Judicial Board Hints Kane Withheld Emails, AG Denies

KaneThis email scandal continues to grow and expand.

Back when Justice McCaffery’s troubles were boiling over late last year, he threatened Justice Eakin by telling him the latter’s own lewd emails would be revealed. In response, Kane released all relevant emails to the Judicial Conduct Board.

At least that’s what the Board thought.

According to Craig R. McCoy and Angela Couloumbis, the board stated that they were “not provided with all of the information on the attorney general’s servers.”

The next day, Kane’s spokesman Chuck Ardo explained that the original emails concerned the years 2008 to 2012. The new disc that Kane sent to the board, however, contained messages from 2013 and 2014.

Ardo called the discrepancy “a board issue, a technical issue or some kind of communications issue, but it certainly was not a withholding issue.”

Regardless, a whole new chapter has opened up in this epic saga.

October 12th, 2015 | Posted in Front Page Stories, Harrisburg, Top Stories | 28 Comments

28 thoughts on “Judicial Board Hints Kane Withheld Emails, AG Denies”

  1. rsklaroff says:

    More Intrigue:

    http://triblive.com/news/adminpage/9264347-74/emails-kane-eakin#axzz3oa2S85C7

    Kane denies not providing court, ethics panel with justice’s emails

    Note she no longer is citing an artificial chronological barrier.

  2. rsklaroff says:

    @ Ha3:

    [you did]

  3. HaHaHa says:

    sklaroff:

    NO

    ONE

    WILL

    READ

    THAT

  4. rsklaroff says:

    @ gulagPittsburgh:

    In response to my observation regarding Breitbart {“you wouldn’t be surprised that Breitbart contains facts if [1]–you weren’t baseline-biased and [2]–you had actually read one of these pieces”}, you proffered no factual foundation for your attack.

    You were also advised to consult a recently-published article about Breitbart’s leadership [Bannon] published in a lib-periodical, so as to gain a deeper appreciation for what is being accomplished uniquely on that website.

    bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2015-steve-bannon/

    Again, all I did was quote the title of a piece [with a hyperlink] prior to your broadside; you may wish to attempt to refute its contents instead of rejecting it blindly due to the site upon which it appeared.

    breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/11/obama-hillary-clinton-email-controversy-legitimate/

    “OBAMA: HILLARY CLINTON EMAIL CONTROVERSY ‘LEGITIMATE’”

    Do you dispute the quote that BHO had stated – on “60 minutes” – that Hillary’s e-mail “controversy” was “legit”?

    Therefore, upon further contemplation, “Either refute the facts in my hyperlink or rescind the attack on Breitbart.”

  5. rsklaroff says:

    @ DD:

    [you avoided answering this attack…i wonder why]

    Also, it seems you have reduced your capacity to engage in intellectual discussion to a pre-adolescent level, for your defense [“Well, if there was no timeframe limit, then why are you b*tching about it. They are getting released now.”] overtly fails to pass the scratch/sniff test; the lack of a timeframe limit was related to what was to have been disclosed, not to how quickly it was to have been provided.

  6. rsklaroff says:

    @ DD:

    In response to my having discounted your conjured-rationalization [“the emails were simply not noticed/recognized/identified by the staffers at the time as containing offensive material”], you conjured another one that even AG-Kane has yet to invoke [“Going through all those emails is not an easy job and it’s easy to overlook some emails when so many emails/people are involved”].

    She signed-off on what was produced and, thus, sloppiness [like ignorance] is no excuse; she was just as responsible to exercise due diligence when performing this task as she has [presumably] been when conducting her AG-related responsibilities.

    Furthermore, you create a false-dichotomy [“it makes a lot of sense why 2013 and 2014 where not originally turned over”] when there wasn’t one, either in this instance or in any other [such as when she signed-off on confidentiality of ALL GJ-investigations]; her stewardship of this job is supposed to be part of a continuum, even as she has disrupted it on multiple occasions.

    Finally, you claim the Dem-POTUS candidates are all qualified, despite the fact that even libs are denouncing the entire lot; this contrasts with the persistent meme [across the political spectrum] that, no matter how much one might disagree with a given policy, the group conveys gravitas.

  7. gulagPittsburgh says:

    Oooops!! Typo.

    Buckley, NOT Muckley.

  8. gulagPittsburgh says:

    RSKLAROFF: You must be deluded.
    (1) If you think YOU are not biased, then you live in denial of reality. We are all biased, whether we admit it or not.
    (2) I have read some Breitbart pieces, and was shocked by their execrable nature and blatant lies. If you get off Fox News or Rush, you might actually learn some FACTS that demonstrate what a hack Breitbart always was. Citing Drudge does not help your losing argument. The LEGACY you rave about is FRAUD, HATE, and UNPROFESSIONALISM. That this has exploded in the rightwing media is shameful, not something to brag about. Muckley was a hard conservative, but at least he was ethical and honest. That cannot be said for either Breitbart or Drudge. Or Rush. Or Beck. Or Bill O,Reilly. Or Hannity. Or the rest of Fox.

  9. gulagPittsburgh says:

    Montco PA Dem: You are right that the real travesty is not Kane or her catfight with Fina. It is the existence of this email network more than its porn content. This evidences the rot to the core of the PA judicial system. While the porn email network may have only been in existence for several years, the unethical behavior of the PA judicial system has been a hidden feature for years.

  10. David Diano says:

    rsklaroff-

    The pre-2013 timeframe was before Kane took office. Since the emails were uncovered during her review of her predecessors, it makes a lot of sense why 2013 and 2014 where not originally turned over.

    However I’m not “blaming” the staffers. Going through all those emails is not an easy job and it’s easy to overlook some emails when so many emails/people are involved. It’s not like all the emails started with the subject: Inappropriate or NSFW
    to make the search easy.

    BTW, tonight on CNN you will see people on stage actually qualified and capable of being president. This may be a shock to your system after watching all the faux candidates in the GOP debates.

  11. Montco PA Dem says:

    Posted to Philly.com, letter from former U.S. Attorney Peter Vaira:

    Special counsel needed to investigate

    Forget Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane and the allegations of her leaks. The real scandal of the porn emails allegedly exchanged by judges, prosecutors, and other officials is that they are evidence of a massive scheme that violates state and possibly federal laws, and the bench and the bar have ignored it. Using state computers to send personal emails is a violation of state law, which has been enforced successfully against many officials.

    Sending ex parte emails to judges is a violation of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct for prosecutors; willingly receiving ex parte communications is a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

    The victims of this scheme are the voters who put the judges and district attorneys in office and expect them to abide by the law. The other victims are the parties to cases in which those prosecutors appear before those judges. The opposing parties are entitled to a conflict-free judge.

    Money has been wasted in the form of the time prosecutors and judges spent emailing the messages while being paid government salaries.

    This is not an accident or a one-time affair. This is a scheme that has lasted several years and has many participants. The mere appearance of impropriety is enough to require action.

    The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania must get to the bottom of this. Appoint a special counsel who is a former prosecutor, and find out just how far this scheme extends before it becomes a national scandal.

    Peter Vaira, former U.S. attorney, Philadephia

  12. rsklaroff says:

    @ DD:

    Also, it seems you have reduced your capacity to engage in intellectual discussion to a pre-adolescent level, for your defense [“Well, if there was no timeframe limit, then why are you b*tching about it. They are getting released now.”] overtly fails to pass the scratch/sniff test; the lack of a timeframe limit was related to what was to have been disclosed, not to how quickly it was to have been provided.

  13. rsklaroff says:

    @ DD:

    Again, you channel your inner-Hillary [“But your response is a non sequitur to my suggestion that the emails were simply not noticed/recognized/identified by the staffers at the time as containing offensive material.”] by blaming staffers [who haven’t been fired] instead of accepting personal responsibility.

    None of you will get away with practicing/advocating such subterfuge.

  14. David Diano says:

    rsklaroff

    Well, if there was no timeframe limit, then why are you b*tching about it. They are getting released now.

    But your response is a non sequitur to my suggestion that the emails were simply not noticed/recognized/identified by the staffers at the time as containing offensive material.

    There are a lot of emails to go through, and Eakin wasn’t under heavy scrutiny. (But he is NOW!)

    Fortunately for you, you don’t work for the govt, so none of your pervy, racist, misogynistic emails are available for disclosure. Try not to sext any pictures of yourself to Ted Cruz (unless he becomes the GOP nominee).

  15. rsklaroff says:

    @ gulagPittsburgh:

    you wouldn’t be surprised that Breitbart contains facts if [1]–you weren’t baseline-biased and [2]–you had actually read one of these pieces

    Bloomberg has a cover-story detailing the meteoric growth and impact of this legacy of Andrew [via Drudge], and you would do well to skim it daily

    now that you have discovered this resource, you are again invited to RESCIND your UNJUSTIFIED attack on citing it

  16. aaron says:

    gulag – agreed. Eakin needs to resign now

  17. gulagPittsburgh says:

    rsklaroff: I am surprised to learn there could be any facts in a Breitbart post. No one in their right mind wastes time to even read a Breitbart allegation. Then you have to figure out what is true and mostly what is not. So if you want to pick through and figure that out, then let us know (truthfully) what you found. Wheat vs. Chaff.

  18. rsklaroff says:

    @ DD:

    Note that there was no artificial time-frame limit contained in the following request-for-production-of-documents, as has been conveyed in the latest “fib” conjured by AG-Kane’s spokesperson:

    “The Judicial Conduct Board, which is conducting a separate review, ‘has confirmed that a number of the emails on discs were not made available’ when former Chief Justice Ronald Castille last year requested any emails involving jurists that the Office of Attorney General had, the court said.”

    http://triblive.com/news/adminpage/9252164-74/emails-court-eakin#axzz3oBsQ9uKf

  19. rsklaroff says:

    @ gulagPittsburgh:

    Either refute the facts in my hyperlink or rescind the attack on Breitbart.

  20. gulagPittsburgh says:

    RSKLAROFF: Citing Breitbart as an authoritative source? REALLY!!???!!!

  21. gulagPittsburgh says:

    Green Revolution: Kane may be incompetent, but the real disgrace is the PA judiciary from top to bottom.

  22. Observer says:

    Let’s not forget that the point of the Byer probe last year was to get Seamus off the bench – since it was conducted by Loyal Republican Judge Robert Byer.
    http://articles.philly.com/1991-10-29/news/25817079_1_robert-l-byer-numerous-small-donations-afscme-council
    So Byer was definitely not digging into Eakin’s Yahoo email. But Ethically, Eakin was required to disclose everything relevant, and he did not. He still is not providing access to his Yahoo account. He should be suspended immediately and disbarred for Dishonest Testimony before a Tribunal.

  23. Observer says:

    Can somebody get Sklaroff back on his ADHD meds? He hasn’t made a relevant comment in weeks.

    So now we see that, by virtue of yet another anonymous leak to the porn peddlers’ parrots at the Inky, the Judicial Conduct Board is also in on the conspiracy to cover up the judicial miscreancies that have been so prevalent. Does no one on the Board have a name? Or the balls to identify themselves when making serious charges? Oh, wiat – it’s all “confidential” you know.

    What a disgusting, corrupt and amoral system we have in Harrisburg. Can we get ISIS to drop a bomb in there?

  24. David Diano says:

    “The smart money says Bozo the Attorney General knowingly withheld the emails so she could save them to undermine Eakin when the situation called for it at a later date.”

    That makes no f*cking sense. After causing Dem McCaffery ouster, balancing with Rep Eakin made sense, if the AG was aware of his emails.

    The staff had to pour through many thousands of these emails, and probably wasn’t looking as hard at Eakin. Maybe they were doing random sampling, before digging into each player, and Eakin’s emails didn’t raise any flags for deeper review.

    But, this is “blame the messenger” for not reporting/discovering this assh*le sooner.

    This guy is a sitting PA Supreme Court judge. Given the emails, should he remain so? (Also, did his concern about emails bias him against Kane?)

  25. Observer #2 says:

    I’m sticking with the AG. She tried to clean house, and career bureaucrats didn’t like getting caught acting out their high school behaviors. We now know who some of them are, maybe more to come?

  26. rsklaroff says:

    Two postings from a prior page help to frame the issue, the first from “Reasonable Rep” and the second [noting tomorrow’s “debate”] from myself.

    http://www.politicspa.com/quinnipiac-poll-plurality-favor-kanes-resignation/69829/#comments

    {Note that CNN reversed its posture [predictably] regarding how they will approach moderating; unless its posture [and performance] with the R’s, Anderson Cooper pledged not to create conflict between/among the candidates.}

    *

    RR:

    October 12, 2015 at 12:18 am

    No. If given such a straightforward directive by the Judicial Conduct Board, Eakin wouldn’t be stupid enough to disregard it. Kane on the other hand? (Yes, rhetorical question.)

    The smart money says Bozo the Attorney General knowingly withheld the emails so she could save them to undermine Eakin when the situation called for it at a later date. As usual, she couldn’t contemplate consequences that happen more than 5 minutes later.

    If the Board finds that she failed to comply with a crystal clear directive in such an important investigation, she’ll be disbarred. This is separate matter entirely from her criminal trial.

    *

    @ RR:

    I envy your colorful style, but would simply add the observation that there appears to be a correlate with Hillary and, further, that BHO appears to have cut-loose from defending her.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/11/obama-hillary-clinton-email-controversy-legitimate/

    “OBAMA: HILLARY CLINTON EMAIL CONTROVERSY ‘LEGITIMATE’”

  27. Green Revolution says:

    Will someone please impeach her already! Every day where she is still AG she continues to disgrace Pennsylvania.

  28. aaron says:

    Has she resigned yet? God this is sad.

Comments are closed.