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
Sorry MTG. You do seem like a shill. And H3 has had a TON of substance to offer on this subject. In fact, he had this figured out a long time before others did.
Diano, you offered every definition of “felony” except the one that matters: the definition in Pennsylvania law. Or, if you prefer, the corresponding sentencing provisions for a felony in Pennsylvania (as opposed to the federal system or other states, each of which have a different definition). Why did you choose dictionary definitions? Oh yeah, because you didn’t realize that no one with any understanding of the law would embarrass themselves that way.
So, the two felony counts are quite real. Prison time of more than a year and possibly two or more. You can say “not a real crime” all you want, but KK knows what’s coming.
Multi Tasker General-
No. My analogy is just fine. The perjury charge is like the cop then piling on an additional charge to Kane for lying about the meter being broken.
Here’s another analogy: the difference between stealing a hub-cab and stealing a whole car.
The perjury charge remains bogus and touting as a “felony” (without further qualification as to the specific) is a purposeful attempt to equate it with REAL crimes.
Here is the definition of felony:
“a crime, typically one involving violence, regarded as more serious than a misdemeanor, and usually punishable by imprisonment for more than one year or by death”
Another:
“n. 1) a crime sufficiently serious to be punishable by death or a term in state or federal prison, as distinguished from a misdemeanor which is only punishable by confinement to county or local jail and/or a fine. 2) a crime carrying a minimum term of one year or more in state prison, since a year or less can be served in county jail. However, a sentence upon conviction for a felony may sometimes be less than one year at the discretion of the judge and within limits set by statute. Felonies are sometimes referred to as “high crimes” as described in the U. S. Constitution. ”
Another:
“noun, plural felonies. Law.
1.an offense, as murder or burglary, of graver character than those called misdemeanors, especially those commonly punished in the U.S. by imprisonment for more than a year.
2. Early English Law. any crime punishable by death or mutilation and forfeiture of lands and goods.”
So, while perjury has been classified as a felony, it is clearly meets the Sesame Street test of: “Which one of these things just does’t belong”
H3, said the guy who never has anything of substance to say.
LMAO … MTG isn’t as smart as he thinks he is …. Most shills aren’t too smart.
Diano, your analogy doesn’t work at all, because the “ticket” being written by the cop for Kane includes a felony. I know, the Law According to Diano would not include this brand of perjury as a felony, at least not when the defendant is a Democrat. But those of us in the real world understand that it is a felony, Kane knew it was a felony, and you can’t write it off as a mere summary offense.
Leave Kathy Kane alone she has been Picked on and Bullied Far to Long for Nothing . The people who attack her should they themselves be attacked . Kane is a Good Looking FOX we need Hot Looking Women in Government Not the Useuall Ugly Ones they useually Show up working in Government . Kane should have Nude pictures taken of her and Posted on U Tube
you are fake, aaron
SpongeBob SquareShill – back under your rock!! … or back to your other screen-name(s).
I enjoy watching all the debate. I wonder what the Kane defenders will say soon when the next shoe drops. Rest up Kane defenders as soon you will need your strength.
Fake aaron…no one even knows who eakin is. Kane needs to accept responsibility for her disgusting actions and the state needs to revert to a gop ag. Period. Check mate.
Let’s focus here. Kane may have really messed up. Her zeal to get back at a low-level Corbett crony may have been what undoes her. And she DID seem to walk right into their perjury trap.
But her screw-ups should not cause any reasonable observer to over-look what the Judges and prosecutors were doing when they thought they would never get caught. It shouldn’t stop us from asking questions about why Corbett and Ryan tried to “destroy the evidence” by getting rid of 20M e-mails.
And there should be a full investigation into:
– Fina and his buddies mis-using State equipment
– the leaking of tons of protected grand jury material from the Kane investigation
– whether the material in the e-mails was “obscene” according to federal law
– the mis-use of the criminal justice system
– improper relationships between Judges and prosecutors
Once all that gets done, Kane can go to jail … assuming she illegally leaked protected grand jury information.
meant to say “he” … has he resigned yet … meaning Eakin …. Has he?
Has she resigned yet?
HaHaHa
It’s like a cop so focused on writing a parking ticket that he’s ignoring the bank robbery occurring across the street.
For the analogy challenged: Kane’s the one getting the parking ticket while the GOPervs are robbing the bank.
Kane is about 1/150th the criminal that Fina & The Corbett Pervs are. After all, she is alleged to have leaked ONE THING. Fina & The Corbett Pervs have leaked A TON of protected grand jury material.
There can now be no doubt what was really going on. The Clown Car targeted Kane because she had the goods on them. Imagine you make a complaint about a Police Offcer … or discover that he has been failing to pay his taxes or something. And then imagine that he and his department start stopping you for things that everybody else is doing too … jaywalking … littering … failing to use your turn signal. and then they start searching your house every other month hoping to find something … all the while they are getting information from people that work with you and who want you gone … That’s what happened to Kane.
Corbett and Ryan tried to destroy the evidence against the racist creeps and pitiful perverts. They failed (of course). Kane discovered the e-mails and the rest is history.
Selective enforcement is a form of corruption. Look it up.
It seems to me that Special Agent Robert Marsilli is now posting as MTG.
@ d2:
Everything composed is politically-charged, devoid of any reference either to the facts of the case or to the relevant statutes.
Why am I not surprised?
HaHaHa-
I don’t bother reading his long rants. He just wastes his time writing them. He has no substance, and doesn’t understand that he’s barely worth derision. As for Jello, maybe he can help Cosby use up his supply.
Multi Tasker General-
The motivations of the GOP are objective, not subjective. There is no question about their long held desire to find ANY excuse to remove Kane.
Who runs the major PA papers? The owner of the Philly Inquirer was a contributor to Corbett and wouldn’t let his paper make an endorsement for Gov (because that endorsement would have unquestionably been for Wolf).
Wolf “supports” Kane’s removal because he is a political p*ssy who can’t take the heat, and wants to put in his own AG. He acted like a petulant child when the state committee rejected his pick of McGinty to lead them. He’s rejected the GOP’s irresponsible budgets (traps) but has been too compromising in negotiations (giving away everything and starting at the halfway point, before they’ve made a single concession, and he has no more to give).
Like I said, if Wolf goes along with this charade, before there has been a trial, he’s screwing himself.
“her complete mismanagement of the AG’s Office” is a subjective claim you are making, and a question for the voters. If mismanagement where the primary criteria, the Senate GOP would have to resign in disgrace. If it’s not malfeasance and corruption (which it isn’t) they really don’t have an oversight rationale for her removal.
Are you IN the AG’s office and claiming direct knowledge of this mismanagement? Let’s not forget the tale of Special Agent Robert Marsilli of the Pittsburgh OAG who posted for months as “kanesdriver” and made similar claims as he appeared to violate the ethical standards of his job. He ran and hid (deleting his Disqus account) when his identity was revealed. So, if you have some actual knowledge about this mismanagement, state your credentials and some specifics.
“Republicans have an incentive to let Kane twist in the wind during the next election cycle. ” That is bullsh*t. They want her gone. They’ve already killed her reelection chances, but they don’t want her uncovering anything else.
MTG erred in only one context, namely, the presumed location of d2’s head.
Observer2, how was Kane set up to leak confidential information and then lie under oath about it? It was something she alone decided to do, over the advice of far smarter people. There are plenty of bad things you can say about Fina, but he did not and could not force Kane to do that. Add on top of that her complete mismanagement of the AG’s Office, and you have a removal proceeding in the Senate.
Diano, we have been through this. People might have all kinds of subjective motivations when it comes to Kathleen Kane. But objectively Kane has, through repeated bad decisions, provided the evidence to support both the criminal and Senate proceedings. That’s why Democrats are just as supportive of Kane’s removal as Republicans. That’s why the Governor supports Kane’s removal. That’s why every major newspaper in the state has called on Kane to resign.
If anything, the Republicans have an incentive to let Kane twist in the wind during the next election cycle. But facts are facts, and they are very disturbing. You have no idea what the AG’s Office is like right now, and you’re wrong that the operation of that agency is outside the purview of the Senate (every Senate committee has oversight of designated agencies). Bottom line is that every Democrat with any credibility (I.e., every senator, and not you) supports Kane’s removal. You have your head in the sand.
@ Observer #2:
Assume arguendo that AG-Kane was set-up from day-1, and then ask yourself whether she has any culpability for her current predicament.
Next, ask yourself whether she would be on the verge of being removed from office had she not deviated from the norm.
Finally, ask yourself whether she cudda/shudda avoided this outcome.
Go after Eakin and pass the damn budget! Kane was set up from day 1.
@ Ha3:
Derision cannot substitute for substance.
LOL … Hey DD … The mental patient has expressed his impatience with you … in a treatise …. Can you NOW ignore him so that he finally shuts the efff up? He needs to go back to his bowl of Jello.
@ d2:
Regarding your most recent posting, each assertion is more incorrect that its predecessor:
“Cynical conclusions? Are you denying that the Senate GOP is motivated by anything other than their political desire to remove Kane, and the trumped-up Montco case against her is anything other than a convenient (and thin) veil?”
Yes, we deny political motivations animated either action.
“They were calling for her impeachment over her stance on gay marriage.”
No, “they” weren’t.
“So, please stop pretending that this is anything other than an attempted political coup.”
Please face facts.
“OJ clearly murdered those two people and got away with it, due to a botched case by the prosecutors and the defense team playing the race-card and confusing the jury with misleading ‘scientific’ testimony. And, contrary to your claim, I didn’t think the civil trial was appropriate. It smacked of double-jeopardy.”
Most observers who predicted the verdict [including myself] recognized that at least one black on the jury wasn’t going to convict [“because the glove didn’t fit”].
Rather than carrying entertainment value [as you claimed was your motive when posting here, a few months ago], your input has grown tiresome.
Multi Tasker General-
Cynical conclusions? Are you denying that the Senate GOP is motivated by anything other than their political desire to remove Kane, and the trumped-up Montco case against her is anything other than a convenient (and thin) veil?
They were calling for her impeachment over her stance on gay marriage.
So, please stop pretending that this is anything other than an attempted political coup.
OJ clearly murdered those two people and got away with it, due to a botched case by the prosecutors and the defense team playing the race-card and confusing the jury with misleading “scientific” testimony. And, contrary to your claim, I didn’t think the civil trial was appropriate. It smacked of double-jeopardy.
Diano, I knew you would respond with cynical conclusions that have no basis in reality. That’s where you go when you’re defeated on the law and the facts. You try to play amateur lawyer, but when you can’t discuss the finer points of the constitution, you resort to snark.
And did you just call OJ a murderer? He was acquitted. I thought libs believed in due process! Looks like you’re a racist on the wrong side of history.
MTG-
No struggle. The standard for removing Kane that the Senate wants to employ is that they don’t like her politics and her uncovering GOP wrong-doing and abuses revealed by the email scandal. Their “standard” is low because they are low. Considering how dysfunctional the GOP run house and senate are (can’t make a viable budget), maybe they should be removed from office.
Without the trial against her, there is NO WAY they could even float this idea. And if she were acquitted, they couldn’t justify pursuing it. If she resigned, you know the DA would drop the bullsh*t perjury charges and plea her down to almost nothing (because the ONLY goal in this has been to overturn an election).
So, you are comparing Kane to a guy who murdered two people? Wow. What’s wrong? You couldn’t come up with a Hitler analogy?
rsklaroff-
I didn’t even bother to read your word salad. Yawn.
@ MTG:
Is what I wrote congruent with your mindset?
DD – the 45% believed the Sun does revolve around the Earth … actually – around America … and, specifically, around the 2nd Amenent .
Diano, you still seem to be struggling with the difference between the criminal standard (guilt beyond reasonable doubt) and the much lower civil standard (here, reasonable cause). When the family of OJ Simpson sued him under a civil claim of wrongful death, did you say “hey, he was acquitted, so he shouldn’t be sued”? No, you didn’t. Same here. The Senate hearing in no way depends on a conviction in criminal court.
And you’re worried about hearsay? Well, that’s the whole point of a hearing. Ask her about it and let her explain (under oath, for what that’s worth to a perjurer).
@ d2 & Henry Tate:
While d2 was typing his “hypothetical atop hypothetical” rant, I was coolly composing a reasonable prognostication of the sequence-of-events that may be triggered within 48-hours; d2 is left to claim the Senate lacks standing to oversight the functioning of a governmental department, clearly an indefensible assertion.
The trenchant issues involve far more than “management style” when she is accused of violating a court-order that she not exact retribution against those who may have testified against her; rather, the Senate is duty-bound to ensure the AG’s office is meting-out a quality level of justice.
And Copernicus settled the issue as to what revolves around what; in this instance, the Senate must ensure that the elected official remains subservient to the public good.
Perhaps I will be accused of “getting ahead of myself” here, but I will attempt to detail what I envision will occur sequentially; I have no particular legal expertise, but I will fully-disclose this scenario for global critique [and invite the reader to contrast these circumstances with those faced in the 1800’s as they related to Philadelphia’s City Council], lest Henry accuse me of “making it up as I go along.”
Previously, I had concluded that AG-Kane would have a difficult time–at this point–bartering-away her position [via resignation] to get the charges dropped; thus, the underlying assumption is that she has “shot her wad” regarding the disparate targeting she has pursued to distract attention from her own [mis-]conduct and, thus, that the only way for her to interrupt what may very well transpire within a month’s time [historic bipartisan involuntary removal] will be for her simply to do what RMN did on 8/9/1974 [a day that I celebrated, one month into my Internal Medicine residency @ Henry Ford Hospital].
Let us assume that, after the Iggles upset the Panthers, Senate leadership appoints the ad-hoc committee [and at least one of the Dems has been pre-approved via a chat with Wolf]; the group could then convene promptly, establish a hearing-date, issue the intended procedure [including anticipated testimony from inter-alia prior-AGs] and invite AG-Kane to supply her testimony-list within a finite time-frame.
The hearing could be held within a day, a report issued as might a “bench decision” [i.e., immediately after all parties had provided complete presentations], and a referral to the entire Senate transmitted expeditiously; there would be no reason for inordinate delay to transpire, for the constitutional requirements would have been satisfied.
As detailed previously, the narrow question as to her competence to function without an active law-license would be tackled, and all her objections would be folded into the transcript of the proceedings; one could easily anticipate that the outcome–without adjudicating her guilt but, perhaps, invoking one excerpt from the criminal-complaint [perjury, vide supra]–would be adverse.
The situation could perhaps be analogous to the acquisition of an injunction, when the key-criteria are related both to whether undue harm would transpire absent action and to whether there is ultimate likelihood that at least one subsequent legal decision would prove corroborative; she could then re-state her multiple accusations and explanations and rationalizations without prejudicing her subsequently anticipated trial [although her ability to subpoena hostile witnesses would probably be limited, transmuted to “proffers of proof” that the committee could recognize…and then discard as tangential].
The outcome would be a near-universal sigh of relief, and broad-recognition that it’s unwise to elect AG’s who are vindictive, inexperienced egotists; the Commonwealth [and the commonweal] would benefit from this unadorned object-lesson.
rsklaroff-
Your “painstaking analysis” is like an argument explaining that the sun revolves around the earth. I’ve given it the attention it deserves.
MTG-
You wrote: “So the trial is not a prerequisite to this proceeding in the Senate.”
Of course it is. If the charges were dropped, the case dismisses, or Kane got an acquittal, there would be no basis to remove her (and her law license would be restored). All the cries of “felony” would disappear.
Her conduct is a subjective question, more about management style, and outside of the Senate’s purview. Her statement you quoted is hearsay, and without a specific follow up list of actions, is pretty meaningless. Hearsay and speculation.
Your claim “A major state agency is falling apart” is bogus. The AG’s office is functioning and there is no public outcry. The problems/conflicts that have been reported/suggested stem from the witch hunt the GOP initiated that poisoned the well.
Henry, given what I said below about what due process involves, maybe you can enlighten me as to how Ms Kane will be deprived of notice and a hearing.
@ Henry Tate:
You are exhibiting perseveration and emitting ad-hominem swipes; this behavior is a far cry from the erudition you showed last night when providing the two [somewhat] relevant hyperlinks.
Your target for “shame” recalls how Hillary deceitfully blamed the video instead of the Islamists; perhaps you should reformulate your analysis [based upon your own sleuthwork] and allow something more comprehensive to emerge.
As MTG noted, the stakes for law-enforcement in PA are huge, and the Supremes are to be congratulated for having issued a measured level of discipline; it’s now up to the Senate to complete the job.
@ multi tasker, you should try not to do so many things at once. The language of section 7 has remained the same since the 1870s. i’m not a partisan, but I care about our constitution and due process rights for Ms. Kane, the same as I’d defend your’s. Shame on you all.
Again, Henry, you don’t know what you are talking about. The state constitution has been amended multiple times since the last time this was done in 1891. And the Section 7 process does not involve a finding of criminal guilt in any way, shape, or form. Just admit that you are a partisan with lots of passion but very little understanding of what you are commenting on.
Propents of misusing Section 7 in Kane’s case are indeed making things up as they go along, including ignoring the precident estblished when this failed before, for the same reason it should fail now: the state senate is not the proper tribunal to find criminal guilt.
Pennsylvania state senators don’t have the competence to pass a yearly budget.
We shall see what the public thinks of this added incompetence they will try now, which they here advocate unconvincingly and with malice not only to Kane but to our state constitution.
Again, let’s see what the public thinks of these clowns in the state senate.
I should add that the right to due process only kicks in when a person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property. Courts have held that there is no right to hold public office, so Kane’s due process rights are not even affected by this Senate proceeding.
Henry Tate, you don’t understand due process or double jeopardy. Double jeopardy only applies to criminal charges. Regardless of what you speculate about the impression that the Senate proceeding will leave on the public, it does not involve criminal charges. The focus is broader and the standard is lower.
Due process (as courts have made clear for more than a hundred years) is simply reasonable notice followed by a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The Senate simply has to give Kane a public forum in which to tell her side of the story. The Senate does not even need to call anyone else (they probably will, but they don’t have to). So, assuming she gets notice of a hearing and the opportunity to attend and speak, Kane will not be deprived of due process.
You are speculating about the precedent that this makes, and you may be right. But Tom Druce was a bad example. He was not at the helm of an 800-person agency, nor was he responsible for prosecuting other people who were accused of a crime. Kane has truly made a mess of the Attorney General’s Office. She is at this point lashing out and trying to destroy the reputations of other people in some effort to distract attention away from her own culpability. If you can’t see why she needs to be removed, you are deliberately ignoring it.
@ Henry Tate:
The “due process” she will enjoy will be determined [1]–by the MontCo court, regarding potential conviction for a crime, and [2]–by the Senate, regarding potential removal from office.
She will NOT be subjected to double jeopardy because the circumstances surrounding each proceeding differ.
I’m not “making this up as [I] go along” because I am continuing to apply a single concept to whatever subsequently is raised…successfully, I might add.
It’s hard to type on this phone. Paragraph below should read:
I’d also note the double standard used against Kane, when compared to past members of the GOP house, like Tom Druce, who refused to resign saying their convictions weren’t final pending outcome of appeal. You guys are walking down a slippery slope here.
@rsklaloff You’re making this up as you go along, which is not what a written constitution is about. Kane will not receive due process under section 7 — she will be deprived of due process. She in fact will be subjected to double jeopardy having to defend her self twice. These proceedings are also designed to prejudice or in front of her jury. Shame on you all. If you can’t impeach her, you shouldn’t try to remove her in the Senate.
I’d also note the double standard used against Kane, when compared to past members of the GOP house, like Tom Druce, Who refused to resign saying their convictions Word final pending outcome of appeal. You guys are walking down a slippery slope here.
But we’ll see. From controversy (which this is) comes clarity.
James, a conviction is not necessary for the Article 6, Section 7 process. For impeachment (Article 6, section 6), they have to prove “misbehavior in office,” which the courts interpret to almost always require a conviction. But for section 7, they need only “reasonable cause,” a lesser standard. Read the third sentence, which is the operative provision.
@James, Conviction is step 2 (the Senate portion) of the impeachment process. It’s not a criminal conviction. When articles of impeachment are passed by the House, the House essentially acts as the prosecutor. The Senate becomes the trier of fact and can convict/remove her from office.
@ James: You are incorrect; the Constitution is flexible.
@ Henry Tate: She would be provided the appropriate due-process as determined by those who are conducting the senate hearing.
As much as I want her gone, the first sentence of the provision they rely upon requires a conviction.
@ rsklaroffyo Yoou say, ‘deal with it!’ Then impeach her, as the constitution demands. Study the history of due process, dating back to the Magna Carta. If you or R’s in the state senate can’t read the constitution, don’t know about due process rights or the Magna Carta, or can’t even pass an honest budget: go back the farm.