Re: KEISLING: Citizens gather at state capitol to demand due process for AG Kathleen Kane
Ms. Kane has and continues to receive her due process under the law. All of her supporters want her to receive a free pass, period. The state bar should suspend her license until she either successfully defends herself, resulting in the suspension being rescinded with no pregnant harm done to her, or she is convicted, resulting in her disbarment in which she is permanently removed from office.
In either instance, no possible harm can come to the people Ms. Kane is sworn to serve. Professional boards are not criminal courts, so there is no double jeopardy. If a doctor was accused of performing unnecessary surgeries, and criminally charged for it, would these people demanding justice and due process for Kane be at the capitol, demanding the same for said doctor, would they want that doctor to be able to continue practicing and be in a position to do more of the same?
Furthermore, those saying this would nullify 3 million votes, your arguement is severely flawed, what if she is convicted, are we to assume that she should be allowed to finish her term,so as not to nullify 3 million votes? If so i guess she could run for re-election, and if she wins she could serve out that term too. The criminal process has already begun, and there appears to be enough evidence to proceed to a trial, this is the result of her preliminary hearing, if anyone had nullified 3 million votes it’s Ms. Kane.
EDITOR: In 19 other states and D. C., Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane might be subject to Re-Call through a petition and quick popular vote. If successful, a successor would be chosen through a special election.
But Pennsylvania has no Re-Call law. So what is happening here, in our opinion, is Re-Call by indictment, a very sippery slope and bad precedent.
It is relatively easy to get a grand jury to indict, even on the flimsiest of evidence. The accused is not given an opportunity to mount a defense.
We give as an example the impeachment of President Bill Clinton by a Republican House of Representatives, which is tantamount to an indictment, and his ultimate acquittal by the Senate not only by a one third vote as required but by a majority, with Republicans crossing over. Should he have had to step down from the Presidency during the hearings? The Constitution makes no such provision.
We are told that Kane can remain attorney general without a law license. And she likely will.
But she will be further wounded without plausible justification. It is unlikely that she will face trial before mid-2016 that would make it virtually impossible for her to be acquitted in time to run for re-election.
So far all we have is accusations by her political enemies at the Daily News / Inquirer, prosecution by a Republican, indictment by a Republican District Attorney, and Republican judges. And most of us, even those sophisticated, can’t figure out the nature of the charges, let alone whether they are serious enough to merit her prosecution.
