Close this search box.

BREAKING: Judge Releases Kane’s Grand Jury Presentment

kane-sad2A grand jury decided to recommend charges against Attorney General Kathleen Kane.

Now we know why.

Judge William Carpenter has released the presentment the grand jury issued, a 33-page report justifying their conclusions.

“We find the testimony of Attorney General Kane was not an honest account of the events, and she mischaracterized events to cover-up activities undertaken at her direction to unlawfully release documents subject to grand jury secrecy,” the document states. “In comparing her testimony before us to the testimony of others and additional evidence presented, this investigating grand jury did not find her testimony truthful while intending to divert attention from her actual role as the principal of the leak.”

Kane’s former First Assistant Attorney General Adrian King testified that the AG was obsessed with the Mondesire case after the leak against her concerning the Philly sting operation.

When asked to describe Kane’s behavior during the time, King told the Special Prosecutor the following:

“I walked into this [meeting about Mondesire] and quite frankly to be dead honest, I am listening to this, and I think it is absurd…it just seems like a complete distraction it seems to be paranoid. And I am also quickly clueing into the fact that the people that she has in her right hand that she appears to be taking advice from is her driver, and the person that she just installed as communications director has absolutely no experience, and they are literally sitting there just nodding their heads in agreement with everything that’s being said. And my – reaction to that was this is nuts; I don’t want anything to do with it.”

Furthermore, Chief Deputy Attorney General James Barker, the man Kane fired earlier this month, was concerned about the Daily News story. He wanted to find the source of the leak.

Chief Deputy A.G. Bruce Beemer advocated for an investigation but was rebuffed by Kane. He testified:

“Her response to me was don’t worry about it. It’s not a big deal. We have more important things to do.”

Barker told Beemer of his concerns but Beemer advised dropping the matter after his conversation with Kane.

Beemer also described how the Attorney General attempted to stop any investigation of the leak.

“I was taken aback by it [the call]…She told me she wanted me to go to either the Supreme Court or the Supervising Grand Jury judge and challenge the authority of the special prosecutor to conduct this investigation…my heart stopped actually when she said that because here I have for weeks been pledging the office’s full cooperation, and now my boss is telling me she wants me to try to stop it. And I said…on what basis [do] you want me to try to do that? And she said, well…whatever…was released was not Grand Jury material. And I said what are you talking about? And she said that this, this was not Grand Jury material. And I, I said it most certainly was [material.]”

He also said that Kane never told him she was the source of the leak.

Concerning her own testimony, the grand jury wrote that it “was riddled with inconsistencies, and demonstrated conduct that was clearly inconsistent with the evidence presented to this Grand Jury.”

They mentioned Kane’s statements when asked about the documents (referred to as the 2009 Memorandum and Miletto Transcript in the report) that were leaked to the Daily News.

Kane called a staff meeting to discuss the issue in 2014 and Agent David Peifer testified:

I gave her the statement [the Miletto Transcript], and she was flipping through and looking at it, and then she laid it down in front of her. After the meeting was over, I left and the statement [Miletto Transcript] was still in front of her.”

Yet, that’s not what Kane told the Grand Jury.

“Attorney General Kane testified multiple times that she had not seen nor read the transcript that was made of the interview between Agent Peifer and Agent Miletto until the date of her testimony before this Investigating Grand Jury. She also specifically testified that she had not been aware that any transcript had been made of this interview,” they wrote.

As has been brought up before, she also testified that King agreed with her decision to leak the documents.

Ultimately, the grand jury is recommending the Attorney General be brought up on five charges: Perjury; False Swearing; Abuse of Office/Official Oppression; Obstructing the Administration of Law or Other Government Function; and Contempt of Court.

38 Responses

  1. You praise of those who don’t hide behind anonymity, unfortunately, doesn’t extend to yourself.

  2. This may be the first time two men have debated on PoliticsPA as men, and using their real names. If only this were required…civility might just ensue.

    Silent a while in a cave,
    I watched a waterfall
    For the first of
    The summer observances

  3. @ DD:

    First of all, if your ideas were to become controlling, no trial could ever proceed until completion; there always is colloquy when info is challenged, and when it’s tossed [it seems] you would necessarily prompt a mistrial.

    Second, you again divert from the black-letter lingo in the Presentment when you ignore the exhaustive database regarding the alleged cover-up [quotes that would easily withstand your desired x-exam because they are buttressed by e-mails].

  4. Unsanctioned R-
    I’ve already done that. The last time I had to fill out the form asking if I had any bias, I stated quite clearly that I thought the Delco courthouse was rife with political corruption and that I was incapable of following an instruction to ignore evidence that I had seen, even it was ruled inadmissible.

    If jurors are supposed to be triers of fact, then suppressing a fact that they’ve already seen seems ridiculous. Also, the inadmissible information could also demonstrate police corruption of obtaining evidence illegally, and a juror should be allowed to weigh that against the police/prosecutor.

    I view the whole legal system as a game played by overzealous cops, indifferent lawyers and tyrannical judges who don’t give a rat’s ass about the lives they are ruining as long as the follow the rules of game. The cops want to meet their “quotas”. The prosecutors want a high conviction rate. The defense attorneys want to sell out their clients by cutting a deal, rather than working to defend them. The judges like having their asses kissed and threatening everyone with contempt for not doing enough polishing with their lips.

    The prison system has become a for-profit-business, and if you follow the money, it leads back to electing politicians and D.A.s

    The big cover-up is who has been leading grand jury information from Carpenter’s and Carluccio’s kangaroo court.

  5. @ DD:

    You haven’t covered the cover-up…which is always dispositive.

  6. I think David’s just setting himself up to get out or jury duty for the rest of eternity.

  7. Robert-
    I’m accusing the prosecutor of padding the charges. The dumbf*cks in the jury are just rubber stamps.

    What’s “documented” are excerpts of testimony (with …. in the excerpts). There is no cross-examination of the witnesses. King’s testimony about what Kane said to him (bottom of page #9) is basically hearsay.

    King was asked to deliver an unmarked package and claims he had no idea what the contents were and apparently didn’t even ask. Who delivers a package like that without asking what’s inside? Even if you are lied to, at least you made a good faith effort to ask what you were transporting. He’s not Jason Statham’s “Frank Martin”: Rule #3.. Never look in the package.

    If the package contained drugs, and King was stopped by police for a traffic violation, and a police dog barked, they’d search his car and find the package. Would “I didn’t know what was in the package” suffice? If such ignorance was a good defense, drug smuggling mules could avoid arrest.

    How about this: King knew what was in the package. He didn’t ask because he didn’t have to.

  8. @DrSklaroff: 古池 / 蛙飛び込む / 水の音
    furu ike ya / kawazu tobikomu / mizu no oto

  9. @ DD:

    Instead of accusing the Grand Jury of “padding the charges,” why not attempt to refute what’s been documented?

  10. Either she lied or a bunch of her staff is lying. It’s that simple. I’m pretty sure a jury will side with the credible staff members who have testified against her. She needs to resign and Wolf should “be a different kind of Governor” and ask her to do so NOW!

    This is no longer about guilty or innocent until proven guilty. That’s a right we all have a citizens. But she has no right to remain as AG when her integrity is down to zero and she’s (soon to be) facing criminal charges herself. Resign and attempt to clear your name, Ms. Kane. But you can’t be the top law enforcement officer of PA while facing criminal charges yourself.

  11. Reasonable Rep-
    “One cannot commit perjury without simultaneously making a false swearing.”
    That is specifically why I call bullsh*t on the law/courts/prosecutors for piling on two crimes/charges for a single act. This is why so many of us have utter contempt for the courts and the way the legal system is rigged.

    Padding the charges with something that is a distinction without a difference is a prejudicial tactic to make defendants appear more guilty with a bigger list.

    It’s like charging someone who robs a house with robbery, breaking and entering, and trespassing, instead of just “robbery”. There could be reasonably be an additional charge of “destruction of property” for breaking a window/lock/door.

    As for the contempt of court, she should say: “F*ck this court!”. She would not be alone. This court deserves plenty of contempt.

  12. Guzzardi [“The Buddha”] has spoken; there are too many inquiries abounding, however, for a simple-swap plea-deal [county and state] and, thus, it would appear that mere resignation wouldn’t suffice.

    It’s insufficient to claim that “high level law enforcement officials are calling each other liars and criminals with specific evidence” when, actually, EVERYONE-ELSE is calling AG-Kane a liar; the e-mail chain appears damning, as well.

    Thus, perhaps mirroring Lanny Davis [who has since departed for “greener pastures”], the stakes have been inappropriately diminished [perhaps subconsciously] when he touts obviating submitting the database to public fact-finders; it is hoped that the motivation isn’t to suppress airing of “dirty laundry” that might prove discomfiting to others, as well.

  13. Reasonable Rep and Larry have made some useful points.

    Reasonable Rep’s legal analysis is valid as far as I know.

    As Larry points out: The testimory of Democratic operative Adrian King and career prosecutor Bruce Beemer will be hard to rebut.

    Margaret Motheral: I think reputable publishers would be afraid to print your expose of Seth Williams’ malfeasance.

  14. Kathleen Kane is not a Clinton and will not get away with what they get away. “The attorney general lied ‘to divert her attention from her actual role as the principal of the leak,’ according to the grand jury.”

    Given the explicit and detailed evidence on the record in the Grand Jury, most experienced defense attorneys would conclude that it is highly likely that Kathleen Kane would be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Competent defense counsel would advise her not to take the risk and recommend that she make a deal: resign in exchange for having all the charges dropped. If convicted, Kane faces jail. I do not think the claim that she is the single mom of two kids will save her. Her husband filed for divorce and I am told it wasn’t because she leaked Grand Jury testimony.

    From a public policy point of view, we, prosecutors and citizens, have to consider the adverse impact on law enforcement in Pennsylvania of a trial where high level law enforcement officials are calling each other liars and criminals with specific evidence. It cannot be good: the Attorney General of Pennsylvania is chief law enforcement of 12 and a half million people. There are many crimes, including political crimes, that need to be investigated and prosecuted. A trial would, essentially, shut down the AG’s office.

    Let us hope that clear thinking prevails.

  15. The evidence is that she is that political thug, threatening and intimidating and in some cases injuring even after the court instructed her of the illegality.

  16. I’m not a Kane fan- but I’d rather have her than political hacks like Pat Murphy or Josh Shapiro. Whatever happened
    To presumed innocent? Her judgment is awful-
    But is she really a criminal. If so what about Rendell, Street and others who have played
    Loosey Goosey for years. We can choose not to reelect but we shouldn’t allow political thugs to dictate this outcome

  17. You are unbelievable, Diano.

    The false swearing charge isn’t “bullsh*t” and it doesn’t need separate examples apart from those listed under the perjury charge. One cannot commit perjury without simultaneously making a false swearing.

    Sure, Kane deserves her day in court where a jury will have to evaluate the evidence offered and the testimonies given. But given the contradictions of Kane’s grand jury testimony with those of multiple parties from both inside and outside of OAG, criminal charges for perjury and false swearing are absolutely appropriate here. It’s not even close!

    As to the Abuse of Office charge, yes, it could well come down to whether Kane “believed” she was violating the Criminal History Records Information Act. But her repeated assertions that she didn’t break the law aren’t the be-all and end-all here. Jurors may find it inconceivable that the state’s chief law enforcement officer could NOT know she was violating CHRIA.

    Then again…Kane hasn’t exactly proven to be the brightest star in the sky.

  18. @ DD:

    Ponder this succinct summary of the salient features of what was revealed; then compare/contrast the details therein with your rendition thereof, and you will note numerous shortcomings in your précis.


    You choose to ignore multiple assertions of eye-/ear-witnesses plus what appear to be internal contradictions in what she said [what she knew and when she knew it, à la Watergate].

    Don’t you think the Dems will want her to cut-her-losses, if for no other reason than to minimize harm she would be doing to the party “brand”?


    Departing slightly from my “just the facts, ma’am” approach, I’ll editorialize by noting that the one time I saw her in-action was when she participated in Stu Bykofsky’s Variety Club Comedy-Night in August ’12; she was sharp [professional and funny, self-deprecating her background & intent], and I’d initially concurred with Guzzardi that it might be desirable for her to be empowered to provide a refreshing inquiry [e.g., Freed & Hershey, Corbett & Sandusky].

    I’d told Freed as much [twice, once during a meeting of the Republican Jewish Coalition, and that evening on Spring Garden St.], essentially channeling Guzzardi’s “message” via a Committee-Person x 2 decades to maximize its impact; he replied that – during the ride to Philly – he had specifically discussed my concerns with his colleagues [I’d been somewhat forceful @ the RJC-event] and had decided to announce he would provide a retroactive PSU-report if elected [which he announced soon thereafter during a Pittsburgh radio-show].


    I relate these additional data in an effort to convince you [and other Dem-partisans] that people are genuinely dismayed after having observed the multiple self-inflicted traumas to her credibility [compounding her impending divorce]; further, this observer feels the prognosis that the internal-anger she is evincing will only be enhanced as DA-Williams proceeds with his prosecutions [which she inexplicably had abandoned due to the spurious concern with “racism,” methodically debunked in a time-line analysis by the Inqy].

    Unlike the construct enjoyed [and ruthlessly employed] by you-Dems [from the top, down], most people don’t see prejudice in everything that occurs in an America that would “heal” from the War-Between-the-States if only y’all would stop repeatedly ripping-the-scab off of the healing-wound; when the (black-woman-Dem) Baltimore Mayor has to “walk back” having rhetorically “given space” to the rioters, it should be abundantly clear that a half-century of socialistic-dependence has served only to exacerbate the anguish of ghetto-life.

  19. @ DD:

    You have wandered so far into the “weeds” that a machete is needed to ID the gravamen of your defense; do you honestly believe anyone will attempt to follow – let alone believe – your strained defense?

    You cherry-picked concepts you wished to try to attempt to conjure a method to debunk at least partially; meanwhile, you ignored key-facts such as whether she had evidenced having read a “material” document [to eye-witnesses on her staff], notwithstanding whatever “belief-system” you mind-read she may have harbored.

    As I’ve been predicting for awhile, now, it is possible that the MontCo court will find her in-contempt and she will be ousted before the D.A. even has to file anything formally; perhaps Guzzardi will be able to rescue you, although I truly hope he will instead demur, after having ultimately decided [finally!] that she has not truly channeled his regretably-chronic personal-angst against perceived-corruption in PA’s polity.

  20. Reasonable Rep-

    My point was that Kane didn’t conjure up the claim that the release was legal after the fact, but rather had that belief all along, and was unconvinced/unswayed by advice to the contrary that these particular witnesses gave (or claimed to give) her. Did anyone else give her advice in favor of the release?

    Whether or not she remembers reading a document or believes she didn’t read it goes to the “belief” part I was highlighting. She seems to believe everything she’s saying.

    I’ll give a simple example: witnesses to a crime. In some cases the witnesses will have contradictory testimony that is mutually exclusive. It doesn’t mean they are committing perjury, but rather that they perceived things differently.

    Maybe Kane had the last word in some of these meetings and (mistakenly) believed she had convinced people to her point of view, or they just stopped arguing with her (because they believed it pointless) and she misinterpreted as them being onboard.

    I don’t know. And neither do you.

    But, AGAIN, none of these witnesses was cross-examined, and so they painted themselves in the most favorable light. The summary is the prosecutor’s narrative. He even puts … in the middle of quoted testimony statements. So, he’s cherry-picking within his cherry-picking.

    As to the charges:
    1) Perjury and 2) False swearing
    The difference here is perjury is lying about a material matter and false swearing is the exact same thing without the “material” requirement.
    For the first charge a lot of examples are given (5 pages). For his second (bullsh*t) charge, not a single example is given. Not one.

    3) The abuse of office charge: key phrase “knowing their conduct is illegal”. The testimony from King basically exonerates her of this charge because she clear did not know/believe her conduct was illegal (and still maintains that it wasn’t).
    This charge is leveled against her for the release.

    4) Obstructing the administration of justice…
    This charge is also leveled against her for the same release. So, they are trying to charge her with two different crimes for the same act.

    So, this boils down to a fishing expedition and a “gotcha” attempt.

    It’s like: did you rob the bank? No.
    Gotcha: let’s add perjury to your charge of bank robbing.

    Then to top it all off, the summary ends with a “contempt of court” charge, just as a fifth item in the list, without even any description.

    Well, this court seems to deserve plenty of contempt for this farce.

  21. Diano’s lack of legal training is once again on display, I see.

    The sort of “false statement” that the perjury statute contemplates is a factual assertion (e.g., “I never told Mr. X to give Y to Mr. Z”). This is distinct from a legal conclusion (e.g., “Nothing I did was illegal”).

    So, no, Kane’s “belief” as to the legality of the leak is not relevant at all to the recommended perjury charge. What is relevant is (a) the truthfulness of the factual answers she gave to fact-based questions before the grand jury, and (b) whether she believed such statements to be true.

    If the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt the grand jury’s conclusion – that Kane knowingly gave a false account of the events surrounding the leak – then she’s perjured herself. That simple.

    The other charges (abuse of office, etc.) are another issue entirely.

  22. I told all of you months ago they all turned on Her. This is only the TIP of the iceberg. More are turning.

  23. The perjury definition: “in any official proceeding he makes a false statement under oath or equivalent affirmation, or swears or affirms the truth of a statement previously made, when the statement is material and he does not believe it to be true”

    The key part here regards the belief. It seems apparent that Kane disagreed with King and believed that whatever they were discussing did not constitute prohibited grand jury material.

    This may well be wrong on her part, but it’s not some lie she made up for the grand jury. She clearly has believed the material was legal to release for a long time.

    As for the rest of the (cherry-picked) testimony, none of the witnesses was cross-examined nor their stories challenged by a defense team. No other meetings in which they may have offered agreement with Kane, are mentioned.

    The summary released is both biased and incomplete.

    The witnesses seems to have the vibe: “I was innocently doing my job to perfection, when…[some crap happened]… that I’ve never seen/heard of before”.

    Yeah, right. The office was run so above board under Corbett and Fina without a hit of politics that these poor innocent lambs were shocked by Kane.

    Give me a break.

  24. Send it in to the major book publishers. I’m sure they’ll get right on it, Marge.

  25. I just finished an affidavit on District Attorney Seth Williams and his cronies crimes, and many other Philadelphia officials. Much worse than you list for Kane. Now who do I send it too? I was considering just making an e-book out of it for the whole nation. At least I have real evidence to prove the crimes. What Seth Williams and the political body of Philadelphia have done to the citizens of Philadelphia demand attention because people have been injured and died, yet we are all being put through this political circus.

  26. @ DD & Guzzardi:

    The thread running through this presentment is that she is deceitful; how can she possibly retain the public trust under such circumstances?

  27. Observer, when Democratic stalwart Adrian King testifies that Kane was doing something blatantly illegal and not taking advice, there’s no claiming a witch hunt. When her second-in-command Bruce Beemer testifies that she tried to stop the investigation, there’s no claiming a witch hunt. When Kane claims that the leaked documents were not Grand Jury material, and every one of her own senior advisers say that it was, there is no claiming a witch hunt. Unless you are willing to admit that Kane really is a witch, in which case the hunt is over.

  28. “So voters could judge for themselves”

    Lol good job dummy. You just admitted this entire thing is a misguided political maneuver by Kane. Night night.

  29. And oh yeah, when Judge Sol Wachtler came up with that famous quote that a DA could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich if he wanted to? This is exactly what they meant.

  30. This is just more self-serving selective publication from the Chief WitchHunter Carpenter. Kane’s lawyer wanted the WHOLE file released, so voters could judge for themselves whowas telling the truth. But no, Carpenter just puts out the prosecutor’s brief, containing ONLY his best selling points, without including ANY of the exculpatory evidence, of which there are tons. Let’s see what Fina testified to, and why he thought he needed Carpenter’s gag order to keep his hard drive porn collection private. and let’s put Carluccio on the stand to see what Fina told him behind closed doors, away from the grand jury. The tainted witchhunt continues…

  31. So she did something stupid and illegal, tried like hell to avoid the special prosecutor, lied to the grand jury when she couldn’t avoid them any longer, and now continues to blame old white male Republicans for her situation. That means that Peggy should be on here momentarily to cry about porn emails.

  32. Funny how people will go on these message boards and do for free what her own paid staff is unwilling to do. Are you guys all just auditioning for one of the most awful jobs in PA politics?

    And then you say “blah blah blah fina porn old boys club blah blah” because you cant actually defend what shes done, you can only make sad attempts at deflection.

  33. How in the world can the Kane political camp keep spinning this shit that she “told the truth” and “angry men are out to get because she has tried to clean up Harrisburg.” Her own staff refuted everything she has said. He tried to lie her way out of it and too many other people in her own office have testified to a different set of facts. Kane needs to step down and Wolf should ask her too. The fact of any future trial will be that same as in this presentment…and no jury I can think of will believe her (after all other times she has “misspoke” publicly about other cases).

  • Does the NYC Verdict Make You More or Less Likely to Vote For Trump in 2024?

    • Less Likely (36%)
    • More Likely (34%)
    • Makes No Difference (30%)

    Total Voters: 112

    Loading ... Loading ...
Continue to Browser


To install tap and choose
Add to Home Screen