Close this search box.

BREAKING: Kane Charged with Another Count of Perjury

KaneMake that nine charges against Attorney General Kathleen Kane.

According to the Associated Press, this new charge is related to the search of the AG’s office a few weeks ago.

“The new perjury count stems from her claim that she had never signed a secrecy oath preventing her from releasing information from past grand jury cases,” they write.

“Prosecutors say they recovered such a document from Kane’s office. They say she had signed it on her second day in office,” the AP continues. “She had claimed she cannot be held criminally culpable for any leak from old cases because she had not signed a secrecy oath.”

Detectives searched Kathleen Kane’s office on September 17th. It was soon revealed that they were indeed looking for the oath of secrecy.

In her testimony, Kane stated that she never signed such a document and was only accountable for grand juries she oversaw. The document applies the responsibility of every grand jury investigation since 1980, including the 2009 Mondesire case, to her.

“We don’t go back and sign [oaths for] every grand jury from the beginning of time,” Kane testified on Nov. 17th, 2014. “You can’t do that.”

On August 6th, the Attorney General was charged with eight other counts related to her leak of grand jury information.

UPDATE: Laura McCrystal of the Inquirer has a copy of the document:

60 Responses

  1. Wanda S. is clearly wrong. when the title of the oath is 1st through x th grand juries , (the 32 nd having concluded), the oath is clearly retrospective NOT prospective . and as a former prosecutor (state and local DA’s officE) can assure you that this was standard practice — one takes an oath to hold secret all past grand juries, and in acting as a prosecutor, both present and future GJ proceedings are subject to the PA GJ act. ,

    i recall being quite surprised at KK S ‘HOUSEWIFE’ DEFENSE — i ‘ was not sworn tos secrecy for the 29th thru 32 nd GJs because i was not AG AT THAT TIME. ‘ i
    recall wondering why t hey did not pull her oath papers at that time…

  2. Wanda – not sure it is a “vast right-wing conspiracy” as much as it is the good ol boys protecting each other.

    Just look at Castille. He was more than willing to help cover up Eakin’s participation in the past. Now that the truth is out, he is pretending to be in disbelief that these ayy-hole white males would do such things.

    As for Kane – she was clearly set up. And she clearly fell for their perjury trap. That’s her mistake … and she will have to accept the consequences for that. Most of us just want to make sure that EVERYONE involved in this sordid mess accepts their consequences as well.

    For instance – Fina stole from the taxpayers when he used his State equipment to send racist e-mails. He prosecuted people for such behavior. I want to see him held accountable too.

    Fina and the Corbett Pervs have been leaking confidential material to the Press (mainly Craig and Angela at the INKY). I want to see them get held accountable for their illegal leaks.

  3. The Oath is written to be prospective and it is not clear that past grand juries are covered under this document. Risa is piling on and now people are starting to see Kane as the victim of a vast right wing conspiracy

  4. I am guessing the question asked of Kane before the kangaroo court was not as clear as the media is presenting.

    If the question was “did you sign a privacy oath related to the Modisire case” the truthful answer would be No.

    The fact is she signed a blanket oath with many other documents on her first few days in office. Did anyone explain to her what she was signing and what it meant?

    The fact is she was set up by Fina and his porn racists email buddies. Unfortunately, she wasn’t smart enough to see through it. I hope she takes them all out with her, because we can all agree she is toast but cleaning up the system would be nice for we the people.

  5. sklaroff – the everyday term for what you are is: “mental patient.” Now go eat your Jello!!

  6. @ HA3:

    The psychological term for your behavior is “perseveration,” and it befits a number of psychiatric diagnoses.

  7. No thanks, John. You may like to just re-read comments of shills for the Clown Car. The rest of us don’t.

    You may want to re-view this and remember that this is what Fina thought appropriate to use our taxpayer purchased equipment to view and distribute:

    Guess what – that ain’t “sophomoric” and it ain’t just “office porn.” It’s a look inside the soul of man who should NOT be collecting a paycheck from the citizens of Philadelphia.

  8. I think everyone should go back and read Spongebob’s posts. Then, think about it then re-read as he is the only one that consistiantly makes sense.

  9. PLEASE !! No more “extensive postings.” NO ONE READS THEM. NO ONE CLICKS ON YOUR LINKS. Go back to your jello and yelling at the kids on your lawn ….

  10. While my more extensive posting [with two hyperlinks, directed @ DD] is scrutinized by PoliticsPa, note my opening ‘graph:

    “You persist in rationalizing-away the new felony/perjury charge [‘There is no evidence that this was the only document notarized. It was far more likely part of a large batch of documents signed at the same time.’] invoking ‘context’ rather than facing reality, even after you had been reminded that the notarization process this type of document would have to have traversed would have isolated it [via the presence of a notary, absent any evidence the notary had been absent].”

  • Reader Poll: Should President Joe Biden Step Aside?

    • Yes. He should step aside because of his age, declining ability to do the job. (45%)
    • No. He should not step aside. (39%)
    • Yes. He should step aside because he can't beat Donald Trump. (15%)

    Total Voters: 231

    Loading ... Loading ...
Continue to Browser


To install tap and choose
Add to Home Screen