Let’s recall what brought a little known assistant attorney from Scranton, PA to be attorney general for the state: Public disgust with the ‘old boy’ network of both parties and desire to have an outsider with a broom come sweep out the mess.
And let’s also keep in mind how threatening the prospect, especially of a female in that role, has been to holdovers from past administrations and to current government executives all the way up to Tom Wolf, who himself comes from one of the most corrupt counties in the state according “The wrong car: The death of Lilly Bell Allen” by our own Bill Keisling.
Kathleen Kane
And then came an opportunity to claim Kane broke the law by releasing impounded material from a six year old grand jury report to the Philadelphia Daily News (a’Man bites dog’ event of a newspaper exposing its alleged source!)
Suppose the indictment charged murder, grand theft, rape, or corruption? There might be good reason to force the party out of office.
For giving information for a news article, which Kane denies having done, should such an indictment for such a penny ante offense be an automatic ticket to oblivion?
And what sort of power does this give to accusers? They don’t have to prove a damn thing. “New York State chief judge Sol Wachtler was famously quoted by Tom Wolfe in The Bonfire of the Vanities that ‘a grand jury would “indict a ham sandwich,” if that’s what you wanted.’
In this case we have Republicans accusers, a Republican prosecutor, Republican District Attorney and Republican judge.
What sort of precedent would forcing Kane out of office over such small change set? What invitation for future abuse by members of either party… or just malcontents?
Many of us are old enough to recall that the Republican majority House of Representatives impeached the President of the United States, Bill Clinton, over the Monica Lewinski episode, wrapping it up into a charge of perjury. (Kane is also charged with perjury for much the same reason.) To convict and thus expel Clinton from office, the Senate needed a two thirds vote in its favor. It did not get even a majority! (Then Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter broke ranks to vote for acquittal.)
Sixteen years later Clinton is a revered past president. The Lewinski episode at most is consider a laughing matter.
But what if Clinton had been put out of office?
And what if the Supreme Court removes Kane and a jury, as we think is likely, acquits her?
Kane is performing her duties. No one has made a case otherwise. She was overwhelmingly elected to clean up Harrisburg. She has been trying to do that. In 2016 the voters can kick her out if she chooses to run for re-election and if they don’t think she has done a good job.
There is no reason for a rush to judgment, except it serves the purpose of the ‘old boy network’ including the Supreme Court judges themselves. The court itself has been mired in corruption for decades.
It is time for people to protest. It is time to hit the streets. Who is going to lead?
And, whom are we to believe? This whole situation seems irrational. She claims racist courts and prosecutors, they say that she leaked Grand Jury testimony. It has been dragged through the media, tarnishing her reputation by innuendo. We know no facts. Anyone can accuse anybody of anything.
If she is forced to resign due to innuendo, and then if, subsequently, she is found innocent, does she get her job back? Will she recover back pay and legal expenses? Are the “good ol’ boys” out to destroy her?
Looks like a witch hunt to me. Keep fighting ms. Kane
I’m going to start by saying I don’t particularly like her. But she is accused of leaking grand jury testimony correct? Wasn’t grand jury testimony leaked from the grand jury that indicted her? Is anyone investigating that leak? Because if the answer is no, this looks like a witch hunt.
Yes this crap of wanting to take her law license…what ever happened to ” innocent until proven guilty”?
Why should she be any different than others in this country whose lives have been ruined by skimpy, frivolous or suggestive accusations and have been prosecuted and didn’t have access to the best defense lawyers or the money to pay? (Facetiously stating, of course)
What is happening to her happens every day to the common American citizen who steps on the toes of government, law enforcement or big business.
Some of these supportive responses are laughable at best, have any of you read the charging documents or just read editorials? A judge found there to be enough evidence to go to trial.
Yes in the courts we are innocent until proven guilty, however regarding suspending or revoking her law license you are not guaranteed the same presumption of innocence. Has anyone read ms. Kane’s quo warrant filing, in which her started position is that she can’t be investigated for grand jury related offenses, because the attorney General had sole responsibility to investigate and prosecute grand jury related offenses, get real.
This whole mess is strikingly similar to Hillary Clinton, either she compromised national security by passing classified materials over unsecured email,or they weren’t classified at the time, either way a secretary of state with presidential aspirations should not willfully engage in this conduct and if she didn’t know than she’s entirely too stupid to hold any office, now Kane either did nothing and had nothing to hide or fear,or she knowingly leaked information(which she claims wasn’t a violation because she wasn’t sworn into that grand jury), a person who’s watched law and order knows how secret grand jury information is and what penalties are involved in violating that secrecy,let alone a practicing attorney that ascended to attorney General.