223 Responses

1. Sorry steve. No sale. You sound like a little girl whining to the teacher.

   Kase was framed. Everybody knows it.

   And the Jury will see through the bullshit and make sure Kane is not the only person in the history of Pennsylvania jailed for a leak.

   It’s not like they have strong evidence. They really don’t. But, even if they did, the case is idiotic and a complete waste of time and resources.

   Frank Fina, the rat who complained about Kane, has done far worse. And he hasn’t been arrested.

   This case is stupid trumped up bull-shit.

2. And HaHaHa Is headed back to jail.

3. Kathleen Kane is headed for jail.

4. What is wrong with you folks? Kane not only leaked secret materials that were illegal to leak (okay because apparently this is common according to internet experts), lied about not doing it under oath (which apparently okay because she also convinced Josh Morrow to lie about it under oath), and also conspired to place the blame (and the charges) with a third person. All of these things are illegal and wrong and you should all be ashamed of yourselves for not seeing through her bullshit earlier.

5. @ Ha3:

   Also, you committed a grammatical double-error [” Even if it was her who leaked the info”], for the pronoun should be “she” and the verb-form should be “had been.”

6. @ Ha3:

   You’re channeling d2; you know not of what you write:

   Jury nullification is a constitutional doctrine which allows juries to acquit criminal defendants who are technically guilty, but who do not deserve punishment.

   Jury nullification is a discretionary act, and is not a legally sanctioned function of the jury. It is considered to be inconsistent with the jury’s duty to return a verdict based solely on the law and the facts of the case.

   Jury nullification is a finding by a trial jury in favour of the defendant, in contradiction to the jury’s belief about the facts of the case.

   [These three quotes–simply acquired via googling–are inapposite to the current circumstances, as anticipated.]

7. sklaroff should stick to TEA and his nightly bowl of Jelli. It’s called JURY NULLIFICATION and it is a perfectly acceptable outcome. You can look it up.

   Kane should never have been targeted to begin with. Fina is DIRTY. Even if it was her who leaked the info, she did the Commonwealth a huge favor.

8. @ d2:

   If the opportunity to have achieved legal acceptance of your tangential theories has passed [now that the trial had been allowed to proceed], your postulates cannot be invoked to interrupt imposition of rule-of-law; claim and accuse to your heart’s content, but there’s no venue for such charges to be aired, let alone sustained.

9. LIE

10. rsklaroff-

    I realize that you are pretty dense, but “the rule of law” doesn’t apply when the “law” isn’t abiding by the rules.

    “In jurisprudence, prosecutorial misconduct is “an illegal act or failing to act, on the part of a prosecutor, especially an attempt to sway the jury to wrongly convict a defendant or to impose a harsher than appropriate punishment.” It is similar to selective prosecution.”

    and

    “Ex parte” is a Latin phrase meaning “on one side only; by or for one party.” An ex parte communication occurs when a party to a case, or someone involved with a party, talks or writes to or otherwise communicates directly with the judge about the issues in the case without the other parties’ knowledge.

11. Kane was CLEARED on Haiti 2 months ago.

12. BREAKING NEWS. HAITI IS NEXT.

13. @ Guzzardi:

    Because he didn’t leak! [obviously]

14. Why wasn’t Chris Brennan charged?

15. Diano logic: “The conviction is invalid!”

    I’m sure that will give Kane great comfort as she’s sitting in a prison cell.

16. @ d2:

    You took my advice to “keep digging” the hole into which you have been falling [“The guilt or innocence of the defendant is irrelevant”]; the reason for rule-of-law is to determine guilt/innocence and to function accordingly.

    You’ve morphed into an anarchist [not surprisingly, noting your other political philosophies]; thus, anyone who would hire you as a consultant should be provided this level of Informed Consent prior to entertaining the creation of a contractual relationship with you.

17. rsklaroff-

    It’s not moral relativism. If the prosecution in this case was corrupt (including selective), it’s invalid. The guilt or innocence of the defendant is irrelevant.

18. @ d2:

    As RR would have said, “There you go again” with the moral relativistic rationalization for criminal conduct [“It doesn’t matter how ‘guilty’ she is.”] Your metaphor is also askew, for you unjustifiably assume no one was justly arrested/tried/convicted [“every conviction (guilty or innocent) should be overturned automatically”].

    {keep digging}

19. rsklaroff-

    It’s an illegitimate political prosecution. It always has been.

    It doesn’t matter how “guilty” she is. She could make a public confession and there still should not be a trial nor conviction. That’s how corrupt the prosecution of this case has been. When the prosecution is corrupt, everyone gets a pass (guilty or innocent), which is why you need to put the judges and prosecutors on trial in this case. A corrupt prosecution should be a “get out of jail free card” until the public demands the prosecutors held accountable.

    Think of it this way:
    Let’s say you had a town with a racist police, DA and judges and they pre-decided to convict every black person. If that corruption were uncovered, every conviction (guilty or innocent) should be overturned automatically.

20. The DA has not met their burden. This case reeks of a political prosecution. The flimsy evidence is almost laughable.

21. @ d2:

    You are channeling the “double-down” behavior-pattern of the Trumpster when you persevere in [1]–trying to divert attention to FF [“You’ve chosen to discount Fina’s behavior. The look-the-other-way attitude and hypocrisy of Fina’s friends in going after Kane is the real crime.”], and [2]–trying to discount the efficacy of the sting-case because you don’t like the stingers [“The sting case was pure BS. Seth had to offer sweetheart pleas deals to claim “victory”, while Ali got away with hundreds of thousands of dollars, thanks to Fina.”].

    Your inability to discount what the fact-finders heard [and upon which a verdict will be rendered] is oh so typical.

22. As I have never defended Kane on this site (or any other) I am feeling vindicated, this case is now a slam dunk and has shown the lengths she was willing to go to get back at people for rightly pointing out that simply shutting down the investigation was questionable at best. She acted as if the cases against the state reps was so flawed that no one could get a conviction. And as lame as Seth Williams “keep your pensions guys” convictions were, they were, in fact, convictions that got scuzballs out of office (however likely to be replaced by same). David, I’m sorry, we have supported many of the same policies and candidates over the years, and even exchanged a few nice emails using my real name, but saying that Kane didn’t do anything worth prosecuting here is not correct. She not only technically broke a law, she acted in a way that disrespected being an officer of the court, embarrassed herself, and the Democratic party in the process. We are fortunate that she comes off as a total crazy person, because that is the one thing voters are willing to let a party off the hook about, every family has one, and no one wants to be tarred by the brush of crazy aunt Kathy’s behavior.

    As for Josh Morrow, what can I say, he Naughton deserve each other and all this shows that Democrats in the 8th Congressional district know a sideshow when they see one. See ya’, wouldn’t want to be ya’!

23. Bottom Line, now combine that “wanting the story about Fina to come out” with the FBI recording about “Kathleen wants me to leak documents.” C’mon, you can do it. I know you can.

24. The texts only prove that Kane wanted the truth to come out about Frank Fina. And – thankfully – it now has.

    The texts do not prove a crime. Not even close.

    Jury will throw out Mortow’s “corrupt and polluted” testimony as they must under the law.

    This will be a quick acquittal.

25. Eric, you’re right, but it’s scary that there is a person like HaHaHa (aka, Pat Unger) walking around and even driving a car in public.

26. I guess some just refuse to see the text messages. Hopefully reasonable minds will win out in the jury deliberation room.

27. Pat Unger, what do you mean “innuendo”?! The jury instructions clearly state that the jury may consider the facts and reasonable inferences drawn from the facts. The facts are that Kane sent text messages — which you just ignore — that memorialize her conversations with Morrow. King and Morrow both testified that Kane did what she was accused of. And the FBI recorded Morrow discussing (honestly because he didn’t know he was being recorded) the entire Kane plan. How can you be so deliberately obtuse?

28. Ha3 – exactly.

    After all these years and all the money that has been spent, the only clear FACT is that Josh Morrow is a felon.

    The case against Kane is based on innuendo. And the jury will be instructed that they cannot base a guilty verdict on innuendo.

    Kane’s defense is not that she did not want to “out” the corrupt Fina. She did. Her defense is that she did not illegally leak anything. And they failed to prove that she did.

29. So, H3/PU, what are your preemptive arguments about the jury? Surely if you are correct about how weak a case this was for the prosecution, the jury will figure that out and acquit. But anyone with a brain knows that this is a slam-dunk conviction. So when that happens, what will you say about the jury? That they’re Corbett Pervs riding in a Clown Car?

30. No one explained the text messages except the prosecution. No one here defends them. Unless a sycophant is on the jury, and I doubt any of you are, she’s cooked.

31. Correct, Pat.

    Now that this trial is over, there is one thing we know for sure:

    The government’s star witness has committed perjury and is a liar.

32. rsklaroff-

    You’ve chosen to discount Fina’s behavior. The look-the-other-way attitude and hypocrisy of Fina’s friends in going after Kane is the real crime.

    The sting case was pure BS. Seth had to offer sweetheart pleas deals to claim “victory”, while Ali got away with hundreds of thousands of dollars, thanks to Fina.

33. Is this the part where we pretend that the “consultant” did not say the exact opposite – under oath?

34. http://triblive.com/state/pennsylvania/10948320-74/kane-morrow-documents

    Consultant testifies he, Kane devised cover-up of leak of grand jury documents

35. http://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/08/kathleen_kane_grand_jury.html#incart_2box

    ‘REVENGE – BEST SERVED COLD’: INSIDE KATHLEEN KANE’S ALLEGED LEAK SCHEME

36. @ d2:

    You’re continuing to recycle discounted arguments [“Who thinks that Fina wasn’t behind the leak of Kane dropping that racist sting operation?”]; it should be recalled, first, that the probe was based upon the contacts of an informant [who all were Dems] and, second, convictions supervened.

    Deflect, defame, discount…all you want, but she’s sealed her own fate by her arrogance [perhaps channeling yours?].

37. Anyone notice that there’s only one person willing to defend KK with their real name here?

38. H3/Pat Unger/Diano/Marie/Peggy: As we prepare for the inevitable guilty verdict on Monday, could you give us a preview of your theories about how the jury is comprised entirely of Corbett Pervs? Is every single juror actually Frank Fina wearing a mask? What other theories do you have about the jury that would explain the absolutely certain guilty verdict that they will deliver?

39. Not Guilty.

    Should be quick verdict. Because, as the defense proved, Mondeshire was guilty and Fina ignored it.

    Just a coincidence that Fina went to work for Mondeshire’s buddy (Seth Williams) shortly after he deep-sixed the probe?

    I don’t think so.

    Kane is innocent.

40. Guilty.

41. Brandy, great logic. She got absolutely hammered by the prosecution and she could only make it worse by subjecting herself to cross-examination.

42. I have a strong feeling Kane will be clrared. If they had a strong case against her, the defense would have called witnesses.

43. rsklaroff-

    Eakin already took a sh*t in the pool. Who knows what arguments he made to sway the other judges? Who knows how many other judges have conflicts or biases against Kane for exposing their little boy’s club?

    This entire prosecution is rife with political corruption.

    Who thinks that Fina wasn’t behind the leak of Kane dropping that racist sting operation? Shame he isn’t on the stand being questioned about that.

    When the system is politically corrupt, no political trials are valid.

44. @ HaHaHa: PPA’s Baghdad Bob:

    And let’s allow amnesia to preclude invoking the Notarized Statement [and associated perjurious claims].

45. @ d2:

    The longer this goes on [and it will probably end for most everyone except yourself, if your track-record is any indication], you reveal your conscious inanities; the essence of your latest claim [“To me, the entire political collusion by judges and prosecutors to bring this to trial and their abuse of grand jury system, with its own flood of leaks, renders this entire trial improper.”] is not only self-centered [as usual], but it also was legally discarded by multiple judiciaries [including the Supremes, absent Eakin].

    It may be noted that I had already noted the inability of AG-Kane to mount a defense [for she’s been stripped of allies], and the events just occurring serve to validate that observation; she is SOOOO guilty!

    So, you’ll have the weekend to ponder your mea-culpas [on this and, perhaps, on other websites you have polluted], and maybe you’ll also take that opportunity to withdraw your anti-Semitic diatribes; you, who value your credibility and resilience, will have to consume humble-pie/crow.

46. Holy Shit. Defense team must be extremely confident!!!!

47. DEFENSE RESTS IMMEDIATELY! KANE OFFERS NO DEFENSE! LOL!!!

    http://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/08/ag_kathleen_kane_chooses_not_t.html

48. What David Diano said.

49. Yeah, they really haven’t proved anything! Let’s just go ahead and pretend that Kane didn’t actually send text messages about the entire crime. And let’s ignore that the FBI recorded conversations about the crime. Yep, no evidence whatsoever!

50. Prosecutor: We have DNA of the defendant left behind at the scene, and we trailed $100 bills from the crime scene to the defendant’s residence, where the defendant was arrested while still holding cash that was stolen from the crime scene.

    Juror Pat Unger: That’s all innuendo. Plus, if the defendant is a Democrat, this is a political show-trial. You’re all pervs and racists.