OT: FYI, JZ says Newsweek article is still a go. (edit: Story now spiked)

[michnittlion]

You can take it anyway you would like. If Jay's name were not Paterno, he could find a coaching job, no problem.

That makes no sense, given that (1) Jay has never been implicated of anything regarding Sandusky, (2) Jay was never mentioned in the Freeh Report, and (3) many of Jay's assistant coach peers have found jobs coaching beyond PSU in the 2012-2018 era.

Jay's not being discriminated against because of his last name. He's being discriminated against because of his coaching track-record.

 

[michnittlion]

Given Harmon's convenient lapse of police acumen, what difference would it have made had Schultz "reported" to Harmon?

Isn't it kind of strange that everyone outside of CSS&P who had knowledge of 2001 or 1998 conveniently escape any and all judgment for their co,plete and utter failures? the list is much longer than CSS&P. It includes, Scheffler, HArmon, Gricar, Chambers, Raykixitz, Dranov, J McQuery, MM's brother, brother-in-law, CYS, ... we could do this one all night

Really? Then the responsibility of investigating falls solely onto Harmon's shoulders --- it's off Schultz's shoulders.

That makes a HUGE difference.

As for Schreffler and Gricar, who are also on your list --- what were they supposed to do in 2001? There's no evidence they had any idea about the 2001 incident.

 

[indynittany]

Something I've often wondered, what if Joe had done more in 2001 and no charges were brought on Sandusky again, or he was acquitted at some point? What would be the optics of Joe "following up" only to have Sandusky run loose again?

Joe would have been blamed for abusing his power to help his "friend".

 

[jerot]

Given Harmon's convenient lapse of police acumen, what difference would it have made had Schultz "reported" to Harmon?

Isn't it kind of strange that everyone outside of CSS&P who had knowledge of 2001 or 1998 conveniently escape any and all judgment for their co,plete and utter failures? the list is much longer than CSS&P. It includes, Scheffler, HArmon, Gricar, Chambers, Raykixitz, Dranov, J McQuery, MM's brother, brother-in-law, CYS, ... we could do this one all night

Would have made all the difference.

In 2001, and shortly after Shultz would have received McQueary’s account of the Lasch Building incident involving Sandusky, Harmon testified that Schultz asked him an out-of-context question about documentation of the 1998 report.

Harmon stated that in that conversation Schultz never mentioned that there had been a new allegation concerning Sandusky.

“I would have remembered if he had ever suggested that there had been another incident,” the former chief said.

If there had been, Harmon testified, he would have seen to it that his officers contacted the Centre County District Attorney’s office “and pursue it as an investigation.”

Harmon said he would have done so because, given the 1998 incident, there would have been “sufficient suspicion” about child abuse.

Prosecutors would likely key on that in terms of proving their failure to report charges and the endangering welfare of children charges that flowed from abuses by Sandusky after 2001.

But Harmon, under cross-examination, also affirmed to defense attorneys that – as much as evidence shows Schultz and Curley’s interest in the 1998 case – none of the Penn State administrators ever directly tried to interfere in that probe.

And he also conceded, under cross-examination by Spanier’s attorney Elizabeth Ainslie, that he had no direct knowledge of how much Schultz ever told the president about the 1998 case.

“I don’t know what they told the president,” Harmon said.

Shultz’s attorney Tom Farrell, likely trying to give his client some cover on the perjury charges he faces for his grand jury testimony, also won an admission from Harmon that the former chief’s recollections of the 1998 events are much clearer now than they were before Schultz and Curley's December 2011 preliminary hearing on an earlier set of charges because he’s had a chance to review the emails and notes.

 

[marshall23]

That makes no sense, given that (1) Jay has never been implicated of anything regarding Sandusky, (2) Jay was never mentioned in the Freeh Report, and (3) many of Jay's assistant coach peers have found jobs coaching beyond PSU in the 2012-2018 era.

Jay's not being discriminated against because of his last name. He's being discriminated against because of his coaching track-record.

None of the disdain for Joe makes any sense. Look at what happened to Schiano? No one needs the headache. Too many other ways to fill coaching openings. I also believe a contributing factor may be that Jay may have been unwilling to take certain jobs and move to other locations.
In any event, I'm glad he stayed here, represents PSU well and serves on the BOT. I'll bet he smiles every morning when he wakes knowing how much it confounds you that he lives another day.

 

[michnittlion]

Would have made all the difference.

In 2001, and shortly after Shultz would have received McQueary’s account of the Lasch Building incident involving Sandusky, Harmon testified that Schultz asked him an out-of-context question about documentation of the 1998 report.

Harmon stated that in that conversation Schultz never mentioned that there had been a new allegation concerning Sandusky.

“I would have remembered if he had ever suggested that there had been another incident,” the former chief said.

If there had been, Harmon testified, he would have seen to it that his officers contacted the Centre County District Attorney’s office “and pursue it as an investigation.”

Harmon said he would have done so because, given the 1998 incident, there would have been “sufficient suspicion” about child abuse.

Prosecutors would likely key on that in terms of proving their failure to report charges and the endangering welfare of children charges that flowed from abuses by Sandusky after 2001.

But Harmon, under cross-examination, also affirmed to defense attorneys that – as much as evidence shows Schultz and Curley’s interest in the 1998 case – none of the Penn State administrators ever directly tried to interfere in that probe.

And he also conceded, under cross-examination by Spanier’s attorney Elizabeth Ainslie, that he had no direct knowledge of how much Schultz ever told the president about the 1998 case.

“I don’t know what they told the president,” Harmon said.

Shultz’s attorney Tom Farrell, likely trying to give his client some cover on the perjury charges he faces for his grand jury testimony, also won an admission from Harmon that the former chief’s recollections of the 1998 events are much clearer now than they were before Schultz and Curley's December 2011 preliminary hearing on an earlier set of charges because he’s had a chance to review the emails and notes.

Yes, yes, yes. This strikes me as pretty obvious, unless a person wants to be blind.

 

[marshall23]

Would have made all the difference.

In 2001, and shortly after Shultz would have received McQueary’s account of the Lasch Building incident involving Sandusky, Harmon testified that Schultz asked him an out-of-context question about documentation of the 1998 report.

Harmon stated that in that conversation Schultz never mentioned that there had been a new allegation concerning Sandusky.

“I would have remembered if he had ever suggested that there had been another incident,” the former chief said.

If there had been, Harmon testified, he would have seen to it that his officers contacted the Centre County District Attorney’s office “and pursue it as an investigation.”

Harmon said he would have done so because, given the 1998 incident, there would have been “sufficient suspicion” about child abuse.

Prosecutors would likely key on that in terms of proving their failure to report charges and the endangering welfare of children charges that flowed from abuses by Sandusky after 2001.

But Harmon, under cross-examination, also affirmed to defense attorneys that – as much as evidence shows Schultz and Curley’s interest in the 1998 case – none of the Penn State administrators ever directly tried to interfere in that probe.

And he also conceded, under cross-examination by Spanier’s attorney Elizabeth Ainslie, that he had no direct knowledge of how much Schultz ever told the president about the 1998 case.

“I don’t know what they told the president,” Harmon said.

Shultz’s attorney Tom Farrell, likely trying to give his client some cover on the perjury charges he faces for his grand jury testimony, also won an admission from Harmon that the former chief’s recollections of the 1998 events are much clearer now than they were before Schultz and Curley's December 2011 preliminary hearing on an earlier set of charges because he’s had a chance to review the emails and notes.

Yep, Harmon a lifetime cop never asked Gary why he inquired about a 98 report in 2001. Tom, do you have that 98 report on JS? Yes, I do Gary. How's the weather over there.

 

[michnittlion]

Yep, Harmon a lifetime cop never asked Gary why he inquired about a 98 report in 2001. Tom, do you have that 98 report on JS? Yes, I do Gary. How's the weather over there.

Again - while it was a potentially suspicious question, it's not Harmon's job to determine the reason for Schultz asking the question.

It's Schultz's job to report the incident.

 

[indynittany]

All three had charges dropped due only to Baldwin screwing up & being unclear on who she represented. If attorney client privilege didn't exist there they might well have been guilty of more.

All the charges were BS to begin with! They couldn't be allowed to testify on Jerry's behalf because they would have blown MM out of the water. That's why they were charged. That, and because Corbett wanted to make it a PSU scandal to keep prying eyes away from TSM.

 

[marshall23]

Again - while it was a potentially suspicious question, it's not Harmon's job to determine the reason for Schultz asking the question.

It's Schultz's job to report the incident.

Read between the lines nitwit

 

[indynittany]

Again - while it was a potentially suspicious question, it's not Harmon's job to determine the reason for Schultz asking the question.

It's Schultz's job to report the incident.

Is there anything in the notes and emails to suggest Schultz believed a child had been in any danger or had been abused? No. Then other than to cover PSU's butt, what would have been the purpose of reporting the incident or involving Harmon?

 

[marshall23]

It strains credulity that Harmon knew nothing about 2001.

 

[Zenophile]

Having his kid (Jay) on staff would be one example. Jay was a below-average coach, and Joe knew this. Jay being a PSU assistant was not in PSU's best interest.

But he kept him on for some reason. I certainly have my suspicions as to why.

Is this the best example you have to offer, or is it the only one?

 

[michnittlion]

Is this the best example you have to offer, or is it the only one?

You asked me to provide a "single example" --- and that's what I did.

Before I answer your question (I will as I do have other examples and as I am willing to converse on this), what are you thoughts on the example I did provide?

 

[marshall23]

Is this the best example you have to offer, or is it the only one?

I sense someone experiences a chubby when (rankism) poking at Jay.

 

[pandaczar12]

All three had charges dropped due only to Baldwin screwing up & being unclear on who she represented. If attorney client privilege didn't exist there they might well have been guilty of more.

Never would have happened, the commonwealth got extremely lucky getting that misdemeanor. If you think otherwise, you are living in a fantasy world.

That makes no sense, given that (1) Jay has never been implicated of anything regarding Sandusky, (2) Jay was never mentioned in the Freeh Report, and (3) many of Jay's assistant coach peers have found jobs coaching beyond PSU in the 2012-2018 era.

Jay's not being discriminated against because of his last name. He's being discriminated against because of his coaching track-record.

This might be the dumbest thing you've ever posted, and that is really saying something.

 

[Zenophile]

You asked me to provide a "single example" --- and that's what I did.

Before I answer your question (I will as I do have other examples and as I am willing to converse on this), what are you thoughts on the example I did provide?

I think it illustrates the point I'm about to make.

 

[jerot]

All the charges were BS to begin with! They couldn't be allowed to testify on Jerry's behalf because they would have blown MM out of the water. That's why they were charged. That, and because Corbett wanted to make it a PSU scandal to keep prying eyes away from TSM.

Corbett was desperate.

In the aftermath of Corbett’s loss to Democrat Tom Wolf, it was a common theory that the Republican’s seat on the Penn State Board of Trustees had hurt him politically.

The board voted to fire Paterno for under-reporting Sandusky’s abuse.

Corbett said he certainly sees a connection.

“One guy came up to me in our grocery store at home, and he was making a beeline right towards me — I went, ok. And he said, ‘are you Governor Corbett?’ I said yes. He said, ‘we got you.’ And he pointed to his jacket — he had a Penn State jacket on,” Corbett said.

The Republican maintains he didn’t vote on the Paterno firing.

In the past, he’s said he thinks the coach should have been suspended instead — though he refrained from taking so firm a stance again.

“It was hard to fathom that Mr. Sandusky did what he did. I’m sure it was hard to fathom for Mr. Paterno too,” he said.

Corbett also faced criticism for failing to adequately investigate abuse allegations against Sandusky while serving as attorney general prior to being elected governor.

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

Having his kid (Jay) on staff would be one example. Jay was a below-average coach, and Joe knew this. Jay being a PSU assistant was not in PSU's best interest.

But he kept him on for some reason. I certainly have my suspicions as to why.

Please expound on how it is that you know that Joe knew Jay was a below average coach? Did Joe ever express that opinion in public, or, in your presence?

 

[RussianEagle]

Something I've often wondered, what if Joe had done more in 2001 and no charges were brought on Sandusky again, or he was acquitted at some point? What would be the optics of Joe "following up" only to have Sandusky run loose again?

Then Sandusky would be on the golf course now and the “Penn State Scandal” would never happen.

I guarantee you no charges would have been brought on Sandusky in 2001. Did you see the statement the actual boy in the shower gave after Sandusky’s arrest?

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

Yet Jay remains unemployed as a football coach. Despite expressing interest in wanting to coach.

I'll take Jay's continued unemployment to be evidence that most football-smart people agree with me: Jay was a below-average coach, and Joe wasn't serving the best interests of PSU in employing him.

To the original question --- Joe providing Jay with a job is evidence of a situation where Joe chose to act out of self interest despite having access to the necessary knowledge & tools to make the correct/moral/ethical choice.

Has Jay filed for unemployment? Perhaps, he has taken his life in another direction, but, that wouldn't fit your nice little story.

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

Joe would have been blamed for abusing his power to help his "friend".

That's a "BINGO"!!

 

[Legion of Lions]

Corbett was desperate.

In the aftermath of Corbett’s loss to Democrat Tom Wolf, it was a common theory that the Republican’s seat on the Penn State Board of Trustees had hurt him politically.

The board voted to fire Paterno for under-reporting Sandusky’s abuse.

Corbett said he certainly sees a connection.

“One guy came up to me in our grocery store at home, and he was making a beeline right towards me — I went, ok. And he said, ‘are you Governor Corbett?’ I said yes. He said, ‘we got you.’ And he pointed to his jacket — he had a Penn State jacket on,” Corbett said.

The Republican maintains he didn’t vote on the Paterno firing.

In the past, he’s said he thinks the coach should have been suspended instead — though he refrained from taking so firm a stance again.

“It was hard to fathom that Mr. Sandusky did what he did. I’m sure it was hard to fathom for Mr. Paterno too,” he said.

Corbett also faced criticism for failing to adequately investigate abuse allegations against Sandusky while serving as attorney general prior to being elected governor.

Listen....Corbett HIRED spin doctors on this one to construct a "Story" that the public would buy...FACT!!! Check the State's "Consultant Fees" for 2011 + 2012.
Corbett needed to kill Paterno and Penn State so that a diversion could be created. The TSM records contained infor that was damaging to LOTS of high-value contributors and cronies. The total RECORD SYSTEM for TSM needed to be destroyed before anyone could review them. Sandusky was just the pawn - the LEGAL PROOF (different from the actual proof of guilt) just was not there....it had to be manufactured and then sold via PT BARNUM to the public. This is a professionally engineered Hit Job by a crooked politician and those he was paid to protect!!!! ($650K TSM donations are just the start!)

The $125M "Bleed" from PSU is just andf added bonus to those Lawyers who Corbett promised hush money to!

 

[AvgUser]

Again - while it was a potentially suspicious question, it's not Harmon's job to determine the reason for Schultz asking the question.

It's Schultz's job to report the incident.

let me get this straight. It's the PSU admin's job(s) to pull details out of mush-mouth McQueary who cannot assert what he saw (ummm, heard); in what year he supposedly saw/heard something; cannot recall whether whether he was boozing it up in a bar or home watching Rudy in his jammies; whether he said something, or he "would have said" something or had anything clear to say to at least five different people in 2001. But its not the job of law enforcement to ask follow-up questions when presented with an unusual, out-of-context, out-of-the ordinary questions about sexual abuse or alleged sexual encounters for which they have prior knowledge.

Makes perfect sense.

Now you know why social services are so F***ed up.

 

[sluggo72]

Having his kid (Jay) on staff would be one example. Jay was a below-average coach, and Joe knew this. Jay being a PSU assistant was not in PSU's best interest.

But he kept him on for some reason. I certainly have my suspicions as to why.

why do you think Jay was a below average coach? is that your opinion?

 

[marshall23]

why do you think Jay was a below average coach? is that your opinion?

Those who struggle to be average, wish others to be below average.

 

[michnittlion]

Please expound on how it is that you know that Joe knew Jay was a below average coach? Did Joe ever express that opinion in public, or, in your presence?

My opinion on Jay comes from:

(1) watching our offense over the entirety of the 2000s. Typically below-average,
(2) quarterbacks who rarely developed under Jay's guidance,
(3) one particular QB (Matt McGloin) who blossomed immediately following Jay's departure, and
(4) a number of published reports as regards how the team and players didn't respect Jay

Joe may have lost his fastball in his older age versus the coach he was in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. But he wasn't a complete idiot either. He watched the same things the rest of us did in the 2000s.

Joe knew he was coaching a top-tier college program but also knew his son wasn't a top-tier coaching talent.

 

[michnittlion]

Has Jay filed for unemployment? Perhaps, he has taken his life in another direction, but, that wouldn't fit your nice little story.

You're playing dumb now. You're a better poster than that.

You know what I meant - especially given that I used the words "unemployed as a football coach" earlier in the very post you quoted.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

You're playing dumb now. You're a better poster than that.

You know what I meant - especially given that I used the words "unemployed as a football coach" earlier in the very post you quoted.

Your Jay obsession is seriously weird.

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

My opinion on Jay comes from:
(1) watching our offense over the entirety of the 2000s. Typically below-average,
(2) quarterbacks who rarely developed under Jay's guidance,
(3) one particular QB (Matt McGloin) who blossomed immediately following Jay's departure, and
(4) a number of published reports as regards how the team and players didn't respect Jay

Joe may have lost his fastball in his older age versus the coach he was in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. But he wasn't a complete idiot either. He watched the same things the rest of us did in the 2000s.

Joe knew he was coaching a top-tier college program but also knew his son wasn't a top-tier coaching talent.

You didn't say it was your "opinion", you said Joe "knew" Jay was a bad coach. Please don't "play dumb."

You're playing dumb now. You're a better poster than that.
You know what I meant - especially given that I used the words "unemployed as a football coach" earlier in the very post you quoted.

You are so fuc#ing stupid. Yes, he is unemployed as a football coach. Is this at his choosing or is he in dire straits?

 

[michnittlion]

let me get this straight. It's the PSU admin's job(s) to pull details out of mush-mouth McQueary who cannot assert what he saw (ummm, heard); in what year he supposedly saw/heard something; cannot recall whether whether he was boozing it up in a bar or home watching Rudy in his jammies; whether he said something, or he "would have said" something or had anything clear to say to at least five different people in 2001. But its not the job of law enforcement to ask follow-up questions when presented with an unusual, out-of-context, out-of-the ordinary questions about sexual abuse or alleged sexual encounters for which they have prior knowledge.

Makes perfect sense.

Now you know why social services are so F***ed up.

No - it's not Schultz's job to "pull details out of mush-mouth McQueary"'s mouth - it's his job to report to Harmon that McQueary so Harmon's team/department can "pull details out of mush-mouth McQueary"'s mouth.

Schultz must have thought something as regards McQueary's claims. Schultz did all these things in the days and weeks afterwards:

(1) he shoots an e-mail to Harmon as regards 1998 (why?),
(2) he consults with Wendell Courtney,
(3) he has numerous follow-up communications with both Spanier and Curley over the next couple weeks,
(4) Schultz, Curley and Spanier decide on their plan for "a more humane and upfront way to handle this", and
(5) Curley meets one-on-one with Sandusky (Schultz probably knew this meeting occurred given he was in on the plan in point 4).

If you're going to do all that, why not just report directly to Harmon so Harmon's team/department can investigate?

 

[michnittlion]

You didn't say it was your "opinion", you said Joe "knew" Jay was a bad coach. Please don't "play dumb."


You are so fuc#ing stupid. Yes, he is unemployed as a football coach. Is this at his choosing or is he in dire straits?

As I said: "Joe may have lost his fastball in his older age versus the coach he was in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. But he wasn't a complete idiot either. He watched the same things the rest of us did in the 2000s."

It's on the record, of course, that Jay has pursued coaching jobs in the post-2011 era. I don't know if he's pursuing jobs now, but he did in the recent past.

 

[jerot]

No - it's not Schultz's job to "pull details out of mush-mouth McQueary"'s mouth - it's his job to report to Harmon that McQueary so Harmon's team/department can "pull details out of mush-mouth McQueary"'s mouth.

Schultz must have thought something as regards McQueary's claims. Schultz did all these things in the days and weeks afterwards:

(1) he shoots an e-mail to Harmon as regards 1998 (why?),
(2) he consults with Wendell Courtney,
(3) he has numerous follow-up communications with both Spanier and Curley over the next couple weeks,
(4) Schultz, Curley and Spanier decide on their plan for "a more humane and upfront way to handle this", and
(5) Curley meets one-on-one with Sandusky (Schultz probably knew this meeting occurred given he was in on the plan in point 4).

If you're going to do all that, why not just report directly to Harmon so Harmon's team/department can investigate?

Because it was irrelevant. Look at what Harmon said -

Here's a recap of Harmon's testimony:
-- On February 12, 2001, Schultz inquired about the 1998 case (via an e-mail that has not been released publicly).
-- Harmon responds via e-mail that the police report is in the imaged files (Freeh Report, Exhibit 5D).
-- Harmon also testifed that he knew the file Schultz was asking about was in reference to the Sandusky 1998 child abuse investigation.
-- Harmon testified that he didn't ask why Schultz was inquiring about the file.
-- Harmon testified that he didn't recall Schultz asking for the file and he didn't recall providing it to him.
-- Harmon later testified that if Schultz would have asked him for it, he would have remembered that fact.
-- Harmon testified that Schultz didn't say there was another Sandusky incident in 2001, otherwise Harmon said he would have opened an investigation.

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

Jay was a below-average coach, and Joe knew this. I certainly have my suspicions as to why.

Where did Joe say this, or, did he say it to you in a conversation?

As I said: "Joe may have lost his fastball in his older age versus the coach he was in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. But he wasn't a complete idiot either. He watched the same things the rest of us did in the 2000s."

As you said..... See the quote above the quote where you use the words "as I said". You didn't address my question at all. You are such a fuc#ing tool.

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

All three had charges dropped due only to Baldwin screwing up & being unclear on who she represented. If attorney client privilege didn't exist there they might well have been guilty of more.

This is one of the most completely irrational posts that you have made. AND, that is a high standard right there. FU@K you Pinkhippo!!!

 

[BobPSU92]

Please take this opportunity to use the Ignore feature.

 

[sluggo72]

Maybe Jay wasn't a dunce (although Jay hasn't coached football anywhere beyond PSU over the last 6 years), but your response didn't answer my question.

Was Joe looking out more for his interests or Penn State's interests in employing Jay?

Jay was exactly the kind of AC JVP always hired.
Other than Ron Vanderlin name 1 AC JVP hired that had a ' big' resume or wasn't a former player?
I'll wait.

 

[indynittany]

It strains credulity that Harmon knew nothing about 2001.

I think it's very possible Schultz understood that if he told Harmon, then Harmon would have to open a file on it. I think they took into consideration the delicate nature of the situation and erred on the side of Sandusky's privacy and reputation. The prosecution tried to make their discretion look like some conspiracy to conceal the sexual abuse of a child.

In reality, I don't think they believed Sandusky did anything that wouldn't have been perfectly acceptable in public. It was the 'alone' part that concerned them. They wanted to prevent the potential he said/he said scenario. Their actions were intended to protect PSU in the future, without hurting Sandusky's reputation or TSM in the present. It was "humane and a reasonable way to proceed".

It all comes down to what Mike told C/S after he had presumably had 10 days or so to calm down. Not what he "would have told them", but what he actually did tell them. No matter how you slice it, there's no evidence to suggest they even considered the possibility that there was a young victim to factor into the equation.

The evolution of MM's story from '01 to today, not to mention the lies Jonelle Esbach slipped into the GJ presentment and how the state whiffed on all 15 felonies should be the basis for a brand new narrative. And Penn State should be the one to write it.

 

[marshall23]

I think it's very possible Schultz understood that if he told Harmon, then Harmon would have to open a file on it. I think they took into consideration the delicate nature of the situation and erred on the side of Sandusky's privacy and reputation. The prosecution tried to make their discretion look like some conspiracy to conceal the sexual abuse of a child.

In reality, I don't think they believed Sandusky did anything that wouldn't have been perfectly acceptable in public. It was the 'alone' part that concerned them. They wanted to prevent the potential he said/he said scenario. Their actions were intended to protect PSU in the future, without hurting Sandusky's reputation or TSM in the present. It was "humane and a reasonable way to proceed".

It all comes down to what Mike told C/S after he had presumably had 10 days or so to calm down. Not what he "would have told them", but what he actually did tell them. No matter how you slice it, there's no evidence to suggest they even considered the possibility that there was a young victim to factor into the equation.

The evolution of MM's story from '01 to today, not to mention the lies Jonelle Esbach slipped into the GJ presentment and how the state whiffed on all 15 felonies should be the basis for a brand new narrative. And Penn State should be the one to write it.

Harmon was an old neighbor and fellow parishioner, I doubt he was in a hurry to write up Jerry.

 

[Legion of Lions]

Corbett was desperate.

In the aftermath of Corbett’s loss to Democrat Tom Wolf, it was a common theory that the Republican’s seat on the Penn State Board of Trustees had hurt him politically.

The board voted to fire Paterno for under-reporting Sandusky’s abuse.

Corbett said he certainly sees a connection.

“One guy came up to me in our grocery store at home, and he was making a beeline right towards me — I went, ok. And he said, ‘are you Governor Corbett?’ I said yes. He said, ‘we got you.’ And he pointed to his jacket — he had a Penn State jacket on,” Corbett said.

The Republican maintains he didn’t vote on the Paterno firing.

In the past, he’s said he thinks the coach should have been suspended instead — though he refrained from taking so firm a stance again.

“It was hard to fathom that Mr. Sandusky did what he did. I’m sure it was hard to fathom for Mr. Paterno too,” he said.

Corbett also faced criticism for failing to adequately investigate abuse allegations against Sandusky while serving as attorney general prior to being elected governor.

Listen....Corbett HIRED spin doctors on this one to construct a "Story" that the public would buy...FACT!!! Check the State's "Consultant Fees" for 2011 + 2012.
Corbett needed to kill Paterno and Penn State so that a diversion could be created. The TSM records contained infor that was damaging to LOTS of high-value contributors and cronies. The total RECORD SYSTEM for TSM needed to be destroyed before anyone could review them. Sandusky was just the pawn - the LEGAL PROOF (different from the actual proof of guilt) just was not there....it had to be manufactured and then sold via PT BARNUM to the public. This is a professionally engineered Hit Job by a crooked politician and those he was paid to protect!!!! ($650K TSM donations are just the start!)

The $125M "Bleed" from PSU is just andf added bonus to those Lawyers who Corbett promised hush money to!