Kane Chooses Special Prosecutor to Investigate Email Chains

Kane-Constitution CenterThe former Attorney General of Maryland, Doug Gansler, stood at a podium in the auditorium of the National Constitution Center, and answered the questions reporters had intended for PA’s embattled AG Kathleen Kane.

It was that kind of day.

The event began with Kane’s spokesman Chuck Ardo introducing a number of the offensive emails which were displayed on the background wall of the theater. A representative from Philly NOW then spoke in support of Kane’s action, although the young woman declined to address any questions at that time. At least she said reporters could contact her later.

Just a few moments after that, Kane took the stage to a splattering of applause.

Denouncing the “thousands” of email messages, Kane introduced Gansler as the Special Prosecutor in charge of the event.

Like during her previous statement to the press, reporters in the audience interrupted the Attorney General to ask questions only to be ignored.

Shortly thereafter, Kane turned to critics of the investigation.

“To the few who challenge it [her authority to appoint a Special Prosecutor], including some members of my own staff, I pose a simple three-pronged question,” Kane stated. “1. Are you a white male? 2. Are you or one of your buddies in this email network? 3. Are you trying to get my job without the benefit of having to run for it and being chosen by the people of Pennsylvania.”

She then advocated for minorities who may have been made fun of by the attorneys and judges who are supposed to protect them and made the same point about women.

“No women should go to work and be subject to consistent treatment of disgusting indignity by women-haters,” she said. “Because they were born with one less body part, which the last I heard does not contain any extra brain cells.”

Kane soon left without taking any questions.

Gansler spent the majority of his time defending his authority despite the suspension of Kane’s law license and stated that his intention is to complete the investigation for less than the $2 million that was spent on the Moulton Report.   

December 1st, 2015 | Posted in Front Page Stories, Harrisburg, Top Stories | 131 Comments

131 thoughts on “Kane Chooses Special Prosecutor to Investigate Email Chains”

  1. kraig001 says:

    From recent interview with the Independent Prosecutor:

    First, can you tell me about the ethics complaints — dating, I believe, from 2002 — related to public statements regarding criminal cases in Maryland?

    “What do you want to know? First of all, I don’t think that’s relevant at all to this inquiry.”

    Q: You’re a new public figure to most Pennsylvanians. People are interested in your background.

    “I was very proud of being sanctioned by our Court of Appeals. I was a public official publicly reading a public document. I was at a number of press conferences involving serial killers and homicides. The documents handed out to press at press conferences, I read those documents aloud.

    “The genesis of the whole deal was when I was state’s attorney, there was a 23-year-old Internet pedophile. You remember, this was back when these guys would talk to girls on the Internet and then try…”

    Q: Try to go to their homes? Yes.

    “This guy was literally caught in this 13-year-old girl’s closet with his pants around his ankles . . . One particular judge told the father, ‘it takes two to tango.’ His daughter was involved. The guy was saying she’d be permanently scarred. (The judge) gave the (defendant) an 18-month sentence and he was out in nine months, so I went after (the judge) publicly because I thought it was an inappropriate sentence. The judges rallied around him.”

  2. HaHaHa says:

    LOL at the mental patient. Apparently, he thinks a “vile” Attorney General should ignore criminal behavior by people that stole from the taxpayers of Pennsylvanis.

    I am going to report him to his TEA-party superiors!!

  3. rsklaroff says:

    Re-read the above article and join me in concluding that it’s inappropriate to “Give her credit for turning the Hate-gate investigation over to an Independent Prosecutor” when she’s so vile.

  4. HaHaHa says:

    DD – and the impeachment option requires a trial for Kane — something the Repervlican Clown Car has been DESPERATE to avoid. Remember when Repervlican J. Carpenter abandoned his contempt hearing when it became obvious that Kane had a right to, and was going to, present a defense?

    The tide has now totally turned. The Senate Ds have seen that the public now has serious concerns about the end-around they were trying to pull.

    Kane just needs to stand by her original position: PROVE IT IN COURT OR SHUT UP.

    Give her credit for turning the Hate-gate investigation over to an Independent Prosecutor. Now – there can be an impartial review to see if any crimes were committed, any ethical violations, or any improper behavior. They will also surely look for grand jury improprieties, corruption in the Courts and corruption in the Justice System.

    As the Daily News Editorial Board said yesterday — AMEN !!

  5. rsklaroff says:

    @ d2: Your absolutism never ceases to amaze; it is exceeded only by your disjointed logic.

    1. The Gov WILL appoint the REPLACEMENT A.G. The Gov. can’t remove her unless the Senate has acted. The removal appears to be up to the Senate without “consent” from the Gov. … because he “SHALL” act [regardless of how he may feel about the issue, for there is no discretion, no capriciousness, no reasonable cause]. The Gov. is OBLIGATED to act accordingly.

    2. You assume the clause required updating; this attitude is akin to BHO legislating when he’s dissatisfied with Congressional inactivity. Absent contrary documentation, when the method of choosing the A.G. occurred, the absence of any action to “clarify” anything that you consider “vague” means that there was no intent [contemporaneously] to do so…thereby retaining the original intent/meaning as conveyed in the plain lingo in the constitution.

    3. Notwithstanding your grammatical error [“whether or not the courts would have to handle more cases is not a valid criteria”], this is indeed a major concern by the Senate, for it reflects the turmoil’s manifestation that is remediable [with or without Eakin’s vote].

    Add this posting to your list of mea-culpas that will require correction next year.

  6. David Diano says:

    rsklaroff

    1) The Gov doesn’t appoint the A.G. The House and Senate have a means to remove: impeachment
    This does not require the Governor’s approval, and involves a “check” of both houses of the legislature.
    This removal for “reasonable cause” similarly requires the consent of two: Senate and the Governor.

    The wording indicates the Senate makes the recommendation to the Governor, but the Governor is not obligated, particularly when “reasonable cause” is so capricious.

    2) the failure to update this vague clause, that has never been successfully used, doesn’t change the original intent (which can be discerned from contemporaneous notes, drafts and debates). Also, the term “reasonable causes” provides no clear definition and does not fit the current conditions, given the intent of the “framers”.

    3) whether or not the courts would have to handle more cases is not a valid criteria when interpreting the constitution or complex legal matters with far ranging implications.

    Considering how Eakin ruled against her, despite conflict of interest, the new supremes cam correct the rulings of the previous court.

  7. rsklaroff says:

    @ d2:

    You’re engaging in recidivism, for the issues you raise have already been discarded @ PoliticsPa:

    1. “My reading of the PA constitution is that the Governor has the option (particularly on the issue of “reasonable cause”) once the Senate had addressed the issue and issued an opinion.
    If it was mandatory, based upon the Senate, there would be no reason to involve the Governor. In that case, it would read: “The Senate shall remove…” But, it doesn’t say that.

    –Just as the Gov appoints, it is appropriate that the framers expected the executive branch to implement the firing. Your self-serving assumption isn’t justified.

    2. Also, given the list of elected officials, it’s clear that the A.G. (which was not elected office at the time) is excluded from the intent.

    –When the alteration occurred, the opportunity existed to alter this provision; it wasn’t pursued and, thus, the prior process was permitted to remain in-place.

    3. This will require a supreme court ruling regarding the interpretation since the selection of A.G. has changed since that was written.

    –It is unlikely that, even were AG-Kane to be so desperate to maintain power, that the Supremes would be able to fashion another cogent narrative that could salvage her…particularly noting [as discussed by myself episodically during the past few months and as seemingly confirmed when the Supremes suspended her license] that the legal system will want to minimize the potential for a torrent of appeals based upon her not having a license, to clog the courts.

  8. marinir seo says:

    Fabulous, what a webpage it is! This webpage presents helpful facts to us, keep it up.|
    marinir seo http://www.marinirseo.web.id/cara-menanam-backlink-dengan-blogwalking/

  9. Pat Unger says:

    Correct, DD. The attack is VERY political. But FOXtards like sklaroff see EVERYTHING as R vs D and look at everything through that lens.

    Their brains are so small that it hasn’t occurred to them that Dems will be touched by this Independent Prosecutor’s investigation; and there will be friends of Dems affected too.

    Only morons yell “everybody wants her gone.” Well – morons, Repervlicans, perverts, racists and women-haters ….

  10. David Diano says:

    rsklaroff

    Kane has uncovered a pattern of misconduct? Do you deny that?

    My reading of the PA constitution is that the Governor has the option (particularly on the issue of “reasonable cause”) once the Senate had addressed the issue and issued an opinion.

    If it was mandatory, based upon the Senate, there would be no reason to involve the Governor. In that case, it would read: The Senate shall remove…

    But, it doesn’t say that.

    Also, given the list of elected officials, it’s clear that the A.G. (which was not elected office at the time) is excluded from the intent.

    This will require a supreme court ruling regarding the interpretation since the selection of A.G. has changed since that was written.

    So, even if there are enough idiots among the Senate Dems for 2/3rd, and if Wolf is foolish enough to sell out Kane (and kiss Senate GOP ass, without any victory on shale tax), the case will go the the supreme court for a ruling.

    Kane can make a convincing argument that the matter needs to be adjudicated, and request an injunction, pending a ruling on the intent and interpretation of the relevant clause.

    There is no precedent for this, so the court will have to made a decision.

  11. Doglover2015 says:

    Dave, dont waste your time it’s clear that anyone that challenges the mis-statements or false statements are targeted. If this blog were legit we wouldn’t be constantly hearing about trolls, and the like you want to clean this up and have a good blog get rid of the nitwits first otherwise I don’t see any respect coming this way.

  12. rsklaroff says:

    @ d2:

    You should honor the MANDATE to recognize the gravity of your gal’s pattern of misconduct.

  13. rsklaroff says:

    @ d2:

    Also, the lingo in the constitution suggests that the governor lacks discretion once the Senate acts.

    Thus, you unjustifiably impugn wolf’s motives…even as he said he’s going to perform a de-novo analysis prior to acting.

  14. David Diano says:

    Doglover2015-

    Anonymous bloggers are subject to ridicule, if they make outrageous posts and cowardly hide behind fake names.

    rskaroff-

    You can’t just make up new definitions for words to justify your illiteracy.

    The “bipartisan” attacks on her are still political.

  15. rsklaroff says:

    I wrote what I meant.

    The strength of the word “countermanded” was apt because of the trivial nature of efforts to ameliorate justifiably intense attacks by invoking tenuously-linked accusations.

    The attack on your gal is and will remain bipartisan until her relocation to the ash-heap of history.

  16. Doglover2015 says:

    HA HA , Pat, whoever you are now you know what I don’t care what you think. Don’t like it don’t read it.

  17. Doglover2015 says:

    Haha. I mean Pat you’re right your just a troll that’s all. Hurry up the clowns car leaving still a spot left for you

  18. Pat Unger says:

    Dude – your act is growing old; and it’s always been dumb. Can’t think of anything more pathetic. Are you that starved for attention? Is your life really this sad?? I feel sorry for you.

  19. Doglover2015 says:

    Ha Ha. Was talking about you. Not Fina. Please read. You can’t go online and use or posts intentionally using someone else’s name or nickname if that how they’re. Let’s start over and perhaps you could just lay off the troll, clown car and posting using my nickname.

  20. Pat Unger says:

    LMAO … The troll-boy is coming UNGLUED !!

    Troll-rule #1 – never expose your homo-erotic fantasies about another commenter.

  21. Doglover2015 says:

    David…… 1st Was the Humper part really necessary
    2nd I don’t care what “name” he posts under as long as it’s not mine
    3rd the troll, and whatever else he says in an attempt to ridicule
    Others just gets old.

    In your buisness if you disagreed with another person would you call
    Him a troll and tell him to ride home in a clown car
    Would it be ok here or in other blogs to use your name?

  22. David Diano says:

    rsklaroff

    My assertion that the forces against Kane are political is not “countermanded” by bipartisan attacks.

    First of all, “countermanded” is the wrong word. Countermanded means to cancel an order.

    You may have meant “counter-example”, but got caught up in your own incoherent word salad.

    But, clearly Seth Williams attacked Kane to further his own political ambitions. He wasn’t out for justice listening to Fina and begging to give the sting case Dee defendants sweetheart deals to score a “win” on minor charges.

    Wolf is too gutless to stand up to Senate Republicans, and was quoted today saying he had no choice but to defer to them. He’s a co-equal branch of government. He doesn’t have to sign sh*t (especially when the GOP have been such pr*cks on the budget). Wolf, also, would get to put in his own pick (stooge) for the next year.

    If Wolf signs off on removing Kane for any other “deal” than winning the 5% shale tax, he will never get another vote from me.

    My point is that there are Democrats with political (or hidden email) motives to remove Kane, or looking to move up in a reshuffling at the A.G. office.

    Please hire a reading and writing tutor.

  23. David Diano says:

    Doglover2015 (dog humper?)

    How can you possibly write: “HaHa why don’t you just post under your right name. How can you ever expect anyone to take you seriously”

    While you have your own fake name?

  24. HaHaHa says:

    I do agree that Fina & The Corbett Pervs committed a Theft-related Offense …. but not “Identity Theft.” That one does not apply.

    Anyone who wants to know what Fina is going to be charged with just needs to read up a little. Fina knows too. He charged others with the same offenses.

    LMAO. He is gonna experience BUGGERY AT IT’S FINEST at the State penitentiary!!

  25. Doglover2015 says:

    2010 Pennsylvania Code
    Title 18 – CRIMES AND OFFENSES
    Chapter 41 – Forgery and Fraudulent Practices
    4120 – Identity theft.

    § 4120. Identity theft.
    (a) Offense defined.–A person commits the offense of
    identity theft of another person if he possesses or uses,
    through any means, identifying information of another person
    without the consent of that other person to further any unlawful
    purpose.

  26. HaHaHa says:

    Adversity?? You think a troll on the internet is “adversity?” LMAO

  27. Doglover2015 says:

    Ok well I’m not Terry and since your back to the “stupidity, troll” talk, troll trap etc. I just hope others can see this and how you handle adversity

  28. HaHaHa says:

    Of course you do, troll-boy. Because you are “Terry” … LOL …. Your stupidity is astounding (which means you really are dumb). You fell right in my troll-trap !!

  29. Doglover2015 says:

    HaHa why don’t you just post under your right name. How can you ever expect anyone to take you seriously. I know Terry didn’t write that.

  30. Terry M says:

    You seem like a moron, Doglover … Doglover2015 … whatever your name is … today …

  31. Doglover2015 says:

    Haha why are you being suck a jerk. I simply asked you a question that’s all and explained in a rational way to Terry M the reason for asking you. You want to criticize me because I put a space in there? Really?

Comments are closed.