Close this search box.

Kane to Respond to Charges with Wednesday Press Conference

kane-presserJust days after Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Kathleen Kane was formally arraigned and charged, the date for a news conference regarding these charges has been set.

Her spokesman, Chuck Ardo, has stated that she will answer questions regarding her arraignment at a Capitol news conference on Wednesday.

According to her office, the presser will take place at 1:00 in the Capitol Media Center.

Kane faces a total of eight charges, one felony and seven misdemeanors. They include leaking secret grand jury information and perjury. Amidst these charges, Kane does not intend to resign and continues to maintain her innocence.

Her lawyer, Ross Kramer, reiterated Kane’s plans to maintain her office and her claim of innocence.

A preliminary hearing is currently scheduled for August 24.

17 Responses

  1. No. Not create new law. Whistle-blower laws already cover the release of information about public officials. Transparency laws/principles already exists. Govt employees have no right to secrecy about their jobs and performance.

  2. Robert-

    Whether or not there is precedent I can’t say and don’t care. The actions/performance of public employees is always subject to review, and there was more than ample indications that Fina had performed his job poorly on numerous occasions (as well as every occasion he used his work computer for porn).

    If Fina did nothing wrong then there wouldn’t be anything to smear.

    The confidentiality point was merely to illustrate an example of a superseding motivation. Fina’s actions didn’t need to be criminal to subject them to public scrutiny.

    I don’t know what the standard is for the AG enlisting agents for security.

  3. @ DD:

    [question #7]


  4. @ DD:

    Your assumption is that AG-Kane was justified in releasing data that impugned another professional.

    Is there a precedent for a public-official revealing info in such fashion [i.e., without a legal underpinning]?

    Is there a precedent for a public official revealing such info without doing so under the aegis of a formal action [i.e., as anything other than a free-standing event]?

    Is there a precedent for a public official being fined for an infraction [i.e., as opposed to being censored for an “infraction”]?

    Is there a precedent to support your claim [“Common practice has been to use the media”] when the goal appears to have been merely to smear individual[s]?

    Is there a precedent to support your claim [“Confidentiality clauses in contracts are no protection against revealing criminal activity, and grand jury secrecy rules do not (or should not) trump public disclosure of how public officials operate”] when she never charged anyone with “criminal activity” regarding “how public officials operated”?

    Is there a precedent for a law-enforcement officer to react to personal perception [“The public has an ABSOLUTE right to now how public officials are operating that supersedes any claims of secrecy.”] that is not tethered to any administrative action?

  5. rsklaroff-

    1) I don’t think a judge’s order was needed (especially if the judges are trying to protect Fina). I think the AG was within her rights to release the information (with the proper redaction).

    2) Any procedure to release, such as your judge’s order, could have resulted in the same oversight. I’ve stated repeatedly that her penalty for this oversight should be a reasonable fine. But, not any kind of criminal designation or such penalty.

    3) Common practice has been to use the media. Frankly, I think she should have held a press conference and handed out copies.

    4) Transparency regarding the actions of public officials is sufficient legal justification for the release. Confidentiality clauses in contracts are no protection against revealing criminal activity, and grand jury secrecy rules do not (or should not) trump public disclosure of how public officials operate. The public has an ABSOLUTE right to now how public officials are operating that supersedes any claims of secrecy.

    For example: This is why the actions of Edward Snowden should be applauded and not prosecuted (especially considering that the policies have been changed as a result of his revelations), even though the release was technically illegal.

  6. @ DD:

    Let’s annotate your reply….

    “I’ve said from the beginning that the grand jury info was info that should have been public in the first place (aside from the error in redacting Mondesire).”

    –Is there not a procedure that, in your judgment, would have permitted its release [such as acquiring the appropriate judicial order prospectively]?

    –Illustrative of the aforementioned “oversight” is the [confirmed] chance that an [inadvertent?] error would occur and, thus, is it not faulty for her to have created the possibility of such an event [absence of redaction] to have occurred in the first place?

    –Is relaying data to the media the proper method to attain the stated [anti-Fina] goal, or is there not a preferred method that complies with law and practice?

    “So, the ‘leak’ (and I think she’s acknowledged authorizing its release) is not a crime because it reveals the poor performance of a public servant (Fina).”

    –Now that you admit she admitted she leaked, can you now cite statute that permits her to have done so [to anyone, media or otherwise]?

    “Grand jury secrecy shouldn’t apply to the actions of the prosecutors and how they mishandle their jobs.”

    –You raise a “shudda/cudda” claim, so can you cite precedent that corroborates the capacity of the AG to leak aforementioned data regarding an alleged job-performance issue?

  7. Being “Charged” and being “Convicted” are two totally separate things!! As the saying go’s “any DA can get a Grand Jury to Indict a Ham Sandwich”!!
    That being said Attorney General Kane deserves her day in court like anyone else would. Resigning her dully elected post is not necessary unless Convicted. The fact that this has been going on for some 18 months or so is proof enough that the Attorney General can do her job while fighting these charges against her. Pedophiles, Drug Manufactures, Poorly Performing Nursing Homes, Public Corruption and Bad Contractors have been been brought to justice all while this Political Assassination continues.

    The Saddest point of all of this in my opinion is all the so called “Democrats” that have been quick to jump on the Republican band wagon calling for the Attorney General to resign. These “Spineless Wanna Be’s” should never seek or receive an Endorsement at any level or any office under a Democratic banner. I only hope that “Real” Democrats remember their actions in this case when they want the help and support of any Democrat in the future especially the 3 plus million voters that elected Attorney General Kane !!!

    I hope that everyone of these “Chickenshits” get no Endorsement and a Primary opponent who’s a Democrat!! Wow what Party Leadership these individuals show to all Democratic activist all over Pennsylvania!!!

  8. Rsklaroff-

    Contrary to what you might think, I don’t read half your posts and am under no obligation to respond to all your idiocy, particularly from other threads.

  9. @ DD:

    You have failed to address my annotation of your defense of the AG on another page for almost 24 hours.

  10. There should be a celebrity roast for Kathleen Kane to raise money for her legal defense fund.

  11. Well, I’m looking forward to her getting her say and addressing this head on. My press conference would be: “F*ck all you b*tches.”

    What would be awesome (though unlikely) is if she figured out who leaked the info from her grand jury and announced his/her name.

  12. Anyone calling for the Texas AG to step down? Even though he stole three million dollars via stock fraud? That Senator Bob Menendez – anyone yelling that he should step down? The hypocrisy in this state reeks like an open cesspool.

  13. She shouldn’t resign unless she is proven guilty. That is how past legislature’s have done.

  • Does the NYC Verdict Make You More or Less Likely to Vote For Trump in 2024?

    • Less Likely (36%)
    • More Likely (34%)
    • Makes No Difference (30%)

    Total Voters: 112

    Loading ... Loading ...
Continue to Browser


To install tap and choose
Add to Home Screen