BREAKING: Political Operative Says Kane Leaked Info, Lied About It

Kane-sadA major development occurred today in the Kathleen Kane trial.

According to Anna Orso of BillyPenn, political operative Josh Morrow stated that he conspired with Kane to leak grand jury information and that the two of them later created a lie to cover it up.

Morrow was the person who transferred the documents from Kane’s office (Adrian King left the envelope in Morrow’s door) to Philadelphia Daily News reporter Chris Brennan.

“I asked [Kane] what [the envelope] was and she described the transcript from one of her agents to another agent about an investigation into Jerry Mondesire,” Morrow testified. “And that Frank Fina did the investigation and then shut it down.”

What was revealed today, however, was that Morrow talked about the situation with John Lisko. Lisko, the former Chief of Staff to indicted State Treasurer Rob McCord, was being tapped by the FBI at the time.

“So Kathleen called me today…and was like Adrian [King] has documents for you to leak out,” Morrow told Lisko “and all this bullshit about Frank Fina and the Jerry Mondesire investigation.”

Morrow went on to complain to Lisko about how he felt his relationship with the Attorney General was souring.

“You’re a conflict of interest, actual or fictional, you’re a conflict of interest, and now you’re the one giving inside documents,” he continued. “It’s like, you fuckin’ leak them!”

“She was just hell-bent on getting back at Frank Fina,” Morrow explained in his testimony. He also stated that he and Kane “conspired to create this story that wasn’t true”, namely that Kane had never seen the documents.

It should be noted, though, that today’s testimony represents a change in Morrow’s story and he has received immunity from the prosecution.

Laura McCrystal and Craig McCoy of the Inquirer report that Morrow stated that he and the AG met in August 2014 to get their stories straight.

“Kathleen and I came up with a story that she was going to testify to and I was going to testify to,” Morrow stated.

Their plan was to blame the whole incident on King.

Yesterday, King testified that he feared Kane “was trying to frame” him. Kane and King went to law school together and were even in a relationship for over a year. They remained friends and she brought him in as a top aide after being inaugurated in 2013.

McCrystal also went on to describe the strange circumstances surrounding Morrow’s meeting with Kane.

The two also exchanged texts afterwards, which Morrow shared with the courtroom.

UPDATE: The relevant texts between Morrow and Kane have been released and can be read in full in this BillyPenn piece from Anna Orso.

“What is saying about revenge?” Morrow asked.

“Best served cold,” Kane answered.

Later on, Morrow wrote that “the daily news has four reporters on it…time for frank to feel the heat…”

“Josh you really get things done,” Kane responded.

“Just please keep this between us…very very small circle,” Morrow pleaded.

“I won’t tell anyone,” the Attorney General answered.

223 Responses

  1. @ d2:

    Your mind-read is incorrect and you failed to recognize the key-distinction between having proof of a felony vs. having theories about the basis for the probing thereof; for example, refusing to serve a Jew would be far different than serving gays in every context except for baking a wedding cake.

    I will continue to annoying to those who need to be nudged but, for those who fear harbingers AG-Kane would be acquitted, note that d2 refused to accept the double-atonement gambit [as anticipated] because he also knows what’s going to happen…probably tomorrow; all the prosecution must do is tick-off all the key-points that have been [1]-documented, and [2]–not refuted by the defense.

    I do not predict, but I assert based upon what’s available [and based upon recognizing foolishness in alternative arguments]; I’m malleable, but not by inuendo, insult, or inanity.

  2. rsklaroff-

    You argument is NO DIFFERENT than claiming that the liberty of blacks in the south wasn’t compromised when they couldn’t sit at the counter in a diner or drink from the same water fountain.

    I’m sure your inability to understand analogies will prevent you from understanding the real equivalence. (Maybe if the bakers didn’t want to make wedding cakes for Jews, then you’d be upset, as you only seem to give a sh*t when it’s your own demographic group: entitled, white, Jewish, males who what to discriminate against everyone else, especially, in your case, Muslims.)

    But, everyone here sees you for what you are.

    Lower Delco-
    Thanks for keeping score. 🙂

  3. Yes. Always annoying. And always wrong. The #1 factor leading me to believe Kane will be acquitted is the fact that sklaroff is guaranteeing Kane will be convicted.

  4. Is rsklaroff always this insufferably annoying? Does he think people here really read his insane-sounding nonsense?

  5. No way Melania Trump gets locked up for stealing Michelle Obama’s speech. No way.

    Now if her husband keeps suggesting someone shoot Hillary before she destroys him in November, then Donald may get locked up!

  6. @ d2:

    1. You cannot provide [and have not provided] proof of your FF-related theories; this contrasts with the provision of proof of AG-Kane’s felonies. Thus, the weight of the existence of PROOF dwarfs that of your theorizing [over the years]. THIS is where you must admit a mea-culpa for, in the absence of hard-data, your flights-of-ideas fade into oblivion.

    2. Israel merits whatever military support America can provide, for the outcome of a strong Israel inures to the United States. It is noted, again, that you still support the view that Israel’s existence is a catastrophe, so it’s not surprising that you would sever support for her survival. THIS is where you must admit a mea-culpa for, in the absence of any legal justification to eliminate the Jewish State, your gross anti-Semitism is most-pungent.

    3. Your atheistic [indeed anti-religious] views do not honor those who harbor faith-based reasons for their behavior, and this includes their not wishing to honor a rite that they abhor; this has nothing to do with racism, slavery, prejudice, homophobia, xenophobia, sexism [or any other accusatory modifier that you of the progressive-left would trot-out]. THIS is where you must admit a mea-culpa, for you ignore the “exercise”-clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

    *

    You fail to document the false-claims that “Traditional marriage had women as property,” and that Ted Cruz “opposes gay marriage (even civil unions)”; traditional-marriage [particularly in its contemporary form] is egalitarian, and [pre-SCOTUS] Ted Cruz wanted this to remain a states’ rights issue.

    You quote a phrase from the Constitution’s Preamble [“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”] without documenting that “Liberty” is significantly compromised when a gay couple can easily find someone who will bake a wedding-cake.

    Finally, Gregory Angelo and I chatted a year ago in D.C. regarding these issues, and we’re still seeking a suitable roll-out method in PA; although I’ve resigned as a GOP Committee-Person, I’m still eager to help and, thus, if you [or anyone reading this] can suggest a venue for such an event, please so-inform.

  7. rsklaroff-

    The behavior of FF is key to the whole prosecutorial abuse by his friends going after Kane. Duh!

    As for the Bible, it’s a work of fiction with some historical references, from a time of great prejudices, and where “Thou shall not own another human being” didn’t crack the top ten commandments.

    Traditional marriage had women as property. There is NO valid reason in a free society, with religious liberty, to deny gay people marriage (or other rights) based on the Bible. The Constitution is about people having rights (“provide the blessings of liberty”).

    Cruz made it abundantly clear that he opposes gay marriage (even civil unions) and would select judges who shared is view. He is no better than the bigots who fought against inter-racial marriage (again claiming biblical reasons against mixing of the races).

    The bible and faith-based arguments shouldn’t be used to deny people rights. Duh.

    The Log Cabin Republicans are a hypocritical joke. That you are the PA chair should be an extreme embarrassment to the LGBT community, as you supported (and still support) an anti-LGBT bigot.

    As for Israel, they shouldn’t be getting 2-cents in military aid from us. They can afford to pay for their military themselves, as we are awash in debt.

  8. I am the PA-Chair of Log Cabin Republicans and, thus, I advocate for gay-rights; my goal was to show that Cruz has a faith-basis for his viewpoint.

    This is not the ideal moment to explore my postures on the LGBTQ-issues, but know that I integrate the “best” of all viewpoints; the key method to resolve this conflict is to expunge “Marriage” and replace it with “Civil Union.”

    Thus, even when I disagree with a particular policy espoused by Cruz, I revel in his constitution-based method to approach this and, in particular, other social issues; in contrast with Santorum/Huckster, he’s less enamored with “traditional marriage” than he is with the duty of the POTUS to uphold the Constitution.

    *

    http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/ted-cruz-gay-marriage-secret-audio-217090

    Cruz answers a flat “No” when asked whether fighting gay marriage is a “top-three priority,” an answer that pleased his socially moderate hosts but could surprise some of his evangelical backers.

    [This was used against him in Iowa.]

  9. and not getting a pass clearly means that all the jails must be emptied because they’re filled with railroaded innocents.

  10. “@1 funder of worldwide terrorism” should read “#1 funder of worldwide terrorism “

  11. @ d2:

    The behavior of FF is mutually exclusive of that which AG-Kane exhibited; neither FF nor anyone else induced her to perjure herself or to create a cover-up [and, remember, Watergate was ALL about the cover-up].

    Nevertheless, noting that you “forgot” to claim that you were referring to my citation, the fact remains that you adopted my paradigm by-reference…even if its manifestation was subtle.

    So, again, CONGRATULATIONS for perhaps taking a first step towards recovery; try not to regress aggressively, for you’re going to have to reply to ongoing news-reports that will chronicle her rapid demise.

    *

    If you are truly into Bible interpretation, then how do you rationalize-away condemnation of gays therein?

    So, just don’t claim the Cruz interpretation is “warped” when its based upon literal citation of the Masoretic Text.

    *

    Each sentence in your defense of BHO has been disproven; google my 20 essays on the topic for hyperlinks illustrating Tehran’s deceit.

    “The Iran deal killed Iran’s nuke program.”

    No, it’s expanding.

    “If you really cared about Iran as a threat, you’d be at the White House kissing Obama’s ass.”

    No, there should be outrage [as per the NY Times piece, for example, about Ben Rhodes] @ the overt deceit practiced by BHO in selling this monstrosity…paving a pathway towards a Nuked-up entity within a decade, just as Clinton [and the same cast of characters] capitulated to North Korea in the late 1990’s [e.g., they fired tests while Madeline Albright was in their capital-city].

    “But, really, Iran has been a paper tiger for the hate mongers running Israel to hold up as a threat to cling to power and justify their atrocities (and get more money from the US).”

    No, these are mutually-exclusive issues, as BHO tries to strike a long-term deal with Israel that would not permit Congress to appropriate anything above pre-created limits.

    “Without Obama’s leadership, the other countries would had lifted their sanctions on Iran and they could have kept their nuclear program and enriched material.”

    No, the sanctions were [moderately] successful and were holding-firm but, now, BHO has become the @1 funder of worldwide terrorism [a claim that his spokespeople–including those in the State Department and Veep Biden–haven’t been able to deny].

    *

    Again and again, your database is faulty and your “derived” opinions are fatally-flawed; “a creative mind is such a terrible thing to waste” spinning tall-tales @ PoliticsPA.

  12. rsklaroff-

    1) I was referring YOUR position of “Kane retaliating” and not “confessing” anything.

    2) You believe she retaliated, yet you seem unconcerned about what Fina did that led to her (alleged) actions. In particular, if Fina leaked the sting case (which would be a far more serious offense that what Kane is accused of leaking).

    3) The Iran deal killed Iran’s nuke program. If you really cared about Iran as a threat, you’d be at the White House kissing Obama’s ass. But, really, Iran has been a paper tiger for the hate mongers running Israel to hold up as a threat to cling to power and justify their atrocities (and get more money from the US). Without Obama’s leadership, the other countries would had lifted their sanctions on Iran and they could have kept their nuclear program and enriched material.

    4) Cruz tethers his views toward a warped interpretation of the Bible that supports bigotry, not the constitution.

  13. @ d2:

    Notwithstanding your tired ad-hominem attacks [which is what emerges when one lacks both facts/case], the substance of your wild claims against Ted Cruz and BB are undocumented [as usual].

    Relitigating Ted’s views [and how he tethers his attitudes towards the constitution] would be futile in your case [please read his SCOTUS presentations for cogent logic] and championing BB’s actions [and how he was SO correct regarding the Iran-Nuke Capitulation-Pact promulgated by your-guy BHO] would be pointless in your case [please read the “Daily Alert” that emerges @ 10 a.m. for a compilation of what’s hot].

    Buried in this most-recent diatribe is a stark confessional [“Kane retaliating politically against Fina”] that reflects the fact that the incontrovertible data emerging at-trial has penetrated to your cortex; CONGRATULATIONS!

  14. rsklaroff-

    Cruz doesn’t give two f*cks about the constitution. He’s not interested in freedom of religious, but rather imposing his own twisted interpretations and bigotries. He’s against gay rights, and tries to pretend that bigotry is a states rights issue or a religious rights issues. He’s wrong on the 2nd Amendment (it was intended for militias and banning assault weapons is a reasonable restriction).

    He’s a demagogue preying on fear and bigotry (and he’s really creepy, too).

    Netanyahu is even worse, because he actually implemented genocidal policies/actions against the Palestinians (including the indiscriminate killing of women and children). It’s no surprise that he is your hero, too.

    But, you equate Kane retaliating politically against Fina (with a misdemeanor) like it’s a Nuremberg trial.

    It’s amazing watching you reveal how truly vile and despicable you are, while you brag and wear your horrid positions like badges of honor, and remain completely oblivious to how terrible everyone realizes you are.

    You have as much self-awareness of your awfulness as Trump (and that’s not easy).

  15. @ d2:

    Thus, you will follow the behavior of the blind-demagogue, Alinsky-ite, namely, to deny/deny/deny; is there ANYTHING that could transpire that would prompt you to re-think your postures?

    I do not apologize for Ted Cruz, for he is FIRST a constitutionalist and, second, faith-driven; this is different from Santorum/Huckster [as previously discussed] and, thus, he remains The Man.

    I also do not apologize for BB, for he has led Eretz Yisrael through many crises [including interacting with BHO]; you should acknowledge error in expressing fealty to the Nakba [the “catastrophe” of Israel’s re-establishment on 5/15/1948], noting its overtly anti-Semitic impact.

  16. rsklaroff-

    1) I have nothing to “atone” for. This has a been a political prosecution and abuse of judicial power, regardless of the outcome, and never should have been brought to trial.

    2) You have a miserable lifetime of behaviors and positions to atone for, including your support for theocrat Ted Cruz and the war criminal Netanyahu.

  17. Seth's Chief of Staff / Wife of Fina's lawyer / Wife of Tyron Ali's lawyer / Sister in Law of Harry Levant says:

    Have they figured out what we did with my Brother-in-Law’s case?? Oh God – I hope not.

  18. Seth's Chief of Staff / Wife of Fina's lawyer / Wife of Tyron Ali's lawyer / Sister in Law of Harry Levant says:

    OMG – Am I getting indicted too ?!?

  19. Kathleen Kane is going to jail.

    Kathleen Kane is going to jail.

    Kathleen Kane is going to jail.

  20. rsklaroff-

    You are the one claiming people should atone, so you should be offering to atone to set an example.

  21. @ d2:

    perhaps instead of concerning yourself with my mentation, you should look inward; your backlog in blind-support of AG-Kane is monumental, and you will have to ATONE

  22. Unsanctioned R-

    I’m very clear on my juror form about my potential biases (which is why I don’t get picked). When you make it clear that you think the prosecutors and judges in Delco courthouse are politically corrupt and belong in jail, you stop getting jury summons.

    Also, I can’t promise not to give weight/consideration to evidence ruled inadmissible once I’ve seen it. I could take it as evidence of guilt or decide to punish the cops/DA if they obtained it illegally and trying to pull a fast one.

    No “glass house” here.

    Militant-
    We’ve got too many people that really feel like that running the courthouses (and not being sarcastic).

    Law & Order-
    rsklaroff took his past victory laps on Kane (and on Ted Cruz), and his track record hasn’t been good. Someday he might get lucky on a prediction and pretend it’s skill.
    Unfortunately, he “comments on all available info”, despite his inability to interpret it.

    He was very quiet for a while after Cruz lost (going through stages of grief). If Kane is acquitted, then Clinton wins in landslide, he’ll probably be on suicide watch.

  23. i comment on all available info; don’t believe in jinxing verdict, sorry.

    There is more than “circumstantial stuff” and the contradiction was minor; who knew what when is dwarfed by the primary data from AG-Kane that couldn’t be denied.

    And the liar [trying to protect her] came clean after being confronted with the audio-tape; that she couldn’t mount a defense [citing ANYONE, even if she didn’t want to take the stand] is telling.

  24. sklaroff’s victory lap is bad karma. Wish he would shut the f-ck up and wait til the verdict comes in. It’s hard to get 12 jurors to convict someone on circumstantial stuff. It’s even harder when the witnesses contradict each other and are proven liars.

  25. I also don’t believe in the right to free speech, the 2nd Amendment, or that people are innocent until proven guilty. I am thinking Democracy in general may be a bad idea (unless Trump wins).

  26. Militant-

    “I have found it hard to believe that they are innocent when they do not testify in spite of what the judge says about it.”

    Then you are a poor juror and should point that out if you are ever called for jury duty again, so you can be excused for cause.

  27. Seeing the picture on this article, I think Kane looks good in orange. I think she did not take the stand, because it would have led to more counts of perjury. Having served on a couple of juries where the defendant did not take the stand, I have found it hard to believe that they are innocent when they do not testify in spite of what the judge says about it.

  28. @ Ha3:

    It is true that I felt that the Senate would remove her, based upon reports that the Dems would consider removing this political impediment to become self-beneficial; it is untrue that I’m prejudicial towards R’s, as anyone noting my attacks on The Donald would have noted.

    You may wish to re-read my comments/hyperlinks and attempt to find reference to the “fingerprint” assertion; you emulate d2 in your effort to distract from the facts and circumstantial evidence that the judge recognized had been properly introduced.

  29. BCB – just ignore Dr. Sklaroff. He is a tea-party moron who will never see the truth. He lives in an alternate universe where all Democrats are felons and the female ones are the worst ones. He did a previous “victory lap” when he was positive the Senate would remove AG Kane and she’d be “dragged out of her office.”

    Now he will continue to ignore the fact that the government has no proof that Kane illegally leaked protected material.

    Agreed that, after all this time and money spent, all we know for sure is that Morrow committed perjury (and is getting away with it).

    Why do you think Kane wanted to fingerprint the documents sent to the Reporter? She knows whose fingerprints would be on them. And they are not Kane’s.

  30. @ Bucks Co Barrister:

    The only perjury admittedly committed by a testifier was when he flipped from lying for AG-Kane; your historical revisionism is also replete with omissions, such as the notarized document [about which she perjured herself, hardly an “honest” mistake] that…as per the final witness…reflected her knowledge that it’s felonious to leak ANY grand-jury data.

  31. Jurors are smart. They can see that this case is politically motivated. They can see that the witnesses are “corrupt and polluted.” They can also see that the government’s star witness is a liar that has committed perjury. That’s not good for the government. Not good at all. In fact – I’d be surprised if there was even one juror that will vote to convict AG Kane.

  32. Your analogy is way off. If the Dr. eats crow, it’ll be because a morally relativistic Kane sycophant is on the jury. The plausible explanations for the exhibits were only made by the prosecution.

  33. Only morons take premature victory laps. Of course it is against the law to release protected grand jury material. Everyone already knows that. The problem for the government is that they could not (and did not) actually prove that Kane illegally leaked anything.

    It would be like the government having a trial where Hillary was the defendant and calling Corey Lewandowski as the star witness. And then, at the trial, the only proven FACT is that Lewandowski is a liar that committed perjury. Sure – one (with a low IQ) could point to all the things that Lewandowski said that “bury” HRC, but everyone already knows he is a liar.

    And – keep your eye on the ball here. Kane’s defense is that she wanted the public to know that Frank Fina is corrupt (and it sure seems that he is). And she certainly communicated to others that she wanted to expose him for the “highly improper” attorney that he is (like what I did there using the Superior Court’s words about Fina?). But there is still ZERO credible evidence that she illegally Leaked anything.

    Adrian King’s bogus story is contradicted by the conveniently recorded phone call. And him saying he took a package that he had no idea about is a total lie and everybody knows it.

    A lot of people are saying that Kane will be acquitted. And that the defense didn’t call witnesses because they didn’t need to.

    Kane may be the one doing the victory lap.

  34. @d2:

    Care to contradict your gal, or do you doubt the authenticity of the quote…particularly the use of the word “any”???

    {As noted a few days ago, she is charcoal-broiled, burnt-“toast.”}

    And I’m unapologetic for taking still ANOTHER “Well deserved” [because of the need to have contradicted your deceit with cold-facts…and not “cold-served revenge”] “victory lap.”

  35. I’m unapologetic for piling-on….

    http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20160813_Witness__Subject_of_leak_at_center_of_Kane_trial_was_devastated_by_its_release.html

    Kane declines to testify at perjury trial; defense calls no witnesses

    …because the ending was devastating:

    With their final witness, prosecutors sought to convince the jury that Kane was well aware of rules requiring that grand jury information be kept secret.

    They called William Costopoulos, who was a defense lawyer for a Lackawanna County judge who was convicted of corruption in 1999. Kane, then an assistant district attorney, was a key witness against the judge, who was convicted of trying to obtain information about a grand jury investigation of his conduct.

    Costopoulos read from a 1999 trial transcript in which Kane was quoted as saying grand jury information should be kept confidential.

    “There are very strict rules,” she said on the witness stand at the judge’s trial, “and one of the rules is that it is a secret process. Period. And for me to give out any information to somebody who is not going into the grand jury is actually a criminal offense.”

Comments are closed.

Email:
  • Do You Agree With the Supreme Court Decision to Overturn Roe v. Wade?


    • No. (50%)
    • Yes. (47%)
    • Not Sure (3%)

    Total Voters: 109

    Loading ... Loading ...
Continue to Browser

PoliticsPA

To install tap and choose
Add to Home Screen