To quote Winston Churchill, “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”
The State Senate committee investigating Kathleen Kane voted to recommend that the full upper chamber consider the AG’s removal.
The committee voted 5-2 in favor of this action. All four Republican Senators (Joe Scarnati, John Gordner, Lisa Baker, Gene Yaw) as well as Democratic Chair Sean Wiley voted in favor. The committee’s two other Democrats, Art Haywood and Judy Schwank, voted against the resolution.
“After careful consideration and deliberation of the testimony presented and evidence received, the Special Committee on Senate Address, while making no specific finding on direct removal, finds a sufficient basis for the Senate to move forward with due notice to Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane and a full hearing pursuant to Article VI, Section 7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution,” the committee writes in their report.
Article VI, Section 7 of the PA Constitution concerns the removal of civil officers. It states that:
All civil officers shall hold their offices on the condition that they behave themselves well while in office, and shall be removed on conviction of misbehavior in office or of any infamous crime. Appointed civil officers, other than judges of the courts of record, may be removed at the pleasure of the power by which they shall have been appointed. All civil officers elected by the people, except the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, members of the General Assembly and judges of the courts of record, shall be removed by the Governor for reasonable cause, after due notice and full hearing, on the address of two-thirds of the Senate.
The full State Senate must still vote to open the inquiry.
I think I might be dumber for having actually read (well, skimmed mostly) through this comment thread/pissing match. “Frank”/Spongebob seems like a self-aggrandizing joke. Diano is at least a known operative, even if he’s dabbling with the dreaded “R-word”. Pretty sure Sklaroff is the MD who’s big on the frivolous lawsuits – I can only guess his oncology practice is slow these days considering how much time he puts in here. Can we get this comment section stuff back to fact-based speculation and the milling of rumors instead of making unsubstantiated claims bordering on libel and comparing members?
If not, then we might as well get this down to where it’s eventually going. That’s right, friends: some delicious copypasta. Please feel free to copy and paste in response to any slight, perceived or real, no matter how slight. It is the only appropriate response…
What the f*ck did you just f*cking say about me, you little sh*t? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Qaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in guerrilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the f*ck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my f*cking words. You think you can get away with saying that sh*t to me over the Internet? Think again, f*cker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re f*cking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little sh*t. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little clever comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your f*cking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will sh*t fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re f*cking dead, kiddo.
BTW, for those who are into “easy listening,” ponder this “easy reading” essay:
“Questioning Kane’s porn war” observes, “Your sorry saga of porn, politics and perjury is so repetitive, convoluted and constantly reported that when it comes to you – as my colleague/pal Dave Davies of WHYY says – I want to file a ‘right-not-to-know’ request….
“Although your new effort seems a huge time-and-resource-consuming project, who doesn’t want to see more porn and the names of lawyers, prosecutors, judges and others out there enjoying it on our dime?
“Hell hath no fury like a woman porned.
“Your tenure as the state’s top law-enforcement officer is marked mostly by missteps, misstatements and political ineptitude, which combined led to your criminal indictment and suspended law license.
“This does not translate into confidence in your ability or, frankly, your office’s ability to investigate anything fairly or proficiently even if courts say you can run the place sans license.
“The public isn’t well-served by public officials fighting personal battles to cling to power or to clear their names.
“Your credibility on this porn-war stuff is blocked by a veil of vengeance and ranges from suspect to nonexistent.”
These excerpts perhaps explain why you have vigorously defended her [mis-]conduct; were you in her position, you’d mirror her actions!
Judging from your consistent defense of her tenure, it would seem she is “channeling” you, her PoliticsPa-Defender.
Within two months, you and your shrinking cadere of cohorts [including Ha3] will have to relocate your “act.”
IN THE MEANTIME, you may wish to convey a modicum of appreciation for the views of seasoned observers of Harrisburg such as Baer…and then you can go about your business and try [this being the most recent transgression] to rationalize-away your [false] claims against the Haverford GOP.
You ask: “What sort of ‘proof’ would satisfy you?”
The obvious answer, after you claimed that the party had done something adverse, is to provide a copy of a piece of paper from [or a video-clip depicting] the party leader stating/asserting what you claimed the party had done.
No surreptitious info need be provided, despite the fact that it might satisfy your devious mindset; no wiretaps will suffice, even were they to be available.
And, in the absence of “evidence” [that word might stick in your craw, perhaps, but it’s the preferred method employed by responsible people who stand by what they say/write], you should open-wide and consume the “crow” you crave for your brand of “nourishment.”
Easy question, easy answer….
What sort of “proof” would satisfy you?
A hidden tape recording of a secret GOP meeting?
Notarized affidavits by party leaders swearing allegiance to Andy Lewis?
Video of committee members wearing Andy Lewis buttons at the polls and handing out stamps for the write-in vote?
I simply wrote that you should “provide documentation” of the allegation that the PARTY supported anyone other than a Republican [in the general election] and, as anticipated, you were unable to do so; instead, as is customary, you functioned as a self-appointed expert with all inside-“dope”…and claimed the party leadership deviated from the fundamental pledge of all committee-people to support the individual who had been nominated by the PEOPLE during the PRIMARY [and NOT anyone else].
You’re the “dope”…and, sadly, you know it.
Seriously, how stupid are you?
The committee people were required/obligated to support Heilmann, but they clearly violated that and supported Lewis.
They haven’t been penalized for it (removed from committee), because it’s what the party wanted. The party did not put resources in to help Heilmann against Lewis. A sitting GOP commissioner publicly supported Lewis.
“Sometimes the nominee isn’t supported/endorsed by the party, and the party supports/endorses (or needs to support) a third party candidate.”
I provided a counter-example from your own party in the most recent election.
You lose again.
You may claim the party supported him, but individuals apparently did so…and NOT the party as a whole; provide documentation otherwise, or withdraw both your example and your claim.
The party and committee people supported him, you dolt.
How do you think he got over 50% as a write in?
A sitting GOP commissioner in Haverford publicly supported him, and I provided the quote.
How dense are you?
The party wanted Heilman gone because he had become bad for the party, and Andy was their white-knight.
You again erred; you quoted the actions of an individual [“Andy Lewis, a top GOP leader in Delaware county, ran a write-in campaign against Heilmann”] and not the PARTY; the PARTY didn’t deviate.
Actually, you’re again the deviant!
From your own Republican party, this year:
In the 5th Ward of Haverford Township, the incumbent Republican Commissioner Jeff Heilmann, was seeking a third term. He was on the ballot as the GOP nominee.
Andy Lewis, a top GOP leader in Delaware county, ran a write-in campaign against Heilmann.
Heilmann had been troublesome for the GOP and was apparently delinquent in filing campaign finance reports.
Andy Lewis got: 666 (52.3%)
Charles L. Reardon(D) 335 (26.3%)
Jeff Heilmann(R) 273 (21.4%)
Expressing support for Lewis, Republican Commissioner Stephen D’Emilio said, “How can anyone not be thrilled about Mr. Lewis entering the race for commissioner? … The township would benefit immensely from Mr. Lewis’s leadership and service.”
Those Republican committee people supporting Lewis were in violation of the rules. However, it is unlikely any will pay a penalty or be ousted from the party, though technically they should.
So, once again your claim of “totally false” is shown to be wrong. Don’t you ever get tired of being such a fool?
Just like trump, the more you talk, the more trouble you create for yourself.
“Sometimes the nominee isn’t supported/endorsed by the party, and the party supports/endorses (or needs to support) a third party candidate.”
Endorsed covers primary and general elections. Sometimes the nominee isn’t supported/endorsed by the party, and the party supports/endorses (or needs to support) a third party candidate. In the case of filling open seats (like Boyle’s), sometimes there is no primary.
As a non-committee person, I can involve myself in GOP primaries (none of the candidates endorsed by Dem party), which would be prohibited for a committee person.
Even in the “allowed” case of supporting another Dem in a primary, that will run you afoul of the party. In Philly, it could affect your “street money”, appointment jobs, etc., or make them look for another excuse to remove you.
You aren’t the arbitrator of the English language nor Democratic party committee rules (nor penalties for non compliance).
Endorsed is the correct term, and you are misusing it to exclude general elections.
You are channeling the worst of Trump, when you try to walk-back an erroneous statement.
You claim I incessantly “inject “primary” into my statement” when you have been shown why I conflate “endorsement” in a “primary” and “nomination” in a “general” [election].
You used the word “endorsed” and that both connoted and denoted reference to the primary; you incorrectly claimed that such activity would cost you a committee-person position, were you to have held one.
You were incorrect then, you were incorrect when you rationalized, and you are incorrect now…and you will remain incorrect until you express recognition of this basic fact of electoral politics.
‘Fess-up, it’s good for the soul…and in your case, it will help trailblaze additional confessionals [that will open a floodgate of mea-culpas if you even pretend to be comprehensive).
You are the one who keeps trying to inject “primary” into my statement, when it doesn’t change the fact that I have supported independents in general elections, which would preclude committee membership. Also, in races such as school board or judge, with a lot of cross-filing, non-dems can be endorsed by the party, and would not be considered nominees.
You still fail to understand that I don’t wish to be subject to ANY of the rules, and want to act independently for some candidates and causes.
Also, as a matter of policy, the state party will not provide access to VAN to challengers to incumbents (and in some cases to unendorsed candidates).
Invoking the investigation into porn would NOT be a good justification for Wolf or Senate, as it would look like they have something to hide.
We can agree that, during the primary season, the committee-person need not support the “endorsed” candidate; this is the key distinction that emerged when you pivoted to focusing upon the the individual who–after winning the primary–will have become the party’s “nominee.”
In short, you inappropriately admixed “endorsement” by party leadership with “nomination” by party membership when you initially disclaimed being a committee-person [ [“I’m not even a committee person for my precinct, nor a member of state committee…otherwise I couldn’t support unendorsed candidates”] ].
Otherwise, we can agree [notwithstanding your typos] regarding what will transpire in ’16, minus your qualifier [“If Wolf replaces Kane, it wouldn’t likely be with anyone I know, and the person would likely do very little in the way of change, with an election around the corner. The candidates running for office wouldn’t get appointed. I prefer that Kane finishes her term, but if she is to be replaces, I hope more emails are investigates to root out the corruption of the justice system”].
Contrary to your characterization, I did NOT issue “predictions of Kane’s demise by now” and my comments were assuredly NOT “premature”; the Senatorial decision was huge and presages her removal in January, after the rules-of-the-game have been promulgated next week [allowing her sufficient prep time over the Holidays].
Indeed, betcha the AG’s office will have to contend with the legality of her appointing Special Prosecutors regarding the high-“priority” porn e-mail “scandal”; the Senate and the Governor will invoke such a sideshow as further evidence that she cannot function adequately under the current circumstances…that are unlikely to be altered any time soon.
Yep, DD. Here it is almost the end of the year and Kane is still standing.
LOL @ The Clown Car. They have bitten off way more than they can chew.
I don’t know what the rules are in your tea party republican world, but I checked with a former Dem county chairman, and support of an independent over a Dem in a general election would be grounds for removal for a Dem committee person. As a non-committee person, I’m not bound or restricted by the committee rules and can act as a free agent to support the candidates I prefer.
But, still you diverge from the original point that I never claimed I was a committee person nor that I represented the party.
I’m glad that you admit that your predictions of Kane’s demise by now had been premature. Fina is no longer viewed as a hero, and the remaining sting cases seem to be falling apart. It was an interesting revelation that Seth Williams begged the defendants to take a sweetheart deal (which supports my long held claim that Williams couldn’t get them on the real charges Kane had dropped, and just wanted a “win” he could tout). Fina buddy Judge Feudale has been removed. Eakins may be on the chopping block. Others likely to follow.
Just saying that a lot of heads are falling before Kane’s.
If Wolf replaces Kane, it wouldn’t likely be with anyone I know, and the person would likely do very little in the way of change, with an election around the corner. The candidates running for office wouldn’t get appointed. I prefer that Kane finishes her term, but if she is to be replaces, I hope more emails are investigates to root out the corruption of the justice system.
Leave Katniss Kane alone she is Pretty if for no other reason that is why all charges should be dropped . Kane is doing a Great job exposing all the Disgusting Perverts in PA and Federal Government Positions
Updated Poll results:
Should Seth Williams Fire Frank Fina?
sklaroff is a MENTAL PATIENT … and not a RETARD. He may be a FOXtard though.
Thus, “a party committee-person CAN support unendorsed candidates” [whether indie or another dem, in your case] and, thus, you have just contradicted your prior claim [allegedly explaining why you feel you can’t be a committee-person.
I predicted the demise of AG-Kane would be determined by now and, even noting your increasingly pessimistic claims [based upon “cudda/shudda” phraseology], it seems you have concurred with this judgment [despite your claim that those who would participate therein–as Dems–would be primaried].
Your “retarded” psyche notwithstanding, you may wish to focus less upon deflecting attention from AG-Kane’s burgeoning problems and more upon lobbying for your favorite AG-placeholder to be appointed preparatory to the November election.
I got a video of rskaroff talking. It sounds exactly as you would expect him to sound from his posts
Unendorsed candidates includes independent candidates, ie not running on the dem ticket. Duh! Please learn to read.
I’ve supported independents in general elections. I’ve even supported a republican in a general election with multiple seats to fill to prevent the election of a different republican from getting a guaranteed minority seat.
Also, as I stated, the “cut @ the polls” you refer to was prohibited and I have reported committee people who had defaced sample ballots. It may be frequently violated and rarely enforced, but defacing the sample ballots paid for by the party to cut an endorsed candidate is not allowed, despite your claims to the contrary. But, then again, you a republican tea slurper, so ignorance is your natural state.
As for Kane, you are now giving her up to two months? How generous of you. Didn’t you predict her imminent demise many months ago?
At this point they are just trying to remove her before she can expose more of the corruption. She can start a lot of investigates in two months. 🙂
Notwithstanding your bluster and rationalizations, the plain words you used [ [“I’m not even a committee person for my precinct, nor a member of state committee…otherwise I couldn’t support unendorsed candidates”] ] are demonstrably false.
I didn’t miss your point and, indeed, you should place this entry upon your list of errata…to be rectified after AG-Kane has departed from the stage…probably within two months.
To be precise, a party committee-person CAN support unendorsed candidates [during the primary season]; you are invited to concur with this simple declarative sentence.
I have supported independent candidates over the endorsed Dem. Crossing out an endorsed candidate on a party funded sample ballot is against the rules (and I’ve turned in people for doing so).
But, consistent support for unendorsed candidates is frowned upon greatly.
However, as usual, you have missed the point. I’ve always been very clear that I’m not a committee member, and act independently to support the party ideals (though not always the preferred candidates). I reiterated this since “Frank” falsely portrayed me as claiming to represent the party, then attempted to debunk the bogus claim that he made up. And, he pretended to do all this invoking the party chairman (who is quite familiar with my posting and knows I’ve never remotely made any such claims).
But, once again, you have not failed to disappoint by completely misreading the exchange. Bravo.
I’m sure the WHYY board will be polite publicly, while privately wondering if they should check the news to see if you match the description of any escaped mental patients.
You are incorrect when you depict party-loyalty [“I’m not even a committee person for my precinct, nor a member of state committee…otherwise I couldn’t support unendorsed candidates”] because the only constraint of a committee-person is that he/she not support candidates in other parties; they need not support endorsed candidates [as evidence when a person may be “cut” @ the polls].
I experienced this phenomenon recently regarding the Philly mayoralty race, when a friend was competing as an Indy; although I’m not in Philly [my office is, but my home is in MontCo], I helped this high-quality individual quietly and not monetarily, as I had with regard to his prior ballot/petition experiences during the past half-decade.
Indeed, I am speaking @ the Board meeting of WHYY @ 8 a.m. this upcoming Friday to rebuke them for not having included all five people who were on the ballot, when it sponsored a debate; he will be in-attendance, but my point will be raised with regard to what benefits the public [in a disinterested fashion].
I never said that I work for the state party. I’m not even a committee person for my precinct, nor a member of state committee. I’ve always been pretty clear about that, otherwise I couldn’t support unendorsed candidates.
So, you are saying that you bothered Marcel about something I’ve never claimed? Bravo.
What I have said, is that I’ve helped a lot of underdog candidate, though increasingly, as some incumbents who wish to lock in my services for an extra edge (or to deny their opponents access).
My “influence” beyond that extends mostly to support of local candidates and committee, and how widely read I am on the blog.
I get to say what some politicos wish they could say, if they were not constrained. Some may adopt my arguments, or gain a deeper insight or understanding of an issue.
I’ve spoken to several statewide candidates (not my clients) who were familiar with the specifics my postings, so I know they are reading them. More than a few said they just skip past the anonymous posters looking for my posts, on some topics (mostly Sestak). In particular, some candidates and party officials have a poor view of Sestak, but can’t say much publicly, so they enjoy seeing me reveal his character.