The Pennsylvania State Senate will be looking into ways to remove Attorney General Kathleen Kane from office.
According to Karen Langley of the Post-Gazette, a bipartisan special committee will be formed to explore the upper chamber’s options as stated in Article 6 Section 7 of the State Constitution.
This option was first mentioned last month as a possible route to remove Kane without using the formal impeachment process. It would also allow the State Senate and the Governor to bypass the State House.
Apparently, this initiative was first revealed by State Sen. John Rafferty when he told a group of Berks County Republicans last night. Undoubtedly, Senate leaders won’t be happy about that as Rafferty is running to replace Kane and the body seems to want this to be a bipartisan endeavor.
Kane, of course, is facing nine criminal charges and her law license has already been suspended.
Loading ...
185 Responses
@ MTG … concur.
@ Henry Tate … you inappropriately conflate, both the Senate’s other activities and the politics of her predicament. I invoked your research to reformulate your conclusions, a logical process you failed to puncture. By whatever mechanism [that you would probably reject, despite its existence], she’s now stripped of her active law license and, thus, cannot carry-out her responsibilities; deal with it!
@ rsklaroff: If they want to impeach Kane, they should impeach her. Not use an obscure line of the constitution meant for removing the ill or infirm. Kane is not incompetent to serve. Her right to due process has been trampled by political enemies, who unjustly suspended her law license before she’s had her right to a jury trial. The state senate, saying she’s incompetent to perform her duties? Please! The state senate isn’t competent enough to pass this year’s budget.
Diano, the answer to your question is obvious. First, a conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, a very high standard when a person’s liberty is at issue. If she is able to introduce a smidgeon of doubt at trial, that gets her off the charge but it doesn’t mean she is innocent. So the trial is not a prerequisite to this proceeding in the Senate.
Second, the trial is focused on specific conduct that violates our criminal law. The Senate hearing would go far beyond that to include any conduct that calls into question her ability to run the OAG. She has stated, “If I’m taken out of here in handcuffs, what do you think my last act will be?” That captures Kane’s vindictiveness and her willingness to use her office for improper purposes. She just took the position that she can still do pretty much all of her job and that the chain of command remains intact. Then she started to throw her First Deputy under the bus. A major state agency is falling apart under her ulterior motives and the paranoia she engenders. Again, the outcome of her trial is irrelevant in light of her gross mismanagement of the OAG.
@ d2:
You have both sidestepped addressing the painstaking analysis I provided and the profound implications if only 4 Dems align themselves with their governor’s viewpoint; the silence is deafening, for you will ultimately have to confront the fact that most everyone anticipates she’ll be convicted of at least one charge [such as the perjury count that you opine shouldn’t exist, absent the ability to cite supporting precedent].
rsklaroff-
If Wolf signs off on this against Kane, before she has had a trial, then I would support a primary challenger to Wolf, should anyone decide to run against him.
Your homework has been to seek professional psychiatric help. We are still waiting.
Multi Tasker General-
There are enough Dems who will think this is premature (before she’s had a trial) to question the integrity/motives/principles of Dems that vote to remove her. If she is acquitted of the charges, what then? They will all look like assholes/idiots.
Does she get reinstated if there is an acquittal? This is a significant question that needs to be resolved, since the (alleged) premise of this is a presumption of guilt (the real premise is political shenanigans and abuse).
This is going to take 2/3 vote. So, assuming all 30 R’s make a partisan vote, they have to pull in 4 out of the 20 Dems. Do they want to take the chance that Kane will be acquitted?
@ D2, Ha3, Pat Unger:
As you may recall, y’all have an extensive homework-assignment pending, for you must soon recant all your inane defenses of AG-Kane during the past many-months.
SpongeBob, not only do they fight to the death to defend the indefensible Kane, but when called on it, they actually will say that they aren’t defending Kane. A story comes up about Kane, and they immediately and aggressively turn all blame and vitriol on Fina, Corbett, and everyone associated with them. You ask, “why are you defending Kane, and why are you doing it by pointing in a completely different and unrelated direction?” They say, “Oh, I am not defending Kane, just pointing out how corrupt these Republicans are.” It’s a joke. Diana, HaHaHa, Pat Unger — all completely insane. Fortunately for the Democratic Party, they are the ultra-fringe group.
David, please tell me you are not that dense. It’s a done deal. The next chapter is coming and I cannot wait for the theater you and the other Kane fans provide. At some point you are going to ask yourself why you didn’t cut your losses. I cannot understand why everything has to be a hardline for Dems like you. Your defend those who are indefensible and expect people to believe that it’s all the republicans fault. Never mind that people from both parties want criminals like Kane gone. Get ready because the next chapter can’t be attributed to the good ole boys….
@ DD: Do you propose that, if Wolf concurs with AG-Kane’s removal, that he also receive a primary-challenge?
*
@ Henry Tate: I read-through your hyperlinks, and I believe there are key “distinctions with major differences” between the two situations, notwithstanding the fact that PA adopted a new Constitution in the interim [1968].
It seems that the circumstances under which jurisdiction was denied in the old case [not choosing to be triers of fact] differ in the instant case [assessing ability to function without an active license]. Indeed, one could argue that the latter situation affords a level of “infirmity” that would comport with how you conjure the “original intent” of the clause.
The key-discussion occurs on page 32 [page 34 of the hyperlink], noting the exclusion of “impeachable or indictable offences”; not being able to act as the AG [for whatever reason, including what the Supremes imposed] would seem to comport with empowering the Senate to act.
Note that “incompetency” is included, a “reasonable” cause that could relate directly to the job-requirements of the AG; furthermore, this would correlate with concern that the internal turmoil therein would have been triggered and then could impede the AG’s office from administering justice.
Therefore, it would seem that the Senate could act summarily, after having afforded the due process requirements [in a hearing] that would be delimited by whether she could faithfully discharge her duties; the Supremes wouldn’t harbor any “fingerprints” in this regard, even if the proceedings are perceived as having been triggered by their disciplinary activity.
I would think that some elements of what transpired legally [in the MontCo indictment, which BTW would survive any electoral results] could bleed into the proceedings noting, for example, her having signed-off on maintaining ALL Grand-Jury secrets [and not just those impaneled during her reign] despite what she swore thereafter.
It would be intriguing were she to “plead the 5th” under such circumstances for, surely, she’d be desirous of defending herself against losing her job; perhaps this enhanced pressure would yield her resignation, recalling how RMN was encouraged by Kissinger/AuH20/Scott/Rhodes to hang-it-up just before the Senate was to tackle this “crook.”
Regardless, despite aggressive attacks from AG-Kane’s defenders, I’ve argued for months that the Commonwealth [and both political parties] would benefit by her earliest possible exit [mediated perhaps by Metcalfe]; this pathway would appear to be the least painful and, further, it seems the idea has caught-on [finally!] and will be tackled ASAP.
Diano, you are so out of touch with reality. Most Democrats see Kane for what she is: incompetent and vindictive. You really think that voters will turn on Dems in the Senate who vote to remove her? Consider what the Clinton campaign must be thinking about the battleground state of PA right now. “Hmmm, all my opponent has to do is air ads that show Bill and Hillary campaigning for Kathleen Kane for AG, and instantly the Clintons like big fat idiots.”
Any DEM in the Senate that votes to remove her is going to get a Primary challenger next time they are on the ballot.
SpongeBob-
Unless you are referring to Kane dressing up like a pumpkin for Halloween, don’t expect to see her in an orange suit.
Fear not faithful KK disciples…..the best is yet to come. Today was a start but there is a gift that will keep on giving coming soon. Whatever shall we talk about when Kane is in her orange suit?
Despite what we’ve been led to believe, the direct removal process was tried once before in PA, and failed, in 1891. There are interesting analogies to what happened then, and Kane’s case today. Many of the same obstacles still apply. You can read about the state senate’s failed direct removal attempt in the Journal of the State Senate. Wonder why the leadership of the senate doesn’t know about this … The constitutional and PR problem is that the direct removal provision was meant for the removal of a sick office holder, and indicates that the subject’s problems don’t rise to impeachable offenses.
‘Direct removal’ clause eyed for A.G. Kathleen Kane tried once before — and failed
http://www.yardbird.com/kathleen_kane_direct_removal_clause_in_PA_constitution_was_once_tried_and_failed.htm
Here’s a link to the 1891 proceedings:
http://www.yardbird.com/pdfs/Proceedings_of_the_Senate_of_Pennsylvania_Extraordinary_session_of_1891.pdf
Should however they succeed, the senate’s vote will be the final word.
She should leave on her own now. She is a distraction for the Democrats. She could cause Democrats some elections with Democrats being tied to her.
@ Pat Unger:
You cannot avoid dealing with Truth, and I’m satisfying a need that others hadn’t yet tackled [per your persistent request].
@ gulagPittsburgh:
[Annotation Inserted.]
Jpaul seems to have the most cogent comment here (except for his “unsolicited” attack on Bill Clinton, who at least was man enough to have the sex rather than just fantasize about it from porn emails like the GOP porn perverts).
[Although the surrounding-rant is tangential, the gravamen of what Jpaul wrote is correct: “Kane is a disgrace (and) incompetent.”]
But I don’t see how (some people) say it won’t touch the PA Supreme Ct, considering how deep Eakin is in the porn email network, along with former AG staff, Pa. State Police, DA’s, etc. That porn network is what jeopardizes prosecutions, not anything Kane might have done.
[The Constitution is unambiguous and, thus, although anything can be appealed, the substrate thereof would have to be reasonably justiciable were an appeal to be feasible.]
While the PA Constitution may not delineate a specific path for appeal of Senate action, that appeal would seem to be squarely within the purview of Commonwealth Court, and then an appeal to PA Supreme Ct (which would raise all manner of conflicts of interest).
[Unless the “hearing” procedure is somehow flawed–despite the absence of precedent–there won’t be a basis for seeking a mandamus blocking her departure.]
Furthermore, there is no guidance in the PA Constitution on how this “hearing” is to be conducted. That could present all manner of conflicts that could be appealed to somewhere (presumably to Cmwlth Ct, then PA Supreme Ct, if they don’t all recuse themselves).
[The case would never get so far as to mandate recusals because the simple issue of compliance with the Constitution would control.]
While not admiring her performance, Kane should probably be left alone until her term expires. PA govt has loads of more important matters to occupy Wolf and the legislature and courts.
[No way, for there is bipartisan support for her removal being perceived as a priority-task.]
rsklaroff – Perhaps you missed my earlier post where I informed you that I do not care to engage you in any back-and-forth. Thank you.
Jpaul seems to have the most cogent comment here (except for his “unsolicited” attack on Bill Clinton, who at least was man enough to have the sex rather than just fantasize about it from porn emails like the GOP porn perverts).
But I don’t see how (some people) say it won’t touch the PA Supreme Ct, considering how deep Eakin is in the porn email network, along with former AG staff, Pa. State Police, DA’s, etc. That porn network is what jeopardizes prosecutions, not anything Kane might have done.
While the PA Constitution may not delineate a specific path for appeal of Senate action, that appeal would seem to be squarely within the purview of Commonwealth Court, and then an appeal to PA Supreme Ct (which would raise all manner of conflicts of interest).
Furthermore, there is no guidance in the PA Constitution on how this “hearing” is to be conducted. That could present all manner of conflicts that could be appealed to somewhere (presumably to Cmwlth Ct, then PA Supreme Ct, if they don’t all recuse themselves).
While not admiring her performance, Kane should probably be left alone until her term expires. PA govt has loads of more important matters to occupy Wolf and the legislature and courts.
@ Pat Unger:
[consider this excerpt from what i wrote earlier]
Disagree that AG-Kane “will go to Court to fight this if they go through with it. I can’t imagine a more corrupt process. Kane may be a loon … but she is the duly elected Attorney General of Pennsylvania and has a right to her day in court … especially since her ‘accusers’ have questionable biases and clear motives to lie.” THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT ALLOW FOR THIS.
CLEARLY, you sentiments lie with her maintaining her position, an increasingly-untenable posture; it would seem that we’re one Senatorial Hearing away from her being expunged.
I’ll wait … … …
MTG – please point out one comment of mine where I “defended” Kane.
Time to go after Eakin…………
MTG-
The “unholy mess” is the attempt to abuse the courts to overturn the AG election.
Pat Unger, yeah, okay. I’ll just assume that your breathless defense of Kane has some nugget of rationality to it.
MTG – Don’t bet on it.
@ dd2:
“The Senate will form a special committee and appoint members on Monday, Senate officials said. It will examine whether she can perform the functions of the office while her law license is suspended.”
http://www.wpxi.com/ap/ap/pennsylvania/pennsylvania-senate-to-look-into-removing-kane-fro/nn8M3/
Diano, I think the Dems are very aware of the precedent, but it is outweighed by the “unholy mess” that Kane has created in the OAG. They are satisfied that the evidence against Kane in the criminal case is strong and there is no political conspiracy. But even setting that aside, there is now a laundry list of decisions and public statements that she has made as AG that demonstrate her utter incompetence and, worse, her willingness to use the power of her office for vindictive purposes. That’s why they’re taking her out.
Multi Tasker General-
I realize Wolf may go for it. My point is that it would be a foolish and premature move, and set a bad precedent, given that she has not had a trial (and the case is rife with political abuse against her).
@ Observer:
You continue to be consistently incorrect, but one error is particularly glaring; Wolf probably would appoint a place-holder [such as Lynne Abraham] who wouldn’t be a candidate for a full term because this has been the norm in such situations.
Observer, do you seriously think that Kane is going to run for re-election? She has pretty much admitted that she’s not running.
Unger, “shill” huh? I realize that you feel compelled to use that word in 9 out of 10 of your comments, but I’m starting to believe that you don’t know what it means.
MTG – you are a shill. You speak for no one.
Also, proves just how stupid Rafferty is. Who would he rather run against, severely wounded Kane, or a clean-as-a-whistle Wolf Appointee who has been in office for a full year? Raff should be hoping she not only stays in office but wins primary. But then, brains have always been in short supply on the Red side of the aisle.
I see that porn emails to the Senate have been discovered. Anything to distract public from the fact that they are owned by the frackers, and we – alone of all the fracking states – do not have a shale tax.
I wonder what Rafferty’s position is on Justice Eakin? IOIYAR, I’m sure. I will be hammering him on that when I see him at the poll next month. His pink, plump, self-satisfied face is always there…
@ Pat Unger:
Concur that “This should be fun.”
Concur, probably, that “They clearly have been setting up for this moment.”
Disagree that AG-Kane “will go to Court to fight this if they go through with it. I can’t imagine a more corrupt process. Kane may be a loon … but she is the duly elected Attorney General of Pennsylvania and has a right to her day in court … especially since her ‘accusers’ have questionable biases and clear motives to lie.” THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT ALLOW FOR THIS.
Concur that “I can’t wait for these hearings.”
Concur, probably, that AG-Kane “can…call witnesses” but doubt that FF will be involved.
Disagree with your invoking the “(drink)” game [pioneered by undecided] because it seems Wolf will want her removal to have been accomplished expeditiously.
Pat Unger, try reading the Pennsylvania Constitution before you post. This is clearly within the Senate’s authority. And I’m not surprised to hear you call “bias” even though it’s both Rs and Ds, as well as the Governor calling for her removal. Actually, it’s pretty much everyone except for you and HaHaHa calling for Kane’s ouster.
This should be fun. They clearly have been setting up for this moment. Kane will go to Court to fight this if they go through with it. I can’t imagine a more corrupt process. Kane may be a loon … but she is the duly elected Attorney General of Pennsylvania and has a right to her day in court … especially since her “accusers” have questionable biases and clear motives to lie.
I can’t wait for these hearings. Can Kane call witnesses? will there be cross-examination of Fina? (Drink!!).
HaHaHa sure is unusually quiet this afternoon! He hasn’t even logged in as fake aaron!
@ undecided:
It seems anyone participating in your drinking-game won’t ever finish his/her beer!
politicspa drinking game:
-Take a shot for every Dave Diano comment
-Finish your beer if rsklaroff posts a pompous pile of horse sh*t
-30 second chug if Frank Fina is mentioned
How pathetic our political culture. The same nazi like politicos who want to remove Kane – were silent when Bubba Clinton a disbarred lawyer did far worse. Fina and Williams take sensitivity training and we overlook Brady and Rendell and Street for some of their conduct. Don’t get me wrong Kane is a disgrace but so is the corrupt politics of Pennsylvania and a pa Supreme Court totally lacking in ethics in my view. These justices disgrace our system and shame the legal profession. Kane is incompetent- they are morally incompetent!
Governor Wolf’s on Board:
http://www.mcall.com/news/breaking/mc-pa-senate-kathleen-kane-removal-20151023-story.html
@ d2:
You are again misconstruing both the current situation and the law: “Given that the PA supreme court stated that the suspension should not be construed as a removal from office, Kane would have grounds for an appeal. Wolf would be foolish to cave to the GOP overturning an election before Kane has her trial.”
The constitution does not allow for any appellate pathway, and Wolf would find it to be in his [and his party’s] self-interest to end this entire saga ASAP.
Diano, you’re confused. The Supreme Court said that their suspension of her license couldn’t be construed as a removal from office — because the Court does not have the authority in our constitution to do that. The Senate does. So, if the Senate were to vote 2/3 to remove her, Art. 6, Sec. 7 of the state constitution says the Governor MUST remove her.
Given that the PA supreme court stated that the suspension should not be construed as a removal from office, Kane would have grounds for an appeal.
Wolf would be foolish to cave to the GOP overturning an election before Kane has her trial
Senators—pass the damn budget. Let Kane alone. How about Eakin?
It would therefore be reasonable for the new committee to hold a hearing, to promote a bill authorizing her removal, to anticipate its passage by a bipartisan-vote, and then to anticipate Wolf would comply.
What is of-interest would be the contents of the Senate’s hearing; my guess would be that this would encompass potential turmoil regarding the legal disposition of whatever convictions/investigations for which she may be responsible, anticipating that defense attorneys would feel empowered to undermine adverse events by invoking allegedly-problematic internal-AG processes.
This process would not touch upon the Supreme Court [and whatever e-mail may have been received by any of its justices] and this process would not poison any subsequent adjudicatory event[s]; the focus would be trained upon her competence to carry-out her duties.
Consider Article IV, Section 4: “1. An Attorney General … shall be the chief law officer of the Commonwealth and shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be imposed by law.”
As per prior comments, one could anticipate an expeditiously reached outcome.
Diano, it looks like just one more duty for existing senators and staff. Can’t imagine it will take much resources to hold a hearing and kick it out for a floor vote.
Where will they get the money for such a committee (new business) when they don’t have a budget?
My posting of October 17, 2015 at 10:20 pm is relevant:
https://www.politicspa.com/ppp-poll-45-believe-kathleen-kane-should-resign/70038/comment-page-2/#comments
It has been claimed that “There’s no use debating it now [because] AG-Kane has a trial coming up.”
The “politics” of what transpired may not patiently wait.
“All civil officers elected by the people (except the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, members of the General Assembly and judges of the courts of record) shall be removed by the Governor for reasonable cause, after due notice and full hearing, on the address of two-thirds of the Senate.” [Article VI, Section 7]
http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Constitution.html
Thus, recalling that Gov. Wolf called upon her to resign, were he to state publicly that he remains so-inclined [after the suspension has started], he might either invite Sen. Metcalfe to pursue impeaching her [Article VI, Section 6] or ask the Senate to skip that step [vide supra].
It’s unclear which entity would conduct the “full hearing” in that instance, but it seems it wouldn’t be the judiciary.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2015/08/gov_wolf_kane_should_step_down.html
One would THINK that he wouldn’t want this issue to linger….
Meanwhile, officers could be approaching the OAG to take KK into custody and HaHaHa would be saying, “Yeah, you keep saying it’s going to happen but only a Corbett perv in a clown car would believe she will be removed from office.”