Dem Group Uses Sandusky Against Dave Freed (Watch Video)

A super PAC supported by the Democratic Attorneys General Association is on TV in Pa. slamming Dave Freed for opposing a review of the Jerry Sandusky case. Both Freed and his Democratic opponent Kathleen Kane are criticizing the ad.

“Now, Freed defends Tom Corbett’s handling of the Jerry Sandusky investigation and said he, “saw no reason to review the case,’” says an announcer over ominous music.

“Letting insiders escape accountability, and leaving the door open to more cover-ups.”

The ad cites an Associated Press report. There’s just one problem. That AP report was later corrected to reflect the fact that Freed didn’t rule out a review of the Sandusky case, and indeed said he would conduct one if, when elected, he thought it was necessary.

The case of Sandusky, who was convicted on 45 of 48 counts related to his sexual abuse of minors, has been a top topic in the race. Polls have shown that most voters take a dim view then-AG Corbett’s handling of the case.

Throughout the campaign, Kane has been more vocal about the need for a review of the investigation, and on numerous occasions has said it took too long.

Freed’s campaign criticized Kane over the ad in light of the fact that the Democratic candidate has repeated blasted him over his refusal to denounce a similar Republican ad. That spot, paid for by the Republican State Leadership Committee in Washington, D.C., inaccurately suggested that Kane went soft on defendants guilty of child sexual abuse.

As of its most recent campaign finance filings, the Committee for Justice & Fairness, the super PAC paying for this ad, had received most of its funds from the Democratic Attorneys General Association.

Kane promptly condemned the ad and requested that it be taken down.

“This is not an ad from my campaign — neither I nor any of my staff or advisors saw it in advance or knew of its content — but that does not mean that I do not have a responsibility to speak out on it,” she said.

“So I am asking the people who created this ad to also strive for this higher standard by taking the ad down and replacing it with something that is not misleading. I am also calling on television stations not to air it.”

The other charge, that Freed wouldn’t prosecute John Perzel, dates to an 2008 accusation by GOP state House primary candidate Lowell Gates that the former House Speaker was behind anonymous robo-calls against him. The charges were later incorporated into Corbett’s “Computergate” investigation.

October 23rd, 2012 | Posted in Front Page Stories, Harrisburg, PA Offices 2012, Top Stories, Video | 12 Comments

12 thoughts on “Dem Group Uses Sandusky Against Dave Freed (Watch Video)”

  1. Jenny says:

    Republicans are in charge of PA- it is they who are ruining it. Democrats have ruined the state? Stop drinking that Kool Aid. We’re gonna change it back to Democrats to fix what’s being ruined by the RWNJ who don’t have a clue except “I’ve got mine, so f**k everyone else” Sickening.

  2. common sense says:

    The Democrats have destroyed this state, it’s time we go back to responsibility!

  3. Sis says:

    Criminal=Asher=AG Corbett=Gov Corbett=Freed. Freed sold his soul to these people for the nomination and consequently could not condemn the attack ad on Kane (out of fear of upsetting those who won him) while at the same time taking the heat in the attack ad aimed at him for associating with Corbett. Lay the Asher stuff down as the trump and Freed is history.

  4. Monkey says:

    Bill, you’re either a monkey for deciding who to vote for based on a commercial or a fraud Freed supporter trying to drum up sympathy for Fraud Freed.
    Kane = an investigation into the handling of the Sandusky investigation and a legitimate look into Fraud Freed’s father-in-law Leroy Zimmerman.
    Fraud Freed = conveniently sweeping Corbett’s handling of the Sandusky case and his father-in-laws misdeeds with Hershey Charitable Trust under the rug

  5. Tom Crowell says:

    Bill — you have to be kidding, right? She didn’t have anything to do with the ad AND denounced it. The ad Freed refused to criticize was just flat out wrong. How’s that better?

  6. Bill says:

    I was actually going to vote for Kane before I saw this. I thought she was the one sane Democrat left that an independent could actually support. Obviously, I was wrong. This ad is a disgrace.

  7. David Diano says:

    Freed ” would conduct one if, when elected, he thought it was necessary.”

    The chance of Sandusky’s victims finding it necessary = 100%

    The chance of Freed finding it necessary: zero

  8. bobguzzardi says:

    Was is inaccurate about the ad? How likely is it that Dave Freed will investigate the three year investigation? The boy first reported Nov 2008 although for some reason the complaint did not get to AG’s office until March 2008. Something is very wrong with the Sandusky investigation. and how did he get away with it so long? only Schultz and Curley knew? How likely is that?

  9. Aaron Hartman says:

    If tom smith US senate, David freed Attorney General, John Maher AUDITOR GENERAL,Diana-irey-Vaughn treasure 18 congress republican candates. Pennsylvania in 2013 will be facistwealth of Pennsylvania

  10. Jack says:

    Why on earth should this ad be denounced or taken down? It is 100% accurate and repeats something Freed himself said about the Sandusky investigation because he didn’t want to upset the apple cart.
    The only thing missing from this ad Freed’s corrupt former Attorney General father-in-law being investigated by the current AG and how Freed ties into that.
    Freed = Fraud

  11. SEPA MAN says:

    Good for Kathleen Kane, she walks the walk, and talks the talk…glad to see she has the guts to stand up and condemn an ad (that while benificial to her campaign) is false and misleading. She is clearly putting honesty/integrity above politics…good for her!!

  12. bobguzzardi says:

    aha now the Kane team is onto something.

    and I remember the Lowell Gates smear by John Perzel very well. Another politicized non prosecution.

    32 Years of One Party Rule Is Enough.

Got Something To Say:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*