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
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 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.
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.
Matt, yes.
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/
Is this the Madsen you were talking about?
re: Russ Baker. A quick looks interesting. I’ll add that site to my list. Thanks.
What about Jill Stein, Soros, and Obama?
Who is Madsen? Where is the website?
bettykath,
I’m not going to try again because they’re aren’t any naughty words. The purgatory filter is defective.
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.
First Amendment. Apparently that doesn’t matter when you own the website.
So I have to have more moderation commentary. I’m almost flattered. Tell me what needs to be moderated.
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.
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.
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.
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., 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.
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, 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.
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,
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.