Sunday, May 12, 2019

Former Federal Agent Details Political Corruption In PSU Investigation

On this week's Lions Of Liberty podcast, former NCIS Special Agent John Snedden outlined the extensive political corruption that plagued the so-called Penn State sex scandal.

Snedden dissects the flawed, "agenda-driven" investigations done by Attorney General and Louis Freeh. He talks about a "blatantly fictitious" grand jury presentment, and an "appalling" lack of judgement displayed by the Penn State Board of Trustees.

Then, Snedden takes on the "corrupt" Pennsylvania judiciary which signed off multiple times on the unconstitutional prosecution of Graham Spanier, and the "vindictive" former governor who "slow-walked" the Sandusky investigation to a preconceived conclusion.

The entire 40-minute broadcast can be heard here.

6 comments:

  1. This is a very well done, hard-hitting interview. It makes you wonder whether Spanier would have been convicted had his lawyers had Snedden testify for the defense as they had intended.

    Snedden thinks anyone convicted by the corrupt prosecutors in the PA Attorney General's office should be reexamining their case and heading to federal court for a fair hearing.

    Around the 13 minute mark, Snedden said he thought Freeh was unaware of his federal investigation until Spanier mentioned it during Freeh's interview of Spanier. Snedden said that when Freeh was told, he became uninterested and left the room. I had not heard that before.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, that's good stuff. And there were five witnesses in that room, Snedden pointed out.

      Apparently our illustrious former FBI director had his mind already made up about Penn State. Or at least he knew what his handlers wanted. And then he collected his $8.3 million.

      Delete
    2. I don't quite understand Sneddon's claim that Freeh was unaware of the federal investigation until he interviewed Spanier.

      Snedden said he talked to several Trustees and President Erickson so I would think the word would have gotten back to Freeh unless Snedden had the power to swear them all to silence under penalty of law.

      Delete
    3. Well, I don't quite understand how Snedden thinks anyone would have a fair trial in federal court. Nothing fair happens to defendants, All defendants are guilty.

      Judges and juries get all the information they need to make up their minds from the mainstream media. "Innocent until proven guilty" is not the case at all, we really should be saying "All defendants are guilty regardless of the facts".

      Delete
    4. In the Spanier and Monsignor Lynn cases, there were clear violations of due process and Constitutional rights. The Spanier judge did not even have to weigh evidence for guilt or innocence, just federal law.

      It's pretty outrageous that the PA Supreme Court violated Lynn's and Spanier's Constitutional rights by retroactively reinterpreting the 1995 child endangerment law. They essentially said that everyone knew that people like Lynn and Spanier were covered by the 1995 law in 1995, even though the PA legislature later expanded the law in 2007 to specifically include such people.

      That 2007 change in the law was actually prompted by the Lynn grand jury, who didn't believe they could charge Lynn under the 1995 law.

      Delete
  2. Ralph-

    I was wondering if during the course of your reporting you have ever located an actual jury forepersons sheet for the Penn State cases. It would be the first, second or third page of the grand jury findings. Examples are at www.dauphinc.org/grandjury/ and they all contain language about a majority concuring and a place for the foreperson's signature.

    Maybe sometimes the IGJ forgets to vote? Or they forget to give Frank the paper? I'm sure there's an innocent explanation for this. Seems like it only happend to Frank though.

    ReplyDelete

Thoughtful commentary welcome. Trolling, harassing, and defaming not welcome. Consistent with 47 U.S.C. 230, we have the right to delete without warning any comments we believe are obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.

 

Big Trial | Philadelphia Trial Blog Copyright © 2016 BigTrial.net

Privacy Policy: BigTrial.net does not distribute, share or sell email addresses, or any other personal information received from this website.