Saturday, December 31

ICYMI: PS4RS 2016 Report

LAST CHANCE TO DONATE for 2016 Tax Deduction!

Penn Staters for
Responsible Stewardship

 

December 13, 2016
News and advocacy for
friends, supporters and alumni
of Penn State University

As 2016 comes to a close, there are some PS4RS “business items” I’d like to share. This year PS4RS embarked on an arduous task to apply to the IRS for tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization, receiving approval as of September 29, 2016. Through this process, we learned that the activities of our organization preclude designation as a “charitable organization.” Fortunately, however, our expenses will be tax-exempt, but unfortunately, donations to PS4RS cannot be tax deductible. The majority of 2016 PS4RS activities included: supporting election of alumni-elected candidates sympathetic to our mission, ongoing release of information and comments to the media on Penn State-related topics, and proactive meetings and communications with PA attorney general candidates.

We also launched a separate organization in 2016 called the PS4RS Legacy Initiative. On June 14, 2016, the PS4RS Legacy Initiative filed an extensive, separate application for tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(3) public charity. If approved (and our legal advisors are not aware of any reason why the application wouldn’t be approved), all donations received after the formation date of May 6, 2016 will be deductible to the fullest extent permitted under the IRS code. While awaiting IRS approval, the Legacy Initiative raised initial funds in support of its new scholarship program for Penn State students. We are proud to announce four $5,000 scholarships awarded to the following students for use in their Spring 2017 semester: Brianna Barker, Christina Cropper, Brian Loane and Andrew Wasmuth. Having received significant interest from students and funders alike, we have every intention of expanding this scholarship program for the Fall 2017 semester and beyond.

We look forward to continuing our efforts toward restoring Penn State’s reputation, unifying the broader Penn State community and improving governance, but we really do need your help. For five years, PS4RS has operated on a completely volunteer basis, managing expenses on a shoestring through the generosity of Penn State friends, alumni and supporters. We are enormously grateful for the time, passion, contributions and effort of everyone who has stepped up to lend a hand “For the Glory.” However, as we’ve become more formal and more organized (and larger!), we have a need for more significant, sustainable funding to cover the necessities of insurance, occasional legal counsel, communications tools and other basic non-profit expenses.

During this season of giving, please consider a donation to PS4RS and/or to the Legacy Initiative. Checks may be mailed to: 252 Green Road, Woodland, PA 16881. We also encourage you to make a donation (one-time or recurring) via credit card at www.ps4rs.org.

As always, with the enormity and complexity of the tasks ahead, we invite you to participate in PS4RS by lending your expertise, thoughts, ideas and suggestions. Please feel free to reach out to us at any time.

Best wishes to you and yours for a happy, healthy and “rosey” holiday season.

Maribeth Roman Schmidt
Executive Director, PS4RS and PS4RS Legacy Initiative

Media Frenzy

What if we got 100 or maybe up to 300 emails a day in the inboxes of 10 or 12 Media people identified in the ANATOMY OF A MEDIA FRENZY list for a week or two - or until they publish a retraction of what they said in those articles I saved? 

Can we compose an email together we can agree to send to writers on the list that begins:
PLEASE TELL THE TRUTH NOW - PLEASE TELL YOUR READERS THAT YOU INTEND TO UNDO THE DAMAGE YOU CAUSED TO THE GOOD NAME OF JOE PATERNO. 

What if all we want at this point is a complete retraction that reads: MEA CULPA   
In late 2011 I wrote an article that condemned Joe Paterno as the man who heard Mike McQueary say he had witnessed Jerry Sandusky anally raping a 10-year-old on the Penn State campus and did nothing more than tell his boss Athletic Director Tim Curley. That has now been unequivocally proven to be false. Mike McQueary never said that he witnessed anal intercourse and he certainly never told Joe Paterno he had.  
The prosecution's charge that Victim 2 was subjected to anal intercourse was adjudicated NOT GUILTY in the Sandusky trial making it clear that the Jury did not believe McQueary had witnessed anal intercourse. 
I now believe Joe Paterno told the truth when he said McQueary's account of that night in Feb 2001 was unclear. I now understand that Joe Paterno has been unjustly defamed because he did the only thing under the law he could have done by putting McQueary in touch with Penn State administrators. 
It is now abundantly clear that people who have followed every detail of information and testimony, in this case, have been correct. Mike McQueary was not certain of what he witnessed and he was unclear in his statements to Joe Paterno and the Penn State Administrators. The charges against those administrators for Perjury have been dismissed. 
I wish to apologize to Penn State University and Joe Paterno for my part in the defamation of the iconic 'SUCCESS WITH HONOR" coach. I realize I accepted the version of events described in Attorney General Linda Kelly's Presentment as fact. I believed it when she stated that Mike McQueary witnessed anal intercourse and told Joe exactly that.   
I realize that my writing helped to portray 85 year old Joe Paterno as a man more interested in preserving the reputation of his football program than preventing child abuse by a pedophile. I can now see that is not the truth and my words assisted an Attorney General and Board of Trustees who abused their power in their own self-interest. 
The NCAA has done the right thing and restored Joe Paterno's record of wins. Now we should all do the right thing and restore the honor and integrity of Joe Paterno. Joe did the right thing and the OAG was responsible for a grave injustice. We the media were misled by the OAG in PA. 
What if we target 10 or 12 of the writers in the ANATOMY OF A MEDIA FRENZY list every week and send them the email we compose with a list of 3 or 4 links to SMSS articles that detail the facts with testimony proving what we say is true. Can we get 100 to do this?  Or 300 of us who will participate in an email campaign? We can also use twitter and Facebook where we find those accounts for these authors. 

The articles in SMSS get an average of 2850 views per article this past two months. 285 would mean just 10% of those who read the weblog consistently participating in the campaign. 

How many of you reading this would be willing to copy and post to 10 or 12 email addresses a day for a week or two? This can be done by listing all the authors in a single email. 

Potential Targets:
PSU SCANDAL THE STORY SO FAR - by Michael Solomon the Guardian UK
PSU ABUSE SCANDAL CHILLING DETAILS USA Today
WHAT ABOUT THE BOYS? Andrew Rosenthal is horrified

Why Penn State Needs to Change Its Name...Now! By John Tantillo
The tragedy of Joe Paterno By Gene Wojciechowski
Joe Paterno ignored his moral responsibility by Tracee Hamilton WaPo 
Penn State and Joe Paterno deserve part of the blame Mike Wise WaPo
Joe Paterno must leave now: a religious argument By Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld WaPo

In Penn State’s scandal, where was the leadership? Edward Robinson WaPo

Penn State’s abdication of legal and moral obligations WaPo Editorial Board
In wake of Sandusky scandal, PSU coach Joe Paterno must go By Ryan Cooper
Joe Paterno will have to live with choice by Ian O'Conner
Penn State story's expanding horizons by Lester Munson
Scandal sullies Joe Paterno's legacy by Ivan Maisel
Penn State's long road to recovery By Mark Schlabach
Joe Paterno failed his biggest decision By Mark Schlabach

Penn State Nittany Lions again deficient in leadership Mechelle Voepel

Penn State football should be retired, permanently By Jennifer Rubin                          The Devil and Joe Paterno by Russ Dothat                                                               

AP IMPACT: PSU culture explained away Sandusky                                            Bernstein Shreds The Penn State Letter by Dasshole Bernstein                                      In the PSU child sexual abuse scandal, there are no easy answers Wayne Drehs        Penn State sexual abuse scandal puts faith in all college sports ...Scoop Jackson         Penn State Scandal -- TV van gets flipped as Joe Paterno riots .                              Who is Jerry Sandusky Video on ESPN

 GREGG DOYEL CBS PSU GOOGLE IS VIABLE - LINKS BELOW BROKEN 
OTL State of Shock Video 1998 investigation, janitor incident,
Rod Gilmore - View of Paterno Has Changed video w Gilmore Syracuse Univ Logos  Penn State and Syracuse scandals have exposed college coaches as ...Howard Bryant

Friday, December 30

PSU Counter Suit Won't Go Far

Penn State's counter suit against Spanier provides opportunity to validate email evidence, however, given PSU's track record it will settle the case before allowing the truth to be known

By
Ray Blehar

Penn State University's (PSU) counter suit against former President Graham Spanier alleges that Spanier knew about and failed to make full and complete disclosure of his knowledge of the Sandusky grand jury investigation and of the information contained in “the 2012 Discovered Emails."   

In response to this suit, Spanier's legal team should seek clarification regarding what is meant by “the 2012 Discovered Emails."  More specifically, which emails were found in 2012, what exact date were they discovered, who discovered them, to whom were they provided, and in what format?

As of right now, the answers to those questions are unclear, based on the evidence in that was provided in the criminal cases of Spanier, former PSU Athletic Director Timothy Curley, and former Senior Vice-President-Finance and Business, Gary Schultz.


Freeh’s Email Discovery Statements

During Louis Freeh’s press conference, he claimed that the Special Investigative Council (SIC) discovered the emails from 1998 and 2001.  Freeh alleged the emails were used to correct the date of the 2002 (sic) McQueary incident.


“Our investigative team made independent discovery of critical 1998 and 2001 emails – the most important evidence in this investigation. We also confirmed, through our separate forensic review, that the correct year of the Sandusky sexual assault witnessed by Michael McQueary was 2001, and not 2002 as set forth in the original Grand Jury presentment.”


Freeh’s press release of July 12, 2012 was more specific, stating that the SIC discovered the emails on March 20, 2012.

“In critical written correspondence that we uncovered on March 20th of this year…”

The Freeh Report (at 11) also made the same discovery claims.  In addition, the report stated they were turned over to law enforcement.


“…the Special Investigative Council discovered the most important documents in this investigation – emails among former President Graham B. Spanier, former Senior Vice President-Finance and Business Gary C. Schultz and Athletic Director Timothy M. Curley from 1998 to 2001 – relating to Sandusky’s crimes.  The Special Investigative Counsel immediately provided these documents to law enforcement when they were discovered.”

While the media, and therefore most of the public, never challenged Freeh’s statements about discovering the emails and providing them to law enforcement, common sense and the evidence made public during legal proceedings reveals these statements may not be true.

First, it is simply common sense that PSU legal officials would not allow Freeh’s team to hand over PSU emails to law enforcement without first conducting an attorney-client privilege review.  

There could have been any number of sensitive matters in the (alleged) 3.5 million emails (allegedly) reviewed by Freeh’s team.  This would be especially true for Schultz, who oversaw the campus police as well as the overall finances of PSU – to include various construction and business deals.  Moreover, those 3.5 million emails may have implicated other PSU officials in the Sandusky matter.  As such, there is little chance Freeh released these without a review of them by PSU's legal team.

The evidence from the legal proceedings in the Curley, Schultz, and Spanier cases revealed that neither Freeh nor the SIC were mentioned as having any role in the discovery of the critical emails or in providing them to the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General (OAG).

OAG: No Mention of Freeh’s Role With Emails

Current Pennsylvania Attorney General (AG) Bruce Beemer stated (during the preliminary hearing) that the February 2001 email chain was the only evidence needed to prosecute the failure to report case against Spanier, Curley, and Schultz.  However, AG Beemer has never established or otherwise stated that Freeh provided that email chain or any other email to OAG. 

OAG forensic expert, Braden Cook, testified to a number of dates when he received email evidence, however he made no mention of Freeh or the SIC providing them.  

In summary, the OAG did not establish an exact date when the emails were discovered, who discovered them, and when they were first obtained by the OAG's office.

Cook’s Confused Testimony

Interestingly, each time Cook  testified about the emails, he stated they were in provided in 2011, before correcting the date to 2012.  Screen shots of his July 30, 2013 testimony follow.












According to Cook, he received a disk (DVD) containing the emails of Gary Schultz in March of 2011 (at 66), on March 23, 2011(at 106), on March 23, 2012 (at 107) and a hard drive from a tape backup on July 2, 2012 (at 70).   He also testified (at 68) that the emails from the disk were printed out and used for the legal proceedings.

Certainly it is possible that Cook actually knew the emails were turned over by PSU in 2011 -- and that the most important emails (from Schultz) were recovered in March of that year --  in response to Grand Jury Subpoena 109 (issued on March 24th).   Subpoena 109 requested the emails of Curley, Schultz, Spanier, Joe Paterno, Tom Harmon, and others dating back to 1997.

However, the confusion by Cook on the year of receipt may have been more significant than the legal defense team of Spanier believed, who was working under the assumption that Freeh told the truth about his discovery of the emails in 2012.


Corro Stated Emails Turned Over in 2011

On July 29, 2013, PSU Information Technology (IT) forensics expert John Corro testified that former PSU General Counsel Cynthia Baldwin approached him in March 2011 and instructed him to search the email accounts of Curley, Schultz, Spanier, Joe Paterno, and Mike McQueary.   This information is consistent with the requirements of Subpoena 109.

Corro testified (at 89) that he was able to obtain the the relevant emails (back to 1997) and provided them to Baldwin on three USB keys in March or April 2011.   One USB drive contained all the emails from the men’s accounts.  Two other USB drives contained copies of the specific searches requested by Baldwin (Corro at 90, 91).  

Baldwin, at Spanier’s colloquy on April 13, 2011, told then Supervisory Grand Jury Judge Barry Feudale that she would provide the emails on USB drives, giving one copy to the OAG and one to Judge Feudale.  Baldwin stated the emails would be turned over by Friday, April 15, 2011.

Cook had no involvement with the collection of the emails and IT information related to Subpoena 109 because he didn't participate in the investigation until November 2011. At this point in time, the OAG has not brought forth a witness that was involved in the actual receipt of the USB drives.  Based on Baldwin's testimony, the persons who received the USB drives were Judge Feudale and either Deputy AG Jonelle Eshbach, Frank Fina, or Agent Anthony Sassano.


Feudale, Fina, Sassano, and Eshbach should have to testify about the emails and other evidence they received from PSU during the Sandusky investigation.  Sassano previously testified that Duane Morris, hired by PSU to assist Baldwin, provided him with a copy of the so called secret file of Gary Schultz.  This file contained printouts of some of the emails and information related to Sandusky's retirement.

Like Cook, Sassano never established a date for when the Schultz file was discovered. In addition, Sassano did not establish the date he received the file from Duane Morris, however one of the pages within the file (see Freeh Exhibit 3H) states it was received on February 28, 2011. 

If that is the date that Sassano received the Schultz file, then Freeh's statement that his discovery of the emails corrected the date of the McQueary incident is obviously false.  

Given all of this evidence, it is highly probable that the OAG had received the emails related to 2001 in some shape or form long before Freeh's claimed discovery in March 2012.


Moulton Report Stated Emails Turned Over in 2011

According to the Moulton Report (at 158), the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) received a thumb drive containing the Penn State emails on July 7, 2011.  

The report did not specify who provided the emails to the PSP, however it is likely that the OAG provided the thumb drive to Rossman.  It is also quite obvious that the SIC and Freeh didn't, because they weren't hired until November 2011. 


Summary

The Graham Spanier v. Penn State case and counter suit is in its early stages.  No evidence has been admitted and many questions remain about the discovery and authenticity of the email evidence in this case.  

If PSU stands by the story that the "2012 Discovered Emails" were indeed discovered by Freeh and turned over to law enforcement, then whatever law enforcement agency that has the electronic files should have to produce them.  On the other hand, if Freeh contends he only provided printed copies, then that evidence should be dismissed out of hand because printouts cannot be authenticated.

While Cook testified that the emails in the case were authenticated, the procedures he described did not involve checking the "invisible" header information to ensure the emails were not subjected to tampering. 

Given the importance of the email evidence to Spanier’s criminal and civil cases,  the legal team of Spanier should immediately make discovery requests of all the electronic media (i.e., USB drives, hard drive, thumb drive, and disk/DVD) containing emails recovered during the Sandusky investigation and have the relevant files authenticated by checking the "invisible" headers.  

If this case goes as did the lawsuits filed by the victims, a judge’s award of discovery of this information to Spanier's legal team will likely result in PSU moving to drop or settle the case.  

Hiding the truth has always been the most important thing for PSU in the Sandusky scandal and history shows that the University will pay hundreds of millions of dollars to make sure the truth is never known.

Sunday, December 18

Fake News is nothing new

Penn State University was forever damaged by fake news in 2011 and fake news is nothing new.  However, the good news is that we may now have a way to combat it.

By
Ray Blehar

In early November 2011, the media’s sensational reporting that Penn State University (PSU) officials turned a blind eye to the rape of a child was (and still is) a “fake news” story.   

Even though the facts prove this narrative is false – and absolutely preposterous -- the media continues to report this “fake news” in spite of many protestations from its consumers.

Given what the media knew about the reputation of Joe Paterno and PSU, it should have viewed this story with a jaundiced eye from the outset.
 
However, what it knew by December 16, 2011 should have caused the media to, at the very least, reconsider the narrative.  And if the media was truly concerned about “fake news” it would have gone on an all-out attack on the prosecutors in the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General (OAG) for planting the false story about Mike McQueary witnessing Jerry Sandusky raping a child.  

Sandusky was later acquitted of that charge.

By December, the media knew that Mike McQueary had reported the incident to his father (John McQueary), Dr. Jonathan Dranov, Joe Paterno, Timothy Curley, and Gary Schultz.   It also knew that PSU’s attorney, Wendell Courtney, had been consulted and so had the university’s President, Graham Spanier.  It also knew that PSU officials had contacted Dr. Jack Raykovitz, the Executive Director of The Second Mile (Sandusky’s charity) to inform him of the incident. 

In summary, the media bought into a story about eight people allegedly knowing about a child being raped by the founder of a children’s charity and all eight decided to let him continue accessing and molesting children for over a decade.

That seems rather preposterous, does it not?

The media knew that the eyewitness, Mike McQueary, also did nothing.  He didn’t intervene as the crime took place.  He didn’t think to call the police on his cell phone while at the Lasch Building.  He didn’t call the police after he told his father and Dr. Dranov.   

Instead, McQueary, his father, and a medical doctor all concluded that the person who should be told about the rape of a child was Joe Paterno -- because it happened in the PSU football facilities.

That seems rather preposterous, does it not?

But the game changer that December – or what should have been the one thing to change the media’s narrative – was that it also learned McQueary didn’t use any explicit terms with Paterno or anyone else.   He testified that he didn’t use the words rape or sodomy or any other term that would have necessitated a call to the police.

Apparently, a denial of the key allegation by the key witness was not enough for the media to change the narrative.  

That’s why the media’s complaints about the “tidal wave” of “fake news” should be taken with a grain of salt.

Conspiracy theories and other questionable information have been posted on the internet from its inception.  The media seemingly didn’t care about it for over 20 years but now all of the sudden, it's concerned.

The crazy part of this is that the media’s rationale for stopping “fake news” on the internet and social media is that it has a potential for causing harm.

And the media’s evidence for this is #pizzagate.

The so-called #pizzagate story was propagated on social media and it alleged Hillary Clinton and John Podesta were operating a child sex trafficking operation using the Comet Ping Pong pizza shop.  The story resulted in a man arriving at the pizza shop with guns in tow to rescue the children who he believed were held there.  A shot was fired as he sought entry into a back room, perhaps thinking it was one of the “secret rooms” where the children were hidden.   The pizza shop, which was run by a Democratic Party donor/fundraiser, had to close for a few days, then reopened.

In the aftermath of the #pizzagate shooting, the media scoffed at the idea that anyone had taken the story seriously because of its highly improbable details such as secret rooms used for torture and human sacrifice.    Ironically, those details were similar to the fantastic allegations made in the McMartinPre-School case; however the media had no issue with believing them.  In fact, the improbable details were the key to sensationalizing the story and eventually caused a national hysteria about child abuse at day care centers.  

People spent time in jail awaiting their trials in the day care center cases.  Lives and livelihoods were ruined.   The media coverage of the McMartin case originated in 1984 – 33 years ago.

The media didn’t learn from the McMartin case and acted in the same manner in the 1986 Atlanta Olympics, the 1989 Hillsborough Soccer disaster, the 2000 phony National Guard document incident (i.e., Rathergate), the 2006 Duke lacrosse case, the Sandusky scandal, the Freddie Gray case, and the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity at the University of Virginia. 

In all of these cases, the media fell in love with the narratives of the allegations and didn’t bother to fact check the stories – or even use common sense.

Thousands of people – whole communities – were harmed by these stories and there were hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.   While a few reporters stepped up and stated they got the stories wrong, by and large the media organizations that drove these stories did not.  They didn't offer to pay restitution.  Some were sued and mounted vigorous defenses.

Given its track record, it is quite hypocritical, and certainly an overreaction, for the media to call on Facebook to begin flagging and fact checking its content based on the minimal damage caused by #pizzagate.

However, it’s not the media’s concern over accuracy or “fake news” that is driving it to bully Facebook.  The fact of the matter is that social media has pulled even with cable news at the top of the sources of that people relied on in the 2016 election.  According to Pew Research, social media and cable news were tied at 14%, and were ahead of network news (at 10%), while print news lagged behind at 2%.

A minority (32%) of Americans  trust the media and the majority has grown tired of having to put up with the “fake news” stories they have been feeding us for the last 30 years.  The media no longer has the influence it once had on public opinion and its attempt to place filters on social media in the name of accuracy and truth is a ruse. 

This is about power, not truth.

However, what the media is about to find out is that by coming down on Facebook it came down on itself.  

That's because Facebook, for the most part, is all of us.

Facebook, if all goes according to plan, should give us the opportunity to call out the falsehoods in stories written by Sally Jenkins, Christine Brennan, Sara Ganim, and other media hacks for fact checking by a third party.   

"Under the new process, if a link attracts enough fake-news reports or complaints, Facebook will send it to fact-checking groups, who will have access to these results through a Facebook-built tool."

There would be seemingly nothing to stop Penn Staters from posting previous and/or current factually challenged Washington Post or USAToday columns about the Sandusky scandal on Facebook then flagging it as “fake news.” 

What is good for the goose is definitely good for the gander.


For Penn Staters and the rest of the American public, the Facebook system will give us an opportunity to finally correct the record.

Saturday, December 10

NOT SO COMMON THREADS - Dr. Spanier and PSU Climate Scientists

 THE DEFENSE OF PSU SCIENTIST PROFESSORS
 AND THE DISMISSAL OF DR. GRAHAM SPANIER  

PART II of the Not So Common Threads Series. 

Part I of this "not so common threads series" exposed the bias of Louis Freeh due to his association with Opus Dei, and a burning desire to turn attention to Penn State and away from his church, the pedophile priests and fellow Opus Dei Robert Hanssen. Perceived conflicts between science and religion are well known. It is not my purpose to dismiss the importance of either or to attack religious people. I can believe in God and trust science.

The Integrity of PSU has been attacked in more ways than you likely know. Any university is a place for research and exploration of ideas. Universities should be free from ideological attack by political interests. When professors and researchers are threatened with removal by political parties a line has been crossed that should never be breached. Your opinion of research results does not alter the fact that research is an inviolable interest of the public and the university system. 

Dr. Graham Spanier was called to Harrisburg by PA Republican office holders who demanded Spanier fire PSU Climate Scientists and researchers. That was a violation of everything a university is supposed to be. Your opinion concerning Anthropogenic Global Warming is not the issue. The issue is the freedom and importance of researchers at public institutions of higher learning and the academic integrity of your university. 

Dr. Spanier has long maintained that Gov. Corbett was behind the charges against him. It is clear that Corbett in collusion with John Surma orchestrated the ambush of Spanier and Paterno at an "emergency" meeting of the Board of Trustees.

The connections and parallels in the references below are compelling, and they are not mine. The last campaign for Governor held more than usual importance to Penn Staters since the makeup of the Board of Trustees and a potential reversal of the narrative concerning the Freeh Fiction became possible with Corbett's defeat. 

Corbett in collusion with John Surma ambushed Joe Paterno and Graham Spanier. The "emergency" meeting of 11/9/11 allowed Surma who led the meeting to dispatch the two most credible voices capable of stemming the tsunami of blame leveled at PSU. Both Joe and Graham knew the Kelley Presentment was a bald-faced lie. But Corbett had to stop Joe and Graham from speaking out against that lie.

When AG Kelley put equal sized images of Tim Curley and Gary Schultz on stage beside the poster of Jerry Sandusky the presentment lie made the Penn State Scandal out of what is still rightly 'the Sandusky Second Mile' Scandal. 

Again we know why Surma set out to destroy Joe Paterno from The Surma Vendettas Part I and Part II. But why would Tom Corbett be so bent of the defamation and dismissal of Dr. Graham Spanier?

President Graham Spanier was the 33rd member of the Board on Nov 9, 2011, and the only board member who spoke out in defense of Penn State when he urged fellow members to stand behind Coach Paterno, Tim Curley, and Gary Schultz. Thus, Graham Spanier was the only member who stood publicly for what was right; and they fired him for it, in large part due to Tom Corbett's personal animosity for this political opponent.


Graham Spanier with Joe Paterno
Spanier was a most effective PSU President for 16 years. The FOR THE FUTURE campaign success reminds us hi16-year tenure as President just keeps on giving. We have to wonder why it had to stop.


Penn State sets $2 billion goal for campaign to help students

4/23/2010  University Park  President Graham Spanier announced that Penn State will aim to secure $2 billion by 2014 to ensure that the University can continue to offer an outstanding education to students from every economic background while benefiting the public through research and service.
Penn State raises more than $2 billion in For the Future campaign
Previous SMSS articles gave information indicating the battle between Corbett and Spanier over funding led to Corbett's ambush that sidelined Spanier. But here it is clear that Spanier was hugely successful in fundraising outside of government. So why did Tom Corbett view Graham Spanier as a political opponent? 

Climate Change was part of the race between Wolf and Corbett.  
Among politicians whom liberal billionaire Tom Steyer will aim to unseat in November is Gov. Tom Corbett, whose Democratic challenger will get a boost from the San Francisco environmental activist because of Pennsylvania's shale gas industry.
Steyer, 56, intends to spend up to $100 million through his NextGen Climate Action super-PAC to convince voters that climate change is the most important issue in the fall elections. In addition to Corbett, Steyer has set his sights on two other Republican governors and four U.S. Senate races.
If a Governor Wolf were to take on Corbett for his conflict of interest in the 11/9 meeting that led to Joe Paterno and Graham Spanier being sidelined when they alone could have cast serious doubt on the narrative about a PSU cover-up it would put Corbett in a very difficult position. At a minimum, it could have compelled the media to revisit the Freeh Report and understand the fictional moralizing for what it really is. 

One issue important to Wolf - Climate Change tied to the Sandusky Scandal like this opens the possibility of another look by the Governor's office. 

Climate Change and the Sandusky Scandal are connected because Penn State has some of the most prominent climate scientists in the country. 


SELF-DESCRIBED CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN DR. RICHARD ALLEY


Penn Stater's should be proud of Dr. Richard Alley, who received the Nobel Prize for work on climate change. Dr.Alley is an environmental scientist, PBS host, book author, polar ice expert, bicycle enthusiast, geologist, Nobel Prize winner, Johnny Cash impersonator, former oil company employee, and—according to The New York Times’ Andy Revkin—a “cross between Woody Allen and Carl Sagan.” (without Woody's baggage) 


Dr. Alley is an Evan Pugh Professor of Geosciences in PSU's College of Earth and Mineral Sciences. His research interests focus on glaciology, sea level change, and abrupt climate change, and he frequently discusses earth sciences on major media outlets, including NPR, BBC, and PBS. Alley is widely credited with showing that the earth has experienced abrupt climate change in the past—and likely will again, based on his meticulous study of ice cores from Greenland and West Antarctica.


Graham Spanier defended PSU climate scientists to legislators
who threatened to reduce funding for PSU if they were not removed.

 It is quite likely that Dr. Spanier’s defense of Penn State Climate Scientists played a part in what led to his dismissal.- I learned in Sept 2016. Then attorney general of Virginia, Ken Cuccinelli, who had sought to indict Dr. Mann  was a friend and political ally of former Attorney General then Governor Tom Corbett. Mann was under attack in the bogus "Climategate - hockey stick" flap making headline news at the time. 

A Spanier led Penn State hired Dr. Mann for the Department of Meteorology and PA Republicans led by Corbett and invested in coal and fracking wanted Spanier to fire climate scientists whose research was perceived as a threat to their interests. Dr. Spanier gave a solid defense and refused to fire the noted scientists and professors.
  
What effect did this have on Corbett's plan that removed Dr. Spanier as PSU President? Corbett's fight with Spanier over PSU funding was tied to the defense of PSU scientists by the Republican state legislators. Corbett thought Spanier was supporting climate change action and Corbett was the beneficiary of fossil fuel industry support along with The Second Mile support. The demand to dismiss PSU scientists from Republicans was motivated by the financial interests of their fossil fuel industry supporters.   


CLIMATE SCIENCE AND THE SANDUSKY SCANDAL


This American Thinker article is evidence of what the Spanier defense of the faculty at PSU did to incur the wrath of Corbett and fossil fuel funded legislators who wanted to de-fund PSU if Mann et. al were not fired.

CLIMATEGATE & the SANDUSKY SCANDALS -COMMON THREADS  In this American Thinker article the bogus "Climategate" attack compares favorably with Spanier's defense of Dr. Mann and the Freeh Fiction on Spanier's non-existent "cover-up" for Sandusky. Identical tactics are used.

Reading the text below leaves no doubt. The author claims Spanier chose PSU employees as "investigators" but you can read below how Dr. Pell initiated the RA-10 process

UNPRECEDENTED ATTACKS ON ACADEMIC RESEARCH AT PSU

The Climategate and Jerry Sandusky Scandals: A Common Thread
T.S. Weidler  7/31/12  Want to know more about PSU "thinker" T.S.Weidler?  Mr. Weidler appears to hide his identity from public view since any Google of T.S. Weidler turns up only a few T.S. Weidler links. It does appear he was a PSU student at one time. Links do turn up a radical agenda with Curmudgeonly 
America, it's time to meet your newest top-secret government employee: a professional cover-up artist with a radical agenda.
Graham Spanier is the former PSU president who was fired during the Jerry Sandusky investigation for failing to properly investigate Sandusky when the pedophilia allegations first surfaced.
Spanier's "investigation" of Jerry Sandusky was so thoroughly inept that it got him fired.  When it was completed, Spanier stated that he had "complete confidence in how they have handled the allegations against Sandusky," and he was fired very shortly thereafter.
The recent Freeh report indicates that the investigation was conducted for the purpose of finding nothing.  In other words,it was a cover-up.
It wasn't the only time Spanier rigged an inept investigation for the purpose of finding nothing.  In 2010, his investigators found that Penn State climatologist Michael Mann had done nothing wrong when he invented his "hockey stick trick," to "hide the decline" and lend false credibility to climate change theory.

The difference between the Mann investigation and the Jerry Sandusky investigation is that one covered up a sex offender and the other covered up a fraud.  
 The Climategate "Investigation"
The methodology, however, was equally bad. The "Climategate" investigation was conducted by five Penn State employees. The five internal investigators were given a list of four specific allegations of academic fraud, and they proceeded to dismiss the three most significant allegations outright, without investigating them at all. (this is an offensive lie against PSU)
These attacks on PSU should cause every Penn State alumnus great concern. These are attacks on the academic integrity of your Alma Mater. You should know beyond doubt that 16-year President Graham Spanier has complete integrity. PSU's inquiry into Dr. Mann appears to be unprecedented since this type of inquiry is typically initiated from within an academic institution - not from allegations by email and telephone from elements outside the university. Read the Final Investigation Report Involving Dr. Michael Mann
On Nov. 24, 2009, two days after receipt of numerous outside allegations, Dr. Pell initiated the process articulated in RA-1O by scheduling a meeting with the Dean of the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences (Dr. William Easterling), the Associate Dean for Graduate Education and Research of the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences (Dr. Alan Scaroni), the Director of the Office for Research Protections (Ms. Candice Yekel), and the Head of the Department of Meteorology (Dr. William Brune).
 At the time of initiation of the inquiry, no formal allegations accusing Dr. Mann of research misconduct had been submitted to any University official. Therefore, the emails and other communications were reviewed by Dr. Pell, and from these she synthesized four formal allegations. To be clear, these were not allegations that Dr. Pell put forth but rather her best effort to reduce to reviewable allegations the many different accusations that were received from parties outside of the University. The four synthesized allegations were as follows: 
          Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, 
  1. any actions with the intent to suppress or falsify data? 
  2. any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4,as suggested by Phil Jones? 
  3. any misuse of privileged or confidential information available to you in your capacity as an academic scholar? 
  4. any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research, or other scholarly activities? 
Here we have an unprecedented attack on a Penn State professor and scientist undoubtedly initiated by the same deniers who spawned the CEI and National Review attacks coming from those associated with the fossil fuel industry funded groups. Like Corbett and Freeh going after Joe, Tim, Gary, and Graham with a few email snippets, the "Climategate" fiction based on a few out of context email snippets put PSU and Dr. Mann in this unprecedented position of a formal inquiry. This report on the Inquiry is 19 pages in length and goes into great detail concerning the methods and documentation used to arrive at this unanimous conclusion:

Conclusion of the Investigatory Committee 
as to whether research misconduct occurred: 
The Investigatory Committee, after careful review of all available evidence, determined that there is no substance to the allegations against Dr. Michael E. Mann, Professor, Department of Meteorology, The Pennsylvania State University. More specifically, the Investigatory Committee determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research, or other scholarly activities. The decision of the Investigatory Committee was unanimous. 
As alumni of Penn State you can either accept or reject this unanimous conclusion. But if you reject it you are saying that the academic integrity of your alma mater is questionable, and you are saying the academic officers who did this inquiry are not to be trusted.  

My belief is that my University of Tennessee exhibits the highest possible academic integrity. I believe that is the same with Penn State. The panel of distinguished professors who reviewed the complaints from outside Penn State did not have to do this. There was obviously some significant outside pressure coming from political elements in PA who wanted to see Dr. Mann discredited. Dr. Mann was unanimously cleared and vindicated.


See Appendix B below for the record of 1073 email files that were used by the Deniers who invented the "Climategate" FRAUD. 

The 'conservative' National Review called Dr. Mann "the Sandusky of Climate Science"  and that makes the connection clear. Dr. Mann's defamation lawsuits continue as dismissal motions fail. After the PSU investigation cleared Dr. Mann of charges he misused grant money and falsified data, the fossil fuel funded deniers continued to harass PSU Climate Scientists.



Disinformers step up efforts to intimidate, harass,

and attack Mann, Alley, & PSU

The well funded Deniers go beyond slander to outright harassment -see CEI to sue RealClimate blogger over moderation policy and HERE  where NASA’s James Hansen, explains the strategy. - And this quote from Dr. Mann.
  • “I am now inundated with broad FOIA requests for my correspondence, with substantial impact on my time and on others in my office. I believe these to be fishing expeditions, aimed at finding some statement(s), likely to be taken out of context, which they would attempt to use to discredit climate science. The input data for global temperature analyses are widely available, on our web site and elsewhere. If those input data could be made to yield a significantly different global temperature change, contrarians would certainly have done that — but they have not.” Dr. Mann
 Delingpole actually brags about the latest intimidation strategy: 
"I am glad to report that Michael Mann   is about to get a very nasty shock. On Monday, Mann will find that all 27 of his colleagues at the Earth System Science Center at PSU received a tempting email inviting them to blow the whistle on anyone fraudulently misusing federal grant funds for climate research. Under US law whistleblowers stand to make very large sums of money: based on a percentage of misued government funds - in this case perhaps as much as $50 million." - Mr. Delingpole
There was no “very nasty shock” to Dr. Mann or his colleagues, including PSU's Richard Alley, since they are all already more than aware of the inane tactics of the disinformers (see Alley explains “The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s Climate History”). And no, there aren’t any “whistleblowers” who will make a nickel off this intimidation strategy, but then that isn’t really the point of Delingpole's email.  Of course, the "whistleblower" letter with an invitation to monetary reward got no takers at Penn State.

The scope and effect of these unprecedented attacks on PSU Climate Scientists is astounding to me. Climate Deniers funded by Exxon and KOCH Industries care nothing about the depth and accuracy of the research. They have only 2 combined goals - cast doubt and cause inaction. 


SEEMERCHANTS OF DOUBT for free on Youtube  - Dr. Mann is in this documentary reading the emails generated in the attacks on Penn State's integrity. The content of the email read by Dr. Mann is obscene and threatening. 


PENN STATE SCIENTISTS HATE MAIL?


DOUBT the science? Try BOB INGLIS  -and see him in action: Ultra Conservative Republican Congressman from South Carolina Bob Inglis -someone those who distrust the scientists can trust  OR  

THE SKEPTIC magazine publisher, Michael Shermer. One of 6 prominent conservative or libertarian deniers who studied the science in depth.  Shermer read all of the complete email chains used by perpetrators of the 'CLIMATEGATE" fraud. Prior to that experience he was a staunch libertarian climate change Denier himself.   

When Dr. Spanier stood up for the academic integrity represented by these scientists and Penn State cleared them of the bogus charges made up from email snippets taken out of context - the parallels to what Freeh did to Penn State, Spanier, and Paterno are clear. 

Mann sued the people responsible for his defamation and Spanier has gone on the attack suing Louis Freeh for defamation. 

Mann has lawsuits in progress against the Competitive Enterprise Institute - a fossil fuel funded political "think-tank", and The National Review. 

Professor Mann cleared by PSU of any violations in the bogus "Climategate" blowup. 

Another Win for Michael Mann June 13, 2016, Case drags on for years as the defendant defamers continue to stall with dismissal motions to no avail. 
Steyn’s request that the suit be dismissed was itself dismissed, as a similar request was in 2014. The judge’s patience with Steyn’s antics seems to be wearing thin, as the ruling notes that “Only one thing has changed since the court last considered this issue on April 11, 2014 – the date.”
A Win for the Climate Scientist Who Skeptics Compared to Jerry Sandusky
In 2012 writers for The National Review and fossil fuel funded think tank CEI accused Mann of fraud comparing him to Jerry Sandusky—Mann files a defamation suit. The defendants moved to have the case thrown out, but DC Superior Court Judge Weisberg rejected the motion, opening the way for a trial. Public figures like Mann & Spanier have to clear a high bar to prove defamation, Weisberg argued that Mann's complaint may pass the test, and brushed aside the defendants' claims that the fraud allegations were "pure opinion".
THIS IS THE KEY ELEMENT IN MANN'S CASE: Judge Weisberg Superior Court
Accusing a scientist of conducting fraudulent research, manipulating data to achieve a predetermined or political outcome, or purposefully distorting the scientific truth are factual allegations. They go to the heart of scientific integrity. They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable. 
Steptoe & Johnson LLC, representing National Review writer Mark Steyn, withdrew as his counsel, and also plan to drop TNR as a client.
Parallels between the Freeh attack on PSU and attacks on PSU's climate scientists were drawn by The National Review and the fossil fuel industry-funded "think tank" Competitive Enterprise Institute when they called Mann "the Sandusky of Climate Science."  

These charlatans and deniers fraudulently produced false "evidence" just like Freeh, taking email fragments out of context from 5 of 480 scientists to claim temperature measurements were manipulated. 


Freeh used a few email fragments out of 3.5 million documents to accuse Joe Paterno, Graham Spanier, Tim Curley, and Gary Schultz of a cover up. 


The tactics are too similar to ignore.


FOLLOW THE MONEY

Claiming scientists 'cook the books' to keep research and grant money flowing?  
Here's a question to consider: Use your own Occam’s Razor. What is more likely?
1) A diverse multi-national group of Climate Scientists across the globe have conspired to manufacture a non-existent threat to the planet using data available to everyone in order to keep research grants that certainly do not make them wealthy. 
OR
2) Well paid "experts" with little or no scientific background, from think tanks funded by the wealthiest and most powerful industry in history, do the job their fossil fuel paymasters pay them handsomely to do. They use deceptive practices attacking the scientists and the science with false information to create doubt and thwart action so the fossil fuel industry can continue to make billions of dollars without interference.

257 Billion Profit in 2014 with obscene subsidies is sufficient reason for fraud. 

So far the evidence is clear in the case of Penn State's own Michael Mann. "Climategate" has been exposed as a fraud and defamation cases move forward. CEI and The National Review used the deceptive practice of taking out of context email snippets to create "Climategate" casting doubt on Dr. Mann's credibility and his research just at the time of the Copenhagen Conference. Read the entire timeline  

DR. MANN'S ORIGINAL HOCKEY STICK DATA WAS GROUND-BREAKING IN 1998

As time passes the "CLIMATEGATE" fraud becomes more and more evident. Since 1998 temperatures have continued to rise rapidly.  As evidence accumulates it becomes difficult to believe anyone still thinks the hockey stick is an inaccurate picture of the reality. 

At this very date, 16 consecutive hottest months on record should be clear and convincing but we still suffer from doubt spawned by fossil fuel industry paid deniers who pretend the data stopped in 1998. 

Setting the Record Straight on Misleading Claims about Michael Mann 
There are many elements in the deniers inquisition of selected climate scientists. Their tactics are confusion and misrepresentation. If there are 20 studies that offer the same conclusion the deniers pick the one with the least certainty and ignore the continued observations and measurements that further strengthen the model. It's obnoxious and misleading. The point is to confuse and mislead - rather than inform and enlighten. 
The Hockey Stick and Climate Wars by Michael Mann

The global warming denial machine's predatory "Serengeti strategy" of singling out individual scientists and scientific findings for attack has been applied relentlessly to several leading climate scientists, none more so than Mann and the iconic "hockey stick" graph from paleoclimate research published in 1998. That path-breaking work found that warming in the late 20th century was unprecedented over the last millennium. Since then, a growing and diverse body of painstaking paleoclimate research has produced multiple studies that confirm and strengthen that early finding.   
Below the fold you can learn how to make the calculations that prove AGW for yourself. The data is open source online available to all and the tools allow you to look at any data set you choose from over 6000 measurement sites. 

So who still wants to argue that "CLIMATEGATE" was real and that Dr. Mann's hockey stick is a misrepresentation of the reality - just like the "midieval warming perior was warmer than today" argument or "sea ice expanse increase around Antarctica proves we are not warming" - the deniers bunk is still bunk. 


The sharpest critic of Michael Mann relied on plagiarized material.   
CONTINUE BELOW