So? Where is the evidence that RG stopped prosecuting cases when he decided not to run fornelection? Or that it would only be worth prosecuting Sandusky if he was still with PSU? And let's think about "after 2001": once he had decided not to prosecute in 1998, the only thing that would hve led RG to go after .sanduskynwould have been new information--which a number of people had but covered up.
Well, you have it both backwards and wrong.
Sandusky could have been charged in relation to 1998 at any point during the remainder of RFG's tenure. The 1998 charges today are based
totally on what LE had in the summer of 1998; they actually have
less today than in 1998, because one of the victims is out of the country. That is the part you have wrong.
Now, though I question this as the motive, let's say that the reason RFG didn't prosecute Sandusky was that he didn't want to go after a popular figure tied to Penn State football, which you have suggested.
1997- RFG is re-elected in an unopposed primary and general election.
1998- Sandusky is the assistant coach and heir apparent to Joe Paterno. Paterno is in his early 70's and around the age when folks retire.
The 1998 incident happens. I
could see RFG looking at the situation and thinking:
Sandusky is well respected, popular, and part of the football program. He's going to be coach after Paterno. If I prosecute him, everyone is going to blame me for destroying Penn State football, even if this is a strong case and even if I win. All those football fans won't vote for me, and I'll lose the next election.
1999 - Paterno promotes his son, Jay, to an assistant position. There is another heir apparent, a biological one. He also tells Sandusky that he, Paterno, isn't retiring and that Sandusky won't be coach. Sandusky leaves.
If RFG is thinking politically, he looks and says:
If I prosecute Sandusky, I won't be accused of destroying Penn State football. Paterno didn't know about the incident and it was reported properly.
Sandusky is still well respected and popular, and he has a lot of friends. I'm up for re-election in 2001 and they will all come out and vote against me and I'll lose the next election.
2001 - RFG runs for re-election. He has a contested primary, which he wins, but it is roughly 55% -45%, not particularly good for a 4 term incumbent Republican. He's unopposed in the general.
According to RFG, his "plan" at this point was
not to run for reelection; he wasn't going to continue practicing law either.
Sandusky, while still involved in Second Mile, is not involved directly in Penn State football (though he does some things). If he had been hit by a bus, it would not have affected the football program.
RFG can look at the situation and think:
Sandusky is still well liked and respected, but with a far lower public stature than in 1998. He has friends who won't vote for me, but I'm not running, so it doesn't make any difference. Maybe they won't hire me as an attorney, but I'm not going to practice law.
There is
no political motive for him to give Sandusky a pass after 2001.
This assumes that RFG was making a political decision, and
he was not known to make political decisions.
That is what you have backwards. By not running for re-election it should eliminate an argument (a political one) against prosecuting.