Kane Protests Supreme Court Decision, Wants Law License Back

KaneKathleen Kane is not going away quietly.

The Attorney General now wants her law license to be reinstated. Kane’s rationale is that since Justice Michael Eakin was part of that decision, it is not valid because of his involvement in the pornographic email chains.

She is also arguing that the removal clause of the State Constitution shouldn’t apply to her because the office of Attorney General is now an elected office instead of an appointed one. Kane even went so far as to cite a 1891 decision from the PA Supreme Court to support her case.

Meanwhile, the State Senate is set to hold a hearing tomorrow on removing the AG. Kane has already made it clear that she won’t accept the invitation to testify.

Finally, the AG recently indicated that she will run for re-election despite all these obstacles and the five Democrats currently running in April’s primary.

January 12th, 2016 | Posted in Front Page Stories, Harrisburg, Top Stories | 34 Comments

34 thoughts on “Kane Protests Supreme Court Decision, Wants Law License Back”

  1. HaHaHa says:

    Senator Williams was correct that this is more like “Hategate.”

    And I’m sure he doesn’t take much comfort in DA Seth Williams’ explanation, which amounts to: “There are racists at the AGs Office too!!!”

    Speaking of DA Williams, has anyone in the Press asked him about that new “General Counsel” he just hired and gave a big fat salary to?

  2. HaHaHa says:

    #UnsanctionedRetard

  3. Unsanctioned R says:

    I think you’re confusing me with someone else. And this is commonly known as “porngate,” dumbass.

  4. HaHaHa says:

    Poor Unsanctioned Retard. Needs a dictionary to participate in a comments section … LOL …

    Maybe he needs to look up the difference between “porn” and “racism.” It wasn’t long ago he was calling racist e-mails “water-cooler humor” … Maybe at KKK headquarters (which is probably in a trailer somewhere).

  5. Unsanctioned R says:

    David, you raise a distinction without a difference.

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blackmail

  6. David Diano says:

    Unsanctioned R-

    To clarify… the things she’s accused of threatening to expose are work related behaviors. It’s not like she hired a private detective to find out who was having an affair at a local motel, and bribing a bellhop to take clandestine photos.

  7. David Diano says:

    Unsanctioned R-

    Use of the adage “Those in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones” is not blackmail. Threatening to expose hypocrites, particularly ones who are spreading lies, rumors, innuendo, etc., is not blackmail either.

  8. Unsanctioned R says:

    You’re wrong, and a hypocrite. Fact.

  9. HaHaHa says:

    Unsanctioned R (etard) = Larry = Candy Cane = Scranton Suck-Boy = the same Pathetic Shill Troll

  10. Unsanctioned R says:

    Unfortunately for Kane, no one believes her defense that she didn’t know what was in the envelope that she authorized for release and passed along to smear her perceived enemies. Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t it reported that her testimony was that she didn’t even know who prepared/gave her the envelope? What!

    Remember, she’s known about porngate emails since 2009 when her sister looped her in on the joke. Her GJ crime was in 2015. Did she move to release porngate emails in 2014? No. Did she expose this malfeasance in 2013? No. What she’s accused of and makes sense in light of her other actions is that she used their existence to leverage her critics and shut their mouth or else she’ll embarrass you. That’s blackmail.

    When she threatened attorneys who rat on her after firing an attorney who ratted on her, that’s blackmail and unbecoming of the office.

    Her defenders cry, “conspiracy,” but, the evidence for the jury will have her undisputed actions and sworn witnesses, who are not on porngate emails, testifying in unison over her disputed actions.

  11. HaHaHa says:

    Oh look … the troll is talking to you directly now, Pat. Remember —

    DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS !!

  12. Ha3 is a liar says:

    @ Pat Unger
    you do realize that Impeachment requires only a trial in the House not in a court of law, right?

  13. Pat Unger says:

    Ha3 – It was bad enough that there were so many Repervlican trolls pretending to be you; now they are creating accounts with your name in them. You really get under their skin!! No one has impersonated me in a while. Guess I need to tell the truth more here. That seems to annoy them too.

  14. Pat Unger says:

    David – You have hit the nail on the head. Bottom line – there needs to be a trial before the election can be overturned. The Castille/Carpenter/Fina allegations are just that. Nothing has been proven.

    Kane’s conviction in Montgomery County would mean she is out. That would require a trial.

    If they want to get her out sooner, they have to put her on trial in the Impeachment proceedings.

    That is the whole point of making Impeachment necessary before a high-ranking elected official can be stripped of the Office to which he/she was elected. So the official has a trial before anything can be done.

    The Clown Car thought they had figured out an end-around on the Constitution. And maybe they have. We’ll see what the Kangaroo Court does, what the full Senate does, and maybe what Wolf does.

  15. David Diano says:

    Ha3 is a liar-

    The presumption of innocence should be used to undo Kane’s suspension. This is especially true because there is no trial date set.

    The current state is one of legal LIMBO where Kane’s license can be held up indefinitely without the Montco DA convicting her of anything, setting the stage for the Senate hearings. Two wrongs making more wrongs.

    Kane’s license should never have been suspended without a trial, since the basis for the suspension is her indictment (and pending, but never scheduled, trial).

    The legal reasoning should/must handle the following case: What if Kane was acquitted in court?

    Thus the suspension, and Senate hearings, were premature.

    Have a REAL impeachment hearing or have a REAL trial (or drop the matter entirely).

    The supreme court should not continue Kane’s suspension if the Montco DA isn’t ready to go to trial tomorrow.

    Eakin was suspended for his actions violating the court’s ethical standards, not a criminal indictment.

  16. Pat Unger says:

    Senate “hearing” over. Now the “committee” will issue the report they have probably have had written for 6 months. Rendell made his points heard – loudly!

    Report due within 15 days. Maybe then they will vote. Or maybe they realize that they are looking worse and worse every day for even trying this nonsense and they will cut their losses.

    This puts a serious ding in the Repervlicans’ argument (which was really just partisan nonsense to begin with):

    http://www.post-gazette.com/news/politics-state/2016/01/11/Armstrong-County-judge-rules-AG-office-has-authority-to-continue-trying-cases/stories/201601110116

    I hope those num-nuts are watching “Making A Murderer” and know that they will soon be the idiots everyone is making fun of when the Kane story gets told.

  17. HaHaHa says:

    LMAO. All the troll-boy’s comments are getting removed … but here he is still typing away!! What a pathetic loser …

  18. Ha3 is a liar says:

    David- a presumption of innocence is in a court of law not your ability to be the Attorney General. Please understand the difference. Many people are suspended or removed from their jobs without being found guilty in a court of Law-look no further than Eakin. He has committed no criminal acts, yet he is suspended and all of you Kane defenders call for his removal NOT his IMPEACHMENT. Hypocrite.

  19. Ha3 is a liar says:

    Dear Pat Unger…You are wrong about the emails. Many people involved and the sender of many of the emails was an African American male and Seamus MCCaffery’s wife Lisa Rappaport. You need to look no further than Ellen Granahan’s emails including those she forwarded to Kane. You vitriol about Fina reveals your PSU Truther agenda. Jerry is in jail for the rest of his life-Move on.

  20. Pat Unger says:

    Rendell calling Senate out !!

  21. HaHaHa says:

    DD – did you see that the Court has ruled on the case where defendants were claiming that Kane (with temporarily suspended license) could not prosecute them?

    Court ruled that Kane’s license suspension had no impact on her ability to criminally prosecute the bad guys.

    Hope the Special Prosecutor has been working swiftly! They want to get Kane out so they can cut off his independent investigation of the facts. They are like rats in a corner.

  22. David Diano says:

    HaHaHa-

    The whole suspension ploy has been indefinite since the Montco DA won’t set a trial date for Kane to clear her name and fight the charges. If the case was as important as claimed, they would have pressed for a court date at the end of the summer when they filed the charges.

    The months that this has dragged on are for the apparent purpose of holding up Kane’s license, with no opportunity for relief, to stage this Senate hearing.

    Where is the presumption of innocence?

  23. Observer says:

    Look at Texas. That white male AG is under indictment for three felony securities fraud charges. He has no suspension, not even a bar complaint going on.

    And we now have a 5 to 2 Dem majority, three of whom were elected precisely to root out the scum at the top. Kane has a better-than-even chance of winning this petition. Especially with more Eakin revelations coming out every week. He will be off the bench before she is out of office, one way or the other. And Saylor is tainted too.

  24. Harry P. Truthteller says:

    There is no doubt in my mind that the Senate will vote to remove Kane. This whole Kangaroo Court was set up to get to this point. They do not care that 53% of the State can see through them and know that they are pulling a dirty trick.

  25. HaHaHa says:

    DD – I hear you. And I get that it looks bad. Perhaps she will prevail on that. We’ll see.

    Will be fascinating to see what the Supreme Court will do if they get 2/3 and Wolf goes along like a lemming.

  26. David Diano says:

    I’m glad to see Kane fighting this decision by the previous incarnation of the court. Also, the intervening actions (and delays in setting a trial) can be taken into account. Also, the Supreme Court should resolve the interpretation of the actions by the Senate trying for 2/3 vote to oust Kane.

    I get that the court might want to wait until the Senate votes, because if less than 2/3 it’s a moot point. However, they should be prepared to rule on emergency relief for Kane if the Senate gets the 2/3 to resolve the matter once and for all.

    While I’m sure Kane’s attorneys have been planning this for weeks, it is similar to the strategy/arguments that I outlined.

    HaHaHa-
    While you say that “Eakin’s vote was not determinative”, we don’t know what effects he had on the arguments and whether he tipped the balance for the other judges.

  27. HaHaHa says:

    Pat – read my comment below. That is the same pathetic RETARD who posts under umpteen different screen names.

    DO NOT FEED THE RETARD TROLLS

  28. Pat Unger says:

    Mr. Sims — this is probably a good time to re-post an old comment of mine:

    It seems to me that Frank Fina is a man who thought he was above the law. He thought he could go on the offensive against a political enemy who had the goods on him and escape unscathed. But people in glass houses should not throw stones.

    At the end of the day, an AG who should have never been AG will be out early. That’s a good thing. And scores of perverts, racists, and misogynists … or worse … will have been exposed. Many are already no longer in law enforcement. The desperate ones who can work in no other field now (like Frank Fina and Marc Costanzo) will hang on.

    All the folks calling for Kane to resign should also be looking at Fina and Costanzo. Guys like them do more damage behind closed doors than any naive AG can do by leaking a memo from an old investigation (assuming that Kane actually did that).

    Guys like Fina are corrupt cheaters. Prosecutors who are OK winning convictions like that ALWAYS get exposed eventually. Thanks to Kane, Fina and Costanzo (and McCaffery and Eakin) were exposed sooner rather than later.

    Anyone who wants to know what really went on in the Corbett/Fina OAG, just read Aaron Fisher’s book, He was a victim of Sandusky. What happened to that kid was a travesty.
    And if you want to see a lawyer violate the Ethical Rules, watch Fina on CBS talking about the strength of the PSU 3 case. It is as obvious a violation as could be imagined … until his e-mails to Judges and other prosecutors (all white males) got brought to the light. Look at how Fina knowingly allowed a witness to testify before a GJ unrepresented.

    This has never been an either-or scenario. Kane and Fina have been inflicting wounds on each other for a long time. I have been saying for quite some time that Kane was in over her head and deserves to go to jail if she illegally leaked protected GJ material. But only a Repervlican FOXtard (or a pervert racist women-hater) would ignore the truth about him. Here’s a little slice of that truth. It’s an e-mail he sent to his white male buddies:

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/zadock1/3580634808

  29. HaHaHa says:

    Oh look – yet another new screen name for the pathetic troll!!

    Whitaker = Larry = Uneducated R = Candy Cane = “Brian Sims” = same RETARD troll

    And I’ve left some out. Poor thing. He probably stays in the house all day because of his acne.

  30. HaHaHa says:

    Have to say that I agree with Jessica. The vote was unanimous. So – Eakin’s vote was not determinative.

    That being said – the decision was the wrong one. She has not been convicted of anything. They are clearly dragging their feet in MontCo. And the case against her is not only extremely weak, it was also led by people who had a motive to fabricate.

    This will someday be a better version of “Making a Murderer”

  31. Jessica Myers says:

    Smart move. Unlikely to bear fruit–good lawyering nonetheless.

  32. rsklaroff says:

    [fat chance]

  33. Pat Unger says:

    Kane should submit this Court’s findings before the Senate. And her attorney should amend his Supreme Court filings to include this:

    http://www.post-gazette.com/news/politics-state/2016/01/11/Armstrong-County-judge-rules-AG-office-has-authority-to-continue-trying-cases/stories/201601110116

    Kane’s position seems pretty solid. Now that Eakin has been exposed as having a conflict of interest and has schemed behind closed doors to keep Kane silent, the vote to temporarily suspend Kane is most certainly tainted.

  34. HaHaHa says:

    Correct. Not going away. And why would she? Because a bunch of racist creep pervert women-haters want her to? That’s laughable.

    Kane is simply saying:

    Hey pussies – Prove it in court or shut up!!!

Comments are closed.