The Pennsylvania Progressive

Cumberland County Commissioner Resigns In Sex Scandal

Republican Bruce Barclay, County Commissioner in Cumberland County, resigned amidst a sex scandal after being charged with rape.  The elected official whose website has pictures of him with Karl Rove, Lynn Swann and Jack Kemp got caught having his pictures taken in even creepier circumstances:  with male prostitutes.  It seems the Commish had a thing for installing video cameras all through his home and taping his weekly encounters with male "escorts." 

Ironically the video may exonerate him from the rape charge but this item from his website may be far more disturbing:

"Bruce Barclay resides in Monroe Township. He has hosted 17 international high school exchange students in the past ten years."

That information is on his personal biography page and if he had this extensive video recording system installed and operating while hosting seventeen underage teens in his home the charges against him could be severe.  His biography also lists him as serving on the Children's Services Advisory Board and, ironically, the Victims/Witness Policy Board.  His listed profession is that of an electrical contractor so I assume he installed his video taping system himself.

Someone needs to investigate and check with those seventeen teenagers and discover if anything criminal happened.

Update:  Now the man who falsely accused Barclay of rape has been arrested for making false statements.  William McCurdy, 20, of Berks County, was arrested for his false accusation and the Commissioner absolved of the charges due to the extensive video recording system the Commissioner installed in his home which revealed the sex was consensual.  It was the allegation of rape which led police to search Barclay's home and discover he recorded about 100 sexual encounters.  The question remains if he also invaded the privacy of the exchange students he hosted.

The Spitzer Scandal

A fast rising star, an aggressive prosecutor who prosecuted scores of white collar criminals and rode the crest of that popularity to the Governor's Office of the Empire State, New York Governor Elliott Spitzer will have to resign because he was caught up in a prostitution sting.  It doesn't look good when a former Attorney General has to stand with an anguished wife by his side (likely not for long) and admit wrong doing.

Isn't it time, now for Sen. David Vitter to also do the honorable thing?

Keegan Responds

John Keegan, the official from the Lou Barletta for Congress campaign who recently caught an acute case of Castoritis, responded to my article, not here, but on Gort 42.  Here is his statement from Gort 42:

John Keegan said...  

Gort,

Against my better judgment I am going to answer this person. As usual Pa Progressive did not provide you with the entire communication between us. Even with the post he gave you tell me where I "threatned" (sic) anything. Ask him to post my entire communications to him. See what credibility holds up. I even suggested to him that he reword his post to reflect his Opinion since he did not have facts to back up his statement.

Mr. Morgan, contrary to your post on the statement I had an issue with, here is your statement that prompted my email. ".The illegal $65,000 loan which Lou Barletta's campaign has on its books was a personal loan taken to retire his campaign debt from 2002 according tot he Hazleton Mayor."

The issue was over Mr. Morgan stating that a loan taken out by Lou Barletta to cover unfunded expenses from his last campaign was an "illegal loan." In fact it was a very legal loan taken out in the usual fashion at a bank.

As I stated to Mr. Morgan he does not have any proof for that statement. In fact after several email exchanges I proved to Mr. Morgan that there was no illegal loan. He asked for written proof and I sent him to the FEC site where the information is located. I even "held his hand" to point him to the documents.

He has chosen to cherry pick what was written.  And again I will ask the question.

What proof does Mr. Morgan possess for him to make the statement "The illegal $65,000.00 loan."? Freedom of speech has its limits. I don't call it thin skinned when one presents false information to the public. He calls himself part of the "press." He should be more responsible in what he presents as "facts." I know many journalists that lost their career over fabricated information.

His reckless statement about Lou Barletta's wife demonstrates the off the wall mentality in this situation. Attack and smear seems to be the order of the day from this man.

Here is my response:

Mr. Keegan did, indeed threaten me with legal action. He even included the charge in his email. I call that a legal threat. I asked him to provide proof to support his claim that Lou Barletta has made payments on this loan personally. In spite of repeated requests for this in the email exchanges Mr. Keegan refused to provide any proof.

He did, however, as an official of the Barletta campaign, reveal this as a loan secured by both Mr. Barletta and his wife secured by their jointly owned home.

That's an FEC violation. Mrs. Barletta was limited to a $1,000 contribution to her husband's campaign. Her half of the security for the loan was $32,500. Oops. Thanks for providing the official campaign evidence of a serious FEC violation Mr. Keegan. I imagine an official FEC complaint is already in the works against Mrs. Barletta.

Mr. Keegan can call this a smear, I call it proof.

Keegan's statement above: "He calls himself part of the "press." He should be more responsible in what he presents as "facts." I know many journalists that lost their career over fabricated information." is extremely reckless. He provided, himself, the facts behind my allegation that Mrs. Barletta violated the law. Check the link in my original story for the precedent. It's already established in the law. This statement is clearly a signal that he wants to come after me, but, again, he will deny it is a threat.

This is what the Lou Barletta campaign is all about folks, they threaten all sorts of people with ordinances, playing on fear and bigotry to advance the Mayor's political ambitions. Be very afraid of demagogues like Lou Barletta. Very afraid. Who will he decide he doesn't like next and try to run our of town?  You?

Here are the facts:  John Keegan wrote me voluntarily, numerous long, rambling emails containing much damaging information about his candidate.  He was unhinged upset over my opinion that the loan Lou Barletta's campaign has reported to the FEC for six years was, in fact, a personal loan and not related to the campaign.  Unfortunately for Lou Barletta his Treasurer kept reporting it as a campaign loan but neglected to reveal any repayments of either principal or interest.  Then the terms of the loan were renegotiated in violation of FEC rules.  The FEC requires loans to be repaid, otherwise they are contributions and subject to the laws, such as the ban on corporate contributions and individual limits.

Keegan claimed, in his emails to me, that Lou Barletta and his wife mortgaged their home to secure this line of credit with the bank to pay off their 2002 campaign debt.  That presents a problem because he also disclosed they own this home jointly.  That's a violation of the $1000 maximum contribution Mrs. Barletta was allowed to give her husband's campaign in 2002.  By FEC precedent in another 2002 case, her half of the secured loan violated this $1,000 limit by $31,500.

Here's a quote from the newspaper article about John Murtha's 2002 challenger and his fine for doing this very same thing:

"The Federal Election Commission challenged a loan made to the Mascara for Congress Campaign Committee during his unsuccessful 1992 congressional bid in the 20th District. The loan was secured by a $40,000 mortgage Mascara and his wife took on their Washington County residence.

Mascara said the FEC viewed the mortgage as an excess campaign contribution from his wife because she is a co-owner of the house."

This violation resulted in a $50,000 fine from the FEC.  Mr. Keegan has gotten his candidate into some very hot water.

The Rule of Law 1776-2008 RIP

The GonzalesGate scandal remains on life support though its cousin, the Rule of Law, passed away this week.  Attorney General Michael Mukasey, confirmed as Alberto Gonzales' successor by Democrats Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein, took it out of its misery.  This happened when two White House officials were deemed to be above the law and not accountable to any Congressional oversight.  Also killed in this tragic series of events was the constitutional concept of Checks and Balances.

The demise of The Rule of Law was a joint effort of George W. Bush and Congress.  Over seven years Congressional leaders continuously sacrificed their role in government and transferred all their power to the Executive Branch.  This wound up suffocating Checks and Balances until it dies several years ago.  Unfortunately it no longer existed to save The Rule of Law.

There will be no funeral service and the survivors, an all powerful Presidency, decrees that no flowers be left by the Liberty Bell or Independence Hall commemorating the storied past and distinguished career of The Rule of Law.

Firm Reveals McCain Lie About Influence

Republicans keep condemning The New York Times article about john McCain and Vicki Iseman but emerging details and supporting facts keep seeping out questioning the Senator's integrity.  McCain insisted at his news conference he never met with Lowell Paxson before intervening in a deal involving a Pittsburgh television station.  The broadcasting executive now says he and Iseman did meet with John McCain before he wrote two letters to the FCC on their behalf. 

For a man running on the basis of his integrity this is bad news.  For someone whose team of lobbyists is criticizing The Times for inaccuracy to then mislead the press isn't going to endear him to those he has carefully seduced with easy access.

Again, I ask why an Arizona Senator intervened in a deal involving a Pennsylvania company?  Because he sat on the Commerce Committee and Paxson's lobbyist, Vickie Iseman, had enormous influence with McCain, that's why.   How she attained such influence is, to me, irrelevant.  McCain's entire campaign is run by lobbyists and this has, and should be, the focus of this scandal.  The Washington Post summarizes it thusly:

"The Paxson deal, coming as McCain made his first run for the presidency, has posed a persistent problem for the senator. The deal raised embarrassing questions about his dealings with lobbyists at a time when he had assumed the role of an ethics champion and opponent of the influence of lobbyists."

Here's the bottom line:  if you're going to campaign for president on the message that you're holier than thou you'd better be.  This is a lesson for Obama and Clinton also.

Did John McCain simply forget this meeting or did he intentionally lie when answering the question Thursday?  This scandal has been brewing for months and he and his campaign have been aware this story was being developed for months so they had adequate time to review the facts before the news conference.  What's more this has the potential to sink his campaign so no statement should have have been made before being carefully vetted.  McCain made a distinct decision to lie about this meeting with the press.  I smell a cover up.

McCain In Bed With Lobbyists

John McCain's Straight Talk Express went off the rails long ago.  The meat of the story behind The New York Times article this week is his cozy relationship with big money lobbyists and the special favors and influence surrounding those relationships.  The power and influence of lobbyists has been a central issue with both John Edwards and Barack Obama in this campaign and no one is in bed with lobbyists like John McCain.

Sign a petition demanding he get back on the Straight Talk Express or get straight with the American people about who is actually running his campaign:  lobbyists.

GonzalesGate: Congress Votes Contempt

White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers were found in contempt of Congress yesterday for failing to respond to subpoenas regarding an investigation into the political firings of eight U.S. Attorneys.  This was an importan tissue because of the overt politicization of the Department of Justice.  Prosecutors who failed to sufficiently go after Democrats instead of Republicans were fired for their perceived misconduct.  Alberto Gonzales lied to Congressional committees about the scandal and it eventually cost him his job.

Congressional oversight is the important issue at stake now.  Can the President simply ignore Congressional investigations into his misconduct and be above the law?  Can he also give this legal immunity to his aides?

The issue here, again, is the awesome amount of power Congress has ceded to the President under Republican leadership.  Democratic leaders were also complicit in this however and not all the blame can be laid at the foot of the GOP.  Congress ceded their constitutional power to declare war, again, along with repeated permissions to the Executive Branch to usurp the power and authority of the Legislative Branch.

The constitution established a trilateral style of government and built in certain checks and balances.  Congress has surrendered most of their authority and power and this is why we're at this point.  When you spoil a little child and repeatedly give them everything they want it gets difficult when you finally stomp your foot and say no.  Congress is saying no to George W. Bush and the little brat isn't happy.  Will they have the strength of will to follow through?  I'm not holding my breath.

Senate Ethics Committee Slaps Craig

The Senate Ethics Committee officially slapped Larry Craig and told him he's been naughty.  A confidential source tells me he loved it and wants more.  Why else has he remained in Washington after such an embarrassing incident? 

Why did it take since September for the Committee to determine Larry what Craig did was bad?  As you may remember the Idaho Senator was caught in a sex sting at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport.   He then used his Senate status to try and avoid getting arrested.

At last Senator Larry Craig can go crawl under whatever rock from which he crawled out originally.

NRCC Hit By Financial Questions

The Republican Congressional Campaign Committee is being hit by charges of financial improprieties after refusals by their Treasurer for audits raised red flags.  Christopher J. Ward, the official, even provided a forged document in an attempt to conceal problems.  As calls for an independent audit continued Ward provided what he claimed was an internal audit showing nothing amiss.  The FBI is now investigating and Wachovia Bank is questioning the basis for a $9 million loan.   Now the NRCC has informed the FEC it may have filed inaccurate reports.

Chairman Tom Cole has now hired lawyers and a major accounting firm to determine what happened and a full audit and review is under way.

My, this all sounds eerily familiar....

White House Defends Using Torture

George W. Bush is insisting that the torture of humans is legal and defended his use of techniques widely believed to be torture, such as simulated drowning, in violation of American and international law.  This is now grounds for impeachment because the President has knowingly violated the law and our international treaty obligations.  It is also inhumane and subverts all which America has stood for decades:  the victory of good over evil.  Now we are just as bad as the terrorists.  Wow, something to truly be proud of!

Waterboarding is NOT legal.  It is torture and very generally agreed upon by experts to be torture.  Even Attorney General Mukasey has described it as torture.  Our country has prosecuted others for practicing this form of  "enhanced interrogation technique" and anyone committing the act is guilty of a war crime.

Furthermore, in addition to simply being inhumane, torture has been proven ineffective.  Right wing noise machine practitioners love a scenario where a nuclear device is set to explode in or near an American city (apparently the farms don't matter) and ask whether we would torture a terrorist to discover its location.  Actually that would be the worst thing to do because torture almost always provides false information.  Valuable time would be lost chasing down the blind alleys resulting from information given simply to stop the torture. 

We saw this repeatedly in 2004 with periodic terror alerts which resulted from the water boarding of a major terrorist.  He told his interrogators whatever he thought they wanted to hear.  This is the pattern of every torture session.  Billions were spent guarding against ephemeral dangers.  People were put in danger and the public was subjected to anxiety and fear unnecessarily (except for the political gains which proved considerable for Republican fear mongerers).

Skilled interrogators don't need torture to gain valuable, true information.

I keep going back to this video of General Wes Clark on the subject: