In “Enough, already: Attorney General Kathleen Kane”, LNP editors call for the resignation of Attorney General Kathleen Kane. Not on the basis of what has been established as fact, but because of multiple accusations to discredit her.
The main charge: She was involved in passing along confidential information from a Grand Jury investigation some five years ago to a Philadelphia Daily News reporter. Even if so, this is hardly consequential in the big picture of all of her duties and responsibilities.
Let’s look one at a time of what the benighted editors give as reason for such an extraordinary action:
“Kane face perjury, obstruction of justice and other criminal charges for allegedly leaking grand jury material to the Philadelphia Daily News last year, and then lying about it.” There is a legal bromide that ‘any prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.’ Before a grand jury, there is no defense attorney. No defense case is presented. The jury only hears what the prosecutor has to say. Would it be that hard for a prosecutor of the opposing party to find a snafu by any public official, take it to a grand jury, get a recommendation for indictment, and then force the official to resign? Some justice system that would be.
The editors claim “She has made serious missteps since she took the helm of the AG’s office in January 2013.” What elected official hasn’t made missteps. We don’t see where Kane’s have been that serious. That is the crux of the matter. There is no accusations of self enrichment or showing preference to family members or friends. Not one in twenty, if that, could identify the impropriety of which she is accused.
The editors say: “Even in an instance when her way should have been clear — when a pornographic email scandal that had begun during Tom Corbett’s reign as AG hit her office last fall — she fumbled.” Of course none of the editors ever indulged in pornography… they likely just read “Fifty Shades of Gray.” Of course she would be circumspect about ending the careers of public servants over indiscretions… the type of minor offenses she is now accused.
“…Inquirer reported that Kane’s recently minted chief of staff, Jonathan Duecker, had been accused of sexual harassment by a deputy attorney general and a second female employee.” If every time someone was accused of sexual harassment they were passed over for promotion or fired, few would remain. Sure sexual harassment does happen at time; but, often as not, it is a ploy by a disgruntled employee. “Accused” is the controlling word. We wonder how many times LNP and its executives have been accused of sexual harassment? And we are not implying that LNP is different from other good employers. The editors seem to want a world where if someone is accused they are to be immediately pilloried, no proof needed.
“She’s not only been accused of refusing to prosecute Democratic officials in Philadelphia allegedly on the take, but of undermining an investigation of a casino operator.” Perhaps the editors did not bother to learn that Kane felt that the evidence was tainted by how it was obtained. The Philadelphia district attorney took up the prosecution. How can we judge whether she was right or wrong until the cases are heard or otherwise disposed of? Prosecutors constantly make such discretionary decisions. And they should.
“Her office first said it couldn’t produce the legal bills for staff members who appeared before the grand jury investigating Kane, and then, last week, it did.” So what? Someone made a mistake by not looking hard enough? Try to get detailed information from any organization without repeated requests. Is there any evidence that Kane suppressed the information?
Finally and most bizarre “She accused Corbett of having slowed the Jerry Sandusky prosecution for political purposes, but an investigation found no evidence to support her charge.” The promise to investigate, for which there was ample supportive indications, was made on the campaign trail, not when attorney general. This she did. An AG looks for sufficient evidence to indict, not whether or not what took place was likely. How silly can the editors get?
The editors conclude “But Pennsylvania’s top prosecutor should be beyond reproach. And Kane, unfortunately, simply is not.”
Kane was very inexperienced when elected. If choosing her as AG was a mistake, we have the voters to blame. Obviously she has had to climb a learning curve. She also has had to contend with a serious accident and a divorce.
Moreover, there has never been a mortal leader who hasn’t made and acknowledged mistakes, most far more serious than the accusation that Kane leaked unauthorized information to a journalist, as though this doesn’t happen all the time. As Bill Keisling has pointed out, it is ironic that the Daily News would turn on an alleged informant.
Keep in mind the obscure, petty, still unproven misdeeds to which she is accused.
Public officials are always being “reproached”. Look at LNP’s cruel treatment of the honorable county commissioners that opposed the Convention Center project.
And even indictment by a partisan House of Representatives was not sufficient to get then president Bill Clinton to resign. (He was acquitted by the Senate and is more popular today than ever.) If and when Kane has her day in court and found guilty of a felony by a jury, and she has not yet even been indicted, it will be time for her to step aside.
We must not allow partisan politics to hound elected officials from office by rushing to judgement.
