Demolishing The Freeh Report and everyone who believed it one dishonest premise at a time.

The biggest reason for writing more about the Freeh Report is, like the news media and politicians on both sides I've written about in the past, the Freeh Report is dishonest, in many ways incomprehensibly incompetent, and had an agenda to fit a preconceived idea and it was going to fill that agenda even if it meant doing it not just with distortions but out and out fabrications. And the reaction of the mob and the press who swallowed it uncritically and without investigation, who accepted its conclusions blindly, is important because the Freeh Report itself, the reactions of the press and the people who believed it is in microcosm, everything that has gone wrong with the country and why the country as a whole is in the trouble its in in terms of politics and policies that aren't working.

 Everything about the Freeh Report and the reactions of the press and people who believe what they read without checking facts, or even applying common sense is how fascism took a foothold in Europe in the 1930's. A dishonest bureaucratic authority figure disseminating propaganda and outright lies to fit a preconceived idea, offering unchallenged "evidence" that wouldn't last a minute in a court room, an incompetent, spineless press, spreading and repeating the lies without bothering to see what is true and what isn't and not caring, and a mindless mob who wont think for themselves who swallow it and then, torches lit, go on their midnight rampage. The comments by the university president as to why the statue was taken down are worse than the statue being taken down ( like some mob pulling down statues in Stalinist Russia). His comments are a disgrace to an insittution of higher learning and if he thinks that committing gross injustices, throwing away one's ability to think and committing immoral acts in the name of morality is the way to help heal victims of abuse, by committing an abuse himself as the press commonly does, then if in the future, if facts that Freeh either chose to ignore or that he knew he didnt have prove otherwise, that will be the stain he has brought on himself and the lack of leadership at the university.

As for the press, they are ostensbily there to protect us from lies, distortions and abuses by those in authority. If someone doesnt have proof, they are supposed to dig until they find it and report the truth. They are so supposed to be adversial in their relationship with those who have even a modicum of power. Those characteristics are a bad joke when it comes to what we have as a press and its been the case for a long time.

This episode is not just about Paterno. Its not about one person. Its how lies spread, how the press fails miserably in their responsibilities, ( as they have for decades) and how the mob mentality, sure of their own moral rightness, commits crimes in the name of their morality and becomes every bit as immoral as a Sandusky while trying to prove to themselves and everybody else that the opposite is true.

 Far from exposing Paterno for any wrong doing, it exposes other things. It exposes the sheer stupidity and cowardice of journalists who have a history of stampeding like mindless cattle or acting like parrots. It exposes the people too stupid or too lazy to see how impossibly nonsensical and dishonest the report is, how as a legal document or investigation it fails on every level, because it would take away their one chance to exhibit their self serving but phony sense of morality. And it exposes the stupidity of the report itself, and the dishonesty of Louis Freeh whose name the report carries.

So the next time you see or hear anyone grandstanding about Paterno and the Freeh Report, know you are looking at or hearing a moral coward who has never stood for or up to anything in their lives, who look at the torch carrying mob of people just like them and think to themselves, "now's my chance".

 This level of stupidity even found its way to the city of Grambling, home to Grambling College. An attorney there with the support of the mayor petitioned the NCAA to vacate 3 Penn State victories based on the Freeh Report. Morality? Hardly. They want Eddie Robinson the famed Grambling coach to be able to claim the most victories by a coach in NCAA history. That is the morality in microcosm of the people who buy the Freeh Report. Its all based on what's in it for them. But here is a news flash for the mayor of Grambling and their obviously ignorant attorney. Paterno could have been convicted of mass murder and it wouldn't be grounds to vacate any victories by the Penn State football team. My advice to the mayor and this ignorant attorney would be to stop grandstanding and degrading yourself for your own self serving reasons. But this is the level of stupidity and immorality that the Freeh Report brings out.

Freeh's report at its heart is dishonest and decietful and Freeh uses deceit to make his point.  Freeh's report has as its heart the premise that Paterno knew of the abuse of Sandusky and the 1998 investigation and kept quiet about it and lied to the grand jury to protect Penn State from bad publicity. The premise is not just false its stupid and what Freeh calls, and which the mindless swallowed, as proof, not proof at all but what Freeh got away with because, unlike a courtroom, there was no adversary challenging Freeh's so called evidence, no judge to throw it out, no rule of law to follow and no rules of evidence. Freeh knew he had a kangaroo court and it was a matter of what he could get away with. And with an incompetent and ignorant press and those who believe them, he did.

 PREMISE 1: PATERNO KNEW ABOUT 1998 INVESTIGATION.

 This is one of the cornerstones of the Freeh Report. Its the basis for Freeh's premise that Paterno knew of and hid Sandusky's activities, and the investigation and then lied about it in his grand jury testimony "to shield Penn State from bad publicity."

As you'll see the stupidity of the premise based on what Freeh calls "proof" which is no proof of anything, is mind boggling and in a court room with any competent lawyer would do more to undermine his case than prove it..

 FREEH'S "PROOF".

 The "proof" Freeh uses to claim unequivocally and with absolute certainty that Paterno knew about the Sandusky investigation in 1998 and so consequently perjured himself during his grand jury testimony, are three emails between Curley and Schultz which refers to Curley asking for updates on the progress of the investigation and a reference to "coach anxious to know".

 Freeh wants you to believe that "Coach" is Paterno.  Freeh's proof is that he says it. Not because he proves it. But barring any definitive proof that it is Paterno, ( not because Freeh says it no matter how much the lap dogs lap it up) the probability, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence, is that the "Coach" Curley is referring to is Sandusky.

 Sandusky knew he was being investigated. He was not only set up in a sting by campus police detectives who eavesdropped on a conversation initiated by the mother of one of the boys he showered and who confronted him while detectives eavesdropped in another room, he was also interviewed by a psychologist from DPW as part of the investigation, who interviewed  Sandusky to get his account of what happened in the shower. It was the fact that Sandusky's account was the same as the account given by the boys he showered with that led to the psychologists conclusion that no abuse had taken place, since there had been no genital touching, no touching of thighs or other parts of the body or anything that could be called abuse. So Sandusky knew he was under investigation. He was also approaching his 30 year benchmark as an employee at Penn State a milestone which, if he reached,  would have a profound affect on his pension, income and future.

 Does anyone think or believe that Sandusky would not want to know the progress of the investigation by Penn State police of the allegations against him? Does anyone think he wouldn't call on his decades long relationship with the Athletic Director Tim Curley to ask him to find out for him? And aside from what it might mean for him financially,  how about the potential legal consquences of the investigation? The investigation had to be the single most important event in Sandsusky's life at the time. So where is the documentation showing Sandusky inquiring about the progress of the investigation? Where are the emails? Where are the phone records showing Sandusky called Curley to find out? They don't exist because the email that from Curley to Schultz that says " Coach anxious to know" may be it.

 It's not possible that Sandusky would not have wanted to know. If there were some proof of his attempts at finding out, then at least we would have a distinction between that and the email Freeh tries to make you believe is Paterno. What makes matters even worse, and makes both the press and those who swallowed the report even dumber and well fitted for a brownshirt, is the fact that Freeh doesn't even state with certainty or claims of proof that "Coach" is in fact  Paterno. Instead the report states, " It is believed 'Coach' is Paterno". So alll this is about Freeh saying it is believed? They statue is to come down because Freeh says "it is believed" because he has no proof?  When there is more evidence to support that it is Sandusky?

 If anyone with even minimum intelligence doesn't thinks Sandusky wanted to know what was going on with this investigation that could change his life, stop reading and don't go any further. Nothing else will penetrate the concrete.

And who do you suppose would be more "anxious to know"? Paterno when Sandusky was no longer even part of the football staff having been replaced as defensive coach? Or Sandusky who had his whole life riding on it?

There is no getting around the fact that Sandusky had to have wanted to know what was going on with the investigation and his only conduit would have been Curley. If there are other emails or documentary evidence that clearly shows other attempts by Sandusky to find out, that might have been evidence that "Coach" could be Paterno. But Freeh didn't produce them. And he might not have produced them because they don't exist. And they don't exist because the email Freeh wants you to ":believe" is Paterno refers to Sandusky. At the very least it raises more than reasonable doubt, as to Freeh's premise and conclusion, something everyone in the press and many who didnt even read it, just swallowed without question.

But " it is believed ' is good enough. For some. But this is what makes Freeh's report not just dishonest but decietful. There is one thing Freeh knows, and that everybody knows about that email. And that is Curley knows who "Coach is". Its not a mystery. Its not unknowable. Curley knows. And we know he knows. But Curley has his own legal issues to deal with an upon advice of counsel has declined to talk to Freeh or make public statements. So at best an honest investigator would say that since Tim Curley has declined to be interviewed, the best that could be said is that the matter of who "coach" is, is unresolved. But Freeh doesnt do that. With no corroborating evidence, and with all the circumstantial evidence pointing to "coach" being Sandusky, but at the very least, knowing that he doesnt really know, Freeh says, "Coach is believed to be Paterno".

We will know eventually when Curley tells us who he was referring to when he wrote "Coach". But not till after his legal issues are resolved. And that could be some time. But Freeh doesnt want to wait. He wants to lynch Paterno right now because that's what he was paid $6 million to do. The last thing he wants to do is honestly say at the very least,  the issue is unresolved. Imagine the difference in the response to the report if thats what he had said.  But no time to wait for the truth. Get the rope and hang him now. And this from the man who was torn to peices by the 911 Commission for his bungling, mishandling and in some cases not taking seriously enough, terrorist related intelligence pre-911. And the press and the people who believed him swallowed every word as fact. This alone is what makes Freeh not just dishonest and incompetent but deceitful.

 The other preposterous point of the report deals with Paterno keeping it quiet to protect Penn State from bad publicity. How would Paterno be able to keep the investigation quiet with a full blown police investigation in progress and state psychologists from DPW already involved? To call Freeh's premise stupid is to insult stupid people. To call those emails proof of Paterno's knowledge is beyond absurd. At worst there is more than reasonable doubt as to who "coach" is, something Freeh never investigated to the point of actually having proof, and at best, barring further evidence, common sense says its more likely that "coach" is Sandusky not Paterno and that Freeh is something out of Les Miserables.

 One other point. Even if you wanted to say that Paterno knew of the investigation as Freeh tries to claim when all the available evidence contradicts it, then Paterno had to know the results of the investigation too, something pointed out in the previous article and something Freeh omits from his report -- because the results of the investigation exonerated Sandusky (rightly or wrongly) from any criminal behavior or child abuse. So if Paterno knew of the investigation ( which there is no real proof he did) then he also knew Sandusky was exonerated in the 1998 investigation. So what would he be trying to cover up? That Sandusky was exonerated? What was he trying to shield Penn State from in his grand jury testimony by committing perjury? That nothing happened and Sandusky was cleared? If Paterno really knew, it would be to his advantage to tell the grand jury he knew of the investigation and that the results exonerated Sandusky of any wrong doing, not lie about it and risk a perjury charge.

 This is how preposterous Freeh's premise is. It should also be noted that Freeh says in his report that " it is not known how the conclusion of the investigation was conveyed to Paterno". Why not, oh great sleuth? Did that one stump ya? Can't find one single piece of documentary evidence, not one email of the tens of thousands you went through that mentions that the conclusion of the investigation was "conveyed" to Paterno? And if you think Freeh's choice of words in using "conclusion" is an accident and not carefully and intentionally chosen, then you are a candidate for buying swamp land in Florida.

 Freeh uses the word " conclusion" and not "result" for a reason. He talks about Paterno "knowing" about the investigation but eliminates any comment about Paterno knowing the result, and instead uses the word "conclusion" as if the investigation just stopped with no result. Because the result of the investigation was that Sandusky was cleared of any wrong doing. And if Paterno knew that, there was nothing to protect Penn State from and throws Freeh's entire premise of Paterno covering up to protect Penn State completely out the window. Which is where anyone with a shred of common sense should have thrown this "report" a long time ago.

 Do these emails that reference "coach" refer to Sandusky? My bet is 2-1 that they do but let's be honest 2-1 shots lose. They are no sure thing. But even Freeh admits he cant say for sure and has no evidence to prove it. Which doesn't stop him from drawing the conclusion and doesnt stop the mob from wanting to take down the statue. Kind of like Paterno is now Saddam. Right?

Freeh was running a kangaroo court and intentionally distorting facts to fit his absurd conclusion,and people who have probably never stood up to or for anything in their lives and were chomping at the bit to pretend they were morally superior bought it.

 If Paterno was given the presumption of innocence that he was entitled to and a reasonable doubt standard applied, the Freeh Report would be a joke.Actually it's a joke anyway.

One other point about the 1998 emails. Freeh claims, and is central to one of his premises that Joe Paterno was the most powerful man at Penn State. He could do anything. But when it came to finding out the progress of an investigation he was supposedly "anxious" to know about" (even though the idea Paterno would be "anxious" to know is preposterous) we are supposed to believe that Mr. All Powerful doesn't pick up the phone and call Schultz himself to find out? He goes through channels instead and asks Curley to find out for him? If he's "anxious to know" why doesn't Paterno call Schultz himself? If Paterno isn't "anxious to know" then those emails refer to Sandusky not Paterno.

One last point about the emails. Every journalist and commentator in the country and the people who swallowed their nonsense criticized Paterno on only one major issue -- that "he didn't do enough". Every criticism of Paterno and their argument that he "didn't do enough" was based on their insistence that he didn't go to the police. Every criticism was based on their pontificating that Schultz "wasn't the police" even though he held the title of "Head of Penn State Police Services". It was the mob's mantra.

 But the emails produced by Freeh shows that in 1998 Thomas Harmon, the Capt. of Penn State police who was in charge of overseeing the Sandusky investigation reported directly to Schultz. It was Schultz to whom he gave constant updates as to the progress and status of the investigation. And when Curley wanted to get an update he went to Schultz. If Paterno going to Schultz was "not doing enough" because Schultz "wasn't the police", why was Harmon, the Captain of Penn State police reporting directly to Schultz ? Because he was vice president of Business and Finance?

 Would the mob have leveled the same criticism that Paterno "didn't go to the police" had he gone to Harmon, Captain of Penn State police? No. But the ignorant in the press, ignorant and too lazy to do the job they are paid to do, instead criticized Paterno for going to Harmon's boss. Lewis Carroll would be taking notes.

The rest of the report,especially the infamous "After talking with Joe"  Curley email that Freeh changes and misrepresents to fit his dishonest agenda,(Freeh writes that the email says one thing and actually changes the words in the report when the email clearly says another and the opposite of what Freeh wants to represent) an act which if committed in a court room might have gotten him disbarred, can also be demolished as it pertains to Paterno. And if it matters in the future it will be done.

 There is also now talk about the possibility of removing Paterno's statue. If they do they should at least have the intellectual honesty of doing the right thing and replacing it with a statue of Louis Freeh. And under it should be the inscription: " 'Coach' is believed to be Paterno' ".

 And if Penn State and the people who believe the Freeh Report  and want to remove the statue are really honest and don't want to be abject hypocrites, and a bunch of phonies don't stop at the statue. Don't be part time weekend moralists. Stand up for your beliefs and do the only honest and honorable thing based on your values and demolish the Paterno Library, the library built with contributions made by Paterno and has his name. But first take out every book and CD, DVD and document in the library, pile them up at the football stadium, pour gasoline on them, and burn them. Then demolish the building. And show that when it comes to morals you mean what you say. And that when you stand up for justice, virtue and morality you don't compromise. And don't forget to bring the marshmallows. And the swastikas.

 To paraphrase Forrest Gump, stupid is as stupid does.

And again, when another point of view by a political conservative who is on the opposite end of the political spectrum sees close to the same thing,its not smoke, its fire. That point of view can be seen here.