No Sex Scandal at Penn State, Just A "Political Hit Job"

[no1lion99]

Yes dummy it does matter. Sandusky had not been arrested as of the time of that game and was free to be the guest of anyone who invited him to "another" box.

The President's box is humongous and generally wide open to anyone who has access to the luxury box levels. At least that is the way it was in the timeframe you brought up. The vast majority of the people who passed in and out of that box did not hold a ticket to the President's box. And by the way almost no one "sits" in the President's box.

Speaking out of your ass as usual. No surprise.

This post almost makes it sound like at PSU if you had money and power you could go anywhere, and that PSU made no effort to verify whether you should be in that place or not. That sounds an awful lot like.....never mind....

Wait, have you been in the president's box? Can we all just wander up there? Is it like Thunderdome?

It just seems strange, because I have been in "The President's Club" for several years now and while I get invites to a ticketed reception the Friday before one of the games, I have never sniffed the President's luxury suite. I mean I have to sign up and get a ticket just to be in the room with the prez, but not at a football game? According to you it's barely much different than your local club, just pay the cover and receive access. Sounds like Gigis to me.

 

[pandaczar12]

That really means nothing. Sexual abuse is inappropriate conduct. Later Escbach references it as sexual and Paterno doesn't correct her. You are really grasping as straws here.

Q: Other than the incident that Mike McQueary reported to you, do you know in any way, through rumor, direct knowledge or any other fashion, of any other inappropriate sexual conduct by Jerry Sandusky with young boys?

All the more reason it's important to cross examine testimony. That question was clearly misleading.

Also, murder is inappropriate conduct, but if you saw your neighbor murdering someone, you wouldn't testify to it being "inappropriate conduct".

"You are really grasping as straws here."

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

That really means nothing. Sexual abuse is inappropriate conduct. Later Escbach references it as sexual and Paterno doesn't correct her. You are really grasping as straws here.

Q: Other than the incident that Mike McQueary reported to you, do you know in any way, through rumor, direct knowledge or any other fashion, of any other inappropriate sexual conduct by Jerry Sandusky with young boys?

You're utterly full of $hit that Mike McQueary, John McQueary and Dr. Dranov TESTIFYING AT-TRIAL that The State has lied in their Indictments and the Presentment that produced the Indictments (which was cited as "Probable Cause" in the Indictments) as to BOTH what:

• Mike McQueary "saw" and "eyewitnessed"
• And, Mike McQueary reported to others while the incident was STILL IN-PROGRESS (his father twice - with the second time having a WITNESS, Dr. Dranov, as to what Mike actually reported. Not only that, all three parties testify that the purpose of the meeting at the McQueary family-home was to DETERMINE THE PROPER HANDLING of the matter - and both John McQueary and Dr. Dranov have both testified that calling police was discussed, but it was determined based on MM's direct input that the police did not need to be called WHILE THE INCIDENT WAS STILL IN-PROGRESS because MM did not witness a crime and MM should instead report the matter AFTER THE FACT via an Administrative HR Report to his Employer via his direct work Supervisor!

....Is not DEFACTO direct EXCULPATORY testimony AT-TRIAL to The State's claims in their ACTUAL INDICTMENTS.....and that JVP's obtuse and irrelevant SWIGJ testimony somehow supersedes, and nullifies this AT-TRIAL EXCULPATORY TESTIMONY to the ACTUAL INDICTMENTS! JVP's SWIGJ testimony demonstrates none of things you are claiming in the ACTUAL TRIALS relative to the INDICTMENTS brought and the "PROBABLE CAUSE" LISTED in the ACTUAL INDICTMENTS BROUGHT, but is really typical of your continued troll, agenda-based bull$hit in regards to these cases! You are dead f'ing wrong, wrong, wrong that the JVP SWIGJ testimony accomplishes ANY OF THE THINGS you are claiming, but as usual, you don't let FACTS and ACTUAL IMMUTABLE LEGAL REALITIES get in the way of your continued troll bull$hit and baseless,completely wrong, spin! Go figure???

Why the moderators of a "Penn State Board" put up with your provable troll bull$hit and nonsense is a bit mystifying.

 

[Zenophile]

This post almost makes it sound like at PSU if you had money and power you could go anywhere, and that PSU made no effort to verify whether you should be in that place or not. That sounds an awful lot like.....never mind....

Wait, have you been in the president's box? Can we all just wander up there? Is it like Thunderdome?

It just seems strange, because I have been in "The President's Club" for several years now and while I get invites to a ticketed reception the Friday before one of the games, I have never sniffed the President's luxury suite. I mean I have to sign up and get a ticket just to be in the room with the prez, but not at a football game? According to you it's barely much different than your local club, just pay the cover and receive access. Sounds like Gigis to me.

@Mixolydian is correct about this.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

All the more reason it's important to cross examine testimony. That question was clearly misleading.

Also, murder is inappropriate conduct, but if you saw your neighbor murdering someone, you wouldn't testify to it being "inappropriate conduct".

"You are really grasping as straws here."

JVP's SWIGJ testimony was utterly irrelevant to any of the TRIALS related to any of the Indictments brought, or their LISTED and CITED "Probable Cause" (and "particulars" in the case of the Felony Perjury charges), because it was "obtuse" in the first place (i.e., not "direct evidence" at trial) AND irrefutable EXCULPATORY TESTIMONY was provided by The State's claimed "eyewitness" (who testified AT-TRIAL he was not an "eyewitness" CONTRARY to The State's claim AND told the "30th SWIGJ" he testified to that he wasn't an "eyewitness" to the State's claims which is confirmed by the record!!!) as well as the ONLY 2 People he spoke with while the incident was still "IN-PROGRESS", could have been reported to Police/911 while in Progress and MM, again according to The State, told them he saw and eyewitnessed the anal-rape of a child (who also testified AT-TRIAL that The State's Indictment Claims are FACTUALLY WRONG and FALSE - and that they were NEVER TOLD ANY SUCH THING BY Mike McQUEARY!!! In fact, they recommended that Mike report it AFTER THE FACT to his Employer via an HR Report to his direct Supervisor RATHER than call Police/911 to the scene WHILE THE INCIDENT WAS STILL IN-PROGRESS, specifically because what Mike told them did not sound like he had actually WITNESSED a CRIMINAL SEXUAL ASSAULT). IOW, 100% of the "Direct Evidence" cited in the State's named "Probable Cause" within the ACTUAL INDICTMENTS was PROVEN beyond any shadow of a doubt to be 100% ANTI-FACTUAL and FALSE by the Defense using The State's own freaking witnesses!!! The Defenses Case in regards to all of the Indictments brought relative to 2001, including 100% of the double-digit Indictments brought against C/S/S could not be any more BULLETPROOF due to the Prosecutorial Misconduct of the corrupt OAG in regards to their "33rd SWIGJ Presentment" and its accompanying Indictments -- The State provided C/S/S with an IMPENETRABLE DEFENSE to all of their Felony bull$hit charges.

 

[no1lion99]

@Mixolydian is correct about this.

I didn't say he wasn't. As far as I can tell there was no official policy prior to 2012. That also doesn't mean that someone wasn't accountable for who ended up in that suite. It's one thing to say that not everyone is checked at the door, and quite another to NOT be on the lookout for Jerry knowing what was coming. Penn State has the right to refuse anyone entrance into Beaver for any reason it wishes aside from one of the legally protected classes. They have almost excluded me three different times for daring to question the stupidity of their bag policy which could affect my son's life. I guess pass the buck was the official policy though....

 

[Mixolydian]

I didn't say he wasn't. As far as I can tell there was no official policy prior to 2012. That also doesn't mean that someone wasn't accountable for who ended up in that suite. It's one thing to say that not everyone is checked at the door, and quite another to NOT be on the lookout for Jerry knowing what was coming. Penn State has the right to refuse anyone entrance into Beaver for any reason it wishes aside from one of the legally protected classes. They have almost excluded me three different times for daring to question the stupidity of their bag policy which could affect my son's life. I guess pass the buck was the official policy though....

Just more proof that you will drone on about things of which you have no clue.

I can only imagine what kind of an ass you were to "almost" get excluded.

 

[Mixolydian]

This post almost makes it sound like at PSU if you had money and power you could go anywhere, and that PSU made no effort to verify whether you should be in that place or not. That sounds an awful lot like.....never mind....

Wait, have you been in the president's box? Can we all just wander up there? Is it like Thunderdome?

It just seems strange, because I have been in "The President's Club" for several years now and while I get invites to a ticketed reception the Friday before one of the games, I have never sniffed the President's luxury suite. I mean I have to sign up and get a ticket just to be in the room with the prez, but not at a football game? According to you it's barely much different than your local club, just pay the cover and receive access. Sounds like Gigis to me.

Yes I've been in that box many times. No not "anyone" can get in there. You need a ticket to someone's luxury box to even be in that part of the stadium, as I already told you. Give it up. You sound dumber with every post on this topic. Not that that ever stops you...

 

[indynittany]

...Sexual abuse is inappropriate conduct....

But inappropriate conduct is not always sexual abuse.

That you even bring up Paterno at this point proves you are the one grasping at straws.

 

[TenerHallTerror]

But inappropriate conduct is not always sexual abuse.

That you even bring up Paterno at this point proves you are the one grasping at straws.

if Paterno wasn't sure about what he thought Mike told him, why would his grand jury testimony read as such:

"IT WAS SEX. SEXUAL NATURE. TOTALLY SEXUAL. SEXUAL CHOCOLATE. SEXUAL HEALING. SEX IN THE CITY. SEX SEX SEX"

I mean cmon, how stupid do you have to be not to see that? if Paterno was uncertain, why didn't he use conditional statements like "I don't know what you would call it"??

so tired of you Joebots ignoring the OBVIOUS in defense of your God.

also, I eat a lot of rubber cement.

 

[no1lion99]

Just more proof that you will drone on about things of which you have no clue.

I can only imagine what kind of an ass you were to "almost" get excluded.

The "kind of ass" who didn't want his son to die due to a life-threatening allergy, do you feel better now? You're all class moron.

 

[no1lion99]

Yes I've been in that box many times. No not "anyone" can get in there. You need a ticket to someone's luxury box to even be in that part of the stadium, as I already told you. Give it up. You sound dumber with every post on this topic. Not that that ever stops you...

You aren't addressing the point anyway, but then again you're a dipshit so I didn't expect you to. Or maybe Graham is your good pal and you're just trying to protect him with your inane drivel.

 

[getmyjive11]

But inappropriate conduct is not always sexual abuse.

That you even bring up Paterno at this point proves you are the one grasping at straws.

If you read the entire transcript, it's very clear that the inappropriate conduct was accepted to be sexual.

 

[Mixolydian]

The "kind of ass" who didn't want his son to die due to a life-threatening allergy, do you feel better now? You're all class moron.

I don't feel better or worse now. The bag policy is well known and meant to protect 107,000, not some isolated situations like yours. Life is a bitch sometimes. And no need to be a drama queen. I'm guessing you would not have exposed your son to death over a football game.

Best of luck to your son.

 

[Mixolydian]

You aren't addressing the point anyway, but then again you're a dipshit so I didn't expect you to. Or maybe Graham is your good pal and you're just trying to protect him with your inane drivel.

Yeah, must be that.

You wanted them to isolate Sandusky and possibly cause a scene in the President's box on a football Saturday before he had even been charged and before most people had a clue what was even going on? That's a great idea.

 

[AvgUser]

If you read the entire transcript, it's very clear that the inappropriate conduct was accepted to be sexual.

If you read and understood how EVERYONE who heard the story reacted, including the ear-witness, it is crystal-clear obvious that nobody thought the behavior at the time, in 2001, was sexual.
As has been pointed out to you countless times by hundreds and hundreds of others, the testimony which you keep trying to cite as evidence was qualified by an "I don't know what you would call it". Bear in mind that Paterno had no idea what really happened. Remember, he didn't see diddly-poop.

 

[Nellie R]

If you read and understood how EVERYONE who heard the story reacted, including the ear-witness, it is crystal-clear obvious that nobody thought the behavior at the time, in 2001, was sexual.
As has been pointed out to you countless times by hundreds and hundreds of others, the testimony which you keep trying to cite as evidence was qualified by an "I don't know what you would call it". Bear in mind that Paterno had no idea what really happened. Remember, he didn't see diddly-poop.

Context is not Jive-Talker's strong suit. It's probably why 5 years later they are still stuck on a meaningless GJP. Most people have advanced to more relevant materials where there is actual cross-examination.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Context is not Jive-Talker's strong suit. It's probably why 5 years later they are still stuck on a meaningless GJP. Most people have advanced to more relevant materials where there is actual cross-examination.

Yeah...I mean Tim and Gary's trial..ooops, nevermind.

 

[BobPSU92]

All the more reason it's important to cross examine testimony. That question was clearly misleading.

Also, murder is inappropriate conduct, but if you saw your neighbor murdering someone, you wouldn't testify to it being "inappropriate conduct".

"You are really grasping as straws here."

It was of a murderous nature.

 

[Nellie R]

Yeah...I mean Tim and Gary's trial..ooops, nevermind.

Apparently you missed all the valid reasons why they pled and testified in Spanier's trial?

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Apparently you missed all the valid reasons why they pled and testified in Spanier's trial?

I think they had plenty of valid reasons too plea out.

 

[Mixolydian]

It was of a murderous nature.

"It was a murderous nature?"

 

[Nellie R]

I think they had plenty of valid reasons too plea out.

Yes, and IMHO one of them was to be able to clear Spanier as well as themselves... Trial results anyone? NG on the felonies (Curley and Schultz also NG of any felony). It was either that or spend another year or two years of waiting appealing everything to the Superior Court-
AGAIN.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Yes, and IMHO one of them was to be able to clear Spanier as well as themselves... Trial results anyone? NG on the felonies (Curley and Schultz also NG of any felony). It was either that or spend another year or two years of waiting appealing everything to the Superior Court-
AGAIN.

Oh so then all is well...got it.

 

[no1lion99]

Yeah...I mean Tim and Gary's trial..ooops, nevermind.

Stop if LJL, these honest hard working guys would NEVER lie and NEVER admit to a crime they didn't commit! When they get their day in cour....err I mean on appeal....you just wait. They will expose the world to all encompassing #TRUTH

 

[Mixolydian]

I think they had plenty of valid reasons too plea out.

Please share them.

Also, I notice you liked a post above where the poster said in no uncertain terms that Paterno had "accepted" that the innapropriate behavior was "sexual" in his GJ interview. You are obviously entitled to your opinion. Get off the fence and own it.

 

[no1lion99]

If you read and understood how EVERYONE who heard the story reacted, including the ear-witness, it is crystal-clear obvious that nobody thought the behavior at the time, in 2001, was sexual.
As has been pointed out to you countless times by hundreds and hundreds of others, the testimony which you keep trying to cite as evidence was qualified by an "I don't know what you would call it". Bear in mind that Paterno had no idea what really happened. Remember, he didn't see diddly-poop.

The same can be stated in the opposite as well. Most folks have made the argument that Joe was "old school" and you just didn't learn about that kind of stuff or deal with it, or speak about it (i.e. that's why it was hard for mike to use graphic terms with Joe). So as I have previously stated there are plenty of kinky things on the netz that I don't know the names for, but it doesn't mean those kinky things don't exist. Which is it in this case? Only Joe knows at this point.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Please share them.

Also, I notice you liked a post above where the poster said in no uncertain terms that Paterno had "accepted" that the innapropriate behavior was "sexual" in his GJ interview. You are obviously entitled to your opinion. Get off the fence and own it.

CS's notes and emails were not a good look...PERIOD. There wasn't some magic out from those pieces of evidence and unlike Spanier they actually spoke to Mike, considered actually reporting it, and then did not. Spare me the TSM ricochet reporting as well for the sake of this conversation. I don't blame them for taking a plea there. They saved their pensions and probably avoided time in prison. It was a good move on their part to take the plea. Even more so seeing GS get charged for EWOC with next to no evidence. Those two weren't in his shoes and I think they knew it.

As far as liking jives post, thanks for noticing. The term fondling was also used IIRC which is a problem/crime when it comes to a grown man and a minor. People can battle that one out forever, but that is all a matter of opinion.

 

[Mixolydian]

CS's notes and emails were not a good look...PERIOD. There wasn't some magic out from those pieces of evidence and unlike Spanier they actually spoke to Mike, considered actually reporting it, and then did not. Spare me the TSM ricochet reporting as well for the sake of this conversation. I don't blame them for taking a plea there. They saved their pensions and probably avoided time in prison. It was a good move on their part to take the pleas.

As far as liking jives post, thanks for noticing. The term fondling was also used IIRC which is a problem/crime when it comes to a grown man and a minor. People can battle that one out forever, but that is all a matter of opinion.

I notice when someone likes jive's posts because it almost never happens.

If you use jive's tortured logic and agree that Joe "accepted" that the innapropriate behavior he was told about was "sexual", then what he did from that point on wasn't a "mistake", it was abhorrent and arguably criminal behavior. Jive is clear that is what he thinks.

 

[indynittany]

If you read the entire transcript, it's very clear that the inappropriate conduct was accepted to be sexual.

I thought that's what the trial was supposed to determine.

 

[indynittany]

...As far as liking jives post, thanks for noticing. The term fondling was also used IIRC which is a problem/crime when it comes to a grown man and a minor. People can battle that one out forever, but that is all a matter of opinion.

Mike McQueary testified that he did not see Sandusky's hands and, specifically, that he did not see fondling. It's unlikely that he used that term when speaking with Paterno.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Mike McQueary testified that he did not see Sandusky's hands and, specifically, that he did not see fondling. It's unlikely that he used that term when speaking with Paterno.

Unlikely we'll know what words were used exactly, but keep thinking you might get there.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Context is not Jive-Talker's strong suit. It's probably why 5 years later they are still stuck on a meaningless GJP. Most people have advanced to more relevant materials where there is actual cross-examination.

The only relevance of the GJP is that it was used as "Probable Cause" (and the "particulars" relative to the Perjury charges) on 100% of the double-digit Indictments against 4 separate individuals related to the 2001 Incident AND that is 100% provably FRAUDULENT (i.e., False Claims) as to how Mike McQueary, John McQueary and Dr. Dranov testified to the SWIGJ in regards to MM even being an eyewitness to The State's claimed crime (which MM said he wasn't to the SWIGJ) OR MM telling two other parties that night WHILE THE INCIDENT WAS STILL IN-PROGRESS that he had "seen" what The State claims (both parties JM and Dr. D testified to the opposite to the SWIGJ of what The State claims in the Indictments and the GJP which generated the Indictments and was cited as Probable Cause on the Indictments)! MM, JM and Dr. D also TESTIFYING AT-TRIAL where they could be cross-examined and that these GJP claims that were being used as the "Probable Cause" and "particulars" were FALSE and DIAMETRICALLY CONTRARY to what the IN FACT testified to the Grand Jury is also relevant.

Because the GJP was cited as the "Probable Cause" (and "particulars" for Felony Perjury counts) on the ACTUAL Indictments is the RELEVANCE of the claims made by The State in the GJP. Once The Defense factually proves via the record, and the testimony of MM, JM and Dr. D AT-TRIAL, that The State's claims in the GJP are FALSE, KNOWINGLY FALSE and MALICIOUS with the sole intent of enabling Fraudulent Indictments....it is absurd to continue to point at obtuse SWIGJ testimony of JVP that is completely obtuse and has no relevance to what is being discussed. But this is typical GetMyInanity, he manufactures claims that are utterly false - like JVP's obtuse, meaningless testimony that in no way conflicts with MM's, JM's and/or Dr. D's SWIGJ testimony having some bearing on the topic being discussed - MM, JM and Dr. D all testifying AT-TRIAL that they did not testify to the SWIGJ in the manner claimed by The State in their GJP used as "Probable Cause" in 100% of their double-digit Indictments relating to 2001 - and that The State's claims are utterly FALSE and WITHOUT BASIS as MM said he told the SWIGJ he WAS NOT "see" or "eyewitness" what The State is claiming in their Indictments.....JM and Dr. D have testified AT-TRIAL that The State's claim that MM told them of Criminal Sexual Assault is a FALSE CLAIM WITHOUT BASIS and MM never told them anything of the kind - in fact, had they thought a crime had been committed they would have called Police/911, but they specifically did not think this based on what Mike told them as they recommended that Mike make an AFTER THE FACT REPORT to his Employer via his Direct HR Supervisor. They testified that they would have made an IN-PROGRESS REPORT to the Police/911 were they told, or even had they remotely thought, a Criminal Sexual Assault of the child were taking place, let alone the anal-rape of a 10 year old child!!!

But again, don't talk about trifling little things with GetMyInanity - he has no time for those things! But he's not a troll, don't you know?

 

[getmyjive11]

Yeah...I mean Tim and Gary's trial..ooops, nevermind.

One day, they will understand that MM and Paterno's corroborating stories is big reason why CS are guilty men right now. It is the heart of the issue.

 

[getmyjive11]

CS's notes and emails were not a good look...PERIOD. There wasn't some magic out from those pieces of evidence and unlike Spanier they actually spoke to Mike, considered actually reporting it, and then did not. Spare me the TSM ricochet reporting as well for the sake of this conversation. I don't blame them for taking a plea there. They saved their pensions and probably avoided time in prison. It was a good move on their part to take the plea. Even more so seeing GS get charged for EWOC with next to no evidence. Those two weren't in his shoes and I think they knew it.

As far as liking jives post, thanks for noticing. The term fondling was also used IIRC which is a problem/crime when it comes to a grown man and a minor. People can battle that one out forever, but that is all a matter of opinion.

These people are mad at me for what Paterno testified to. It's absurd.

 

[Zenophile]

These people are mad at me for what Paterno testified to. It's absurd.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

One day, they will understand that MM and Paterno's corroborating stories is big reason why CS are guilty men right now. It is the heart of the issue.

So completely full of $hit as per usual - MM Diametrically DENIED, not "corroborated", The State's claims in their Indictments and GJP that they cited as Probable Cause support for the Indictments related to 2001. MM testified to the "30th SWIGJ" that he did not "see" or "eyewitness" the Sexual Assault The State claims he "saw" and "eyewitnessed" (and told others he "saw" and "eyewitnessed) in their "33rd SWIGJ Presentment" and it's accompanying Indictments that cited the Presentment as "Probable Cause" (and "particulars" in case of Perjury counts) - again, the Indictments and GJP claim that Mike said the DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE of what he actually said to the "30th SWIGJ" -- there's not only that, but then MM testified to the FRAUDULENCE of the GJP and its Indictments as to him seeing and being an eyewitness to the claims of The State's completely concocted, FABRICATED and FALSE claims AT-TRIAL multiple times!!!

But now according to you this is Mike McQueary "corroborating" The State's claims in their Fraudulent Indictments and GJP which enabled the Indictments and was cited as the "Probable Cause" and "particulars"??? Only GetMyInanity could label this as Mike McQueary "corroborating" The State's claims in their Indictments/GJP, when Mike McQueary says the diametric opposite -- that there is no basis to The State's claims that he "saw" or "eyewitnessed" what The State is claiming and he DID NOT "see" or "eyewitness" what The State is claiming!?!?

GetMyInanity takes his typical MISREPRESENTATION OF THE TRUTH AND REALITY (i.e., Mike McQueary "corroborated" The State's claims, when he FACTUALLY did the diametric opposite and complete discredited them) and says that JVP "corroborated" what was MM's "non-corroboration" of The State's claim and a corroboration of MM's Testimony that he was NOT AN EYEWITNESS and DID NOT SEE what The State claims of course = corroboration of The State's claims??? You can't make up inanity and bull$hit that is completely counter-factual to HARD FACTS and FACTUAL RECORD of the case like this, but he's not a troll - just ask him - don't you know???

 

[mn78psu83]

 

[WeR0206]

Stop if LJL, these honest hard working guys would NEVER lie and NEVER admit to a crime they didn't commit! When they get their day in cour....err I mean on appeal....you just wait. They will expose the world to all encompassing #TRUTH

So, if you were in TC or Schultz's shoes and you knew the MAJORITY of the jury pool in Daulphin county wanted to see you punished even if you committed no crimes..... and were facing multiple charges, one of which was a felony, and the OAG offered a sweat heart deal that involved one misdemeanor, you wouldn't even consider it?? Really? I find that hard to believe.

Have you never heard of risk analysis? That's pretty much what C/S had to take into consideration when making their decision.

 

[TenerHallTerror]

So, if you were in TC or Schultz's shoes and you knew the MAJORITY of the jury pool in Daulphin county wanted to see you punished even if you committed no crimes..... and were facing multiple charges, one of which was a felony, and the OAG offered a sweat heart deal that involved one misdemeanor, you wouldn't even consider it?? Really? I find that hard to believe.

Have you never heard of risk analysis? That's pretty much what C/S had to take into consideration when making their decision.

you ever wonder why ANYONE who has ever worked with Yonchuk no longer speaks to him?