Close this search box.

Kane Questions Authority of Senate Committee Investigating Her

KaneThe Attorney General doesn’t believe the Senate committee investigating her is a valid body.

Kane finally responded to the Senate’s attempts to potentially remove her from office in a six-page letter today.

She argues that impeachment is the only legitimate way to get rid of her and that the Senate special committee lacks “jurisdiction and cause for inquiry.”

“This committee has no authority under the Pennsylvania Constitution and the longstanding precedent to remove an Attorney General by means other than impeachment, after conviction,” Kane writes.

This raises the question of whether Kane will accept the judgement of the Senate and Governor and increases the possibility of even more legal action.

75 Responses

  1. Not so fast !!

    If the Senate acknowledges that 22 states do not even require their attorneys general to be licensed members of the bar. Nor is the U.S. attorney general, or justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, required to be members of a state bar.

    My guess is that these facts never get introduced before this Kangaroo Court.

  2. DD – What’s your guess on what Kane does after the Senate “committee” does what it was set up to do?

  3. Me too, Bal. The filth and corruption need to be weeded out.

    This really isn’t about R vs D. They both suck.

    This is about finally CLEANING HOUSE in Pennsylvnia. Jag-offs, perverts, creeps, and racists have no business being prosecutors or judges.

  4. Pity. The Democrats claim the AG’s office is running just fine. If you consider nothing getting done ‘just fine’ then OK! Having no use for either side I care less who goes down and out. I hope Kane exposes all the filth.

  5. Based on their e-mails, it seems the only people who have lost their minds are Fina & The Corbett Pervs and Dakin & The Woman-Hating Creeps.

    Perhaps the Senate ought to be looking at them. Kane mag be naive. And she may have committed a leak to get back at Fina, but she is not senile as the law would require to remove her without a trial.

    It is so obvious that the Lynch-mob is desperate to avoid a trial. Look how they abandoned their Contempt charge a few months ago … They are a JOKE.

  6. Did he really type “plain lingo?” Seriously — I can’t read his comments but I might do so just to find that one.

  7. rsklaroff-

    The article refers to the transcripts of the debates on the PA constitution, and the meaning and intent are not what you are saying. The “plain lingo” has to be interpreted from the meaning of the words 140 years ago, not common usage of the terms.

    However, even under the modern definition, Kane is more than competent enough to be AG.

  8. @ d2:

    My reference to the Philadelphia-NFL franchise was provided to loyal fans who pronounce the name of the team “correctly.”

    Regarding your three recapitulated assertions–based upon the historical article that inter-alia failed in an attempt to try the case rather than to focus upon competence–note annotations:

    1) The section was intended to remove people for senility (we need a clause like that in PoliticsPA to remove you)

    **-It was intended to remove incompetents, not just senile public servants; no one is [yet] asserting AG-Kane has Alzheimer’s.**

    2) Kane is of higher rank that the other elected officials excluded from the section, and AG wasn’t an elected position at the time. So, any reasonable interpretation of the intent of the section would include Attorney General in the list of exceptions.

    **Non-Sequitur, based upon plain-lingo in the Constitution.**

    3) The office is functioning fine (and much better than under Corbett as the staff isn’t engaged in sending porn emails when they should be working).

    **Your assertions must be documented, that being the rationale for the hearing[s].**

  9. rsklaroff-


    Actually, Kane can make a pretty good case for the legislature not having the authority. READ THE LINK that Henry Tate posted:

    1) The section was intended to remove people for senility (we need a clause like that in PoliticsPA to remove you)

    2) Kane is of higher rank that the other elected officials excluded from the section, and AG wasn’t an elected position at the time. So, any reasonable interpretation of the intent of the section would include Attorney General in the list of exceptions.

    3) The office is functioning fine (and much better than under Corbett as the staff isn’t engaged in sending porn emails when they should be working).


  11. Since nick Field only re-posts the Anti-Kane garbage put out by Craig & Angela at the Inquirer, I thought it would be appropriate to post this excerpt from a recent article:

    For months Kane’s political opponents have bandied about this “direct address” removal clause as a means to quickly remove the attorney general from office.
    Political observers have suspected that Kane’s law license suspension and the resulting crisis appear to have been manufactured from the start by Kane’s opponents as a deliberate means to invoke the little-used removal clause.

    Trouble is, Kane’s opponents strangely never bothered to investigate the historical use of the clause, nor its intended purpose.

    For months, for example, Kane’s opponents said the clause had never been used before.
    Until I pointed out, in an article I wrote this September, that a “direct removal” attempt had occurred — and failed — in 1891.

    “The procedure is so rare that reporters, lawyers and political commentators thought it had never been used,” wrote the Allentown Morning Call. “But Harrisburg-area author Bill Keisling found a record of its use in a Senate journal from 1891 and blogged about it.”

    In fact, the “direct removal” procedure was not used only once, but three times in the state’s history — all in the 19th century, and within a few years of the clause’s placement into the constitution.

    In addition to the 1891 failed attempt to remove the state treasurer and auditor general for alleged financial chicanery, use of the clause on two other occasions is mentioned in passing in the book, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Roger Foster, Boston Book Company, 1895).

    Both of these uses of the clause to remove state office holders were for its intended purpose: “mental incapacity,” or senility.

    “The senate of Pennsylvania has also addressed the governor for the removal of Edward Rowan, high sheriff of Philadelphia, and Judge John M. Kirkpatrick of Pittburg — the later in 1885, both for physical and mental incapacity,” reports Foster in his 1895 book.
    The glaring fact that Kane’s political opponents — judges, lawyers and state senators who supposedly place great importance on words, precedent and intent — haven’t done their homework or due diligence raises as many if not more questions about them, and their own “competency,” as it does about AG Kane.

  12. Repervlicans like sklaroff cannot understand why the duly elected AG of Pennsylvania won’t just “go away?” They ask themselves that in their dreams. They wake up thinking about it. Then, the get out of bed, roll their fat, pasty-white diabetic bodies onto the floor, raise their arms above their heads and yell. as loud as they can: BENGHAZI !!!!!!!

  13. AG-Kane [was watching Iggles while typing…YAY!] cannot cite legislative intent supportive of her theory that this portion of the constitution is not applicable, nor has anything uploaded by Henry Tate.

    The plain words are properly invoked, and the history of its use is not imicable with how the Senate will NOT be adjudicating the criminal case…but will focus on her ability to function in her office under the current circumstances.

    I am certain the Senators/Governor will have assessed what happened more than a century ago, commensurate with how I analyzed [in detail] the results of the aforementioned sleuth-work.

  14. @ rsklaroff You didn’t “refute” anything. You make little sense. Your argument(s) boil down to, ‘We say it, so it’s so.”

  15. @ Henry Tate:

    I refuted your interpretation a few days ago; there is no citation of legislative-intent that supports your assertion that this clause was inappropriately applied to AG-Kelly.

    [“Go Iggles!”]

  16. Harry Tate -Good work. That is a very interesting and informative article written by a real expert. And, as usual, it doesn’t look for the lynch-mob.

    Kane is still standing. And it looks like it’s gonna stay that way. Maybe she won’t have to release all those e-mails after all. At least not until she runs for a second term after being found Not Guilty of that one alleged leak.

    Speaking of leaks, what is going on with the MANY leaks from the Kane Grand Jury? When are the people responsible going to be held accountable?

  17. rsklaroff-

    I wrote that any senate Dems taking part in this farce should expect a primary challenge.

    Wolf is opening a can of worms by giving into the GOP Senate on a new political precedent that they could use against the next Dem AG, or Treasurer, or Auditor who comes across info that exposes their party or opposed their interests.

    But, if Wolf goes along with this and winds up with a primary challenger, he should not expect my vote.

  18. Twisting in the wind right now are the perverts, racists and woman-haters who know what’s coming. Drip … Drip … Drip go the e-mails. Kane knows she isn’t going to be the AG for a second term. I think she also knows the creep pigs pursuing her don’t want a trial. And, without a trial, there can’t be a conviction.

    Another commenter has been talking about “selective enforcement.” I looked it up. It’s a form of corruption.

  19. rsklaroff-

    I’m thrilled that Kane has found so many more emails to reveal. I hope there are even more. She’d clearly demonstrated the motives of the forces against her.

    This Senate committee is a crock and any of the Dems voting against Kane will find support for them getting a primary challenger.

    These attempts to circumvent the trial process demonstrate the desperation of the forces against her to avoid evidence, and cross-examination.

    If Wolf lets the GOP force the ouster of an elected Dem official, he’s opening a can of worms for himself.

  • Reader Poll: Should President Joe Biden Step Aside?

    • Yes. He should step aside because of his age, declining ability to do the job. (45%)
    • No. He should not step aside. (39%)
    • Yes. He should step aside because he can't beat Donald Trump. (15%)

    Total Voters: 231

    Loading ... Loading ...
Continue to Browser


To install tap and choose
Add to Home Screen