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. rsklaroff –

    The overwhelming facts are that you need to stop f*cking goats in a pentagram and give Cheney his turn back. All your prayers to Satan aren’t going to get Kane out of office any faster.

  2. : This Senate “panel” is a joke. When are the Dems going to wake up on this?

    The “panel” has the top Repervlican Senators and most senior ones vs. the most Junior Dems they could find, including one who has already slammed Kane and can hardly be considered impartial. They didn’t even try to appear unbiased or impartial.

    Impeach her or prove the charges in court with real evidence that Kane has the right to challenge. What these PA Repervlican Clowns are trying to do is NOT the American way. The desperate, nasty nature of the smear campaign should have been the first sign. The repeated illegal leks should have been the nail in their coffin. Now – a Judge thinks he is being followed and that is AG Kane’s doing … This whole thing is absurd. It needs to get sorted out in Court.

  3. sklaroff – there has been a trial? Overwhelming evidence has been presented to a Jury?? … Oh wait … what’s that …. the only ‘facts” you have are from leaks and other nonsense from attack squad? Yeah …. No … PROVE IT IN COURT OR SHUT UP. The “facts” will play out in Court … not based on legal leaks.

    Speaking of illegal leaks – has a grand jury been empaneled to investigate all the illegal leaks fro the Kane grand jury?

    It seems the latter (the shutting up is not an option for you) – so you should expect to be called more names — like “ayy-hole tea-guzzler”

  4. @ aaron, Ha3 & d2:

    Perhaps you are attacking ad-hominem instead of confronting overwhelming facts.

  5. HaHaHa-

    It’s important to identify the mentally ill and offer counter information to their insane ramblings, lest some people mistake them for real ideas.

    rsklaroff-

    Take the mental exam, or just send a psychiatrist some of your links. Don’t be frightened by the men with the white coats and giant butterfly net.

  6. Diano — what does it say about your own senility and ludicty that you spend your days, nights, and weekends engaging with someone whom you assert is “sick?”

    Face it: You and that other freak are two sides of the same coin.

  7. @ d2:

    Notwithstanding your armchair diagnosis absent a mental-status-exam – and recognizing [but rejecting] the temptation to reciprocate – the following is superimposed upon your prior admission that Israel’s re-establishment was a “catastrophe” [employing the Arabic term “nakba”].

    1. I do not begrudge her being provided the opportunity to defend herself, but rejecting a subpoena for her e-mails [of recent vintage, prior to her having decided to selectively delete her repertoire, as did Hillary] telegraphs her reticence to engage in this process; if she fails to mount a defense tomorrow, the adverse outcome will be pre-ordained [and ascribable to her behavior, acute and chronic].

    2. If the dysfunction is deigned suboptimal and, thus, outside the bounds of discretion, her continued occupancy of the post of “AG” is justifiably challenged.

    3. A resolution to the full Senate still isn’t judiciable as “damages” [as might a work-permit, which carries definable input], and premature filing could risk a “with prejudice” rejection of her entire stance.

    4. Your attempt to undermine the charge to this committee [“If the office isn’t shut down and is still handling cases, you aren’t going to be able to prove dysfunction”] cannot be dismissed as “subjective” when it has the capacity to exercise its judgment, based upon facts presented [and awareness of the fact that some may have been consciously withheld, yielding the absence of any mitigating factor].

    5. You engage in historical revisionism that doesn’t compute [” I haven’t made any statements that would be proven false, even if Kane is convicted, jailed and removed from office. The entire process would still be a gross miscarriage and abuse of justice.”] when one recalls how your predictions she would be exonerated [before/during/after her release of porn] morphed into the recognition that a hypothetical [she could be nailed]…which you constantly rejected…is increasingly imminent.

    6. Your continued attempt to invoke the tangential charges and your prediction [“I don’t think the case is a slam dunk for the prosecution, or the senate wouldn’t be trying to remove her by other means”] fall flat; the reason for the removal is to be predicated on how the Senate perceives the commonweal, notwithstanding her not yet having faced the criminal justice system; again, this is why your having conjured the concept of a plea-bargain hasn’t resonated, for her opponents perceive no advantage to her resigning to avoid facing charges that they can view as difficult to disprove.

    If you suggest that anyone supporting [POTUS-45] Ted Cruz is paranoid schizophrenic, this lays bare your underlying approach towards disputational interaction; you would do well [as would readers @ this site, indeed, as would your clients] were you to look into the mirror.

  8. rsklaroff-

    I engage here to point out your fabrications. My political “business” is online voter data, where the numbers of voters remain the same, regardless of the facts and opinions I express here.

    1) “delay is ascribable to efforts to honor her rights” LOL

    That is hilarious, because you bitch every time she expresses her rights. It’s you and your ilk who are not honoring her rights and trying to railroad her before her trial (which is another railroading altogether)

    2) “if people testify that her office has become dysfunctional and she doesn’t rebut these assertions”

    Don’t you think that Kane will find people who will testify that the office is functional? Or that the disfunction is coming from Kane’s political enemies bombarding the office with requests/subpoenas? or from disgruntled employees who miss their porn emails and old boys club?

    The subjective claims of a dysfunctional office are among the dumbest attacks on Kane.

    3) Wow, you are really dumb on this one, here is an example: Someone gets a permit to tear down a building. (ie: the committee makes a ruling for removing Kane). The court issues an injunction on the permit before the building is torn down (ie: Kane stops the vote, which would be harmful, prejudicial, and unconstitutional, and could lead to an unlawful interference by the Senate on an elected official)

    So, yeah, the court should act before the vote, if the committee makes the wrong determination by misapplying the constitution.

    4) Dysfunction is subjective. If the office isn’t shut down and is still handling cases, you aren’t going to be able to prove dysfunction.

    5) I haven’t made any statements that would be proven false, even if Kane is convicted, jailed and removed from office. The entire process would still be a gross miscarriage and abuse of justice.

    What I have said, is that Kane is a whistleblower/hero for revealing the emails, abuses and corruption in the justice system. It’s still a witch hunt. The prosecution has failed to go after the giant leaks of their own case, which are far worse than anything Kane has done, and this selective prosecution has undermine their credibility and moral authority. I’ve said if all these other pr*cks get convicted for their serious crimes and behavior, then it would be acceptable to go after Kane proportionally (but, Kane deserves whistleblower protections for her leaks).
    I don’t think the case is a slam dunk for the prosecution, or the senate wouldn’t be trying to remove her by other means, without a defense and witnesses. She could get a jury that sees through the political nature of this and acquits, or one too stupid to see it and convicts.

    6) The facts are that you are mentally ill and need professional help. I’m not the only poster here who has pointed this out. You suffer from paranoid delusions, as well as delusions of grandeur. You support Ted Cruz (which is proof enough). You are a very sick man.

  9. @ d2:

    Your tendency to confabulate relates, perhaps, to your intent to attract political business but, ultimately, you would do better to stick to facts over conjecture:

    “1) I was referring to you and every other crank who has been predicting her demise with every scheduled event, hearing, etc.

    Yes, we have predicted her demise as the drip-drip-drip continues; delay is ascribable to efforts to honor her rights, seriatim.

    “2) “There *IS* harm every day she remains in office, as will be shown by the committee” Wrong. There is no harm. The office has been regularly operating and reporting arrests, settlements, etc. during this entire process. The office is functioning especially well with the release of these emails. So, the only “harm” is to the judges, investigators and prosecutors who have been abusing the system and having their biases revealed.”

    This must be probed, notwithstanding her refusal to supply e-mails detailing the forced-adjustments she has made; if people testify that her office has become dysfunctional and she doesn’t rebut these assertions, she’s cooked.

    “3) It’s a shame that your parents did not make a “prophylactic motion” 65 years ago. However, if you learned to read, you’d realize that Kane would only act if the committee attempted to misapply section 7 and recommended a vote. At THAT point, Kane could address the Supreme court for an injunction against a Senate vote. She could also appeal a Senate vote to the court (as well as any action by Wolf) attempting to remove her. Because, if the Supreme Court disagrees with the senate interpretation of section 7, then it would render all subsequent actions void.”

    So you would have her file suit after the committee votes but prior to when the full senate votes, despite the fact that she would not yet have an alleged-injury? Yeah, right, and how would you handle her lack of standing?

    “4) There is no indication that the AG’s office has been impeded or is being impeded by anything as much as it is by this witch hunt and disruptions from Kane’s political enemies and those seeking to suppress the release of their own emails and misdeeds.”

    This will frame the charge to this committee; evidence of dysfunction will become dispositive.

    “5) I haven’t made any claims that need to be retracted, whether or not she is removed. I’ve made it very clear that the attempts to remove her are an abuse of the system. Whether or not the abuse is successful, that does not change my assertion that it is abuse.”

    So the wiggling-out process starts; you would refuse to take responsibility for your own misstatements, once proven false, eh? And this is what you would advise your clients to do, when they are found-out to have erred in some capacity? This is the role-model you would have them emulate?

    “6) Your homework is to seek professional psychiatric help.”

    Your homework [tentatively] is to expunge the tendency to go-negative via ad-hominem claims, in the stead of facing facts.

  10. David Diano doesn’t think I’m cool enough to wear an LED scrolling name tag.

    Let that one sink in, friends.

    LOL.

  11. HaHaHa-

    You are not cool enough. Try posting under your real name to improve yourself. The whole point of nametag is display your name.

  12. rsklaroff-

    1) I was referring to you and every other crank who has been predicting her demise with every scheduled event, hearing, etc.

    2) “There *IS* harm every day she remains in office, as will be shown by the committee ”

    Wrong. There is no harm. The office has been regularly operating and reporting arrests, settlements, etc. during this entire process.
    The office is functioning especially well with the release of these emails. So, the only “harm” is to the judges, investigators and prosecutors who have been abusing the system and having their biases revealed.

    3) It’s a shame that your parents did not make a “prophylactic motion” 65 years ago.

    However, if you learned to read, you’d realize that Kane would only act if the committee attempted to misapply section 7 and recommended a vote. At THAT point, Kane could address the Supreme court for an injunction against a Senate vote. She could also appeal a Senate vote to the court (as well as any action by Wolf) attempting to remove her. Because, if the Supreme Court disagrees with the senate interpretation of section 7, then it would render all subsequent actions void.

    4) There is no indication that the AG’s office has been impeded or is being impeded by anything as much as it is by this witch hunt and disruptions from Kane’s political enemies and those seeking to suppress the release of their own emails and misdeeds.

    5) I haven’t made any claims that need to be retracted, whether or not she is removed. I’ve made it very clear that the attempts to remove her are an abuse of the system. Whether or not the abuse is successful, that does not change my assertion that it is abuse.

    6) Your homework is to seek professional psychiatric help.

  13. Diano — I am DYING to know where I can get one of those sweet LED scrolling name tags I heard you’re fond of.

    Please help me be as COOL as you!

  14. @ d2:

    I feel it will be begin to unravel when the Senate committee meeting occurs on Monday; this is the first time I have predicted a time-frame for the denoument and, I might add, it would seem apt to recognize the time-frame for this report is by month’s end [after which time the Senate can act…and it’s all over].

    The “meat” of your claim is rather easily discounted [“Considering the seriousness of removing an elected official (and lack of a trial), and the lack of harm in Kane remaining in office, the Supreme court would likely err on the side of caution and entertain the motion NOW rather than later. Because it is a MUCH bigger mess if Kane is removed and that section 7 is ruled as not applicable.”]

    There *IS* harm every day she remains in office, as will be shown by the committee [notwithstanding her refusal to cooperate, thereby not empowering her to discount testimony reflecting the disruption that has been noted on this website, plus elsewhere].

    Also, it would appear unlikely that any prophylactic motion would be heard until the Senate were to act, for the report theoretically would not necessarily be adverse…in which case she would have no “damages” that could be claimed.

    It’s not a “bigger mess” were she to be removed by the Senate than were she to remain, assuming the Senate were to decide that her inability to practice law impedes the ability of the AG’s office to function.

    Otherwise, the rest of your meandering thoughts [in this posting and in those prior] reflect the “wudda/shudda” level to which your arguments have been reduced.

    Again, you need to be reminded that your homework assignment [retracting all your erroneous claims on this website, which you continue to pollute] will be due the moment she’s been removed.

    If you wish to apply for an extension, you can allow for the completion of this task to be accomplished after her appellate process [presumed, in your view, to go to the Supremes] has been exhausted.

  15. DD – you hit the nail right on the head. They want to get rid of her without giving her a chance to defend herself. That was the goal of the smear campaign. That was the hope after the laughable indictment. But Kane should continue to say: PROVE IT IN COURT OR SHUT UP.

    Remember when they abandoned their Contempt charge when it was clear that Kane was going to present a defense? They are sneaky, pathetic cowards Kane is standing up to them. So is at least one sting defendant. Can’t wait to see those cases in Court.

  16. rsklaroff-

    1) The six-member committee is supposed to explore the options:

    “According to Karen Langley of the Post-Gazette, a bipartisan special committee will be formed to explore the upper chamber’s options as stated in Article 6 Section 7 of the State Constitution.”

    That means that it’s not 100% clear that Kane and her alleged crimes/behavior fit the criteria, so the committee is study/debate the meaning of the section, then come up with whatever cock-and-bull justification for their pre-determined outcome.

    2) Since, the whole thing rests upon an interpretation of that section, the Supreme Court is the final authority to rule on whether it applies as the six-member committee may claim it does.

    You see, that’s one of the key jobs of the state supreme court: to interpret the state constitution. This is basic civics.

    3) If this committee claims that the section applies to the Kane situation, Kane can file with supreme court for an injunction on a senate vote, pending their determination of the intent/application of the section and legal foundation.

    Considering the seriousness of removing an elected official (and lack of a trial), and the lack of harm in Kane remaining in office, the Supreme court would likely err on the side of caution and entertain the motion NOW rather than later. Because it is a MUCH bigger mess if Kane is removed and that section 7 is ruled as not applicable.

    So, this is not a “quick” pathway, but an attempt to avoid a trial, witnesses and a defense.

    4) The longer this goes on, her term in office is not briefer. Quite the opposite. It’s still 4 years or removal due to trial (and no trial date set?).

    The longer it goes on, the closer she is to the end of her term. That’s mathematically true.

    5) Unraveling in 48 hours? Where have we heard that before? Oh, yeah… Nearly every week for months.

    6) Let’s hope Kane remains long enough to complete her whistle-blowing of the corrupt judicial system.

  17. LOL … now it’s down to 48 hours … The Repervlicans(like sklaroff) have been greatly exaggerating Kane’s demise for the better part of a year. I remember in early October they said she wouldn’t make it to the end of the month. Has that mental patient (sklaroff) commented on any of the D-Sweep articles yet?

    Hey Repervlicans – thanks for MontCo.; and get ready for President Hillary Clinton.

  18. 1. There is no need for a plea-bargain.
    2. The longer Kane lasts, the better this gets…and the briefer is her term of office, the better for the commonweal.
    3. She has no more “goods” and is going to be unraveling within 48 hours.

  19. A “full trial” is exactly what Fina & The Corbett Pervs have been trying to avoid. They don’t handle those well. They prefer to be unethical and force plea deals. That’s just how they roll. When it was clear Sandusky was going to go to trial, Fina had to bring in an outside lawyer to be lead counsel. He is more of a behind-the-scenes dirt-bag. His tools of the trade are leaks and his buddies on the Bench.

    The longer Kane lasts, the better this gets. They just keep pulling out new tricks and getting exposed. Pretty soon, someone is going to wake up and take a look at the games they have been playing.

    The more people talk about how various politicians are lined up against Kane, the more I chuckle. Of course they are. Kane has the goods on them and their buddies. Some of them are here commenting every day.

  20. @ d2 & aaron:

    No one fears anything; this pathway is the quickest method to invoke to effect her exit.

  21. @ d2:

    “she can appeal to the supreme court to interpret the PA Constitution” based upon what?

  22. aaron-

    What are they scared of?

    An actual legal defense questioning witnesses under oath. Something that hasn’t existed to this point.

  23. HaHaHa-

    Try again. They were not saying that she couldn’t be impeached, nor that the judicial branch (their own branch) couldn’t remove her through a trial.

    They were CLEARLY saying that the suspension did not require her removal. ie: no direct equivalence.

    If she was prohibited from serving during her TEMPORARY SUSPENSION **NOT REVOKING** of her license, they would/could have stated that, or left it open. But instead, they went out of their way to say it was not equivalent.

    Trying to do this without a full impeachment trial is a violation of their separate powers. The GOP was calling for her impeachment years ago for not supporting the (unconstitutional) gay marriage ban. If they think they have something, they should have a proper trial, not some bullsh*t committee and a vote.

    Even if they claim they have the power to remove her under this clause, she can appeal to the supreme court to interpret the PA Constitution. Because, it’s the court, not a rigged six-member state senate committee that determines what the PA Constitution means.

  24. Diano — the SC’s Order spoke only to ITS OWN authority to remove her—not a separate branch of government. Ever heard of the concept of separation of powers? You likely learned about in 10th grade civics class. Though apparently not.

    Again, your sheer stupidity is without bounds.

    Ps where can I get one of the sweet LED scrolling name tags?

  25. Larry

    Learn to read. The supreme court went out of its way to clarify that the TEMPORARY suspension should not be construed as a removal.

    The Senate does not have “reasonable cause” prior to her trial.

  26. Doesn’t matter if they use this senate process or impeachment. The truth is coming out through bipartisan (senate) and nonpartisan (trial) means. But none of it will satisfy the likes of Diano and Jessica Myers, who will find a political conspiracy under any circumstances. Diano ignores the “reasonable cause” standard and thinks the Supreme Court could have removed Kane if they wanted to (they couldn’t, but the Senate can). Whether it’s the court or the senate, it’s both Democrats and Republicans who see Kane as a lawbreaker who has debilitated a state agency. How you can ignore reality over and over is really amazing.

  27. The Senate cant even Pass a Budget and they want to Fry Kane . All of The PA Senators should be removed from office For Misfeasence Malfeinsence and Non Feisence in Office . The Senate The House and The Governor in PA are all a Big Joke .

  28. Kathy Kane will bring down the whole Legal System by exposing how corrupt they are . Judges , Justices , Lawyers , Magesiterial District Judges , Prosecutors The Time has come to shed Bright light on all of these Cockroaches and Parasites . Lawyers are the Scum of the Universe

  29. The Senate “committee” is a lynch mob. They ought to do their own jobs. This gang of 6 is a joke.

  30. It should be obvious to everyone why they are not using the more traditional impeachment proceedings. If they did so, Kane would have a trial. They REALLY don’t want that to happen. Because that would mean the truth would come out.

    Glad to see that Kane did not undermine the Sandusky conviction. No matter how bad Fina’s conduct was – no matter how unethical – those rape victims should not have to go through that again. Kane is doing the right thing.

    She is smart to not submit to this Senate kangaroo court. It’s a joke. And – it’s almost 2016. She should serve out her term, don’t run again, and have her trial. And the people who have been leaking Kane documents and information to the Inquirer need to be held accountable.

  31. DD – He is not a clown. Clowns are sometimes funny. He’s much worse. He’s a pathetic groupie troll pretending to be his HERO – Ha3.

  32. HaHaHa-

    Is your “good authority” the bullsh*tters and sellouts? Those that are in politics for power and money? The pr*cks running law firms that fund candidates who will funnel them business?

    They tend not to like people who can’t be bought and don’t want what they are selling

    There are a lot of progressives who are under-served by the party, and interested in cleaning things up. They STILL have trouble convincing county and party leaders to run gay, or black, or women candidates, or challengers to the fossil fuel industry. They have trouble competing with candidates funded by charter school money. They run for small positions like school boards and local councils. They run against incumbents who aren’t doing a good job.

    These are the kind of candidates and activists that I help out.

    For 2016, I’m expecting to have candidates for 4-6 of the congressional races, 2 or 3 of st Senate, and probably a dozen st house races. Some are past clients, some I cultivated, and some just called me out of the blue.

    I guess it’s a matter of what circles you hang out in.

  33. Diano — it’s come to the point where I actually pitty you. You never fail to reveal your sheer stupidity.

    Separately, I have it on good authority that you’re a HUGE joke in Drmocratic political circles.

  34. @ gulag & d2:

    You cannot deny the existence of the “obscure” clause from the PA Constitution, and you cannot deny that it therefore can be invoked; indeed, noting Wolf’s desire for her head, it matters not whether the Supremes are dominated by R’s or Dems.

  35. Larry

    The Senate is trying to claim that she can’t serve with a suspended license. If that was the case, the supreme court could have made that determination of equivalence. They EXPLICITLY refused to connect those dots.

    Kane has NOT been convicted nor even started her trial (is there even a start date? ).

    To remove her without a conviction is wrong. Engaging in an impeachment trial while the Montco case is ongoing looks bad too.

    I hope she has a thumb drive backup of all the emails.

  36. What constitutes “reasonable cause”? No where stated. Too vague. That alone makes this PA Constitution clause in violation of US Constitution.

  37. I remember opining weeks ago that this matter will end up before PA Supremes after Comwlth Ct, but somebody said I was wrong because the PA Supremes don’t have a vote on this, just the Senate and Gov. I still think PA Supremes will need to weigh in about this procedure at least once, but probably more times, as this vague Constitutional clause has no precedent to flesh out the process or procedure.

  38. David, you are embarrassing yourself. The Supreme Court only said that it could not remove Kane (because it can’t). The court in no way barred the Sen from exercising it’s constitutional authority to remove the AG.

  39. Well, since the supreme court EXPLICITLY stated that suspension of her license was NOT to be construed as removing her from office, the Senate lacks a basis for using the suspension.

  40. I love how she’s getting lit up by everyone commenting on the articles in the Trib and pennlive. ONLY on PoliticsPA will you find some dolt supporting Kane on this. Dems and Republicans alike are coming for her head now.

  41. She’s got ’em on this one. Subpoena? About her license? Pound sand, boys. And if they want to enforce that unfounded subpoena, it won’t end up in the corrupt Saylor/Eakin court, it will go before a FIVE DEM court. Impeach or don’t impeach – there is no Remove.

Comments are closed.

Email:
  • Reader Poll: Have You Requested a Mail-In Ballot?


    • Yes. I enjoy mail-in voting. (50%)
    • No. I am going to the poll. (50%)

    Total Voters: 121

    Loading ... Loading ...
Continue to Browser

PoliticsPA

To install tap and choose
Add to Home Screen