Friday, November 8, 2019

Why's The Inky Covering For Larry Krasner?

By Ralph Cipriano

New crusading District Attorney Larry Krasner hires the largest and most diverse incoming class ever of 60 brand new prosecutors. But then we find out that 18 of those new ADAs can't go to court or write a brief because they just flunked the bar exam.

Is that a news story?

I certainly thought so. And so did the more than 8,000 readers who hit the blog in the last 48 hours to catch up with the latest chapter of the big criminal justice revolution in Philadelphia, starring Progressive Larry Krasner.

Another person who thought the ADAs flunking out was a story was Julie Shaw, a reporter for The Philadelphia Inquirer. She had the story, but then her editor told her it wasn't news.

This isn't an isolated incident. In recent months, several other stories that attempted to take a critical look at Krasner wound up being spiked by the Inquirer. So it's time to ask why our relentlessly progressive Democratic paper-of-record is covering for our relentlessly progressive Democratic D.A.

Shaw isn't talking, so I sent an email seeking comment from some of her editors. In the email, I pointed out that these brand new ADAs, who will be paid at least $60,000 each, will cost taxpayers more than $1 million annually.

And since they can't go to court or write a brief, it's certainly a topic of public interest as to what these public servants will be doing if they hang around until next June. And that's what Krasner supposedly intends to do with his new recruits, to give them a second chance to pass the next bar exam.

Keep in mind the usual deal at the D.A.'s office is that if you're a newly hired ADA and you flunk the bar exam, you usually get fired. Because passing the bar exam has customarily been a condition of continuing employment.

But that's not how Larry Krasner plays the game. As for the Inky, well taking a dive isn't anything new.

As a former Inquirer reporter, I was fired 21 years ago because the editor of the paper at the time was trying to protect the late Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua from some unflattering publicity I was intending to write about him. So I am intimately familiar with how these things go down in a newsroom. But, as I wrote to Shaw's editors, killing stories that take a critical look at our radical new D.A. amounts to a "betrayal of the public trust."

"Why is the Inquirer acting to protect Larry Krasner?" I asked three of Shaw's editors. Amazingly, one of them responded.

"Without getting into our decision on any particular piece, we assess every possible story on its own merits," wrote Gabriel Escobar, editor and vice president of the Inquirer. "A close and objective assessment of our coverage would show there is no such pattern regarding the district attorney or his office, and that we in fact have applied more scrutiny to the new district attorney, and his new policies and impact than any news outlet."

Well, Gabe, thanks for responding, but with all due respect, that Inky infomercial you just wrote doesn't tell us anything about the issue I raised, namely killing critical stories.

In a city without democracy, where elections are as meaningless as those staged in Putin's Russia, we're in a double blind when our paper-of-record plays Mr. Softee when it comes to covering public officials.

Adding to the problem is the D.A.'s response to my story, which sadly was stonewalling. I got no response of any kind over several days from Jane Roh, who's allegedly a spokesperson for Larry Krasner, but is worthless because she doesn't say or write anything.

Sadly, I've been through this before. For years, the former D.A., Rufus Seth Williams, would stonewall my questions, before he went off to jail.

For years, I asked Williams about his crusade against the Catholic Church featuring a former altar boy who made up a wild story about allegedly being raped by two priests and his former home room teacher.

All three men were sent to jail, as well as the monsignor who was supposed to be overseeing abusive priests in the archdiocese. But then the lead detective in the case came forward to testify that he had caught the altar boy repeatedly lying in a pretrial prep session that the defense was never told about.

The former lead detective also testified that the former altar boy flat-out admitted that he had made up many of his most lurid allegations. And when the detective repeatedly told the lead prosecutor that the altar boy wasn't credible, and that his story wasn't checking out, she replied, "You're killing my case."

As the only reporter in town for years who questioned Williams about his phony crusade featuring a fake accuser, I kept asking questions but all I got was stonewalling from the D.A.'s office.

Meanwhile, the Inquirer covered for the D.A. for years by ignoring the story to this day, and continuing to portray the altar boy as a legitimate victim of sex abuse. In a case that's scheduled to be retried in January.

One of the falsely accused priests wound up dying in jail.

Stonewalling has consequences. So does our official paper-of-record going soft on covering a D.A.  who's emptying the jails while turning justice on its head. But apparently when progressives cover progressives, there's a different set of rules.

It's clear, former D.A. Lynne Abraham says, that "the Inquirer has a strong, unmistakable bias in Krasner's favor."

The "only person at the Inquirer vaguely critical of Krasner," Abraham says, "is Julie Shaw. The rest are, alas, all on the same page, servile to the web of falsehoods spread by Larry Krasner, Philadelphia's own Trojan Horse."


  1. What are the racial demographics on Krasner's current ADAs?

    It sounds like he is under pressure to increase the number of black ADAs, which is why he was recruiting from black law schools.

    Maybe new black law school graduates are in short supply and Krasner had few to pick from willing to work for what he could offer. Maybe he had to guarantee them a job even if they failed the bar in their first try.

    It seems likely the best qualified law graduates could get much better pay at private law firms that working for the Phila. DA's office.

    1. How stupid can you be, what about the whitenjewish female that failed.... you really assume they are all black?? The best prosecutors that office had were Black, for years! Get your head out of your butt!

    2. I made no assumptions about the race or sex of the ADAs who failed the bar. It would be nice if it was reported since Kranser has made such a big deal about the race and sex of his new ADAs.

      Answer my question if you are so knowledgeable about the DAs office. "What are the racial demographics on Krasner's current ADAs?" In a city that is about 44% black, the obvious target would have to be at least 44$ black ADAs. Is it currently that high?

  2. Now that Tucker Carlson has joined your Campaign to expose the Krasner/Soros Conspiracy to destroy the Criminal Justice System in many Democrat Controlled Cities, I think your efforts may finally bring National and perhaps Federal Authorities to finally prosecute Kenney as well.

    If Kenney runs for Governor, Krasner may copy the Rendell Playbook and move toward running for Mayor.

    If the Inquirer was a true Champion of the People they never would have fallen in line behind the Democrat Mafia and would have campaigned vigorously against Kenney when he refused to debate his Opponent and then scratch their fat ass in amazement at the lowest voter turnout for Mayor in certainly the last 50 years.

    Perhaps a study to correlate the weak circulation of the Inquirer as reflected in the anemic voter turnout in the City that the great Jim Beasley loved and he would have supported a study of this issue at the Law School that bears his name.

    How many of the eighteen hires of DA Krasner who failed their Bar Exams are Graduates of Temple?

    This may be why the Inquirer has rubber stamped these corrupt incompetent frauds.

    "Journalism" as practiced at the Inquirer has been exposed as criminally incompetent as the Politicians it supports and endorses.

  3. A recent conference in Phila outlining Giglio material to prosecutors opened up a discussion on what is unacceptable conduct, which would prevent a police officer from being called to testify at a trial. What would it take to put them on a do not call list, lying is one big reason.

    During the Philadelphia Traffic Court Trail, an FBI agent lied repeatedly, as well as outright dishonesty and deception on the part of the prosecution, witnessed by two Inquirer reporters. The Inky was part of or used by the prosecution to condemn the Traffic Court defendants. During a very flawed and costly investigation, the Traffic Court Judges were ordered to speak to the same attorney who works for the Inky, appointed by Castile. The Judges were told that if they did not speak to Mr. Glazer they would be fired. The material gathered was for the Supreme Courts' eyes only, or so the Judges were told, only to have it appear in the Inky two weeks later.

    Allowing the FBI agent and the prosecutor to break the law was overlooked by the Inky. One lie changes the outcome of a trial. The Inky has aligned itself with untruthful rogues, prosecutors operate in a very flawed system, regardless of how many good people are trying to do a good job. Turning a blind eye to deceit and deception against fellow citizens is dangerous, no matter how you try to convince yourself you are working to root out corruption.

    I understand why the day to day reporting did not match what took place in the courtroom. Maybe the idea of having reporters with no affiliation to a paper would be the answer, we can't trust the Justice Department or a media outlet who is jointed at the hip with them.

    An unaffiliated journalist would have reasoned that the trail was a waste of taxpayers' dollars, and could have been handled differently. Shock and awe were reported to the region, a great victory on the part of the prosection and Inky. What was witnessed were Traffic Court Judges who handled hundreds of thousands of tickets being indicted on anywhere from two to six tickets Those tickets were easily discounted by the defense team. It was an unnecessary trial that hurt the city and the defendants.

    The days of retribution and restitution as the only way to handle a situation are over, we need cool heads and a public who is not tainted by media outlets who have been leading the charge for the Justice Department condemning defendants. Making it impossible to defend yourself against the pipe-line to prison operation the Inky has been running with the prosection. Its time for a big change at the Inky, a policy change is needed.

  4. First of all, Lynne Abraham and Seth Williams allowed bar failers to stay on as clerks and take the bar in February....ask the current chief of some of your info from your long retured sources is incorrect. Second, they will retake the bar in February, not July... Third, your numbers are wrong....18 didnt fail the bar.... it was more like 11..... all races all religions all genders...

    If you are gonna be a big time writer.....join the big leagues and get a better source.

  5. Love the sniping from behind the anonymous bunker.

    In the blog post you're talking about, I made the point that Lynne Abraham kept some who flunked the bar exam on as paralegals. So you're wrong on that point.

    In the blog post you apparently had trouble comprehending, I noted that they take the bar exam in February but the results won't be known until June. So you're wrong again.

    I have the names of 18 new ADAs whose names do not appear on the list of more than 900 who just passed the bar exam. So I believe your numbers are wrong. Also, the DA's office had ample time to give me their version of the facts but they chose to say nothing.

    The rest of your nonsense doesn't deserve a response. Why don't you come out of the closet and explain why you're so upset?

    1. Just to clarify, for various reasons, not all of the entering ADAs actually took the July exam, and some were already barred in Pennsylvania having worked elsewhere, so their names would not appear on the list, but they would not have "flunked" the bar exam.
      Also, February bar exam results are released in mid-April, according to the Pennsylvania Board of Law Examiners website.

    2. Well all of that could be true. If it is true, why didn't the D.A.'s office tell us that? Or anything else?

  6. The Inky also was running with the same number, 18 of 60 ADAs flunked the bar exam.

    So much for your single A criticism. Grow a pair and come out of the closet.

    1. A great ally in your Campaign to bring down DA Krasner is Mrs. Shellenberg, the mother of the slain Realtor/Developer on Rittenhouae Square.

      He was known to have some inside dirt on Sandusky from the days when he played QB for the Nittany Lions. Another angle that needs more light.

      She has made serious charges against the DA and has presented allegations which indicate a decided effort by the DA to suborn evidence that allowed him to reduce charges against the killer and refused to charge the killer with his admitted predisposition and rap to inflict harm prior to the murder.

      An interview with her may afford your effort to rally greater support against Krasner, and should be right up your alley as a cause celebre.

      Is there an 'editor' in the cloud that is stifling your interest?.

    2. It's Schellenger, not Schellenberg. Where has it been reported before that the slain Sean Schellenger had "inside dirt on Sandusky?"

      He was not killed until 2018 so why didn't he give his story to Sandusky prosecutors long before his death?

  7. Has the Inquirer run a story on the failed lawyers?

  8. Ralph - will all respect and not looking to be a smart aleck - if the Inquirer has this information, why dont they run the story?

  9. They did have the information and they didn't run the story. An editor told the reporter it wasn't news.

    There is only one possible explanation that I can think of -- they don't want to criticize or embarrass a fellow progressive. After all, in the business of remaking society, they're all in it together.


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.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.