform oral sex on the President tasks even my widespread suspicion. As for the “Zionist oppression of the Palestinians” and anti- Jewishness, when the situation in Israel is compared to the Shoah, then a line is crossed. As you may know I’m on record here as disliking both the Israeli government and AIPAC. However, as a Jew I am a Zionist, simply as a matter of my descendents survival. In every country in the past 2,000 years Jew have faced extinction. I’ m happy in the U.S., but with the power of Fundamentalist Christianity and the Mormon Church, there needs to be a fall back country for Jews. WWll proved conclusively that we can’t rely on anyone but ourselves
Bkouise, I am in DC now, and it has been reasonably cool this week…. low to mid eighties. The week before we got here it was in the 100′s and my daughter’s power was out.
Mike S, thanks for your comments, and “yeah, what Mike S said.” I would change one word (to two): “WWII proved conclusively that we can’t rely on anyone but each other.”
Curious, yes, thanks, I agree.
When I hear about these things I generally weigh three factors:
(1) Do I have time to do enough studying and fact-checking and investigating to decide for myself what I think has happened?
(2) Am I accountable so that I HAVE to do it whether I have time or not?
and
(3) CAN I even do it, even if either numbers (1) and/or (2) above say I should try?
Then I either try to figure it out or don’t try to figure it out. More recently, I don’t.
Mike S., I think a discussion on this topic would be beneficial but this isn’t the place for it. I respect your point of view. I’m not sure where our agreement might be. I think we would find one. But not here, not now – it’s been a long day.
There are OT discussions all the time. There are cross-references all the time. I don’t see any problem with that. Anybody who doesn’t want to join in any of the OT or cross-thread discussions (or even non-thread discussions) doesn’t have to.
Bettykath,
Israel is a difficult discussion that I’m loath to entrr into. I wound up on this blog years ago becsuse I was literally run out of Democrsts.com, where I had been commenting because they couldn’t believe I was a radical because I supported Israel. For Jews proud of their heritage and aware of their history, Israel plays an important role that non-Jews simply don’t and really can’t understand. For many of us it is the promise of survival, or the place where Jews will take their last stand. That being said there are many faults with Israel and its current administration. I agree though that I would rather not continue this discussion here. Malisha who is also a Jew and a radical gets where I’m coming from. I think though that both of us get why non-Jews might not get where we are coming from.
Mike, I can say that I learned a long time ago you can love the person but have an intense dislike for their behavior. Speaking as one who is an Episcopalian and not a Jew, I do not have the insights that Jews do. On the other hand, I have the luxury of being a neutral observer. Being able to sort out behavior versus humanity affects how I feel about both Israel and the Palestinian people. Both groups have the same afflictions we have here in the USA: Politicians and military leaders who believe force is the only answer to everything, and “my way is the only way.”
I am reminded of the famous insight of Abraham Maslow, “When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.”
Albert Ellis would have a field day analyzing the illogical thinking on both sides that divide.
Some of us gentiles get it, Mike, but yeah – it’s a hairy discussion. When I write the entry for military use of propaganda, I’m seriously thinking about using that episode with the Israelis and the blockade from last year as one of the lynchpins of the article. Maybe that’ll provide an opportunity to air out some of those issues?
OS,
I’m with you there.
SwM,
Thank goodness you weren’t there last week!
Gene,
“When I write the entry for military use of propaganda, I’m seriously thinking about using that episode with the Israelis and the blockade from last year as one of the lynchpins of the article. Maybe that’ll provide an opportunity to air out some of those issues?”
I look forward to that and to the possibility of an in-depth discussion about the issues upon which Mike, bettykath, and Malisha have touched. As long as we stay clear of the overly-emotional buzz-words and maintain an intentionally high level of respect for each others’ views, there is much to be learned … and taught.
Mike S, yes, I do get where you’re coming from, and I even get where others are coming from. But because I’m kind of a one-issue person and the Middle East has not been my issue, I haven’t studied it very deeply. We’d have real fun with the Israelis’ interpretation of the SYG laws, wouldn’t we?
Mike,
What I said was, “There is a difference between being anti-semitic and being against the Zionists oppression of the Palestinians and their way out of balance influence in the US government.”
Not all Zionists approve of the oppression of the Palestinians and I didn’t say that they did. But some do, especially those in the government of Israel. I think this is wrong. There are many dual-citizenship people holding influential positions in our government and they use their positions to advance Israel’s interests over those of the US. I think this is wrong. We agree about AIPAC. I have no problem with the existence of Israel, same as I have no problem with the existence of the US. But both countries have a history and ongoing policies that are disgraceful.
Bettykath,
Here’s the problem and it is indeed one of semantics. I am a Zionist, which in my mind means I’m someone who believes in the continued existence of a Jewish Homeland, Israel. In that context to be anti-Zionist, is to be anti the continuance of Israel as the Jewish homeland. Some “Zionists” such as the neocons who are prominent in AIPAC and Bibi’s administration are narrow minded people, who in their zeal to ensure Israel’s survival, are actually hurting Israel and its’ founding democratic tradition. When we discuss Madsen, his anti-Zionism is actually grounded in the belief that Israel’s existence is in itself evidence of oppressive tendencies. I do not call him anti-Jewish, as I’m loath to call anyone anti-Jewish merely for their belief that Israel shouldn’t exist, but I do think that in his imprecise use of the term Zionist, his approach is one that
mis-characterizes the issue.
Secondly, since 1967, with massive amounts of Saudi money, there has been an ongoing PR campaign to de-legitimize Israel via certain memes. For instance in the world media up until then, the Israeli’s were alternatively referred to as “Palestinians” and the indigenous Arab population that fled Israel at its founding were referred to as Arabs, since that is what they were culturally, religiously and by heredity. Along with that Zionism (the belief in the establishment of a Jewish Homeland) was conflated with oppressive policies and genocide. Genocide was particularly important because this way a way of diminishing the impact of the Shoah on the world’s consciousness, thus diminishing sympathy for Jews by implying they were just as bad as NAZI’s..
The third and last point I would make is the false belief that Israel only exists because of the United States and as a satrap to it. The truth is that while the U.S. publicly supported the UN resolution, it gave no military aid or weaponry to the nascent Israel. That this makes sense is bolstered by the fact that Big Oil has long played a dominant role in U.S. politics. The Suez war in 1956, which was just given that Egypt had violated UN guarantees.
any, got to leave a softball game is coming up.
Mike S, thanks, great comment, I want to respond but am working on a different kind of thing right now. Can you do a guest blog for Professor Turley so we can jump into it right proper?
Malisha,
Thanks for the invite but I won’t do a guest blog on Israel. It is a difficult subject to debate that causes angry reactions on all sides of the issue. Since everyone has known that I’m Jewish for a long time, it would be natural for those who disagree with my position to believe that I’m being completely biased and indeed I am on this subject. I don’t even like debating Israel because of my dislike for its current government and because of the stupidity of some of those Neocons who are prominent in AIPAC, who think that Saudi allied Republicans like the Bush family have Israel’s best interests at heart. Due to these judgments on my part it becomes a muddy debate, since I’ve have these problems with those who think they defend Israel’s best interests.
“The Suez war in 1956, which was just given that Egypt had violated UN guarantees.”
What I was trying to say here got muddled because I had to leave for a ballgame. The point was that in 1956 Egypt violated U.N. cautions and international law by closing the Suez Canal to Israeli shipping, which was tantamount to a blockade. Israel, Britain and France attacked and were about to re-take the Canal, when the U.S. went to the U.N. and along with Russia prevented this. The U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles was a Jew hater who along with Senator Prescott Bush had owned a bank that financed the NAZI’s. Dulles brother, another partner in the bank ran the CIA. The point being the U.S. sided again against Israel.
What is true is that the U.S. role vis-a-vis Israel has always been to try to manipulate it for the benefit of the Saudi’s and Big Oil. While the Saudi’s hate Israel, they also want it to continue because it takes the focus off of the real oppression in the Mid-East and focuses anger away from their medieval government. I could go on with this forever, but to what point? If people are unaware of the actual history and do see the “Palestinians” as a colonially oppressed people, I’m not going to change their minds.
Mike S, thanks, I’m sorry — didn’t mean to meddle, just wanted to benefit from info. from your research because I haven’t always done my own.
I understand completely what you’re saying. My friend the Yemeni journalist talks about all the “proxy wars” in the Middle East because the big guys are playing, “Let’s you and him fight” and they play it best with Israel as the “him” in just about any set-up they want to set up.
http://www.statecollege.com/news/local-news/attorneys-spaniers-topsecret-security-clearance-upheld-after-investigation-1092254/
Attorneys for former Penn State President Graham Spanier released a statement Monday afternoon attacking the credibility of Louis Freeh’s report and that their client’s top-secret security clearance was ignored in the investigation.
Freeh’s investigative report of Penn State was released Thursday and revealed the university’s top officials and former head coach Joe Paterno covered up Jerry Sandusky’s pedophilia, for which he was convicted June 22.
The statement, which expresses sympathy for Sandusky’s victims in the last sentence, says another investigation of Spanier was being conducted simultaneously with Freeh’s. The former resulted in the reaffirmation of Spanier’s top-secret security clearance, which he holds because of his work with the federal government.
“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,” Spanier’s attorneys, Elizabeth Ainslie and Peter Vaira, said in a statement.
“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.”
The first hearing in Spanier’s civil suit against Penn State is scheduled for Aug. 17. The former president filed a complaint May 25 in an attempt to have emails turned over to him that were made a part of the Freeh report.
The emails in questions, sent by Spanier, may date as far back as 1996 and are on Penn State servers.
Mike S., SM, I’ve been working on crow recipes. I stand by my comments that WMR frequently has national security issues reported well before MSM that eventually report what he got first. However, coincidentally, with our discussion here, WMR came out with a report on something/someone where I have my own knowledge and sources, in addition to the full statement where he did some cherry picking. His report slammed what he perceived to be a change of position re: Israel and Palestine. My reading of the same full statement leads to disagreement. Disagreement is ok but in further discussion (he was good enough to take part in an exchange) it became pretty clear that his assessment and, imo, lack of objectivity, was based on the person being Jewish. Smacks pretty hard of antisemitism.
Bettykath,
No crow needs to be eaten since I’ve read enough of you to see that you are an intelligent and fair person. The problem lies with people like Madsen, who I wouldn’t even call consciously anti-Jewish. The whole Mid-East problem, in which Israel at the center is highly confusing for people to sort out and is also the source of anger on all sides. I’m somewhat on top of it because i’m 67 and I’m Jewish, so my consciousness of and interest in Israel, goes back to almost its independence.
What’s not apparent to someone younger than myself, who wasn’t a 60′s radical, is that there are nuance upon nuance that pile up to make the whole discussion muddy. There is the internal Israeli battle between being an idealistic socialist State, juxtaposed with the well-meaning, but misguided influence of wealthy Jewish Americans.
There is the myth that America is Israel’s “greatest ally” in the Mid-East, when the truth is that the U.S. historically has been far closer to the Saudi’s. The U.S. role in the ME is really to serve as a check upon Israel. One has to also be aware that in the “Cold War” the USSR and the U.S. competed for the favor of the ME oil-producers. The Soviet Union took up the Palestinian cause to win the favor of the oil producers. The USSR’s point of attack was to brand Israel a product of American Imperialism. Thus making the Palestinians into a victimized people. This had a lot of resonance with radicals like Zinn and Chomsky who though not communist, liked that line of reasoning. The other nuance is that some of the more Orthodox forms of Judaism can be stultifying to such an extent that many radicals completely turned their backs on all Jews, even though they themselves were Jewish. I was immune (or inculcated
) because my parents while quite radical, nevertheless taught me to feel connected to my heritage.
However, from what I’ve read of Madsen, he has inherited his anti-Israel stance from the radical tradition of believing Israel to be an imperialist product. From
the outside Judaism looks monolithic, but it is anything but. Because of how it looks though, to someone coming from Madsen’s position, there is a tendency to conflate all Jewish opinions together and that can lead to a conspiratorial view of Jews. There is an old joke that I think really explains the reality of Jewish “unity”.
If there are three Jews stranded on a desert island how many political party’s will they create? Four. One of them will be debating with them-self.
There is one thing that is unifying for most Jews, although certainly not all and that is an identification with a culture that is also a religion, which has a history of 2,000 or more years of oppression. Yet as is the case with all humans, how they react to that history of oppression can be in diametrically opposed ways. My parents believe in freedom for blacks in the 50′s, because of that history of oppression, other Jews were basking in their new-found American identity strove to fit in by adopting the prejudicial norms.
Unfortunately, there is really so much more of the nuances that bear equal importance to what I’ve listed in my posts above. To convey all of the sides of this issue and how they interact would take a tome of which i’m incapable.
I believe Madsen hasn’t looked into his beliefs as deeply as he might have and
I think the tendency that you’ve discovered in your interaction with him clouds his judgment.and insight on this issue.
BettyKath, I didn’t get it but I have the vague feeling that I should have — anyway I’ll try to figure it out and thanks for your research.
Mike S, don’t tell anyone, but I’m older than you (not by much). My activism didn’t begin until the 90′s. It was mostly due to environment why I wasn’t active sooner and why I became active then.
In discussion with those with whom I disagree, I try to get us to agree on the facts before we start interpreting them. So many discussions take off on opinions when those arguing are working from different facts. Of course they are unlikely to find common ground.
I don’t think I’ll ever understand the nuances of the problems of the Middle East. Just to get started I’d have a reading list that I don’t have enough years to complete. And which parts of the reading list are so biased as to be propaganda? The Palestine/Israel problems have been around for decades and I don’t see a solution in my lifetime.
The only reason we are on this topic is b/c Madsen was being dismissed on all topics b/c he is anti-Semitic. I defended him but looked further. His reports on Israel, Jews, etc. are now more suspect than before. I had already been dismayed at his ad hominem attacks. I will continue to read his reports but with his bias in mind.
No need to eat crow, bettykath. No one is right all the time. Your intentions seem to be quite honorable. Just looked at Madsen’s website. I think you must be referring to Jill Stein. He was after Soros and Obama, too. I am not into conspiracy theories so I really don’t pay any attention to Madsen.
So I have to have more moderation commentary. I’m almost flattered. Tell me what needs to be moderated.
First Amendment. Apparently that doesn’t matter when you own the website.
Matt, more than 2 links send you to moderation purgatory from which you never emerge. there are also a few naughty words that get you there as well. I don’t remember the naughty words. rework your post and try again.
bettykath,
I’m not going to try again because they’re aren’t any naughty words. The purgatory filter is defective.
Who is Madsen? Where is the website?
What about Jill Stein, Soros, and Obama?
Bettykath,
At this point in life it’s good to know someone is older. As for learning we do it every day and when we stop we die. Have you tried reading Russ Baker at Whowhatwhy.com? He seems to me a more stable source than Madsen. Interestingly, I don’t think Russ is pro-Israel but I think he tries to be fair.
re: Russ Baker. A quick looks interesting. I’ll add that site to my list. Thanks.
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/
Is this the Madsen you were talking about?
Matt, yes.
The biggest reason for writing more about the Freeh Report is, like the news media and politicians on both sides I’ve written about in the past, the Freeh Report is dishonest, in many ways incomprehensibly incompetent, and had an agenda to fit a preconceived idea and it was going to fill that agenda even if it meant doing it not just with distortions but out and out fabrications. And the reaction of the mob and the press who swallowed it uncritically and without investigation, who accepted its conclusions blindly, is important because the Freeh Report itself, the reactions of the press and the people who believed it is in microcosm, everything that has gone wrong with the country and why the country as a whole is in the trouble its in in terms of politics and policies that aren’t working.
Everything about the Freeh Report and the reactions of the press and people who believe what they read without checking facts, or even applying common sense is how fascism took a foothold in Europe in the 1930′s. A dishonest bureaucratic authority figure disseminating propaganda and outright lies to fit a preconceived idea, offering unchallenged “evidence” that wouldn’t last a minute in a court room, an incompetent, spineless press, spreading and repeating the lies without bothering to see what is true and what isn’t and not caring, and a mindless mob who wont think for themselves who swallow it and then, torches lit, go on their midnight rampage. The comments by the university president as to why the statue was taken down are worse than the statue being taken down ( like some mob pulling down statues in Stalinist Russia). His comments are a disgrace to an insittution of higher learning and if he thinks that committing gross injustices, throwing away one’s ability to think and committing immoral acts in the name of morality is the way to help heal victims of abuse, by committing an abuse himself as the press commonly does, then if in the future, if facts that Freeh either chose to ignore or that he knew he didnt have prove otherwise, that will be the stain he has brought on himself and the lack of leadership at the university.
As for the press, they are ostensbily there to protect us from lies, distortions and abuses by those in authority. If someone doesnt have proof, they are supposed to dig until they find it and report the truth. They are so supposed to be adversial in their relationship with those who have even a modicum of power. Those characteristics are a bad joke when it comes to what we have as a press and its been the case for a long time.
This episode is not just about Paterno. Its not about one person. Its how lies spread, how the press fails miserably in their responsibilities, ( as they have for decades) and how the mob mentality, sure of their own moral rightness, commits crimes in the name of their morality and becomes every bit as immoral as a Sandusky while trying to prove to themselves and everybody else that the opposite is true.
Far from exposing Paterno for any wrong doing, it exposes other things. It exposes the sheer stupidity and cowardice of journalists who have a history of stampeding like mindless cattle or acting like parrots. It exposes the people too stupid or too lazy to see how impossibly nonsensical and dishonest the report is, how as a legal document or investigation it fails on every level, because it would take away their one chance to exhibit their self serving but phony sense of morality. And it exposes the stupidity of the report itself, and the dishonesty of Louis Freeh whose name the report carries.
So the next time you see or hear anyone grandstanding about Paterno and the Freeh Report, know you are looking at or hearing a moral coward who has never stood for or up to anything in their lives, who look at the torch carrying mob of people just like them and think to themselves, “now’s my chance”.
This level of stupidity even found its way to the city of Grambling, home to Grambling College. An attorney there with the support of the mayor petitioned the NCAA to vacate 3 Penn State victories based on the Freeh Report. Morality? Hardly. They want Eddie Robinson the famed Grambling coach to be able to claim the most victories by a coach in NCAA history. That is the morality in microcosm of the people who buy the Freeh Report. Its all based on what’s in it for them. But here is a news flash for the mayor of Grambling and their obviously ignorant attorney. Paterno could have been convicted of mass murder and it wouldn’t be grounds to vacate any victories by the Penn State football team. My advice to the mayor and this ignorant attorney would be to stop grandstanding and degrading yourself for your own self serving reasons. But this is the level of stupidity and immorality that the Freeh Report brings out.
Freeh’s report at its heart is dishonest and decietful and Freeh uses deceit to make his point. Freeh’s report has as its heart the premise that Paterno knew of the abuse of Sandusky and the 1998 investigation and kept quiet about it and lied to the grand jury to protect Penn State from bad publicity. The premise is not just false its stupid and what Freeh calls, and which the mindless swallowed, as proof, not proof at all but what Freeh got away with because, unlike a courtroom, there was no adversary challenging Freeh’s so called evidence, no judge to throw it out, no rule of law to follow and no rules of evidence. Freeh knew he had a kangaroo court and it was a matter of what he could get away with. And with an incompetent and ignorant press and those who believe them, he did.
PREMISE 1: PATERNO KNEW ABOUT 1998 INVESTIGATION.
This is one of the cornerstones of the Freeh Report. Its the basis for Freeh’s premise that Paterno knew of and hid Sandusky’s activities, and the investigation and then lied about it in his grand jury testimony “to shield Penn State from bad publicity.”
As you’ll see the stupidity of the premise based on what Freeh calls “proof” which is no proof of anything, is mind boggling and in a court room with any competent lawyer would do more to undermine his case than prove it..
FREEH’S “PROOF”.
The “proof” Freeh uses to claim unequivocally and with absolute certainty that Paterno knew about the Sandusky investigation in 1998 and so consequently perjured himself during his grand jury testimony, are three emails between Curley and Schultz which refers to Curley asking for updates on the progress of the investigation and a reference to “coach anxious to know”.
Freeh wants you to believe that “Coach” is Paterno. Freeh’s proof is that he says it. Not because he proves it. But barring any definitive proof that it is Paterno, ( not because Freeh says it no matter how much the lap dogs lap it up) the probability, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence, is that the “Coach” Curley is referring to is Sandusky.
Sandusky knew he was being investigated. He was not only set up in a sting by campus police detectives who eavesdropped on a conversation initiated by the mother of one of the boys he showered and who confronted him while detectives eavesdropped in another room, he was also interviewed by a psychologist from DPW as part of the investigation, who interviewed Sandusky to get his account of what happened in the shower. It was the fact that Sandusky’s account was the same as the account given by the boys he showered with that led to the psychologists conclusion that no abuse had taken place, since there had been no genital touching, no touching of thighs or other parts of the body or anything that could be called abuse. So Sandusky knew he was under investigation. He was also approaching his 30 year benchmark as an employee at Penn State a milestone which, if he reached, would have a profound affect on his pension, income and future.
Does anyone think or believe that Sandusky would not want to know the progress of the investigation by Penn State police of the allegations against him? Does anyone think he wouldn’t call on his decades long relationship with the Athletic Director Tim Curley to ask him to find out for him? And aside from what it might mean for him financially, how about the potential legal consquences of the investigation? The investigation had to be the single most important event in Sandsusky’s life at the time. So where is the documentation showing Sandusky inquiring about the progress of the investigation? Where are the emails? Where are the phone records showing Sandusky called Curley to find out? They don’t exist because the email that from Curley to Schultz that says ” Coach anxious to know” may be it.
It’s not possible that Sandusky would not have wanted to know. If there were some proof of his attempts at finding out, then at least we would have a distinction between that and the email Freeh tries to make you believe is Paterno. What makes matters even worse, and makes both the press and those who swallowed the report even dumber and well fitted for a brownshirt, is the fact that Freeh doesn’t even state with certainty or claims of proof that “Coach” is in fact Paterno. Instead the report states, ” It is believed ‘Coach’ is Paterno”. So alll this is about Freeh saying it is believed? They statue is to come down because Freeh says “it is believed” because he has no proof? When there is more evidence to support that it is Sandusky?
If anyone with even minimum intelligence doesn’t thinks Sandusky wanted to know what was going on with this investigation that could change his life, stop reading and don’t go any further. Nothing else will penetrate the concrete.
And who do you suppose would be more “anxious to know”? Paterno when Sandusky was no longer even part of the football staff having been replaced as defensive coach? Or Sandusky who had his whole life riding on it?
There is no getting around the fact that Sandusky had to have wanted to know what was going on with the investigation and his only conduit would have been Curley. If there are other emails or documentary evidence that clearly shows other attempts by Sandusky to find out, that might have been evidence that “Coach” could be Paterno. But Freeh didn’t produce them. And he might not have produced them because they don’t exist. And they don’t exist because the email Freeh wants you to “:believe” is Paterno refers to Sandusky. At the very least it raises more than reasonable doubt, as to Freeh’s premise and conclusion, something everyone in the press and many who didnt even read it, just swallowed without question.
But ” it is believed ‘ is good enough. For some. But this is what makes Freeh’s report not just dishonest but decietful. There is one thing Freeh knows, and that everybody knows about that email. And that is Curley knows who “Coach is”. Its not a mystery. Its not unknowable. Curley knows. And we know he knows. But Curley has his own legal issues to deal with an upon advice of counsel has declined to talk to Freeh or make public statements. So at best an honest investigator would say that since Tim Curley has declined to be interviewed, the best that could be said is that the matter of who “coach” is, is unresolved. But Freeh doesnt do that. With no corroborating evidence, and with all the circumstantial evidence pointing to “coach” being Sandusky, but at the very least, knowing that he doesnt really know, Freeh says, “Coach is believed to be Paterno”.
We will know eventually when Curley tells us who he was referring to when he wrote “Coach”. But not till after his legal issues are resolved. And that could be some time. But Freeh doesnt want to wait. He wants to lynch Paterno right now because that’s what he was paid $6 million to do. The last thing he wants to do is honestly say at the very least, the issue is unresolved. Imagine the difference in the response to the report if thats what he had said. But no time to wait for the truth. Get the rope and hang him now. And this from the man who was torn to peices by the 911 Commission for his bungling, mishandling and in some cases not taking seriously enough, terrorist related intelligence pre-911. And the press and the people who believed him swallowed every word as fact. This alone is what makes Freeh not just dishonest and incompetent but deceitful.
The other preposterous point of the report deals with Paterno keeping it quiet to protect Penn State from bad publicity. How would Paterno be able to keep the investigation quiet with a full blown police investigation in progress and state psychologists from DPW already involved? To call Freeh’s premise stupid is to insult stupid people. To call those emails proof of Paterno’s knowledge is beyond absurd. At worst there is more than reasonable doubt as to who “coach” is, something Freeh never investigated to the point of actually having proof, and at best, barring further evidence, common sense says its more likely that “coach” is Sandusky not Paterno and that Freeh is something out of Les Miserables.
One other point. Even if you wanted to say that Paterno knew of the investigation as Freeh tries to claim when all the available evidence contradicts it, then Paterno had to know the results of the investigation too, something pointed out in the previous article and something Freeh omits from his report — because the results of the investigation exonerated Sandusky (rightly or wrongly) from any criminal behavior or child abuse. So if Paterno knew of the investigation ( which there is no real proof he did) then he also knew Sandusky was exonerated in the 1998 investigation. So what would he be trying to cover up? That Sandusky was exonerated? What was he trying to shield Penn State from in his grand jury testimony by committing perjury? That nothing happened and Sandusky was cleared? If Paterno really knew, it would be to his advantage to tell the grand jury he knew of the investigation and that the results exonerated Sandusky of any wrong doing, not lie about it and risk a perjury charge.
This is how preposterous Freeh’s premise is. It should also be noted that Freeh says in his report that ” it is not known how the conclusion of the investigation was conveyed to Paterno”. Why not, oh great sleuth? Did that one stump ya? Can’t find one single piece of documentary evidence, not one email of the tens of thousands you went through that mentions that the conclusion of the investigation was “conveyed” to Paterno? And if you think Freeh’s choice of words in using “conclusion” is an accident and not carefully and intentionally chosen, then you are a candidate for buying swamp land in Florida.
Freeh uses the word ” conclusion” and not “result” for a reason. He talks about Paterno “knowing” about the investigation but eliminates any comment about Paterno knowing the result, and instead uses the word “conclusion” as if the investigation just stopped with no result. Because the result of the investigation was that Sandusky was cleared of any wrong doing. And if Paterno knew that, there was nothing to protect Penn State from and throws Freeh’s entire premise of Paterno covering up to protect Penn State completely out the window. Which is where anyone with a shred of common sense should have thrown this “report” a long time ago.
Do these emails that reference “coach” refer to Sandusky? My bet is 2-1 that they do but let’s be honest 2-1 shots lose. They are no sure thing. But even Freeh admits he cant say for sure and has no evidence to prove it. Which doesn’t stop him from drawing the conclusion and doesnt stop the mob from wanting to take down the statue. Kind of like Paterno is now Saddam. Right?
Freeh was running a kangaroo court and intentionally distorting facts to fit his absurd conclusion,and people who have probably never stood up to or for anything in their lives and were chomping at the bit to pretend they were morally superior bought it.
If Paterno was given the presumption of innocence that he was entitled to and a reasonable doubt standard applied, the Freeh Report would be a joke.Actually it’s a joke anyway.
One other point about the 1998 emails. Freeh claims, and is central to one of his premises that Joe Paterno was the most powerful man at Penn State. He could do anything. But when it came to finding out the progress of an investigation he was supposedly “anxious” to know about” (even though the idea Paterno would be “anxious” to know is preposterous) we are supposed to believe that Mr. All Powerful doesn’t pick up the phone and call Schultz himself to find out? He goes through channels instead and asks Curley to find out for him? If he’s “anxious to know” why doesn’t Paterno call Schultz himself? If Paterno isn’t “anxious to know” then those emails refer to Sandusky not Paterno.
One last point about the emails. Every journalist and commentator in the country and the people who swallowed their nonsense criticized Paterno on only one major issue — that “he didn’t do enough”. Every criticism of Paterno and their argument that he “didn’t do enough” was based on their insistence that he didn’t go to the police. Every criticism was based on their pontificating that Schultz “wasn’t the police” even though he held the title of “Head of Penn State Police Services”. It was the mob’s mantra.
But the emails produced by Freeh shows that in 1998 Thomas Harmon, the Capt. of Penn State police who was in charge of overseeing the Sandusky investigation reported directly to Schultz. It was Schultz to whom he gave constant updates as to the progress and status of the investigation. And when Curley wanted to get an update he went to Schultz. If Paterno going to Schultz was “not doing enough” because Schultz “wasn’t the police”, why was Harmon, the Captain of Penn State police reporting directly to Schultz ? Because he was vice president of Business and Finance?
Would the mob have leveled the same criticism that Paterno “didn’t go to the police” had he gone to Harmon, Captain of Penn State police? No. But the ignorant in the press, ignorant and too lazy to do the job they are paid to do, instead criticized Paterno for going to Harmon’s boss. Lewis Carroll would be taking notes.
The rest of the report,especially the infamous “After talking with Joe” Curley email that Freeh changes and misrepresents to fit his dishonest agenda,(Freeh writes that the email says one thing and actually changes the words in the report when the email clearly says another and the opposite of what Freeh wants to represent) an act which if committed in a court room might have gotten him disbarred, can also be demolished as it pertains to Paterno. And if it matters in the future it will be done.
There is also now talk about the possibility of removing Paterno’s statue. If they do they should at least have the intellectual honesty of doing the right thing and replacing it with a statue of Louis Freeh. And under it should be the inscription: ” ‘Coach’ is believed to be Paterno’ “.
And if Penn State and the people who believe the Freeh Report and want to remove the statue are really honest and don’t want to be abject hypocrites, and a bunch of phonies don’t stop at the statue. Don’t be part time weekend moralists. Stand up for your beliefs and do the only honest and honorable thing based on your values and demolish the Paterno Library, the library built with contributions made by Paterno and has his name. But first take out every book and CD, DVD and document in the library, pile them up at the football stadium, pour gasoline on them, and burn them. Then demolish the building. And show that when it comes to morals you mean what you say. And that when you stand up for justice, virtue and morality you don’t compromise. And don’t forget to bring the marshmallows. And the swastikas.
To paraphrase Forrest Gump, stupid is as stupid does.
And again, when another point of view by a political conservative who is on the opposite end of the political spectrum sees close to the same thing,its not smoke, its fire. That point of view can be seen here.
Jennifer 1, July 22, 2012 at 6:32 pm
==============================
Jennifer, you need to be specific. Nobody is going to take the time to read a long-running diatribe. Speak with specificity.
Jennifer, you didn’t like the Freeh report, right?
Matt Johnson, specifics are usually not the point when it comes to this kind of diatribe; we’ve seen that on many of the threads, right?
Jennifer:
“A dishonest bureaucratic authority figure disseminating propaganda and outright lies to fit a preconceived idea, offering unchallenged “evidence” that wouldn’t last a minute in a court room, an incompetent, spineless press, spreading and repeating the lies without bothering to see what is true and what isn’t and not caring, and a mindless mob who wont think for themselves who swallow it and then, torches lit, go on their midnight rampage. The comments by the university president as to why the statue was taken down are worse than the statue being taken down ( like some mob pulling down statues in Stalinist Russia). His comments are a disgrace to an insittution of higher learning and if he thinks that committing gross injustices, throwing away one’s ability to think and committing immoral acts in the name of morality is the way to help heal victims of abuse, by committing an abuse himself as the press commonly does, then if in the future, if facts that Freeh either chose to ignore or that he knew he didnt have prove otherwise, that will be the stain he has brought on himself and the lack of leadership at the university.”
****************************
I get it now. Th ex-head of the FBI is a liar. All of his investigators are liars. The new PSU President is a liar. The newspaper is full of lies. The NCAA — who is about to hand down unprecedented sanctions — are doing all of this based on lies. But JoePa is lily white despite the fact he acknowledged blame before he died and said he knew nothing about Sandusky’s 1998 sexual assault investigation to both the Grand Jury and Sally Jennings. Emails say differently but, of course, they are lies, too.
I see the Paterno family talking points are getting around.
Tell Alice hello for me at the Tea Party.
Mespo,
Methinks she is a big time Penn State fan and as such feels like a grandchild to JoePa. Also what does politics have to do with this anyway?
Malisha 1, July 22, 2012 at 7:42 pm
Jennifer, you didn’t like the Freeh report, right?
Matt Johnson, specifics are usually not the point when it comes to this kind of diatribe; we’ve seen that on many of the threads, right?
=================
Diatribe is as diatribe does.