Attorney General Kathleen Kane appeared in court today.
She was hopping to get some of the charges against her thrown out, but none were.
Magistrate Judge Cathleen Kelly Rebar ruled that Kane will face a trial on all eight charges, one felony and seven misdemeanors.
The main witness today was Special Investigations Supervisor David Peifer. Peifer was the individual who collected and delivered the documents to Kane that eventually found themselves in a Daily News story.
Peifer also helped Kane’s driver Patrick Reese snoop on grand jury information and employee emails.
The lead Montgomery County detective also testified. Altogether, the hearing lasted four hours.
There were no real surprises in the hearing, although the AG caused a bit of an uproar when she used her twin sister to divert attention when entering the courtroom.
One interesting tidbit, however, is that Kane’s attorneys mentioned Frank Fina and his connection to the pornographic emails.
In arguing for right to ask about Fina, Kane's attorney brought up porn…
— Laura McCrystal (@LMcCrystal) August 24, 2015
"There was a faster way to retaliate because the attorney general knew full well that Mr Fina had a pornography collection" Kane atty said
— Laura McCrystal (@LMcCrystal) August 24, 2015
This appears to be the first official confirmation of the widely-held belief that Kane’s chief adversary Frank Fina is implicated in the sordid emails.
The eight charges Kane is facing include one felony charge of perjury. Among the seven misdemeanors are: four counts of official oppression, two of obstruction and one of false swearing.
Good work keep it up.I relly appreciate you.It is a very interesting blog.Thanks. Godaddy Web Hosting Reviews
You claim the perjury charge is bogus by conjuring an alternative narrative that is in keeping with your penchant for historical revisionism; as noted earlier, she failed to heed Nixon’s warning against hating your enemies…and is now suffering [justifiably and mightily] for this abuse-of-power.
Perhaps I can more easily articulate this view because, unlike Guzzardi, I’m not reliving a personal series of political errors; just as does Trump [when he doubles-down inappropriately, as he did yesterday regarding Megyn Kelly], Guzzardi’s prior support for AG-Kane was predictably unjustified [for he was channeling his personal anti-Establishment chops] and it now boomerangs to haunt him.
This metaphor is directed @ those who would be tempted to trust DD’s unlimited capacity to traumatize truth [as Guzzardi seems sadly to be becoming enticed]; after having finally admitted she’s damaged [political] goods [for whatever reason(s)], continuing to challenge his assumptions may help him enter the 21st Century of irrefutable/instant-knowledge [even if he lags by 15 years behind most everyone else].
1) She’s not a felon (not convicted)
2) The perjury charge is completely bogus, as all the other charges are misdemeanors.
3) I’m suspect the opposition is convinced you are committing perjury whenever you get on the stand. But, they probably don’t get the chance to hook you up to a lie detector or water-board you to make a determination.
It is not sadistic to watch a felon receive her come-uppance.
“Frank was only doing his job.” I didn’t realize that part of his job was to be reviewer and critic of pornography.
Do your patients find your sadism endearing? Do you cackle and rub your hands together as well?
Truth, you are obviously somehow related to one of bonusgate criminals super prosecutor frank fina put in prison. Bitterness will only rot you from within. Frank was only doing his job.
It is a HAPPY occasion – pure and simple – to watch her twist slowly, slowly in the wind; a fate has not been more richly merited.
Guzzardi is channeling his ongoing angst, seemingly forever.
The office was politicized (and porn-i-fied) long before Kane arrived. Those ousted sought to hide their mistakes and misdeed to perpetuate a mythology of success and were willing to burn the OAG to the ground rather than have their true nature be revealed.
You continue to mourn your loss of last year; there is NO sympathy justified when AG-Kane squandered the good-feelings that others had projected upon her, as she politicized her office.
Thus it is NOT an unhappy occasion for all of us!
Your Iran info belongs in thread about Boyle or Casey.
But, there are still two months before the trial and more shoes to drop on Kane’s tormentors.
While it is good to see a public official held accountable, I cannot help but feel a bit sad. It is too bad for AG Kane and for all of us. We elected her; AG Kane is our chief law enforcement officer. This is not a happy occasion.
FTA Voters oppose the nuclear pact with Iran 61 – 26 percent and say 60 – 27 percent the deal would make the world less safe rather than safer.
Pennsylvania voters support 50 – 44 percent sending U.S. ground troops to fight ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Men support deployment 56 – 41 percent, with women divided 44 – 46 percent.
SpongeBob (henceforth to be know as Chicken Little)-
Sorry. Your technical credibility is shot. Not only because you didn’t understand the impact of your own surfing, but running around here like Chicken Little screaming that the sky was falling.
Given the inherent biases in Montco, and how jury selection will be handled, I don’t how it will go. I don’t expect a fair process.
Politically, Kane’s damaged. The question is how much damage her adversaries will incur as their motives and laundry are aired.
The perjury charge is there for the DA to plea bargain away, as the only real goal is to damage Kane politically. Though, they seem willing to try and put her in jail for this entire trumped up case.
Seriously you are not the alpha but whenna man is wrong he says so. That being said game on. Now explain to me how Kane wiggles her way out of this? Shouting porn does not change broken laws. She may bring a few bodies with her but her career is dead.
As long as we’ve now established who is the alpha tech, I’ll accept your apology. LOL. 🙂
Thanks for playing and taking the bait.
Walked right into that one. See here is why in a mild but not vindicating explanation. I am remoted into this shared phone to which safari only lets me see 1 tab. I texted the person who’s had the device to tell me what the website said because I could not get the tabs to work and check myself. Result would have been the same but that explains that. The fact that I had not directly gone to the site made me assume it was through the comments here. Totally wrong on my part. Kane still needs to go and you are still a mindless dem but this time I got got.
Let’s recap and see if you can answer your own yes/no question:
1) You come on here claiming to have great technical expertise (allegedly in excess of my own) while spouting all sorts of “knowledge” about computer security (that sounds like came from a Spy Kids movie)
2) Unsolicited, you visit my unused personal website
(hint: leaving a footprint in my server)
3) You comment here about my website
(hint: alerting me to look in my server logs)
4) I make a humorous update to my site, and notify you here of the update
(hint: seeing how stupid you are)
5) Within minutes, you respond/confirm that you’ve seen the update
(hint: leaving another footprint on my server)
6) I comment that you posted from Springfield using an iPhone on ATT.
7) Despite awareness of steps 1-6, you “connect the dots” and conclude that I must be hacking PoliticsPA’s site
(hint: as opposed to looking at data you left on my server)
What have we learned here today kids?
1) Don’t pretend to have technical skills you don’t have.
2) Don’t go on other people’s personal sites uninvited.
3) Don’t post your real name if you are really stupid and have a job that relies on your boss thinking you are good at tech
4) Part of my success rate at being “right” is that so many of my opponents go out of their way to show they are “wrong”.
If SpongeBob still isn’t sure about his yes/no question, maybe he can get someone to read the “hints” and help him.
I leave this as an exercise for the students. 🙂