Wolf: Kane’s Case “Erodes” Trust in Government

PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL KATHLEEN KANE CONGRATULATES GOVERNOR TOM WOLF FOLLOWING HIS INAUGURATION CEREMONY AT THE STATE CAPITOL IN HARRISBURG, PA ON JANUARY 20, 2015.Tom Wolf is worried about what Kathleen Kane is doing to people’s perceptions of government.

Governor Wolf previously stated that he believes Attorney General Kane should resign, and that was before her bizarre press conference last week.

Over the weekend, though, Gov. Wolf sought to explain his reasoning in an interview with KQV Radio.

“I think it’s going to affect the administration of justice” if she stays in office, the Governor asserted.

“It affects, I think, people’s perception of their democracy” Gov. Wolf continued. “The government that they own and that they run. This is something that depends on trust. This kind of thing erodes that trust.”

Kane’s dilemma has arguably been beneficial for Wolf, though, as it has distracted attention from the budget stalemate and likely will continue to do so.

The Attorney General’s next court hearing is a week from today, August 24th.

August 17th, 2015 | Posted in Front Page Stories, Governor, Harrisburg, Top Stories | 22 Comments

22 thoughts on “Wolf: Kane’s Case “Erodes” Trust in Government”

  1. Wally says:

    No need to worry Governor Chromedome. All trust in PA state government was eroded years ago.

  2. David Diano says:

    Larry-

    That’s the definition. Do you have one that fundamentally disagrees with the one I’ve offered?

    Tim Winters-

    You fail to understand the reasons behind Wolf’s lack of coattails:
    1) Wolf REFUSED to align himself with the Dem legislative candidates in a meaningful way. He didn’t appear in ads with them or focus his message on how the GOP legislative candidates had voted for the same policies that made voters reject Corbett.
    This was a deliberate appeasement strategy by the campaign to the GOP for fear that any GOP legislators who won, despite Wolf helping their Dem opponents, would hold a grudge and dig in against Wolf. Obviously, this strategy backfired (as predicted).

    2) The HDCC was horribly run with over a dozen seats with Dem/Rep registration parity left completely unchallenged and handed to the Republicans without a fight.

  3. Tim Winters says:

    Pat, pretty sure he bought the primary and ran as ‘not Tom Corbett’.
    If his ideas and priorities were popular, he would have had coattails and gained seats in the house and senate. Instead just the opposite happened.
    If he were not a first term governor, the house dems would likely side with the majority and pass a veto proof budget. As it is they will not go against the party and it will be a long process.

  4. Pat Unger says:

    Mr. Winters – You con’t know why people voted for Wolf. The state – and the country – will “move forward” with or without you and your tea-drinking friends.

  5. Tim Winters says:

    David Diano’s quote “Wolf was elected by a large margin to put in place the budget policies and priorities that the state GOP legislators are refusing to accept”, is based on a false premise.
    Very few (if anybody at all) voted for Wolf, and of those even less knew anything of his policies or priorities. Wolf won because he wasn’t Tom Corbett, end of story. The republicans huge gains in the house and senate bear this theory out.
    Wolf’s own budget proposal garnered zero votes from his own party. Once he accepts that he is a lame duck from day one the state will move forward.

  6. KSDF says:

    DD, source for your legal argument other than Wikipedia?

  7. David Diano says:

    KSDF and Larry-

    Selective enforcement:

    “In law, selective enforcement occurs when government officials such as police officers, prosecutors, or regulators exercise enforcement discretion, which is the power to choose whether or how to punish a person who has violated the law. The biased use of enforcement discretion, such as that based on racial prejudice or corruption, is usually considered a legal abuse and a threat to the rule of law.

    As for what Kane leaked, it was about Fina’s failure to pursue a case properly five years earlier. That is fair game and should be protected under ANY secrecy rules (grand jury or otherwise). Prosecuting her, while ignoring the excessive, frequent, and contemporaneous leaks from the grand jury against Kane, sounds like an abuse of discretion.

    Observer-
    Much as I’d like to have Fina singing to the feds, I’d much rather have others singing about him. 🙂

  8. Observer #2 says:

    You never find the Republican Party throwing its politicians under the bus. Only the Democrats do that. Wolf being a prime example.

  9. Larry says:

    The True Observer, Gerry Pappert appeared in Dauphin County court to argue a case involving the Hershey Trust, and Mike Fisher argued cases before the US Supreme Court and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Otherwise, you are correct that they are administrators.

  10. The True Observer says:

    When was the last time a sitting Attorney General actually tried a case in a courtroom … it doesn’t happen and hasn’t happen in my lifetime. To call the Attorney General the chief law enforcement officer in the state is a joke. He/She is a bureaucrat who’s only real job is to manage the Office.

  11. Pat Unger says:

    Observer – The article in The Legal did not mention any ongoing investigation into Frank Fina. Where do you get your information that “it’s about what the Corbett holdovers did to pretect pedophiles and transmit porn between branches of government?”

  12. Observer says:

    Besides being spineless, Wolf is also dead wrong. What would erode the power of the AG’s office is, whenever someone being investigated by the office can trump up some phony charges and paralyze the office, and thereby blunt the original investigation. That’s what’s happening here. The DOJ investigation is not about what Kane did, it’s about what the Corbett holdovers did to pretect pedophiles and transmit porn between branches of government. Anyone who presumes to know or say otherwise is lying or engaged in wishful thinking. Freakie Frankie is sweating bullets, and getting ready to sing like a canary.

  13. Larry says:

    Pat Unger — “Selective enforcement”? So, Kane’s guilty, but hey, other people did it too? That’s great logic.

  14. Pat Unger says:

    KSDF – have you ever heard of the concept of selective enforcement? You should look into it.

    And if you are correct when you type “YOU CANNOT LEAK GRAND JURY INFORMATION,” then you must be up-in-arms about what all the GRAND JURY INFORMATION that was LEAKED from the GRAND JURY that was investigating Kane … Right?

  15. KSDF says:

    PU and DD, then why are you writing such non-sequitur comments on this article? This one is about Kane’s criminal case, not the Ali sting operation.

    This is about a grand jury leak. Whether there’s a “good ole boys” network or not, IT IS ILLEGAL TO LEAK INFORMATION FROM A GRAND JURY. Period. Full Stop.

    Regardless of how you feel about the substance of the case or the likelihood of success on the merits, YOU CANNOT LEAK GRAND JURY INFORMATION.

  16. David Diano says:

    Pat Unger-

    Correct. I was referring to general erosion in public confidence that these emails exemplify.

    KSDF-
    I have no idea if Carpenter is part of the exchanges, but all reports indicate that Fina is, and that Carpenter has taken measures to hide Fina’s involvement. Carpenter may just be helping his GOP buddies.

    rsklaroff-

    I don’t have a subscription to “The Legal Intelligencer”, so I can read only the first sentence. In that lead sentence their primary concern seems to be with “tarnish” to the office, rather than Kane having a fair trial, or the presumption of innocence. They insist that the focus “must shift” to removing her.

    F*ck them and let’s allow Kane her day in court.

  17. Pat Unger says:

    KSDF – I did not read anything in Mr. Daino’s post that implies that J.Carpenter received the pornographic/violent/racist material from Fina.

    I read his post as follows: If Fina felt he was “chummy” enough with Judges to send them pornographic/violent/racist material in e-mails, that would erode peoples’ trust of government. That way-too-tight relationship (not to mention the potential for strong-arming Judges you now have the goods on) is not ethical. It is not the way the justice system is supposed to work.

    Don’t you agree with that? How could you not?

  18. KSDF says:

    “What defendant can feel he’s getting a fair trial when the judge and prosecutor are chummy enough to exchange porn?”

    Which judge and which prosecutor in the Kane case were exchanging porn again? Libelous ad hominem attacks against AD Ferman and Judge Carpenter aren’t going to derail the prosecution of Kane. If Kane has any proof that the two had any inappropriate relationship, she can always file a motion to recuse. She’s a lawyer. She knows that. And now she knows that Carpenter hasn’t placed any such gag order. Have at it, Kane.

  19. The True Observer says:

    Are you sure its not looking into the actions of the PA Supreme Court, Judge Carpenter and Frank Fina’s obsession with porn that may depict victims of international human trafficking of minors? The actions to hide certain individuals participation in porngate raises many legal and ethical issues and the only way the public can feel confident in the outcome of this entire mess is if the Fed’s come in and take over. The creditability of the Pa Courts and the illegal process it invoked against the sitting AG smells allot like a conspiracy being carried out by a corrupt organization a lot like that of organized crime syndicates. To think Frank Fina spent months working to keep his personal involvement in porngate hidden from the public by entangling the emails in an illegitimate grand jury process while being paid by the taxpayers seem allot like theft of services. The FBI should be looking into Fina, Castile, Carpenter and how the porn emails relate back to the Sandusky case and the wider net of pedophiles that were using the Second Mile as its brothel.

  20. David Diano says:

    Do you know what else “erodes trust in government”? Not having a budget.

    Wolf was elected by a large margin to put in place the budget policies and priorities that the state GOP legislators are refusing to accept. Instead, they put out a piece of sh*t budget so bad that they wouldn’t even have tried with Corbett, just to get Wolf to reject it to pretend it’s his fault.

    The porn email scandal affected the perception and administration of justice. What defendant can feel he’s getting a fair trial when the judge and prosecutor are chummy enough to exchange porn? Also, how can people seeking justice for sexual discrimination feel their rights are being respected by a department run by misogynists?

    When the going gets tough, the tough get going. But, in PA, the political class is mostly made up of sycophants and incompetent officials who sell out on the cheap (when they bother to show up for work at all). Political courage in PA is nearly non-existent with safe redistricting and forces bent on maintaining the status quo.

    Kane, for her problems, is not part of the status quo. She shook things up and exposed systemic problems that embarrassed a lot of people. She’s not on trial for taking bribes, fixing elections or even fixing parking tickets. She hasn’t worked against the interests of the state and the voters who elected her (unlike far too many in public office).

    I’d warn the politicians abandoning her that they could be victims of the next witch hunt, but political cowards are relatively safe from witch hunts when they support the status quo.

  21. Unknown says:

    The Legal Intellingencer just disclosed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has launched an inquiry into the conduct of Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane, and that former employees of the AG’s Office have been questioned by FBI agents.

Comments are closed.