On second thought, Kathleen Kane won’t be publicly releasing those emails after all.
Last week, the Attorney General called for Judge Carpenter to allow the release of all the pornographic emails found on government servers.
The next day, Judge Carpenter revealed that Kane had not made any official request for the emails to be released.
On Tuesday, the PA Supreme Court unsealed Judge Carpenter’s December 2014 order, proving that Kane had the power to show the emails all along.
Now, however, Kane doesn’t want the emails seen by the public.
According to Brad Bumsted of the Tribune-Review, open records request by his paper and the Inquirer have been denied.
“The office will continue to oppose release of the emails” through the Right to Know Law process, Kane’s spokesman Chuck Ardo said. “The reason it will do so is there are contractual and privacy issues that must be considered.”
Apparently, the Office of the Attorney General is worried about the fact that its workers are unionized and are also concerned about the effect such a move would have on third parties.
Those concerns, however, didn’t stop the OAG from giving the Inquirer information on eight officials back in September 2014.
Kane’s lawyers told Bumsted that the emails will be used as part of her defense.
So to recap, the Attorney General’s public response to eight criminal charges was to cite her legal inability to release emails that would show the unsavory character of her enemies. The real scandal, according to Kane, was in those emails and the public had a right to see them.
Instead of unmasking this public menace, however, the AG is now holding onto to the emails so they can be used in such a way as to best aid her legal defense.
Kane’s next hearing is scheduled for Monday.
Loading ...
111 Responses
Corporate speech rights are now recognized as part of the 1st Amendment. Deal with that!
David, I understand that you wanted to change the subject. I’m find with the written record. Now Sklaroff has you twisting in the wind.
rsklaroff-
Not everything is racist to me. Just racists.
What Corbett thought about FF isn’t a “key-query” (at least outside of your mind). Maybe YOU should ask Corbett yourself. I’m sure he loves it when people ask him about the case.
Gay marriage is no longer banned in the US. Deal with it.
@ DD:
Typical Dem that you are, everything is racist to you.
Notwithstanding interim-events, note that the definition of Marriage is at variance with yours.
Note, also, that the key-query that exists is what Corbett felt about FF.
rsklaroff-
“How does FF explain not having raided the house, and has Corbett commented on this, and what did AG-Kane allege was the reason?”
1) FF (incompetently) didn’t believe the early victims enough to feel a raid was appropriate
2) No. Corbett has not commented
3) The alleged reason is that FF was incompetent in his job.
Asked and answered.
BTW, I was stating who could get married, not attempting to define marriage itself for a dictionary. But, none of your excerpts point out that inter-racial marriage was banned in this country and had to be overturned, because the even the man-woman definition was not excepted for different races.
HaHaHa-
rsklaroff’s idea of “cleansing” presupposes that the legislators were dirty in the first place and needed to be removed. Tossing dirt on them, then claiming they are dirty, doesn’t phase him. Maybe, he just thinks brown skin is inherently dirty.
@ Everyone, again [because no one answered with specificity]:
How does FF explain not having raided the house, and has Corbett commented on this, and what did AG-Kane allege was the reason?
Someone should be probing Baldwin’s ethics, no?
@ HaHaHa-
It is true that I feel it’s a good deal because the “sting” canned state legislators who happen to be black Philly democrats. I don’t care that 1) Ali got away with hundreds of thousands; 2) there’s no other incident of corruption than the sting/entrapment in this case, and 3) no one actually got charged with bribery.
They are gone, and the legislature is cleansed [somewhat] as a result.
@ DD:
Your definition doesn’t square with the etymology of the word.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=marriage
marriage (n.) Look up marriage at Dictionary.com
c. 1300, “action of marrying, entry into wedlock;” also “state or condition of being husband and wife, matrimony, wedlock;” from Old French mariage “marriage; dowry” (12c.), from Vulgar Latin *maritaticum (11c.), from Latin maritatus, past participle of maritatre “to wed, marry, give in marriage” (see marry (v.)). The Vulgar Latin word also is the source of Italian maritaggio, Spanish maridaje.
Meaning “a union of a man and woman for life by marriage, a particular matrimonial union” is early 14c. Meanings “the marriage vow, formal declaration or contract by which two join in wedlock;” also “a wedding, celebration of a marriage; the marriage ceremony” are from late 14c. Figurative use (non-theological) “intimate union, a joining as if by marriage” is from early 15c.
DD — unlike most on this site, I’m not a blind, partisan hack. Indeed, I’m a Democrat. I just call balls and strikes.
Respectfully, you could learn a thing or two from me vis-à-vis exercising objective thought.
Jessica-
Something we agree on.
Unsanctioned R-
No. I was basically saying that I disagreed with your definition (showing how it had changed over the years with inter-faith and inter-racial bans).
You wrongly said: “Any man can marry a woman and any woman a man, thus no one’s civil rights were violated.”
I prefer the definition of marriage is between two consenting adults, but I wanted to include the incest exception, with the genetic motivation. That was the answer to your #4, as two brothers can’t produce a child, but a brother-sister might.
But, the root was your idiotic statement that no one’s civil rights were violated, as you left out all the gay people who want to get married and also enjoy the additional rights/benefits given to married people.
rsklaroff-
I choose word-salad specifically because you appear to have severe psychiatric problems and should seek counseling.
NOTHING you wrote alters my statements that the motivation against the marriage of close blood relatives is due to the probability of defects being unacceptable. “Unacceptable” is a subjective term and legislators/society pick the threshold. Different cultures having different levels of tolerance. Modern blood tests can reduce the risks.
HaHaHa-
rsklaroff thinks it’s a good deal because the “sting” canned some black Philly democrats. He doesn’t care that
1) Ali got away with hundreds of thousands
2) that there’s no other incident of corruption than the sting/entrapment in this case
3) that no one actually got charged with bribery
So, don’t take “investment” advice from him.
@ HaHaHa:
Your attack fails on the “homogeneous” component, for this was thoroughly discounted [notwithstanding AG-Kane’s complaint] simply by allowing the con-man to let-loose within his cadre of contacts; there was no implied/real racism extant, and the outcomes would not have been guilty-admissions had your doubts about the case been shared by the perps and/or their attorneys.
I don’t think the convicted ex-legislators share your characterization of the taped-cases against them as a “joke”; if they are laughing, they aren’t within hearing-distance of their former legislative-offices…so no one can hear them.
Therefore, although I harbor doubts about Sandusky [as articulated on this site for years], I cannot condemn FF for his having purged the Assembly of a triad of crooks…can you?
Sting case is an objectively horrible case. No thinking person with any degree of legal training can make an evaluation of that case and come to a different conclusion.
That is why Corbett didn’t charge it.
That is why Kelly didn’t charge it.
You’re just mad because you lost your job when your corrupt boss pled guilty. Ha Ha Ha.
sklaroff – The “sting” case is/was a disaster. Never have I heard of a government witness getting a “deal” where all the pending charges against him get dropped completely and the criminal gets to keep the $400,000.00 he stole. That’s because that is stupid. Any good defense attorney would crush that witness – and the prosecutor who made that “seal.”
I pur “deal” in quotes because it is not a deal at all. In every case where a criminal is flipped, he pleads guilty to something and gets credit for his cooperation.
I haven’t even gotten into the fact that the targets were “homogenous” and that gifts were not illegal. There are reasons the Feds laughed at Fina when he brought them that case and asked for a job. Those reasons are the same ones that led to no punishment and keeping their pensions. The case is a JOKE.
@ HaHaHa:
I interpret what was achieved far differently than you do; by getting the con-man to turn, corrupt politicians were canned…and that’s a good investment…while others were again warned that they shouldn’t venture to emulate those who were nailed.
@ HaHaHa & Others [no one answered with specificity]:
How does FF explain not having raided the house, and has Corbett commented on this, and what did AG-Kane allege was the reason?
Someone should be probing Baldwin’s ethics, no?
@ DD:
http://www.larasig.com/node/2020
Consanguinity Fact Sheet — Debunking Common Myths
Incestuous Unions (Usually First-Degree Relatives) – Risk above general population:
31.4% for death and severe defect (4 data sets)
6.8% to 11.2% for significant birth defects (extrapolated from first-cousin data)
This is NOT a 100%-risk situation and the rest of the article notes that, globally, such linkages are not uncommon.
THEREFORE, rather than toss-around accusations such as “word-salad” [which have particular import psychiatrically], it would be desirable to defer genetics to professionals…if you wish to avoid committing ongoing errors.
David, I gave a simple definition of marriage as between a man and a woman and you assumed that was an endorsement for incest.
At 12:16 I answered your 4 questions from 12:09. Why you started a lecture on OPPOSITE-sex incest is a mystery. Red herring if you ask me.
Unsanctioned R-
No. This is because you said any man could marry any women, and I pointed out the exception of siblings, due to genetics. You then brought up brothers, to which I had no objection.
During this time, rsklaroff went off his meds (or took too many), resulting in his usual incoherent word-salad due to his inability to follow the context of a topic.
All this because I asked David, “What’s the medical reason to keep 2 brother’s from marrying?” What a waste.
rsklaroff-
Why are acting like I’m trying to explain the causes of problems for ALL the “special needs” kids, when I’m explaining the basic reason why marriage between close blood relatives is prohibited. This is basic high school biology/genetics about how everyone has (fatally) defective recessive genes and how close relatives are more likely to share the same recessive defects (which are masked by the working copies). The probability of offspring getting two copies of the defective gene is unacceptably high with close blood relatives.
THIS DISCUSSION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GENETIC PROBLEMS OF OFFSPRING FROM NON-BLOOD RELATED COUPLES.
Has anyone tested your medical degree for caramel stains from a Cracker Jacks box?
HaHaHa-
Philly law enforcement now embarrassed by this @sshole cop, caught on video shaking down motorist to buy tickets to Police/Fire fundraiser or get his car impounded.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/philadelphia-police-shakedown_55d791c2e4b08cd3359c30f5
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20150822_Philly_cop_on_video_soliciting_for_fund-raiser_at_traffic_stop.html
@sklaroff – if we laid down the poliics and just looked at this objectively, we would see a whole lot of stupidity … a whole lot of immaturity … and a whole lot of unprofessionalism.
The constant crap swirling around the Sandusky/PSU debacle is a result of a piss-poor PROCESS. Corbett/Fina weren’t tight. The stakes were high and they cracked. They were not diligent, did not make sound decisions, and were more concerned with their image/W-L record. Looking at what Fina did on the steaming pile of dung sting case is just confirmation of the kind of prosecutor he is. A con-man who stole $400,000.00 from a non-profit gets off scot-free and gets to keep the $$$ so that Fina can “get” some Philly politicians … who eventually get no jail time and get to keep their pensions. He wanted the headlines. He wanted the notches on his belt … and he ended up embarrassing his Office. When the defendants that are left take their cases to court, the world will see what I already know – that case is a joke.
Kane took advantage (who knows if it was on purpose). But she is petty, in-over-her-head … stubborn … vindictive … I could go on and on. She mis-handled things at just about every turn.
The two of them should be ashamed. Together, they have cast a pall over law enforcement in PA … and now in Philadelhia too … as Seth Williams is gonna be the baby who goes out with the bathwater.
@ DD:
What you wrote [“the medical issue is severe (even deadly) genetic defects in children produced by close blood relatives; it has to do with probability/likelihood of two people having matching defective recessive genes”] does not explain most cases; you may wish to read-up on the concept of “mutations.”
@ HaHaHa:
How does FF explain not having raided the house, and has Corbett commented on this, and what did AG-Kane allege was the reason?
@ Anyone:
Someone should be probing Baldwin’s ethics, no?
rsklaroff-
What the f*ck are you talking about? I never said ANYTHING about special needs kids in reference to inheriting genetic defects (including the ones you clearly suffer from). The genetics discussion was completely in the context of why close blood relatives are not permitted to marry, after Unsanctioned R said that any man could marry any woman.
You really should avail yourself of summer programs for remedial reading. Oh.. wait.. that uses taxpayer dollars and public education. Better yet, for you, spend some money to hire a private tutor.
Jessica Myers-
You sound like you are preparing for a celebration on Monday, and that you will be at the courthouse. Do you have any predictions?
For example: any changes to the charges? immunity deals? plea agreements? revelations of information not on the record?
or simpler things like: duration or waiving of the hearing?
Anything at all more specific than it being a “big” day?
HaHaHa-
I don’t think Fina “living with it” is troubling his conscience. His employment opportunities and community standing might be a different matter. Of course, if you hang out with Seth Williams, you aren’t going to get judged too harshly in that crowd.
Jessica – let’s not pretend that Monday is not the direct result of Kane exposing Fina for what he is: a pervert that was more concerned with bestiality porn than he was with PA’s children.
Sandusky’s trial – which could have been one by monkeys – even had a victim (Victim 9) that was attacked by Sandusky in the Fall of 2009 …. after Fina should have already had Sandusky in custody.
Fina will ALWAYS have to live with that. And it is most certainly relevant to the witch-hunt that has a PH on “Monday.”
@ DD:
PLEASE do not attempt to practice medicine when you are totally ignorant of the fundamentals; not all children with special needs [some of whom may have deficient IQs] have inherited [dominant or recessive] genetic defects from either/both parents [independence of phenotypic penetrance].
*
How does FF explain not having raided the house, and has Corbett commented on this, and what did AG-Kane allege was the reason?
*
If memory serves, the issue of Grand Jury testimony without representation was raised by the two underlings because they thought that the presence of former-Supreme Cynthia Baldwin [representing PSU] denoted her representing their interests [Schultz/Curley] when, actually, her presence connoted only that she was continuing to protect PSU.
This is of tremendous interest because no one impugns her [for whatever reason(s)] despite this lapse, plus her having failed to ensure the Board knew of what was transpiring during that entire calendar-year [despite the time-line, despite initial press-reports, despite inquiries] until the Fall meeting; she should have ensured they had been thoroughly briefed in the Spring and Summer but, alas, she has never explained her silence.
*
BTW, Pennsylvania Superior Court held oral arguments in the case of former president Graham Spanier, former vice president Gary Schultz and former athletic director Tim Curley on Aug. 11 in Harrisburg….The trio are appealing a January order by Dauphin County Judge Todd Hoover that could clear the way for them to go to trial; Judge Hoover rejected arguments they had made about the fairness and legality of the grand jury investigation that had resulted in charges.
http://fox43.com/2015/08/09/3-former-penn-state-administrators-head-to-appeals-court-hearing-tuesday/
*
Perhaps the situation will be wrapped-up prior to the end of another gubernatorial term, although someone should be probing Baldwin’s ethics, no?
Re-litigating the Moulton Report? Come on. Let’s talk about something topical.
Like Monday………..
You can try rewriting history, but “exonerated” is what we learned from Kane’s Moulton report.
Regarding gay marriage, you either cannot read my opinions or comprehend them…to the same ends. Thank you at least for your support of groups’ free speech rights.
There were findings that Fina was responsible for “inexplicable” delays in the Sandusky investigation. Not only did he fail to arrest Sandusky immediately after Aaron Fisher came forward, he did not even execute a search warrant on Sandusky’s house – which would have yielded a ton of evidence about Sandusky’s other victims (he had pictures of his victims and a list with “*”s on it).
Fina now calls the boy Sandusky raped while he dragged his feet “not credible.” How incredibly convenient for him. Maybe he should have been more attentive to child rape victims than he was to bestiality videos.
Don’t forget this is the same Frank Fina that went on TV to talk about the strength of the Penn State 3 case and allowed a witness to testify unrepresented in front of the grand jury. Both were HIGHLY UNETHICAL. He has no credibility at this point.
I don’t blame Kane for standing up to him. She saw with her own eyes what he was doing at work (while he was with the OAG). We will all see it soon.
HaHaHa-
Go easy on him. He’s “special”.
Poor Unsanctioned R … Can’t get over the LEGALITY of Gay Marriage. He definitely needs more TEA.
That comment is so gay.
Unsanctioned R
I was comparing the GOP candidates to a retarded hamster, not a retarded person. Maybe you should look for a hamster of average intelligence to explain the difference to you.
Unsanctioned R,
The medical issue is severe (even deadly) genetic defects in children produced by close blood relatives. It has to do with probability/likelihood of two people having matching defective recessive genes.
I’ve got no problem with brothers or sisters in same sex marriages, as the medical conditions don’t apply.
I don’t have a problem with opposite sex siblings marrying, as long as they are incapable of producing a child, and both parties are consenting adults.
Dr., I merely tried to show how silly David’s hypocrisy was by putting the shoe on the other foot. Thought that was obvious.
I also agree with PoliticsPA that in the Moulton report “investigators are mostly exonerated.” Their source: http://articles.philly.com/2014-06-26/news/50859018_1_jerry-sandusky-kane-sandusky-trial
David,
The problem with “retarded” is that you are indirectly devaluing someone who has mental retardation by using their label as an insult. Some may say it’s the same as calling you “gay.” Make sense?
OK, well don’t say I didn’t ask nicely. I surely hope your luck does not change in the future.
SpongeBob-
I cringe at the term “special needs”.
Especially so when equated with mental retardation, or a single affliction. A blind or deaf person is “special needs” too. The term is too broad and I actually find it a cowardly method to hide/avoid dealing with the specific medical condition(s).
I’m not going to coddle people who cannot understand the context of a word they don’t like (especially when their suggested alternative is not an improvement).
So, if I had compared the GOP candidates to a “special needs” hamster that would have been better?
Of course not.
@ HaHaHa:
I remember AG-Kane issued that allegation when she revealed the contents of her investigation…and I also recall that both boys were ultimately proven not to have been attacked during that time-interval.
I do concur that Corbett has yet to explain why he was inert for one entire year, a half-decade ago.
@ DD:
Disproving your stance on CU is the tremendous explosion [at least among the R’s, thus far] of speech-freedom, funded by “persons” that are legally both comprised of flesh-and-blood and aggregates of those sporting flesh-and-blood.
Also, the preferred method to engage in political discourse is to eschew characterizing and, instead, to grapple with content; in this way, your broad-assertions [such as regarding supply side economics] would stand/fall on data rather than be emitted as a smokescreen.
@ Unsanctioned R:
How does gay-marriage threaten fundamentally sound/healthy societal norms?
It isn’t true that “AG Kane’s report was vindicating” because, as Corbett immediately admitted post-election, he should not have fired JoePA precipitously…even as he has yet to provide a no-holds-barred interview that would provide the tick-tock of his decision-making.
1) The same way Citizens United does.
2) Gay marriage now lets women marry their sisters or daughters.
3) You cite some incidents throughout history. But the definition of between a man and a woman is eternally accurate.
4) What’s the medical reason to keep 2 brother’s from marrying? If we allow it, don’t they have more rights than other siblings?
Unsanctioned R
1) how does gay marriage harm society? (It’s been legal in some states for years, and society didn’t break down)
2) any man can marry any woman? Really? I didn’t realize you were in favor of marrying a sister or daughter.
3) marriage used to be defined as between a man and woman of same race (and of same religion). Before that, wives were even considered property, traded in arranged marriages.
4) the modern definition is marriage is between two adults, and incest restrictions still apply for medical reasons.
Look, I am loathe to remove words from our vocabulary, but a lot of people who have special needs kids see that word as cringe worthy. Having family members who have children with downs syndrome children and hearing people throw that word around with hurt and ill feelings around those children has made people (including myself)despise that word. While being a staunch democrat makes me question your intelligence you strike me as someone who I not in any way dumb. There are 50 other words you can use that are both derogatory and will make your point. How about on this one you admit there is some truth to the hurt behind this word and pick a new one?
SpongeBob-
I don’t agree with the pc police on every word choice they decide to get their panties in a bunch about. I used the word in a reasonable and proper context. What will they try to take away next, the word “idiot”? Stupid? Moron?
I’d be left with no way to characterize the intellectually void policies of the right wing.
However. I didn’t so much say the republicans were bad, as I said the policies of their party are bad. There are some republicans who foolishly believe the thoroughly debunked arguments that lower taxes will lead to growth/prosperity. It doesn’t make them bad people, just unfit for office.
” It has been widely reported that Sandusky attacked another child whilee Fina and his pals sat on their hands watching vporn”
It has also been widely retracted. AG Kane’s report was vindicating.
And David, You’re arguing with the Supreme Court and are a hypocrite to do so. Consider this:
Gay marriage was decided wrongly as marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. Any man can marry a woman and any woman a man, thus no one’s civil rights were violated. Unlike Citizens United, gay marriage does represent a harm to society.
While none of the dire predictions of those against Citizens United have come to pass, those against gay marriiage have. Thus, gay marriage will be overturned by the next court.
I’d expect a good A.G. to realize that it’s bad and aggressively go after any abuses that cross the wrongly placed line.
Unscanction R-
Citizens United was decided wrongly as corporations don’t have civil rights. Unlike gay marriage, Citizens United does represent a harm to democracy and society.
While none of the dire predictions of those against gay marriage have not come to pass, those against Citizens United have. Thus, CU will be overturned by the next court.
I’d expect a good A.G. to realize that it’s bad and aggressively go after any abuses that cross the wrongly placed line.
Rsklaroff-
What are you talking about. I’ve been clear and consistent that this entire mess has been politically motivated and damaging. She simply won’t be able to raise the funds for a reelection campaign given the poisonous political environment. That’s math.
To be viable, she’d have to not only win her trial, but have the FBI arrest the people who put her on trial, and have them confess to a deliberate conspiracy to overturn an election (and play some wiretaps with a few of those conversations). Given the timeframe for the election and difficulty in proving conspiracies without the wiretaps, and the overall rigged game, I don’t see Kane running for reelection.
David, I would like to ask you to strongly reconsider your defense of the word retard(ed). It’s the liberal media leading the way for for everyone to be so damn PC. That word is a grenade word. It may be a dud to you but to many it is indeed seen as explosive. Your use and then defense of the word is unacceptable. If you don’t like my feelings on the word look no further than your blind belief that democrats=good and repubs=bad. I will be happy to point you towards dozens of D based media orgs who denounced the word. Don’t let this be the beginning of a bad luck streak for you.
sklaroff – It has been widely reported that Sandusky attacked another child whilee Fina and his pals sat on their hands watching vporn … like the video where a 100 year old woman was having sex … or the pictures of little oys looking up little girls’ skirts.
The reason for the delays may not have been political – but there WERE delays. They let that monster remain a free man for way too long. Read the book by the Sandusky victim. Frank Fina is named … and it ain’t pretty.
R – you need another cup of tea. Put your “TRUMPin 16” shirt on and go get some tea.
David, I love your defense of settled Constitutional law like gay marriage. I feel the same way about how Citizens United put to bed debate on 1st Amendment issues.
I also really like your defense of “retarded” as satire. It reminds me of some Democrats’ niggardly support for going after ISIS. And when Kane’s in jail we’ll all get together to celebrate by smoking a fag.
@ DD:
What is evidence that Fina was culpable regarding Sandusky investigation?
What finally prompted you to disavow AG-Kane’s political demise?
Why couldn’t you disavow the view of chris martinez regarding the degree of fealty you harbor regarding all things AG-Kane?