KEISLING: Citizens gather at state capitol to demand due process for AG Kathleen Kane

by Bill Keisling

What bothers you most about the effort to drive Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane from office?

A group of us got together last week to discuss our concerns at the state capitol building in Harrisburg.

Are you concerned that Kane’s fundamental due process rights are being ignored and trampled upon by calls to force her from office before she’s afforded a fair jury trial?

Do you think that efforts to force Kane to defend her law license by the state’s Disciplinary Board, before she’s had a fair jury trial, is unfair, prejudices her at trial, and amounts to double jeopardy?

Does it upset you that Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court is suppressing thousands of pornographic emails associated with the case that Kane dug up in her Sandusky case investigation?

Does it bother you that Pennsylvania newspapers are accusing Kane of leaking information to the Philadelphia Daily News for a news story, when the newspapers themselves are almost daily leaking information from Kane’s political enemies and other insider court sources?

Maybe, like me, you think Kane is being bullied by her political enemies in the courts and the media, and you’re upset by the mob mentality that’s taken hold.

All these views, and then some, were expressed at the capitol rotunda September 10.

“Kathleen Kane could be you, your mother or your sister,” said Ceil Masella. “They want to declare her guilty before she has her day in court. If the Supreme Court doesn’t step up and defend her right to due process, then we have more work to do than we thought!”

Masella told the gathering, “If you are here, then you are likely one of an increasing number of citizens who are disgusted and frustrated with politicians on all levels. Let me tell you – your feelings are justified.

“I am talking about Politicians who think they are better than everyone else. Politicians who feel they are entitled to handle things in their own way. Politicians who ignore what we want and vote for. This happens all of the time, right here, in Pennsylvania.

” I am talking about the good-old-boys-network in Pennsylvania trying to silence Kathleen Kane…. They need to silence her to protect themselves, so what do they do? They throw out due process.”

“And we feel helpless. Well, guess what? Together folks, we are not helpless. Together we can take our government back. And we’re going to start right here, right now.”

Read Masella’s complete statement here.

“As a Pennsylvania voter and a Penn Stater, I am simply stunned about the complete trampling of one’s constitutional right to due process in recent cases in our state,” Wendy Silverwood told the gathering.

“Today, the people of Pennsylvania, like me, are collectively calling on the Disciplinary Board to step aside and permit the judicial system to play out in the legal case surrounding Attorney General Kathleen Kane,” Silverwood said.

“If the Disciplinary Board removes Kathleen Kane from the Attorney General position, it is violating her constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty,” she went on.

“And more importantly – you will be nullifying over 3 million votes that we Pennsylvanians cast for her.”

Silverwood’s complete statement can be read here.

My own remarks addressed three issues.

I spoke against the mob mentality we see, drummed up by court insiders and some in the news media who are aligned against Kane.

“Today, we’re not here to bring a mob. We’re here to speak out against a mob,” I said.

I pointed out the curious fact that state court officials — who should be the greatest advocates of due process in courtrooms — were the loudest voices advocating suspending Kane’s law license and forcing her from office before she’s had a chance to defend herself at jury trial.

“Sadly, and stunningly, in the case of Kathleen Kane, we see a mob mentality instead of thoughtful deliberation, and due process, in quiet courtrooms,” I said. “Most stunning, Pennsylvania court officials, of all people, are the ones stirring this mob mentality. And we see newspaper reporters, who are supposed to shed objective light, themselves whipped up in this mob storm. And all that speaks for itself.”

Lastly, I discussed the many ethical journalistic problems in the Kane story, with reporters, editors and publishers at the Philadelphia Daily News and Inquirer all burning Kane as a news source, cooperating with prosecutors, and publishing leaks, while they threaten Kane for, they say, doing the same.

“We can’t image Woodword and Bernstein telephoning John Mitchell and telling him, ‘Your associate FBI director, Mark Felt, who goes by the name of Deep Throat, is passing out national secrets in parking garages around town.’ But that’s what appears to have happened in Kane’s case.”

“What’s completely lacking from all the coverage in the press I’ve read to date is a serious and necessary discussion regarding the sourcing of this story, the role of the Daily News reporter, and our vital Shield Law protections, which need to be strengthened and broadened, not weakened and diminished, as the Philadelphia newspapers would have it,” I said. (You can read the rest of my comments here.)

This didn’t seem to go over too well with reporters from the Philadelphia newspapers, who apparently want a grand jury investigation of everyone but themselves, and who seem to want to throw all leakers in jail, but themselves.

The due process violations, bullying and hypocrisy were foremost in our minds as we prepared for our gathering at the state capitol building.

But we obviously couldn’t ignore the thousands of pornographic emails associated with this story.

Average Pennsylvanians might not be interested in constitutional law or due process, but they certainly understand pornography, smut, and hiding it.

So several people brought along posters critical of the pornography viewed by Kane’s political enemies on state computers.

Interestingly, members of the news media seemed more comfortable and engaged talking about porn than constitutional law, media ethics, or calls for fair play.

Some of those reporters seemed interested, for some reason, in protecting those caught sending or receiving the porn in general, and prosecutor Frank Fina, in particular.

“You say Kane should have full due process,” one reporter asked, “but what about Frank Fina? Shouldn’t he have his due process too?”

Certainly, I said. But when will the process begin for Fina?

No one had filed a disciplinary complaint against Fina, as they had against AG Kane. And “sensitivity training” proposed for Fina for viewing smut on state time was a farce, and patronizing.

There seemed to be no evenhandedness.

Shouldn’t AG Kane be removed from office because she “allegedly” leaked information to the Philadelphia newspapers? a reporter asked. Shouldn’t the attorney general be held to a higher standard than everyone else?

No, I said, that wasn’t up to any one of us. It was up to the twelve people and alternatives on the jury to find guilt. The reporter herself had used the word “allegedly,” I pointed out. There had been no due process, as yet, or finding of guilt.

As for whether AG Kane should be held to some “higher standard,” I pointed out that several former Republican state attorneys general had also been sullied by allegations of criminal misconduct.

“At the time,” I pointed out, “you people bent over backwards saying we have to be fair to those fellows, who had yet to be convicted.”