Court documents confirm that a statewide grand jury recommended charges against PA’s Attorney General, but Kane remains steadfast in her assertion that she did not do anything wrong.
According to Brad Bumsted of the Tribune-Review, newly released court documents confirm the Inquirer’s report that the grand jury recommended charges of “perjury, false swearing, official oppression and obstruction.”
This investigation stems from a case in which Kane and her office leaked grand jury evidence from another case to the Philadelphia Daily News last June.
Despite the fact that she may be indicted, the Attorney General insists she did nothing wrong.
“No, I won’t resign,” she said during a short press conference.
Kane accused her opponents of trying to overturn her election through the courts.
“I’m not giving up,” Kane said. “But I’m not in this just for me. I’m in it for everybody and quite honestly if they can do it to me, they can do it to anyone else.”
“The truth is the truth. That’s what it is,” she responded when asked about a possible perjury charge. “There was no crime committed. There were no documents that were grand jury materials leaked.”
“I told the truth every single time,” she concluded.
Update: Marc Levy of the Associated Press is reporting that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will hear Attorney General Kathleen Kane’s case that the special prosecutor chosen to investigate her was appointed illegally.
Also, you ignored one of my overnight queries [“Also when you wrote that she had said the leaks were not deliberate and I requested a reference … you turned it around and claimed I would have to prove otherwise. I need not prove anything; I am simply asking that you document your assertion because it contradicts what I thought she’d claimed … namely that what had been leaked had not been protected.”]
You also keep trotting-out a conjured-rationalization [“Read the articles; they all say extra info was released by her staff unintentionally”] that cannot be ID’ed.
It would seem that, once the SCOPA clears the deck [or ID’s some other investigatory mechanism for a statewide officeholder], the staff-confession alone will inevitably yield the “leak” charge to be issued … and then [in my brother’s lingo], “Stick a fork into her, because she’ll be ‘done’!”
You conveniently redefined the primary-charge; as per both AG-Kane and yesterday’s reports, it is the leak [“Notably, the report said that even current staffers at the Attorney General’s Office said that the leaked material included secret grand jury information”].
There is no mention anywhere that the absence of “contempt” was vital, let alone dispositive; indeed, “contempt” would be far more often based upon presumption than the others [which are more easily proven] and allowing professional discretion to neutralize this particular angle.
They only need one key-charge to stick, right?
Also, regarding the SCOPA task, it seems that the only argument by AG-Kane is that only the AG’s office can conduct a statewide investigation; obviously, the AG’s office can’t investigate itself, so this is easily dispelled. Then, the prior decisions of the SCOPA supportive of this mechanism [judge-appointed procedures] validate what transpired.
If the prosecutor didn’t get his primary charge, with the low threshold of a grand jury, Ferman isn’t going after it.
Without the original contempt charge the other charges don’t pass the smell test and look spurious.
Read the articles, they all say extra info was released by her staff unintentionally.
Based upon his audio recording received two days ago, I suspect that Daryl will not feel constrained by others …. particularly noting that he has many additional avenues for inquiry.
First, a typo … be should be “by” in reference to Ferman’s flexibility.
Second, the claim that contempt is so vital recalls the (dashed) claim that she’d leaked, for the survival of any on review charge following summary judgment motions would be devastating.
Also when you wrote that she had said the leaks were not deliberate and I requested a reference … you turned it around and claimed I would have to prove otherwise.
I need not prove anything; I am simply asking that you document your assertion because it contradicts what I thought she’d claimed … namely that what had been leaked had not been protected.
First, why’s the contempt charge dispositive?
Second, is it not true that she’s not bound be the GJ and thus could add that charge if desirable?
So, you’re claiming he violated attorney client privilege to gossip with you about his private conversations? Sounds like he should be up on charges himself.
He dumped her for being a liar. Just ask Him I did. I wonder who he is representing now? You all will be shocked when this breaks. More to follow.