A grand jury investigation into whether Attorney General Kathleen Kane illegally leaked information has recommended charges against the AG.
According to Craig R. McCoy and Angela Couloumbis of the Philadelphia Inquirer, the jury favors presenting charges of perjury and contempt of court.
The decision of whether to arrest Kane falls to Republican District Attorney of Montgomery County Risa Vetri Ferman, as the case was filed in Montco.
This case stems from a June Daily News article that suggested Frank Fina fumbled a case involving a Philly civil rights leader.
Kane and Fina have a well-known feud and it is possible (if not likely) her leak was an attempt at retaliation after the Inquirer revealed Kane had shut down a promising case looking into the corruption of Philly State Representatives.
The Attorney General insists she did not leak or authorize anyone to leak any material that hadn’t been approved for outside dissemination.
Ferman is currently conducting a review of the grand jury presentment.
Update: Attorney General Kathleen Kane released the following statement on Friday:
I did nothing illegal. Period. Any fair and impartial review of the facts would conclude that. This seems to me to be another political attack on my attempt to clean up Harrisburg and its political culture.
They have fought me all the way, including an effort to impeach me.
Since taking office, I have torn up their questionable contracts, cleaned up their investigations, broke their pornography ring and prosecuted corrupt officials.
I will continue to clean up Harrisburg, despite these attacks that seem to be more about politics than the merits.
Loading ...
110 Responses
@ DD:
You rationalized AG-Kane’s selective release of Grand Jury data to the press “Because she was reviewing the past investigation and how it was (mis)handled. This is legitimate function of government and A.G.’s office, especially when there is a claim that ‘criminal activity was just ignored’.”
First, when did she issue a report regarding conclusions as to how anything was “(mis)handled”?
Second, when did she say this was her rationale for doing so?
Third, what was the justification for releasing these data via a press-leak rather than in a public setting?
When you have admitted you must go “0 for 3” when addressing these simple/logical outgrowths of your conjured-rationalizations, you may be forced to admit that she has painted herself into a corner from which she will not be able to escape.
Seeing as this thread is still going strong at the end of page 2 and seemingly will go on forever, I leave David now to his rubber room circumscribed mythical reality.
Robert-
BTW, who leaked details about Republican run grand jury investigation of Kane?
Robert-
Because she was reviewing the past investigation and how it was (mis)handled. This is legitimate function of government and A.G.’s office, especially when there is a claim that “criminal activity was just ignored”.
So, it is legit to review past grand juries (look at the crappy grand juries in Ferguson and NYC) and look for problems, and then report on what was found in the review.
You correct flaws in the system by reviewing cases and reporting on the findings.
@ DD:
You wrote, “I read that some of the information was released unintentionally. Even though she was within her rights to release it anyway.”
This means that some was released intentionally; thus, the reformulated query is to explain why ANY info should have been released intentionally.
Bungy, that’s total bullshit, because Fina is trying to hide the existence of his own porn, since Kane can still talk about anyone else.
Unsanctioned-
I’m saying that I don’t know that it was said as a threat. It may have been an offhand remark like “you’re one to talk” or just calling them out for being hypocrites, but they took it as a threat because it revealed that the person saying it knew some dirt on them.
Even if was a threat (idle or real), that’s on the person who said it, NOT Kane.
Robert
I read that some of the information was released unintentionally. Even though she was within her rights to release it anyway.
So, I stand by my statement.
Wrong Dave, Fina wanted all the e-mails released or none. KANE was one who tried to release E-mails only pertaining to her enemies as a blackmail tactic. That’ s when Fina got the court order. Blackmail, remember that word also.
@ DD:
You claim “My understanding is that the release of the non porn-related information was completely unintentional and accidentally included in other valid information. Kane was either unaware it was in the material she approved for release or it was added in after her approval.”
She has said publicly that nothing was unintentional, and she claims she had every right to approve releasing it [regardless of what “it” is].
Thus, again, can you conjure a legitimate reason for her to have approved the release of ANYTHING, pursuant to her occupational responsibilities?
David “…warning people in glass houses to stop throwing stones.”
When you put it that way, it sounds soooo bad. How are you defending this!?