Governor Tom Corbett sought to clear up his feelings on long-time Penn State football coach Joe Paterno yesterday to the Associated Press.
“When they were talking about the whole thing I said, ‘You’ve got to remember the children,”’ Corbett said. “Since that date the only thing I have said about Joe Paterno is I’ve quoted him. As he said, I wish he would have done more. I’ve not condemned, one way or the other, never have, never will. These are unusual circumstances.”
After the Sandusky scandal broke, Paterno’s role became a central topic of controversy when it was revealed that he had been notified of an abuse incident in 2001 but chose to tell the school’s athletic director rather than the authorities.
The impression formed that Paterno, the famous PSU figurehead who had been head coach of the football team since 1966 and was an assistant going back to 1950, at best neglected to follow through on the allegations and at worst attempted to cover them up.
As a result, Paterno was fired over the phone after a meeting of the Board of Trustees, of which Corbett is a member. Paterno was dealing with lung cancer at the time and died shortly thereafter on January 22, 2012.
Ever since, the perception has emerged that Republican voters in central PA have soured on the Governor because of his treatment of Paterno.
Personal reports of the Governor’s role during the board meeting are conflicting, with Corbett stating that he recalls not taking part in the vote. Ultimately, the board took a voice vote in which no one objected.
Gov. Corbett did assert, however, that he wasn’t informed that the board was going to deliver the news to Paterno by phone and says he would’ve advised against that.
“If I had known that, I would have insisted they do it in person,” Corbett said. “Man up.”
The AP reported that Corbett admitted some voters disapprove of his role but that his re-election won’t be decided by this issue.
“I think when it comes to an election, the vast majority of the people are going to vote on the two candidates, not just vote on Penn State,” he said.
Loading ...
32 Responses
@ DD:
Your inability to respond cogently to my three focused queries reflects how profoundly your postings are driven more by the desire to satisfy your political motives–regardless of the facts–than by any intent to elucidate truths; your reactions were vacuous and evasive.
*
[1]–There is absolutely no evidence that JoePa lied to the grand-jury; you have again abused the privilege of posting on this website.
1) The emails (as well as his behavior and position) are sufficient evidence for me.
WHICH e-mail contradicts WHICH quote of JoePa to the Grand Jury?
*
[2]–[PSU’s Counsel and former PA-Supreme] Cynthia Baldwin [allegedly] both withheld data from the Board and sat-in on the Schultz/Curley depos without disclosing to them that she only represented PSU.
2) irrelevant to Paterno (unless she has more info on him)
Can you not see that Baldwin’s alleged effort to suppress what had transpired [and unethical connivance to monitor what was being divulged] reflect so poorly upon the PSU-administration that scapegoating [with or without Corbett’s involvement] could have been occurring [targeting JoePa, for example]?
*
[3]–You failed to refute the claim that the Freeh Report was demonstrably incomplete.
3) The report doesn’t need to be “complete”. It already reached the threshold on this issue to show Paterno knew and was more than he admitted. However a more “complete” report would probably damn Paterno even further.
When an admittedly-incomplete report is employed to sully the reputation of a revered coach, one would think that one would have acquired the full picture [to avoid error] prior to adopting a condemnatory posture.
*
Overall, your efforts to direct venom @ JoePa serves to poison your ability to adjudge what actually transpired; in the process, you ignore key-details that tell a far different story than that which you feel compelled to spin.
It may be recalled that your attack on the quality of Guzzardi’s petitions was disproven, for my documented view was corroborated following extensive analysis by the Commonwealth Court; remember, the Supremes didn’t address the signatures because of inordinate fixation on the Ethics Commission filing-concern [without noting the “victimless” nature of what transpired, inasmuch as Guzzardi’s fiscs were uploaded to the Internet for all to read, including those whose offices were across the street].
Thus, coupling this JoePa rush-to-judgment escapade with your having unjustifiably trashed Guzzardi, it seems you are unable to transcend bloviation and to reach quality conclusions; hang your head in shame!
Robert-
1) The emails (as well as his behavior and position) are sufficient evidence for me.
2) irrelevant to Paterno (unless she has more info on him)
3) The report doesn’t need to be “complete”. It already reached the threshold on this issue to show Paterno knew and was more than he admitted. However a more “complete” report would probably damn Paterno even further.
@ DD:
The following excerpts from the above postings constitute loose-ends that you have chosen to ignore, while engaging in pursuits other than your day-job [per “Esquire”] and while provoking PSU-loyalists to emphasize the pervasive nature of this issue:
[1]–There is absolutely no evidence that JoePa lied to the grand-jury; you have again abused the privilege of posting on this website.
[2]–[PSU’s Counsel and former PA-Supreme] Cynthia Baldwin [allegedly] both withheld data from the Board and sat-in on the Schultz/Curley depos without disclosing to them that she only represented PSU.
[3]–You failed to refute the claim that the Freeh Report was demonstrably incomplete.
Esquire:
My point was that not everything is hearsay and there are exceptions. Here’s something from the American Bar Association:
“Admissions and Hearsay Exceptions
Even if the electronic data is hearsay, emails and texts can be admitted into evidence on other grounds or under one of the standard hearsay exceptions. For example, the proponent may not offer the evidence for the truth of the matter asserted therein but rather to prove that certain meetings or events happened or that certain strategies were employed, as they are not offered to prove the truth of the matters asserted within them but as circumstantial evidence of events or occurrences.
Electronic communications can also be offered against a party as party admissions, rather than as hearsay. When “it is the party’s own statement, either in individual or representative capacity,” the evidentiary rules take that statement outside the definition of hearsay when it is offered into evidence by the adverse party. Thus, when the proffering party lays a foundation to show that an adversary’s email relates to a matter within the scope of the sender’s employment, emails sent from his corporate email address likely will be deemed admissions against the employer under FRE 801(d)(2).
Emails also could be admitted as admissions by coconspirators in furtherance of a conspiracy claim. The proponent must show that (a) there was a conspiracy, (b) the declarant and the party against whom the statement is offered were members of the conspiracy, and (c) the statements were made in furtherance of the conspiracy.The prerequisites for admissibility are considered a preliminary question under FRE 104(a), and are therefore resolved by the court, not the jury.Though the court may consider the content, “for such statements to be admissible, there must be some independent corroborating evidence of the defendant’s participation in the conspiracy.”
DD: “That’s one of the exceptions to hearsay:
“(1) Present Sense Impression. A statement describing or explaining an event or condition, made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it.”
For example, if 3 bank robbers are caught on tape, but they all exchange emails about how big a cut to give to the driver, that’s evidence against the driver, even if he wasn’t seen on tape.
For example, if there are emails from multiple people about a meeting, and they claim Paterno was present in the same room during the meeting, that’s not hearsay, because they are relating an observation.”
David Diano, stick to your day job. That’s not a present sense impression.
Corbett was the former investigator, the PSU funder and a Trustee. What I have been told is that there was endless heated debates but when Corbett weighed in, he had the last word as one might expect. Personally, I don’t understand how the Second Mile Foundation has been exempted from this entire matter. Certainly the board and their administration had to have prior knowledge of this monster, Sandusky. State College is a small town. I know the Second Mile wasn’t attacking Corbett on his budgets, like Spanier.
Robert-
“but, currently, he’s the party’s nominee and isn’t corrupt”
Isn’t corrupt? Did you actually type that with a straight face?
He is practically the “employee of the year” for the oil/gas companies.
@ Andrew:
Before you summarily reject Corbett [and his mien], please consider the POLICY implications; learn of Wolf’s classic-Dem approach [tax/spend] and note where this attitude has led [on the national level].
As much as I’d railed against his being the nominee during the past two years [as a Committeeman] until/unless he were to rid himself of the Sandusky-Albatross [and defers to Cawley, if necessary], he is the most conservative governor in the memory of Fred Anton [no mean feat]; indeed, although I have problems with Common Core and Medicaid Expansion [and symptoms of Corporate Welfare], he is TRYING to balance the budget without enacting new taxes.
There are other problems with his stewardship that relate to messaging, as well, and this is also why I’d supported Guzzardi’s challenge; but, currently, he’s the party’s nominee and isn’t corrupt [no mean feat in this era]…and he is TRYING to loosen the grip of unionization upon PA [as it unduly affects paycheck-protection, the state-stores and pensions].
As a Penn Stater, the Sandusky case still cuts deeply in my heart. If Centre County folks want to hate Corbett because of what he allegedly did, that fine; one for the good guys. But the real villain here is the NCAA and its outrageous sanction, and the Freeh report is was based upon. Corbett will lose in November because he comes off (and governs) as not even a real person; rather like some wooden apparition out of the 1950s. Corbett is done, and its time we Penn Staters turn our attention to the monsters who are actually doing us harm.
@ DD:
Tim effectively [and tersely] shot-down your more venal [and verbose] attacks; for example, he noted the “race card” in the OJ-case that you conveniently overlooked.
Similarly, you overlooked my direct attack on Cynthia Baldwin, preferring to ” ’round back” to your original diatribes; better you would recognize that AG-Corbett acted precipitously when firing JoePa [as Gov] in reaction to his having dragged-his-feet [as AG]…until and unless he explains why his staffing-decision [seemingly] constituted a prolonged dependence on too-few people.
When people are married to their own views, they fail to recognize rhetorical nuance; again, when you pounced on the “bear hug” claim, what you ignore [with consciously-closed eyes, your metaphor] Tim’s having merely cited this as a credible reaction that could have not led to a conviction.
Indeed, you failed to refute the claim [by Fena] that the Freeh Report was demonstrably incomplete [regardless of whether the NCAA felt comfortable basing its actions thereupon]; this posture is consistent with your having extensively parsed the use of the word “if”…which is reminiscent of Clinton’s analysis of the word “is” [regarding Lewinsky].
Indeed, trumping all your “blather” on this page was the simple-sage comment of Peggy [on June 29, 2014 at 6:25 pm] who said: “We are PENN STATE and we VOTE!”
The “David Diano on June 29, 2014 at 4:23 pm posting” is a fake. And, it’s not even a good one, because it refers to me in the third person.
Tim-
You wrote:
“All Mike McQueary saw was a shower bear hug, exactly as in 1998.”
Are you part of Sandusky’s defense team in charge of distortion?
Fina’s repeatedly demonstrated he’s a piece of crap, so I’m not sure how interested he’ll be in all the things he missed and overlooked as he dragged his heels while Sandusky roamed free. It’s hard to see evidence with your eyes closed.
The Freeh investigation, conducted independently, seems a lot more thorough and credible than what any of Paterno’s supporters are saying.
By, YOUR reasoning, you should be even more convinced of O.J.’s innocence since none of that physical evidence convinced the jury that O.J. did it. Maybe you should contact O.J. (in prison for other crimes) and ask if you could help continue his search for “the real killers”, during his incarceration.
As for Sandusky..
The separate testimony of the witness, especially in the case of a serial-rapist/child-predator, who knew the victims, is sufficient without physical evidence. There was physical evidence in the form of photo albums Sandusky had of the victims and lists of names/addresses of the victims. The victims were able to describe accurately the layout of Sandusky’s home and the other locations where the abuses occurred. They even corroborated the air time of the movie McQueary was watching the night of the molestation he witnessed. But, the victim testimony was the key to the case regardless of any physical evidence.
But, rounding back to my first point, if you think Sandusky was just giving “bear hugs”, then you should get a job as a professional apologist for rapists. Or maybe you should buy a creepy van, put a mattress in the back seat and visit playgrounds giving kids ice cream and offering “bear hugs”.
Also, you are kidding yourself to think the kids would have backed Sandusky once police, prosecutors and child psychologists talked to the victims and their parents, and the victims knew they weren’t alone against Sandusky and that they hadn’t done anything wrong.
We are PENN STATE and we VOTE!
David Diano – Based on how DA Gricar didn’t charge Sandusky in 1998, it is quite likely Sandusky would have gone free again in 2001 even if Paterno had immediately called the police. Sandusky would have denied anything happened, and the boy would probably have denied it too. All Mike McQueary saw was a shower bear hug, exactly as in 1998.
The OJ case is a poor comparison. There were massive amounts of physical evidence (bodies of 2 victims, OJ’s DNA at crime scene, bloody gloves, shoe prints) in the OJ case and the race card.
There is zero physical evidence in the Sandusky case, no race card and not even victim testimony from 2001. I think it is prosecutor misconduct that prosecutors lied to the judge and jury that victim 2 was unidentified when they had interviewed victim 2.
David Diana – Wikipedia is not reliable. I read the actual court transcripts, Freeh Report, news articles, etc. for my info.
Frank Fina, who prosecuted Sandusky, said on national TV that he saw no evidence Paterno conspired to cover up for Sandusky. That’s why the Paterno family is suing the NCAA. If their lawsuit goes to trial, Freeh will be on the witness stand and have to explain his phantom evidence that Fina never saw.
Freeh’s claim to have interviewed 400 people means little because he interviewed just one of the key people from 2001. He didn’t interview, Mike McQueary, his father, Dr. Dranov, Paterno, Curley, Schultz, victim 2, lawyer Courtney and police chief Harmon.
Robert-
The use of “if” was to illustrate the point. I don’t have access to all the emails and witness, but was demonstrating a distinction regarding hearsay.
Corbett had MORE than enough information after the first victim came forward to pull in Sandusky and search his house. Had Paterno and pals acted in the interests of the victim, instead of the image of the Penn State Football program, Sandusky could have convicted a decade sooner. And either a local DA or then AG Mike Fisher would have caught the case.
Ironically, if Paterno had help turn in Sandusky, he’d likely have been remembered as a hero instead of an accessory. And, Penn State Football would have avoided all the massive penalties.
The NCAA found the Freeh report credible and damning, and they wouldn’t have imposed such a massive penalty had the report been ambiguous.
The current case against Spanier, Curley and Schultz may reveal more information about Paterno’s role in their cover-up conspiracy. It is more than a little likely that Paterno wouldbe on trial with these three if he were still alive.
BTW, after the O.J. trial did you think that O.J. was “innocent” of the murders or that he had “gotten away with it”?
So, you can blabber on about all the legal conclusions that Paterno dodged by “conveniently” dying, but his guilt in the conspiracy is now in the court of public opinion. So, I can be convinced of his guilt by the existing evidence, hearsay, or just my perception of his greed/selfishness and his behavior in the aftermath. I can find him unworthy of praise.
I don’t need the “legal” threshold to consider him responsible.
But, if you are going to rest on legal technicalities, then I hope you’ll stop whining about the ruling against Guzzardi because the election dept told him the wrong thing.
@ DD:
Apparently, your scorn is limitless, for even your extended exposition is premised with “if”; Corbett acted without having acquired your level of corroboration, and it’s hardly justified to reject his WaPo comments cavalierly.
Also, you failed to address the under-appreciated issues regarding Baldwin’s behavior during this entire time-period.
Robert-
I didn’t say that Paterno wrote any emails. But, it’s more than hearsay, as contemporaneous communications can count as evidence if the people writing them back up what’s there with testimony.
That’s one of the exceptions to hearsay:
“(1) Present Sense Impression. A statement describing or explaining an event or condition, made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it.”
For example, if 3 bank robbers are caught on tape, but they all exchange emails about how big a cut to give to the driver, that’s evidence against the driver, even if he wasn’t seen on tape.
For example, if there are emails from multiple people about a meeting, and they claim Paterno was present in the same room during the meeting, that’s not hearsay, because they are relating an observation.
Finally, Paterno’s dead, so there is no reason to pursue a conviction against him. But, it doesn’t mean he behaved wrongly. If the kid in the Boston bombing dies in jail tomorrow, they are not going to finish the trial and convict him, but he’s still did it, and no one credible is going to go around saying he was innocent.
As for Paterno’s statement to the WaPo, it is pure self-serving BS and is not believable.
So, while Paterno escaped any “legal” penalty in court, he’s rotting in the ground instead of in a jail cell.
Tomayto. Tomahto.
@ DD:
I repeat: JoePa did not compose any self-incriminating e-mail because he never utilized this means of communication; thus, all charges against him are legally “hearsay” absent his ability to confront his accuser.
This is basic American jurisprudence; one is presumed innocent until proven guilty; if memory serves, he told the WaPo he regretted having not followed-up his initial report to his superiors, behavior that pales in comparison with how [PSU’s Counsel and former PA-Supreme] Cynthia Baldwin [allegedly] both withheld data from the Board and sat-in on the Schultz/Curley depos without disclosing to them that she only represented PSU.
While Corbett regrets how JoePa was told of his having been fired, this fails to capture the larger picture of why he [allegedly, although he doesn’t deny it] aggressively advocated precipitous action.
Tim Berton-
That passage was quoted from the Wikipedia article on Paterno.
In my opinion, (and the conclusion of the Freeh report) Paterno was an accessory after the fact. From Wikipedia:
“After interviewing over 400 people and reviewing over 3.5 million documents, the independent investigation team reported that Paterno, Spanier, Curley and Schultz had concealed Sandusky’s actions in order to protect publicity surrounding Penn State’s celebrated football program. Freeh’s firm’s investigation found that by their actions, the four men “failed to protect against a child sexual predator harming children for over a decade.” The report concluded that Paterno, along with Schultz, Spanier and Curley “concealed Sandusky’s activities from the Board of Trustees, the University community and authorities.”
The “challenges” to the Freeh report are mostly from the Paterno family, with a clear vested interest in their name/money over any real truth. The other big supporter is d*uchebag talk show host, John Ziegler: “Ziegler steadfastly maintains that Jerry Sandusky was a “chaste pedophile” and committed no sexual acts with his victims”
So, that’s who’s on Paterno’s side.
David Diano – Curley’s unknown discussion with Paterno is not “the only known, intervening factor.” After that email, Curley met with Sandusky and then had a meeting with Second Mile officials.
That same email left reporting to DPW dependent on Sandusky’s response.
Curley’s emails describing those meetings were never made public. What Sandusky or Second Mile officials told Curley could also have influenced his decision.
Psu fans need to pay attention to the children that were repeatedly raped instead of a freaking football coach
Happy Valley and Sklaroff-
From Wikipedia:
“Email uncovered by the independent investigators indicate that Paterno may have followed an investigation by state officials into a previous incident between Sandusky and a different child in 1998, despite Paterno’s grand jury testimony that he was unaware of any possible child abuse by Sandusky prior to 2001”
and
“Freeh’s team also discovered a 2001 email from Curley: after a meeting in which Curley, Schultz and Spanier had decided to have Curley report McQueary’s information to the state Department of Public Welfare, Curley wrote in a subsequent email that, having discussed the plan with “Joe”, he had now changed his mind about this plan of action. Since, the Freeh investigation reported, this was “the only known, intervening factor” with the apparent result that no report was made to the state Department of Public Welfare in 2001, this was widely inferred by the press to mean that Paterno had persuaded Curley (and Schultz and Spanier) not to report the incident to authorities outside the university”
That’s evidence enough for me (above and beyond the general understanding that Paterno wielded near absolute power and had every motivation to keep quiet any scandal involving the lucrative Penn State football program and look the other way).
@ Everybody relying on the Freeh report to condemn the entire middle of the state:
Sandusky build the Second Mile into the most popular charity in the area, if you judge by the number of prominent fundraising events and who was involved with them. Any criticism at all was taken as an attack on those underprivileged kids and got your head torn off. After all, his defenders said, the Great Sandusky was giving them wonderful opportunities, including special access to football activities. Sandusky abused kids and used generous adults–not just Paterno–as a smokescreen.
It’s easy to sit in the cheap seats and use the Freeh report to justify your sense of moral superiority, but that report does not reflect the full story because of the number of people who wouldn’t talk to him, as they will be called as witnesses in the trials. Give it a year, and some things will look very different–we just don’t know which ones yet.
DD: if you knew a fraction as much as you think you do, you’d know Paterno despised Sandusky. Paterno is guilty of going through the specified University channels. He is not the first to find reporting problems up the chain of command did not work as it was supposed to. That’s why Spanier, Curly and Schultz are going to trial. Some locals just wish they were being tried for the whole range of times they let the guilty get away with terrible acts.
I am proud to be an American where at least I know I’m guilty until proven innocent.
I, too, note the stark contrast between Corbett’s latest pronouncements and the ESPN’s contemporaneous data.
This is why I have repeatedly advocated [during the past two years] for him to hold an “endless” press-conference [akin to what Chris Christie did after BridgeGate broke].
The realistic alternative is that he should [1]—recognize the bipartisan damage he has done [when firing Joe Pa before the PSU-Board had investigated the matter, noting the absence of a paper-trail], [2]—own-up to the fact that he has refrained from explaining the massive delays and understaffing of the investigation that was conducted under his aegis [per unrefuted data compiled by AG-Kane], and [3]—allow Jim Cawley to displace him atop the GOP-ticket [and elevating someone with an impeccable record, such as Sen. John Rafferty, to accept the Lt. Gov. nod].
@ DD:
There is absolutely no evidence that JoePa lied to the grand-jury; you have again abused the privilege of posting on this website.
Perhaps it would be desirable to flag each/every of your entries, so that a truth-squad can be tasked with monitoring your deceit.
Larry-
WTF are you talking about? Civil War musket? I don’t know if I’ve ever even seen a civil war musket unless it was in a display case at a flee market or museum. I’ve never had any interest in guns or fired one (besides water pistols as a kid).
The only assaults I’ve done have been verbal.
If you are going to make up something about me stealing, at least pick something that I’d want to have (like a cookie or a pretzel).
Governor Corbett’s denying that he never condemned Paterno is false. Corbett publicly criticized Paterno before and after he was fired.
Corbett before Paterno was fired:
“Asked if he felt Paterno had a moral responsibility to act when a graduate student reported to Paterno seeing Sandusky allegedly assaulting a boy in a campus shower in 2002, the governor said: ‘There is a legal issue, and there is a moral issue. I am personally disappointed in the lack of action, and I had to contain that for the last two-plus years (during the investigation). The board is going to address that.'”
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/gov_tom_corbett_calls_joe_pate.html
Corbett after Paterno was fired:
“In my opinion, when you don’t follow through, when you don’t continue on to make sure that actions are taken, then I lose confidence in your ability to lead. That would be the case here.”
“The actions or the failure to act while maybe not criminal, caused me not to have confidence in the president and in the coach.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/13/corbett-paterno-had-to-go-more-sandusky-victims-likely/
Not psu.blogspot.com
DD, you know all about committing crimes, don’t you? Did you really assault a person and steal their civil war musket?!
“why not one of the most beloved coaches who has ever lived”
… who aided and abetted a cover-up of Sandusky and lied to the grand jury about his knowledge of the case.
He can burn in Hell with Sandusky
Tom Corbett threw Coach Paterno under the bus – someone has to take the fall, why not one of the most beloved coaches who has ever lived. I will never forgive the Governor for what he did to JoPa and I am not the only one. Read below:
The article published in “ESPN the Magazine” claims Governor Corbett took a lead role and took, “great pleasure and pride” in the firing of the legendary coach and former Penn State president Graham Spanier.
Paterno’s firing in November took place a week after a grand jury indicted former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky on charges of sexually abusing children.
Paterno said he was told of one incident involving Sandusky and a young boy in the Penn State locker room showers in 2002.
Paterno told his superiors about it, but critics said he should have done more.
As governor of the commonwealth, Corbett is a member of Penn State’s Board of Trustees.
When trustees met behind closed doors November 9 to consider firing Paterno, the magazine claims one trustee asked members to think twice.
According to the magazine, that’s when Governor Corbett responded by speakerphone, “Remember the children. Remember that little boy in the shower.”
The magazine suggests Corbett may have held a grudge because Paterno, a fellow Republican, declined to endorse his candidacy for governor.
The magazine also quotes unnamed witnesses who claimed the governor celebrated the firing.
It quotes former player Bob Capretto, a businessman who said he is a friend of the governor, who asked Corbett “Who told the board to fire Joe and fire Spanier?”
“And the governor said, ‘I told them to do it.’ He was proud of it,’ Capretto is quoted as saying.
“There’s a new gag order from Judge Cleland to all parties involved and that includes me, so I can’t comment on anything now,” Corbett responded Monday, “not on anything now.”
Governor Corbett is referring to Monday’s gag order from Judge John Cleland, the presiding judge in the Jerry Sandusky case.
Even though Newswatch 16 wanted to know about his role in Paterno’s firing, the governor makes it clear he believes Paterno’s dismissal is tied closely enough to Sandusky’s case that he cannot make any public statement about it.