By Kevin Zwick & Chris Comisac
Capitolwire
HARRISBURG (Feb. 10) – Attorney General Kathleen Kane survived a removal attempt Wednesday after the state Senate couldn’t muster the necessary two-thirds majority vote to remove her from office.
But across the building Wednesday, the House voted overwhelmingly to start an investigation of Kane that could ultimately lead to her impeachment.
In a historic vote, the Senate voted 29-19, falling short of the 33 required votes. The vote broke largely on party lines with two exceptions: Sen. Rob Teplitz, D-Dauphin, voted with the Republicans in favor of removal, and Sen. Stewart Greenleaf, R-Montgomery, voted with Democrats against removal.
The last time the Senate attempted to use the state constitution’s obscure direct removal provision was in 1891.
The process, said Senate President Pro Tem Joe Scarnati, R-Jefferson, is “undoubtedly an extraordinary measure…but with the unique set of facts before us, it’s warranted at this time.”
Last summer, Montgomery County prosecutors accused Kane, the first woman and Democrat elected Attorney General, of allegedly orchestrating a grand jury leak from her office and lying about it under oath. She denies any wrongdoing. Months later, the state Supreme Court suspended her law license and last week turned down her emergency request to have it reinstated.
The embattled Attorney General characterized the failed Senate vote as a victory.
“Today is a good day for all those who share my desire to restore confidence in our judges and prosecutors and integrity to our system of justice,” Kane said in a statement. “Special Prosecutor Dan Gansler will press on, leaving no hate-filled email unread and no ex parte communication uncovered, in our effort to deliver to all Pennsylvanians, the system of justice we deserve rather than the one we have now. I am happy to continue this effort, finish the mission I pledged to carry out and the job for which I was elected to serve.”
In the Senate, supporters of the removal action said evidence gathered by a special committee, which was tasked with examining whether Kane could perform the duties of office with a suspended law license, showed there was reasonable cause for her removal.
Sen. John Gordner, R- Columbia, who chaired the special committee, pointed to an 1887 case where the Senate successfully used the provision to remove a civil officer for the “incapacity or inability to perform the duties of an office.”
“I believe that in this case the Attorney General is legally incapacitated,” Gordner said.
But for others, there wasn’t enough “concrete evidence.”
“Such a drastic measure to recommend the removal of a statewide elected public official requires more than maybes and speculation,” said Sen. Sean Wiley, D-Erie, the special committee co-chair. “It is clear to me the evidence does not lend itself to moving forward with this vote for removal.”
Sen. Art Haywood, D-Philadelphia, another Democrat who sat on the special committee, argued Kane doesn’t necessarily need a valid law license to hold the position. He compared the loss of Kane’s law license to that of a licensed barber who runs a shop of 800 barbers.
“Is the person running the barbershop with 800 employees actually cutting hair? No!” he said, adding they’re the head of the shop is involved with budgeting, managing, promoting and marketing.
Teplitz, in a break with Senate Democrats, disagreed with those who said Kane could be “walled off” from the legal side of the Office of Attorney General and perform administrative duties.
“When people vote for the Attorney General, they’re not voting for someone merely to oversee the administrative offices of that agency,” said Teplitz. “They’re voting for someone to use her legal experience, judgment and skills, and to act, to pursue the mission of that agency, in the best interest of the public and to do so for the entirety of a four-year term.”
“Quite simply, the position is not ‘Attorney and/or General’ – it is Attorney General,” he added.
After the Senate vote failed, the direct removal resolution was re-referred to the Senate Rules and Executive Nominations Committee. But Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman, R-Centre, said there is no plan to bring it back up for a vote.
“The matter’s closed for now,” he told reporters.
While the Senate failed to pass its Kane-related resolution, the state House of Representative adopted, on a 170-12 vote, its resolution to authorize a House Judiciary subcommittee to investigate whether reasons exist to impeach the sitting attorney general.
Calling it a “significant and serious” matter, House Judiciary Committee Majority Chairman Ron Marsico, R-Dauphin, said this is the first step in this process.
The sponsor of the resolution, Rep. Garth Everett, R-Lycoming, and the chairs of the Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Court, which will conduct the investigation, Reps. Todd Stephens, R-Montgomery, and Tim Briggs, D-Montgomery, all said this process does not begin with any preconceived notions or timetable, and will be allowed to go wherever the facts take it.
“I believe we have a constitutional obligation to move this forward, parallel with what the Senate is doing, parallel with whatever criminal cases may be out there … I would not be doing this if I didn’t think it was the thing we need to do and should do,” said Everett.
Everett said impeachment is a different process from the direct removal process considered by the Senate, with neither precluding the other. He did note that while the Senate process could remove Kane from office, the impeachment process to be started in the House could not only remove her, but if impeached, it would prohibit Kane from holding future office.
“We all recognize the tremendous responsibility” this process is, Stephens said.
“There’s no place for partisanship in this process,” said Briggs, adding he intends for the investigation “to be fair and thorough.”
The subcommittee will investigate and make recommendations to the House Judiciary Committee, which would then decide to move forward with drafting articles of impeachment. The Senate would then hold a trial and two-thirds would have to agree for a conviction.
Rep. Greg Vitali, D-Delaware, questioned the pursuit of potential impeachment when Kane has yet to go to court to face trial on criminal charges and she could be out of office – depending on the outcome of the upcoming April primary election and November general election – by early 2017.
Everett admitted the “timing is not ideal,” but explained a criminal conviction is not necessary to start an impeachment investigation.
“I think it’s our obligation to investigate these allegations, and I would think anybody – whether you think there are grounds for impeachment, personally … or whether you don’t believe there are – would want this investigation to go forward so that we can determine whether there’s something there,” said Everett. “The investigation itself could come back and say ‘there’s nothing there that we feel is impeachable,’ and it will stop right there.”
Also, in response to a question from Vitali, Everett said he does not anticipate the early part of this process to have a “significant” cost. He said the only additional cost would likely come from the need for the investigative subcommittee to hire outside legal counsel.
“The attorney general believes the House action is premature and it would be more appropriate if they delayed their action until the legal system had a chance to work itself out,” said Kane spokesman Chuck Ardo.
-30-
