Reminded that he and Corbett had answered questions about such allegations from reporters after former House Speaker Bill DeWeese, D-Greene, attorneys and others did allege such leaks, Harley e-mailed: “DeWeese and Cott? They are convicts. Are you trying [to] say the online rants of Cott and former House Minority Whip Mike “Veon are to be taken seriously? Defense attorneys for corrupt politicians and staffers?”
By Peter L. DeCoursey
Bureau Chief
Capitolwire
HARRISBURG (July 23) – People expect a governor or an attorney general to be as tough and demanding of his team as he is of everyone else.
Comments by Gov. Tom Corbett’s spokesman Kevin Harley make me wonder if that standard is being applied. Because it looks like when testimony from folks the Gov and his team think are dubious aids their goals, they welcome it, they labor to corroborate it and they recommend less jail time for those who give it.
But when the same kinda folks questioned his team’s ethics and conduct, Harley dismissed it as “bs” and virtually boasted they ignored it.
In a column I recently wrote discussing the governor’s angry response to a question about whether he wishes he had moved the Jerry Sandusky case to trial faster or let folks know what Sandusky did sooner, I noted the governor is death on leaks. And he feels strongly and says often the letter of the rules must be followed in such cases.
The column says those kinds of statements made Corbett’s critics wonder why he tolerated Bonusgate leaks that made him look good, but held tight on to info in the Sandusky case and as attorney general and governor. In fact, as governor, Corbett tends to hold onto information regardless of whether it is damaging or would help him make his case.
Harley took strong exception to the idea that anyone thinks Corbett tolerated leaks. He wrote me an e-mail, which, after noting another error we had already corrected, stated: “You suggest there were prosecution leaks in the Bonusgate case from the attorney general’s office. If you can’t back that up – and I don’t think you can – you need to walk that one back. You are suggesting a criminal offense by members of the attorney general’s office and that’s one hell of an accusation. Name the leaks and prove the attribution or back off that one.”
I responded: “I do understand that many of the leaks came from warring defense attorneys. But as to what I wrote, I not only believe it to be true, I have multiple sources over the years from your past and present colleagues who said it to me. I stand by what I wrote.”
I added: “Any facts you would care to share about the extent of the attorney general’s leak probe into the matter, how many people he assigned to find out if any of his employees leaked, how long they worked on it, how many sets of phone records they subpoenaed and what they did before deciding all the leaks came from defense attorneys, I would be glad to include in any future column on this issue.”
Harley responded by e-mail: “Again, if you have any evidence of a leak from the attorney general’s office during the Bonusgate investigation – produce it.
“There was never a Bonusgate leak investigation because there were no leaks – or until you wrote about it yesterday – any allegation that the AG’s office leaked information.”
Not only was that last statement – that there was no allegation that the AG’s office leaked – not true, Harley at least should have remembered it was not true.
I wrote back that former House Speaker and Bonusgate-convicted Bill “… DeWeese said it and you responded to me and other reporters on that allegation. Mr. [Brett] Cott” another defendant sentenced to prison in Bonusgate “and his posse said it online. Several attorneys for others said it to reporters. The prosecutors you worked with denied it when asked by reporters. The governor responded to it with a denial at at least one event you and I both attended in 2010.”
Harley responded by playing the men not the ball: “DeWeese and Cott? They are convicts. Are you trying [to] say the online rants of Cott and” former House Minority Whip Mike “Veon are to be taken seriously? Defense attorneys for corrupt politicians and staffers? Come on Pete. What legitimate news source or person, for that matter, has ever claimed or said the AG’s office leaked information on Bonusgate? None. Because it never happened.”
Nor was that the first such allegation. Josh Lock, the attorney for former House Majority Appropriations Committee Chairman Brett Feese, sought a dismissal of those charges saying Corbett had improperly used grand jury testimony in an earlier case. In that case, Corbett’s 2008 attorney general campaign aired a TV ad saying the consultant for his Democratic opponent was under investigation before charges were filed. Those charges were later pled down to misdemeanors, but Feese was convicted and the judge was not convinced by Lock’s argument.
But the dismissal of the idea that convict testimony – particularly since when DeWeese and the others made the charges, they were accused, not convicted, and their attorneys are certainly well-regarded in their profession – seems odd.
A lot of prosecutions depend on using the word of one convict against another, this seemed an odd tack for Harley, who served several attorneys general, to take.
So I asked him: “Why was the evidence of many ‘convicts’ including Mike Manzo” DeWeese’s former chief of staff and one-time prison roommate “…to be taken seriously by juries but not the statements of DeWeese, et. al. and their lawyers?
“Are the statements of convicts only worth checking when they agree with you and your prosecutors?
“If you took the view of never believing anyone who is a convict, how would you convict half the people you convict, on the evidence of other convicts or to-be convicts?”
Harley responded: “Well we can do this forever. But as I’m sure you know that when a convict, such as Manzo, testifies, their testimony is often corroborated by other evidence such as emails or another witness’ testimony.
“Their credibility as a witness is also attacked by the defense attorneys on cross examination. The testimony of witnesses who have not pleaded guilty but were given immunity is also fair game on cross examination. In fact, prior to deliberations the judge will instruct the jury (the finder of fact) that they must take into consideration that a witness was given immunity.
“When you say are statements of convicts are only worth checking when they agree with me or prosecutors it sounds like you are implying that AG prosecutors and agents have reached a preconceived conclusion in their investigation. Nothing could be further from the truth. They follow the evidence where it leads them not vice versa.
“Other than unsubstantiated statements by convicts such as DeWeese and Cott, and their attorneys, there is no evidence of any leaks from the AG’s office because they did not happen.”
But of course, no substantiating evidence was found in this case, because Harley says Corbett never looked for any. And in fact rejected the idea of looking for any corroboration.
Why did they not see where the evidence led in terms of the leaks?
Harley responded: “Because they were bs.”
In other words, the accused are a bunch of creeps and convicts and we don’t believe anything they say, or have to check anything they say, unless it helps us, and we decide we want to check.
Which makes me wonder: where is the line when you check stuff out? One of the reasons Jerry Sandusky got away with what he was convicted of for so long is many could not believe he would do that.
A lot of things that turn out to be true – the Sandusky case, the Bruce Barclay case here in the midstate, the Ira Einhorn case and many others – started out with me and many others not believing they were possible.
Which is why you check things out.
By assuming his staff, and out of the whole state of Pennsylvania, only his staff, are not worth investigating after serious allegations came out, Harley and Corbett tell us something maybe more important than who leaked: their insular assumption that they, and only they, are above suspicion and any allegations against them are not even worth checking out.
If they won’t check out allegations against their own team, maybe they should read some history. Because that kind of insular hubris tends not to end well.
