Does Louis Freeh Have ANY Credibility?

August 23, 2012
Does Louis Freeh Have ANY Credibility?
Posted by Bill Anderson on August 23, 2012 04:50 AM

While I have taken some criticism for my questioning the conclusions drawn in the report authored by Louis Freeh about Penn State University regarding the activities of now-convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky, the former defensive coordinator for the football team, some other voices also question the veracity of Freeh both in the Sandusky affair and things that occurred at the FBI during Freeh's tenure there. One of those questioners is James Bovard.

Bovard pointed out nearly 20 years ago that Freeh not only covered up criminal behavior at the FBI, but also lied to the public about the Bureau's activities. Writing about the aftermath of the infamous Randy Weaver case, Bovard notes:

One of the most disturbing aspects of Mr. Freeh's slaps on the wrist last week is his treatment of Larry Potts, Mr. Freeh's pick as acting deputy FBI director. Mr. Potts was the senior official in charge of the Idaho operation and signed off on the shoot-without-provocation orders. Despite the finding by the Justice Department that the orders violated the Constitution, Freeh recommended that the only penalty Mr. Potts face be a letter of censure -- the same penalty Mr. Freeh received when he lost an FBI cellular telephone.

The other challenge to Freeh and his sanctimonious report about Penn State comes from the former Penn State president and others who say that Freeh used only the material that satisfied his predetermined narrative. Attorneys (including a former federal judge) representing former Penn State President Graham Spanier have labeled the report a "myth," and according to the New York Times:

"The Freeh report is wrong, it's unfair, it's deeply flawed," Spanier told The New Yorker. "It has many errors and omissions."

Spanier said he had spoken to many people who were interviewed for the report, and he said he felt some of their claims that did not fit Freeh's narrative were left out.

"Many of them described the interviews to me as a witch hunt," Spanier said. "They felt like it was back in the era of McCarthyism."

No doubt, many will dismiss Spanier and his lawyers as acting in a self-serving manner and will continue to claim that Freeh's credentials are "impeccable" (as a number of journalists have done). Nonetheless we already know that Freeh has a long history of lying and covering up criminal activity by his underlings. He also knew that there would be no substantial media questioning of his report, as long as he vociferously condemned Penn State University's officials. In the end, Freeh has smeared a lot of people and once again seems to have been able to get away with telling less than the truth.