BREAKING: Kathleen Kane Seeks to Shift Focus in Press Conference (Updated with Video)

Kane-Conference“I am innocent of any wrongdoing.”

That was the message Attorney General Kathleen Kane asserted in her news conference today, her first public statement since she was charged with eight criminal counts.

In her speech today, Kane sought to shift attention away from herself and onto what she feels is the bigger issue: the pornographic emails revealed through the investigation.

“Today I intend to begin to reveal the whole story,” she said before delving into the details of those emails.

She completely ignored the June 2014 Daily News story on Jerry Mondesire that began the inquiry into whether she leaked grand jury information by providing information for that article.

Her only mention of the March 2014 Inquirer piece that first drew her ire was to say it was meant to “embarrass and intimidate me” but did not succeed.

Altogether it was a political, rather than a legal, defense and served as the latest chapter in her long-standing feud with prosecutor Frank Fina.

Kane stated her defense wouldn’t be that an old boys network was after her.

“My defense will be I broke no laws of this Commonwealth. Period,” she stated.

She went on to call for Judge Carpenter to release all of the pornographic emails. While Kane stated she was not blaming the “old boys network” she did assert that this was a crusade against her.

The Attorney General cited all the arrests her office has made since the first calls for her resignation. She used these statistics to contend that her case is not a distraction.

Spokesman Chuck Ardo originally indicated that Kane would take questions. Later, he seemed to tell Steve Esack of the Morning Call that he was not that involved in the AG’s statement.

When Kane mentioned the resignation of Supreme Court Justice Seamus McCaffery, Esack tried to interject a question but the Attorney General rebuffed him.

At the end, the AG directly addressed her two sons by name. She stated that it was the only way she could talk to them before the news reached them first.

She told them that she would continue to do her job and fight “evil” throughout the state.

It was an emotional, strange and sad ending to an emotional, strange and sad performance.

UPDATE: The full video of the Attorney General’s press conference can be viewed below:

August 12th, 2015 | Posted in Front Page Stories, Harrisburg, Top Stories | 95 Comments

95 thoughts on “BREAKING: Kathleen Kane Seeks to Shift Focus in Press Conference (Updated with Video)”

  1. Jenny says:

    Thank you for such a great blog, I really love reading them. They remind me of the important values. Inmotion Hosting Review

  2. John Horseman says:

    I read over the indictment. Can someone answer a question for me? The indictment named 3 people as having committed alledged crimes. Ms. Kane, Reese, and the guy that also searched the Grand Jury records and limited access to those same files. Peifer was the guy and I believe he was doing the same as Reese. He appears to be friends with Kane having gone to Haiti with her what was the reason for that trip? Could there be a deal in the making for him to testify against her? If anyone can shed some light on this I would be great full.

  3. rsklaroff says:

    @ DD:

    You may get your wish:

    “Kane’s New York City lawyer Gerald Shargel said out of caution, ‘We intend to file a motion next week to ensure that no protective order bars release of the information.’ “

  4. rsklaroff says:

    “Nothing apparently bars Attorney General Kathleen Kane from making public pornographic emails found on state computers, but a judge said Thursday that she has not formally asked for their release.”

    Ya know, it’s almost as if you don’t want them to be released, lest they not have anything exculpatory…unlike Hillary’s thumb-drive.

  5. David Diano says:

    Not so fast. First Carpenter said that he didn’t get a request to release the info, now he’s claiming the info isn’t relevant. This is contradiction, since he put a protective order on it in the first place, and denied access to it by the media.

  6. David Diano says:

    Lynne Abraham is nearly as fossilized as you. She would be a terrible choice.

    But, my point, which you missed, was not that I’m expecting Wolf to replace Kane, but rather that if he’s going to talk about it, he should declare the release of the porn emailers as a goal/criteria.

    I’m trying to raise the stakes for the people calling to remove her to address the issue that she claims is trying to be suppressed.

  7. Rsklaroff says:

    @ DD:

    As anticipated, you provided an anonymous hyperlink – not for the first time – that is long on oxymoronic accusations and devoid of facts.

    Your efforts would be better spent pondering further the ability of Lynne Abraham to play an interim role reminiscent of Gerald Ford.

    From your perspective, this could increase the ability of Josh Shapiro – facilitated by Marcel Green – to be elected next year.

  8. Rsklaroff says:

    $ DD:

    It seems that you are now finally feeling prodded (justifiably) to envision a world without AG-Kane; further, it seems you will (predictably) pass on documenting your claims.

    Recalling having documented your anti-Semitism a few months ago, it’s not surprising that you act as if you consider posting here to be sport (as you also admitted); it is people such as yourself who endorse the lawlessness of the POTUS.

    Sadly, the interaction of these phenomena dictates the purposeful evasiveness evinced here; this parallels the content of AG-KANE’S press-conference which, devoid of Q & A, was universally panned.

  9. David Diano says:

    Rsklaroff-

    You are suffering under a serious delusion that I’m going to do research at a law library as part of a pointless argument with you.

    I applaud her release of the information against Fina and I hope she is able to produce more, especially securing the exposure of the emails. I couldn’t give a rat’s @ss about her alleged motivations, nor whether she lied or not in a kangaroo court that shouldn’t have been convened in the first place.

    If the judge and/or prosecutor went after her to undo an election, then any and all charges should be dropped. Period.

    The public has an absolute right to know about the misbehavior of public officials during the performance of their jobs. That trumps all this grand jury secrecy bullsh*t, because the grand jury become part of the cover-up. It doesn’t matter whether her methods appear to have “broken the law”. If the “law” is protecting these deviants, then the law is simply wrong, or being applied incorrectly to protect the guilty.

    I hope someone has the balls to release the files to Wikileaks.

    Reasonable Rep-

    As for your “timeline”, the porn emails and the investigation of Sandusky occurred BEFORE Kane became AG. Once Kane was AG and started looking into the case herself, Fina and his buddies knew that she’d uncover their emails and their misbehavior before she became AG. They’ve known the risks of exposure all along, and had been searching desperately for ANYTHING to tarnish Kane.

    This case against her never should have been brought in the first place, and according to her, is an attempt to silence her and what she uncovered.

    Wolf called for her resignation, and wants to appoint her successor. How about if Wolf and whomever he wants to nominate vow to pursue the porn emails and expose the people involved?

  10. Rsklaroff says:

    @DD:

    My view of tort-reform has not changed for decades; as prez of the pa society of internal medicine 2 decades ago and working through my local state rep (the late Ellen Bard), the equivalent of periodic payment emerged…even as I opposed limits to pain/suffering.

    Otherwise, the ad-hominem comments you claim emerged anonymously from the Internet cannot be addressed; everything I do is based on the same Truth-telling approach you read in these postings.

    I have no “horse” in this competition and, indeed, it would probably be in the best interest of the GOP to allow the bleeding to persist; I honestly recoil @ your inane input and feel AG-Kane undermines the image of justice the longer she remains in office.

  11. Rsklaroff says:

    @ DD:

    For $15, you can visit the Jenkins Memorial Law Library @ 9th & Chestnut Sts.

    Staff members are eager to assist.

    Until you exert yourself accordingly, you may wish to provide yourself and the serious PoliticsPa a well-earned respite.

  12. Rsklaroff says:

    @DD:

    AG-Kane has has every opportunity to file against her target Fina, either as a whistle-blower or as an anti-corruption/incompetence crusader.

    She did neither.

    Thus, your inability to cite any authority (supportive either of your legal arguments or of your fanciful rationalizations) denuded the credibility of your posts.

  13. Upstart says:

    Kane did nothing wrong Leave her alone and go after Real Criminals

  14. Brad Kirsch says:

    I have continued to watch these comments today and few are speaking about getting facts in a trial. Most are conjecturing outcomes!

    What kind of world you people would make if you had any real power is nto one that I would like to live in! That is because you ignore the right of both the accused, the accusers and those who have made counter statements. Even before we get to a trial stage you write about make believe results about outcomes.

    Have any of you graduated a school of witchcraft, mystery and magical predictions? If so please name them so we can check on exactly who graduated with you that has a proven record of accuracy on predicting outcomes of events where we only get slanted facts from all who present.

    What is the purpose of this dialogue. Do you really have an responsible attitude toward the rights of the accused or the rights of those who elect people to office to not have their elections overturned on innuendo.

    I really don’t predict out comes as I believe we have rights beyond the protestations of the peanut gallery. What I haven’t figured out yet is who is Buffalo Bob. I sure see a couple of potential Howdy Doodies.

  15. David Diano says:

    Larry
    Where is your law degree from and what is your area of expertise or type of law you mostly practice?

    You aren’t going to get far arguing with rskarloff. He’s especially dense and resistance to all forms of logic. The approach I take is to expose his stupidity as a cautionary tale for others, but also as a teaching moment in how to deconstruct fools like him.

    According to a Google search, his detractors claim he makes his money as a shill “expert” witnesses for medical malpractice claimants. This activity is apparently at odds with his republican compatriots who want “tort reform” (ie small insurance liability), and they call him a hypocrite for cashing in himself.

    Unknown-

    You make a lot of interesting predictions. Can you give us some more specifics? What is your profession that gives you access to such (allegedly/supposedly) explosive inside info?
    For example, I help out candidates and attend a lot of political events where I pick up info, rumor, speculation, insight, etc. from insiders or interested parties. My “fame” (or infamy) here has opened a few conversations, because people know where I stand on the issues.

    Have we met?

  16. David Diano says:

    rsklaroff-

    You wrote: “I know nothing about Supreme Court and Disciplinary Board proceedings”

    What you do know is a very short list.

    Also, you suggest the court reviewing all of Kane’s cases for bias. On the contrary, it would be the cases of the judges/prosecutors with porn/racist/bigoted content that could be reviewed and overturned.

    Also, you distorted my to claim there are no precedents to support Kane. I don’t have access to a law library search. However, I did point to whistleblower protections as a precedent as well as corruption by judges and prosecutors which has precedent (though they are hard to catch in a corrupt system).

    So, stop making stuff up when you don’t understand.

  17. eagleswing says:

    re: judge Carpenter’s failure to release all texts of the pornmails , with their senders, cc s bcc s and and addressees: Kane’s DOJ could have /should have timely appealed that order denying release, and the big new$papers would have joined in and sued in their own rights along with ACLU and Common Cause. that could have, should have and would have ended the issue right there; the PA appellate courts could have decided whose emails got released (after any judge on the cc list recused him/herself.) . Kane is now flogging this dead email horse for her own political purposes; if she was so in favor of widespread email release, why didn’t her DOJ timely file the court papers needed to get Carpenter to release them?

  18. rsklaroff says:

    The convicted people will probably want to delay initiating such actions until the AG’s status has been resolved; then, they could file with the courts-of-common-pleas in all 67 counties, retroactive almost three years.

  19. Larry says:

    By that rationale, they could do that now. But they don’t and won’t. The court won’t act on such baseless speculation.

  20. rsklaroff says:

    Defense attorneys en-masse could file allegations that could flood the docket, no matter how justified; for an example of irrelevant overreach, just note the conjurings c/o DD on this website.

  21. Larry says:

    Are you assuming that the Supreme Court would have to reverse convictions obtained by the Attorney General’s Office because of Kane’s conduct? If so, that is a very, very faulty assumption. If the assumption is that the Supreme Court “owns” this mess, I don’t see how that is so, any more than the federal courts had responsibility for President Clinton lying under oath during a deposition. [Incidentally, he wasn’t disbarred until long after the impeachment process played out.]

    This is an executive branch official acting improperly. There is a procedure that starts in the common pleas court to hold her criminally responsible and a procedure that starts in the House of Representatives to hold her responsible to the government.

  22. rsklaroff says:

    One can even invoke the 100%-wrong track-record recorded on this website by “Chris Martinez” [fractured-spelling and all] as a barometer as to what will transpire.

  23. rsklaroff says:

    “The Commonweal [Legislature, Dems, Public] will benefit from the ability of the Supremes to ‘flip over all the cards’.”

    The Supremes won’t want to have to revisit a bunch of cases [if nothing else] and will want to place this entire [smelly] episode behind the judiciary.

    The Supremes could easily decide to remove the law-license of a public official who has obviously both abused this professional privilege and mauled the powers bestowed upon her by the voters [in the process].

    Clear?

  24. Chris Martinez says:

    I know cathlen kane reely well and I say the charges gonna be throwed away soon cuz they don’t mean nouythng, she aint do nuthn agenst the law and she gonna stay on as genrel attney for long time,

  25. Larry says:

    If you’ve been deposed, then you know that you have to answer the question even if that objection is asserted. So, answer my question (because you haven’t yet).

  26. rsklaroff says:

    @ Larry:

    Again, invoking phraseology usually employed during Depositions: “Asked, and Answered!”

  27. Larry says:

    Sklaroff, that was neither witty nor responsive. Come on, you’re not addressing Diano here. I have a brain and a law degree. Seriously, why do you think the Supremes have any interest in getting involved? Under Chief Justice Castille, they probably would have, but his respect for the constitution was questionable. Chief Justice Saylor has no appetite for this.

  28. rsklaroff says:

    @ Larry:

    I anticipated the articulation of your rhetorical questions by posing my set of rhetorical questions.

    The Commonweal [Legislature, Dems, Public] will benefit from the ability of the Supremes to “flip over all the cards” [as John Daly used to do on “What’s My Line?”].

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Daly_(radio_and_television_personality)

  29. Larry says:

    “If she is convicted or resigns, the Supremes will not have an appreciative ability to foreshorten the process; if she gets impeached, it would be difficult to interrupt the legislature as it acts pursuant to the Constitution.”

    Exactly. What makes you think that the Supremes want to “foreshorten” the process? It is completely discretionary for them to suspend her license, and they might appear political if they exercise that discretion. Of course, they are very political, but they’re not supposed to be (or at least they are not supposed to appear that way). Why would they jump into this mess when there is a criminal proceeding (with a right of appeal to the Supreme Court) and potentially a legislative move to impeach?

  30. rsklaroff says:

    [“appreciative” should be “appreciable”]

  31. rsklaroff says:

    @ Larry:

    As one of the experts who weighed-in, here, let’s examine your initially-dismissive reaction to my effort to congeal the key database.

    “Sklaroff, simmer down. The Supreme Court is not going to get involved until after Kane (1) gets convicted (by plea or by verdict), (2) resigns, or (3) gets impeached.”

    If she is convicted or resigns, the Supremes will not have an appreciative ability to foreshorten the process; if she gets impeached, it would be difficult to interrupt the legislature as it acts pursuant to the Constitution.

    That’s why the Supremes could act expeditiously along the lines I outlined – even if the petition-filing is to be “blamed” for having triggered this eventuality – and ensure that the accused were to be afforded all 5th Amendment Rights that she might suddenly feel it to be desirable to request….

  32. rsklaroff says:

    I know nothing about Supreme Court and Disciplinary Board proceedings, but I would ask that the experts who read this website integrate my viewpoint – assuming anything questionable is to be interpreted to favor AG-Kane, even alleged contradictions/lies told to the Grand Jury – and articulate a rationale whereby the Supremes would be disinclined to act in some fashion.

  33. Larry says:

    Sklaroff, simmer down. The Supreme Court is not going to get involved until after Kane (1) gets convicted (by plea or by verdict), (2) resigns, or (3) gets impeached.

  34. rsklaroff says:

    Let’s assume that the petition triggers some sort of an internal review by the Supremes that includes input from AG-Kane; further, let’s assume that the aforementioned [dummied-down] time-line emerges therefrom as corroborated by all input.

    Then, let’s assume AG-Kane is requested to provide precedent for self-motivated release of ANY Grand-Jury Testimony and, as per admissions from DD, she cannot; further, let’s assume she is invited to disclaim input from her [almost entire] inner-circle that impugns her [including her having ignored a warning-memo that she did or didn’t read in a timely fashion].

    Finally, let’s assume that the Supremes would not wish to have to retroactively-review all cases prosecuted successfully by AG-Kane based upon a claim that her inherent biases/errors [e.g., trying to get Judge Carpenter to do something without having filed with the court and, instead, whining @ a Press Conference after which she had entertained no queries] had tainted the outcome; further, let’s assume the Supremes would wish to end the “Pit and the Pendulum” drip-drip-drip of torture that AG-Kane has bestowed upon the Commonwealth.

    Might the Supremes then feel sufficient justification to obviate the need for Metcalfe to act next month [in an allegedly-bipartisan fashion] to impeach her?

    Might the Dems welcome this eventuality to preclude dragging a party-member through the media into next year??

    Might the public welcome prompt resolution of this political game [particularly after convictions against the State Reps she had tried to shield]???

  35. rsklaroff says:

    I link back to prior pages @ PoliticsPa @ which I wrote the following:

    It would seem plausible that the Supremes could be prompted to act [presumably, after some sort of an internal process, perhaps a closed hearing].

    http://www.politicspa.com/reader-poll-how-will-kane-leave-office/68332/#comments

    If the filing of the petition is needed to trigger any sort of internal process, that’s fine with me; further, the Supremes are to govern all judicial processes in the Commonwealth, and if they were to collectively decide that justice will be marred in any case handled by the AG…might they not wish to preclude future retroactive proceedings???

    http://www.politicspa.com/kane-faces-possible-law-license-suspension/68376/#comments

    ‘Boondog Millionaire’ flub spurs parody Twitter accounts…

    http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/real-time/Kanes-Boondog-Millionaire-spurs-parody-Twitter-accounts.html

  36. rsklaroff says:

    In the aggregate, these four stories highlighted @ KeystoneReport illustrate the failure of the Press Conference to enlighten; indeed, it seems she does not follow proper legal process and [per the undisputed timeline herein] fails to tackle/refute key-concerns.

    Judge answered AG Kane: ‘Porngate’ emails not part of grand jury case…

    http://www.myfoxphilly.com/story/29781192/judge-answers-kane-porngate-emails-not-part-of-grand-jury-case

    Montco DA won’t address AG Kane’s claims…

    http://www.witf.org/news/2015/08/prosecutor-wont-address-attorney-general-claims.php

    Kane’s claims questioned statewide…

    http://wnep.com/2015/08/13/kanes-claims-questioned-statewide/

    ‘Boondog Millionaire’ flub spurs parody Twitter accounts…

    http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/real-time/Kanes-Boondog-Millionaire-spurs-parody-Twitter-accounts.html

  37. Chris Martinez says:

    I know Cathleen kain for thuyrteen yeers and I know she aint never dun nuthyng ileagle, she been genral attornes for a long time and she aint never been bad at hger job and she gonna be aloud to stay in job for long time to come in future so everbudy need to stop piking on her, she done good work.,

  38. Unknown says:

    In today’s post on The Post-Gazette’s Early Returns, Mike Pound calls attention to the ongoing controversy surrounding Kathleen Kane, the continuing woes of former Admiral Joe Sestak, and the crumbling campaign of presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. Gee…wonder if the troubles of these three public figures are somehow interrelated?

  39. Brad Kirsch says:

    THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH!

    Frankly I am a bit fed up with negative comments about Fina, Kane, Carpenter, et al by people who have opinions but who don’t have any more facts than any of us because there has been no fair trial of facts!

    I listened to Ms. Kane, I have met and spoken to her before and I believe she is entitled to present an offense and a defense based on what she can or can’t substantiate without undue speculation from those of us who have opinions based on whether we like her personally or professional or don’t like her at all!

    I believe we must carefully review the counter charges presented in this news conference. I believe it is time to understand the cross accusations about what the Grand juries do and don’t leak!

    I believe it is fair to remove Carpenter from this issue and start to open the process. Fairness to Carpetner and Kane requires a very open process.

    I believe it is time to change venue from Montgomery County where the investigation took place under because the circumstances raised require objective judgements that don’t seem political. At present this issue still muddies the waters.

    I believe that Kane should also take a leave of absence until all facts are clear.

    But we must have a really open process as it is almost certain that many issues are still being hidden by virtue of the processes that were used.

    This is as serous as it gets insofar as voters rights go! And as a voter I believe my rights to understand why the person elected to be AG is judged guilty in the press instead of through the legal process of an objective trial in a fair venue.

    She has made serious allegations that further muddy the waters and I believe we the people have a serious stake in this process beyond all of the obvious partisan bickering.

    While some might get their jollies from political intrigue I believe that in this matter it is to issue of voters and integrity of the systems used to change the voters choice that are the paramount issue.

  40. Larry says:

    Wally, I think she needs to marry a new Boondog Millionaire before she could finance that campaign.

  41. Wally says:

    She’s a neat lady. I hope she runs for president.

  42. Larry says:

    Well said, Reasonable Rep. This is the main thrust of Dennis Roddy’s piece today on pennlive. Kane has historically had significant problems with the truth, but now she has crossed the line into sheer madness.

  43. Reasonable Rep says:

    The relevant timeline, in the order it happened:

    – Kane blasts handling of the Sandusky case on campaign trail

    – Fina et al. get pissed, frequently criticize Kane’s decisions as AG

    – Kane gets pissed, declares war and coordinates Mondesire leak to embarrass Fina

    – After Brennan tries to elicit response from Fina, Fina realizes someone in AG’s office broke law, complains to grand jury’s supervising judge

    – Judge appoints special prosecutor to begin investigation that results in Kane’s grand jury indictment

    – Brennan article about Mondesire/Fina/Costanzo published

    ———-

    All of this happened BEFORE the dreaded porn emails were uncovered. And Kane knows it. This a pure political defense, one completely unrelated to the legal issues of Kane’s prosecution, but her apologist partisan Democrats appear to have bought it – hook, line and sinker.

    I’m not going to bother correcting those who are writing about proper venue, theft of services, the requisite elements of perjury and other legal issues. You’re obvious not interested in a rational discussion. But suffice it to say…you political cheerleaders haven’t a clue of what you’re talking about.

Comments are closed.