Close this search box.

Kane’s Ex-Deputy Contradicts Her Sworn Testimony

KaneNew information has been disclosed in the case against Attorney General Kathleen Kane.

According to a report from Craig R. McCoy and Angela Couloumbis of the Philadelphia Inquirer, the AG’s former top aide Adrian King warned Kane not to leak the grand jury information.

The Inquirer’s report confirms a long-held suspicion that Kane’s action was an attempt to get back at long-time rival Frank Fina.

In March 2014, the Inquirer reported that corruption cases Fina was pursuing against Philly legislators was shut down by Kathleen Kane (Philadelphia DA Seth Williams has since pursued the case and has so far charged six officials).

Kane, believing the information had been leaked by Fina, began to look into his history particularly his involvement with an investigation into civil rights leader J. Whyatt Mondesire.

The Attorney General began to discuss leaking information about the case to the press. She maintained to the grand jury that her staff argued that she should disclose the details.

On March 24, 2014, however, King emailed Kane at 12:53 a.m. arguing against any leak.

“I fail to see how we can legally give . . . access to any OAG [Office of Attorney General] criminal division file materials,” King wrote.

Kane responded at 3:38 a.m.

“I am well aware of the limitations of disclosing criminal files. . .,” she wrote. “I have been in this business quite some time.”

A month later, Kane asked King to deliver an envelope containing the Mondesire material to a political operative who in turn gave it to the Philadelphia Daily News.

Kane asserts that King agreed to leak the information. King maintains that he was against any disclosure and did not look at the materials in the envelope. He told the grand jury he thought they were campaign related.

The Attorney General told the grand jury she did not know who prepared the envelope or what it contained. The investigation could not find anyone who admitted to putting the materials in the envelope.

The Daily News piece was published on June 6, 2014, three days after King revealed he was stepping down from his post and going back into private practice.

51 Responses

  1. @ DD:


    You erred regarding BB.


    You now wish to decriminalize what you consider to be an oversight without defining how the law would accommodate such a claim.

  2. Hmmm…

    “BTW, it looks like the Israelis are ready to “overthrow” Netanyahu and his Likud government.”

  3. I have no problem with “critique”. My problem is with attempting to criminalize and prosecute an oversight.

  4. @ DD:

    Once you admit there was a screw-up and that a leak resulted, you can’t claim that this “type” was somehow immune from critique.

  5. @ DD:

    Even your surmise – which is as “sympathetic” as possible to AG-Kane – includes the admission that she screwed-up by not having ensured secret-data were not revealed [by, inter alia, not having read what was in the envelope]; thus, she contributed to the contents of the envelope that she knew [or should have known] contained secret-data.

    You cooked your own goose.

  6. Bungy-

    Tying Seth to Fina is hardly a point in favor for either of them.

    If half her office testified against her, does that mean that the other half testified in her favor?

    Try looking for synonyms of accidentally like “by mistake”, oversight, unintentionally or inadvertently.

    In looking over the article, I see: “The information given to the Daily News included a transcript of a 2014 interview with an agent, Michael Miletto, who had worked on the case five years earlier. The agent contended that Fina ignored leads suggesting that Mondesire was diverting government grants for his personal use. This criticism made its way into the story.”

    So, this part wasn’t a leak of original grand jury material, but rather an interview with someone discussing the case 5 years later, and specifically the failure of Fina to pursue leads. Which is FAIR GAME to report on the failure of a public employee, Fina. The only error with the transcript was the inadvertent inclusion of Mondesire. The paper should have realized this and redacted Mondesire’s name themselves, or alerted Kane’s office to the error. The paper didn’t pick up on it either.

    Additionally, a 2009 memo from the time was released. The memo sounds like an internal document, and not part of the grand jury. Just like the porn emails were internal “memos” and not part of any case.

    So, it’s not clear to me that either of these constitutes a grand jury problem, other than the revelation of Mondesire’s name. Kane had no beef with Mondesire, and if the goal was to smear Fina, “Mondesire” could easily have been replaced with “person X”. There was no intent to expose Mondesire, and Kane has testified that she expected a summary to be released.

    So, she may have been given the original transcript and memo that were to be summarized, and glanced through them quickly without fully reading them and not remembered having seen/read them.

    It sounds like a mix-up that the documents were released instead of a summary. A summary could just as easily have exposed Fina’s incompetence.

    Someone definitely screwed up by releasing the documents without expunging “Mondesire”, but his name appears to be the only violation here, and Kane had no motive to go after him nor reveal him.

    Thus, his inclusion was an oversight, but not criminal.

  7. @ DD:

    You claim that the claim was made [using the passive-voice] that the release was “accidental”; google her and the word “accidental” and you’ll only receive info about her concussion after an automobile accident.

    Thus, provide a cite where she said she had “accidentally” released this info … or withdraw the claim.

    Regarding Hillary, you have yet to confront the form-109 mandate; she didn’t have unlimited time to provide her professional e-mails, for they had to have been vetted internally [and not selectively, two years hence, by searching for key-words] PRIOR to her departure from the DoS.

    And can you honestly claim that she never received classified info on her commercial server that, although she denied it last week @ the UN, had been hacked?

  8. Davey, it’s apparent that half her office testified against her. You are one of Her last supporters. I hear Nearly everyone in the A.G.’s office would like to see Her gone. I hope you have a good life preserver. The ship is sinking. By the way, Fina is known as one of the best prosecuters in the state. Just ask Seth. He has helped turn Seth into a Superstar.

  9. Bungy-
    No. I said that Fina’s didn’t need to be blacked out in the first place. So, leaving him visible was proper. Maybe the others were blacked out because they were still currently in the A.G. office, or more likely, because they weren’t in charge and hadn’t screwed up the case like Fina and his pal did.

    I think blacking them out served no purpose, but it’s unclear how much they appeared and where blacked out. They might well have appeared on a single page in a list of names that were carboned-copied on a memo.

    Without seeing the full document, and knowing the roles of these other people, it’s all just speculation.

    But, let’s be clear, Fina was and remains a total piece-of-sh*t prosecutor that seems to be going through great lengths to see his mistakes hidden from public view (including his role in the porn emails). This entire mess seems to be orchestrated by Fina and/or his pals to use taxpayer resources for a witch-hunt against Kane.

    I’m not “assuming”. I’m stating that the claim was made that one the specific problem release was accidental. Further, this claim has not be contradicted by any clear evidence (plenty of innuendo, circumstantial reports and cherry-picked quotes, but no actual evidence).

    So, given that, the “accident” argument gets the benefit of the doubt.

    As for Clinton, there was not a prohibition on using personal email at the time, nor were there laws requiring the preservation of said emails while she was there. The NY Times has already begun reversing their course reporting this story.

  10. Exactly Dave, now your starting to get it. Even you, a Kane supporter, admits that the blacking out of certain names and publishing others is wrong. Dave do now see that She was trying to hurt Her enemy’s and protect Her friend’s. Vindictive and possibly criminal.

  11. @ DD:

    You assume it was accidental, despite AG-Kane’s admission that she released the data; you assume ignorance of who prepared the packet could exonerate her, despite the fact that she asked King to deliver it.

    Its delivery was neither accidental nor devoid of previously-secret data; you are the only person left defending her [abandoned even by her husband, perhaps], for good reason.

    Your posture is as foolhardy here as it is with regard to Hillary for, inter alia, you haven’t confronted the fact that she either submitted the form-109 [and then violated its explicit tenets] or didn’t submit the form-109 [and then violated the DoS rules that she had mandated everyone else follow].

  12. Robert
    Government agencies accidentally release extra information all the time, that they shouldn’t. An investigation gets created to fix the problem and establish better protocols. I’ve never heard of criminal indictment for an accidental release of information.

    Without knowing who prepared the packet, there is no case against Kane. No one thinks that she prepared it herself.

    As for Bush emails, you brought that up to divert attention away from the current leaks. It’s off topic. If you are interested, you can Google search it with your free hand.

    I don’t understand why the names of the A.G. staff, Fina or anyone else, would fall under grand jury secrecy rules in the first place. The rules are to protect both witness and targets. The judges and prosecutors involved should be public knowledge. My understanding was that Fina was in charge, so blacking out his name would be silly, since this was a review of the case. Sounds to me like none should have been blocked out.

  13. From bungy’s article: “Fina and Costanzo declined to comment Thursday, citing grand jury secrecy rules.” That was a laugh out loud moment.

    Would love to get a drink sometime with you bungy, but something tells me we’ve probably already had. Oh, the secrets Keegan keeps. Love that guy (and Larry) for it.

  14. @ DD:

    First, rephrasing your assertion by noting its converse, if the leaked material WAS secret, then you admit a crime was committed [regardless of whether anything was “accidental”]; the benefit-of-the-doubt doesn’t lie with the admittedly-guilty party and, thus, there’s plenty to prosecute.

    Second, a citation-or-two would be warranted to show [1]–precisely what each Bush did, and [2]–what was illegal about what either Bush did; in either instance, they didn’t have to sign-off on a form-109 claiming [under penalty of law, as a felony] everything related to the government had been retained by the government [as Hillary was required to do, as per the immediate-past DoS Inspector General].

  15. Robert-

    I’m not convinced that the information in the original leak was illegal to release in the first place. If so, it’s not a crime. Second, it’s unclear that the particular material at issue was intentionally or accidentally included. If it’s unclear, then benefit of the doubt goes to Kane as well.
    In either scenario, there is nothing to prosecute. So, what I admit transpired does not rise to a crime.

    As for the current leaks of the recent grand jury, these are clearly leaked with a deliberate agenda to smear Kane and bolster the renegade Republican special prosecutor.

    There isn’t an “equivalency” here unless you think stealing a hubcab is the same as stealing a car. In no way to I find these actions morally equivalent. The current leaks are a huge crime and a far bigger deal than the original leak, which has dubious origins.

    As for Bush’s emails (George and Jeb), they are worse. Jeb used his to discuss troop deployments and nuclear security arrangements. Under George, White House staff was using RNC server to mix governing and politics and “lost” the emails, violating the Hatch Act. Also, the number of lost or deleted emails was estimated in 2009 to be about 22 million emails.

    So, nice try on taking completely different levels of crime and pretend that I (and others) are equating them, especially when your side is committing the larger crime.

  16. Davey, why did She black out all the names, except the people She was trying to harm?

  17. @ DD:

    You can’t be “just a little bit pregnant”; here, you admit there was a conscious leak of Grand Jury material by AG-Kane, no matter how inconsequential you claim it was.

    You also invoke the classic “moral equivalency” rationalization by pointing away from what you admit transpired; this identical scenario is being acted-out regarding Hillary when, for example, the Bush e-mail disclosures are claimed to be comparable.

    You forget that the AG must function on a higher plane, invoke more stringent standards, cannot be compared with anyone else in any other context; she, the #1 enforcer of the law, BROKE THE LAW [due to petty-politics]!

  18. Robert-

    The leaks of the current grand jury show what a farce this is, and a far bigger crime than the minor/murky leak that Kane is accused of. The current leaks are a constant stream of material.

    The original leak was on a point so minor/subtle that it reasonably could have been included by accident or believed to be legal to release. This VERY isolated email shows there was debate and that it was not cut and dry to all parties.

    The current, ongoing crime, of the leaks in the grand jury against Kane raises no concerns for the rabid Republicans, like you, out to get Kane. Yet, it is far more serious and deliberate. The fact that the Republicans going after Kane can’t keep their own grand jury in order shows that they hypocrites on the entire matter and operating with two sets of standards in a highly partisan fashion.

  19. @ DD:

    As usual, just like the Dems nationally, you attempt to shift-blame without tackling the major issue; AG-Kane admittedly released the Grand Jury info – with or without King as a courier – to the newspaper[s] (Inqy and/or Daily News) … right?

  20. Robert
    The original leak occurred a month after the emails. Whether or not King changed his mind in the meantime is open to debate.

    The Inquirer has these March 24th emails. I say that King is the most likely person to have given the paper THOSE emails, which make him look good. Thus, he is a prime candidate for the recent grand jury leaks of the past few months.

    I also find it unlikely that he acted as a “bagman” and had NO idea what was in the bag. If it had been a half kilo of cocaine, no one would accept his claim of ignorance (especially if he had an email exchange discussing the legality of transporting cocaine).

    If he was at the airport, he’d be asked if had anything in his checked luggage that he didn’t pack himself.

    Whether or not he was culpable then, my point is that he seems culpable NOW for this email leak.

  21. @ DD:

    Second of all, your mischaracterization of plain-facts should long-ago have proven embarrassing [“I’m saying that King sounds like he could be a current leaker of the recent grand jury looking into Kane. Since, he and Kane appear to have conflicting testimonies, it seems reasonable that he has a vested interest in tarnishing her in the press and covering his own ass.”]

    If King was following orders of AG-Kane to deliver a package [the contents of which he was unaware], then he was not culpable; all this does [because there is no conflict when AG-Kane admits she approved the leak, because she felt it was not protected info] is to reinforce the conclusion that she felt [as do many egocentric Dems, encompassing most of those whom you incessantly lionize] empowered to manifest her elitism, immune from scrutiny.

    Care to rationalize the King e-mail?

  22. @ DD:

    First of all, your hypocrisy is on-exhibit, conveniently forgetting a few factoids.


    “Actually, a US president [Clinton] did host an Israeli PM [Peres] just before elections.”


    “Senate probes possible US government link to anti-Netanyahu efforts.”


    BB didn’t host this event [“Romney Holds Unprecedented Fundraiser in Israel”]; he hosted Romney separately.


    Most commentators feel the visit was an electoral “wash” and that, even if BB doesn’t get as many mandates as Herzog, only Likud will be able to assemble 61 Knesset votes [noting the scramble to court the Arab-List by the faux-Zionists]. For example, a few hours ago, Bennett pledged allegiance to BB [even offering to mesh lists @ the last minute], as the massive Tel Aviv rally [@ Rabin Square] is about to occur…with BB and other right-wingers slated to speak.

    All you have done is to reinforce previously-drawn conclusions regarding your anti-Semitism…which are reprised from the exhaustive back-and-forth that led to their establishment a few months ago:

    “Lest DD feel he can resurrect his cred by forgetting the past, one need only recall what was written previously [December 22, 2014 at 4:45 pm]: “You have advocated the overthrow of the Israeli government throughout Israel’s entire lifetime … explaining why you have endorsed the behavior of Hamas [which the USA has designated as a terrorist organization] that is, itself, promoting policies that are consonant with those of the Islamic State.” “

  23. Unsanctioned R-

    By “administration” you must mean the administration of Congress, namely the “Speaker of the House”. They broke policy by letting a foreign leader speak to Congress just before his election, and he used the speech (and their applause) in his commercials.

    Of course, Netanyahu tried interfering with the U.S. elections in 2012 by hosting a fundraiser for Romney.

    Netanyahu is dangerous for Israel, just as the GOP members of Congress are dangerous for the U.S. and the world. Their philosophy and policy is based upon fear and paranoia. Peas in a pod. Reptilian brains. Worrying about boogeymen.

    With luck, the Israelis will elect a good leader, like they have done in the distant past, instead of the mistake recent past.

  24. Because they are all (not so secret) muslim terrorist lovers. World War 3 if Netanyahu loses. The rest have no balls. Just like our current pacifist Government.

  25. David, Why is this administration meddling in the election of Israel, an ally?

  26. Robert-

    Your inability to read keeps amazing me.

    I’m saying that King sounds like he could be a current leaker of the recent grand jury looking into Kane.

    Since, he and Kane appear to have conflicting testimonies, it seems reasonable that he has a vested interest in tarnishing her in the press and covering his own ass.

    Please try to be less stupid in the future. I realize it’s difficult for you.

    BTW, it looks like the Israelis are ready to “overthrow” Netanyahu and his Likud government.

  27. Overview:

    The smoking-gun sentence [“Kane asked King to deliver an envelope containing the Mondesire material to a political operative who in turn gave it to the Philadelphia Daily News”] impugns AG-Kane [who must be presumed to have known what the envelope contained], notwithstanding Guzzardi’s expressions of sympathy for a “non-politician” who allowed her pettiness to violate the public-trust.

    DD, as usual, needs a hearing-aide, for he cannot be presumed to be the leaker if he was following a direct order from his superior and didn’t know what the envelope contained.

    It is “telling” that her defensive-website hasn’t been uploaded following its inception.

    She will not serve-out her term.


    Contrasting with the inability of her [remaining] defenders to ID any surcease from any media-reports, points made a month ago [by moi] are reprinted, noting they remain germane; this, of course, includes the by-now-“standard” necessity to impugn the credibility of anything DD uploads.

    Grand Jury Recommended Criminal Contempt Charge for Kane

    Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. says: February 19, 2015 at 4:14 pm

    …[N]ote comments regarding a prior article [Kane: “No, I Won’t Resign”] that refuted David Diano [January 22, 2015 at 11:44 pm] after he had endorsed the claim by Lanny Davis that the absence of this charge was particularly telling; this is another reason why Lanny’s legal competence seems increasingly flawed [a problem that must be bleeding into his “PR”-work].

    {This referred to the “contempt” charge, the existence of which was not initially disclosed; Davis and DD had made a big-deal of this alleged-omission, only to become smacked-asses when it was found actually to have been included in the “counts” that had been filed.}

    In a prior exchange with DD [Report: Grand Jury Recommends Criminal Charges Against Kane], documentation of his “destroyed” credibility was provided, and it would seem apt [therefore] to quote my brother’s suggestion [in other contexts] that he [and other Dem-acolytes] need to cease-and-desist, for she should have a fork stuck into her … because she’s “done.”

    Lest DD feel he can resurrect his cred by forgetting the past, one need only recall what was written previously [December 22, 2014 at 4:45 pm]: “You have advocated the overthrow of the Israeli government throughout Israel’s entire lifetime … explaining why you have endorsed the behavior of Hamas [which the USA has designated as a terrorist organization] that is, itself, promoting policies that are consonant with those of the Islamic State.”

    These conclusions were cited after having read DD’s prior lame attempts to defend AG-Kane; documentation of why his comments would best be ignored had been compiled following a series of e-mail exchanges [extending over multiple sites] regarding myriad topics.

    In any case, piggy-backing upon McCord, the longer Kane remains the incumbent, the more the “Dem Brand” damage will help Toomey … regardless of who is nominated; nothing DD can compose [drawing from recognized facts, not his fantasies] could refute this conclusion.

  28. Larry-
    I’m saying that it looks like King is the one currently leaking the information about the grand jury against Kane.

    I wasn’t referring to King as a leaker of the original leak (though he might have been unknowingly involved).

  29. The only LEAKS that are certain are the ones coming from the team of dh!t-heads that have been running the Leak Grand Jury.

  30. Maybe she will fire more of her staff to take the heat off herself.
    She is a very poor example of the first female and demo, she must go now.
    She needs to double her meds.

  31. Every day something else seems to come out that makes Kane look absolutely clueless and petty. She has been a HUGE disappointment as AG and I hope she gets a primary challenge. The first elected democrat AG is a disgrace.

  32. Master, pay attention: KANE ADMITTED PROVIDING TO THE PUBLIC A SUMMARY OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE RECORDS, AND THAT’S ILLEGAL. She discussed whether to disclose it, was told by her staff not to, and she admits that she did it anyway. Also, the operative (unlike the reporter) can be subpoenaed to testify about the contents of the envelope, not that the contents of the envelope are even necessary for a guilty verdict on at least one charge.

  33. Larry – pay attention. One more time: NO ONE KNOWS WHAT WAS IN THE ENVELOPE. King didn’t look. The operative didn’t look. No one can say what was in the envelope – except the Inky, and they can’t talk. Got it? The prosecution cannot show what was in the envelope King referenced.

  34. Bob Guzzardi – by your own admission you are completely OK with her knowingly violating the law after being advised that those actions would be criminal by one of her own top aides. No surprises there, as you’ve made your irrational hatred of anyone connected to Corbett well known. Thank god your silly ass got booted from the ballot.

  35. This Rush Limbaugh, Ted Cruz, Red State Republican is very sympathetic to AG Kane’s situation and wish her the best no matter how it all turns out, whether the AG is guilty or not.

    Kathleen Kane ran with the message that she was a “prosecutor not a politician” and I think that was, and is, accurate. Having had a mercifully brief involvement with the electoral process, I can testify that there is a reason politicians are best people to be involved in the electoral process…they have the skills to avoid the problems that AG Kane is facing. I don’t know the facts or how the law is to be applied but I do think it was the fact that Kathleen Kane was not a politician that got her tripped up. Had she had more political experience, this whole mess could have been avoided. I don’t know whether she is innocent or guilty (and leaking Grand Jury testimony is very serious and criminal) and I hope that appropriate law enforcement, honestly, makes a just determination.

  36. Master, you obviously didn’t read the article. First, delivering criminal investigative material to anyone who is not law enforcement violates the law, and violates grand jury rules if they are not subject to the secrecy oath for that grand jury. So it doesn’t matter if the materials were delivered to an operative or to a newspaper. Plus, delivering it to an operative is clearly intended for public distribution in a strategic way.

    Second, Kane admitted that she disclosed summaries of criminal investigative interviews. That’s illegal at least under CHRIA, and, according to her own staff, barred by the grand jury secrecy rules.

    Third, each member of her staff testified that they told Kane that the grand jury rules applied to the whole office, regardless of whether she was a stay-at-home-mom (and, yes, we elect them to be Attorney General in PA) or the AG at the time of the grand jury. So that defense is out the window.

    Many say that the envelope contained more than the summaries that Kane admitted to, but that’s just icing on the cake for the prosecution.

  37. Um, since no one knows what was in this envelope, no one can even assert that what was in the envelope was the now infamous leaked material. Even if leaked material was in the envelope, it was delivered to the Inky by an operative, whose identity the Inky is protecting under the Shield Law. So….this whole article really doesn’t get us anywhere, except to show that King disagreed in one email with Kane on the legality of disclosing certain info. However, Kane’s testimony was that STAFF advised her she was on sound footing. That could mean that while King disagreed, others might have signed off, meaning that that there technically isn’t any smoking gun here with this Inky article.

  38. David, did you read the Inky article? King didn’t look inside the envelope; he just delivered it. Kane personally and knowingly violated the Criminal History Record Information Act and the grand jury secrecy rules — against the advice of her (smarter and more experienced subordinates) — in order to smear Fina. Then, even worse, she lied about doing so to the grand jury. Hence, violations of the law and perjury, which disqualifies her from serving in any public office. She is indefensible if these facts are accurate.

  39. So NOW who is leaking grand jury information?

    In order to believe this case against Kane, we now have to believe Adrian King and Josh Morrow? What a joke.

  40. Sounds like King is the leaker/source for the grand jury stuff to the Inquirer.

  41. this is like watching a slow train wreck. she has no integrity or credibility, she constantly lies (or mis-speaks) and should just step down as attorney general.

  • Understanding that basic education funding should/will be first, what should be the next highest priority for the General Assembly?

    • Raising The Minimum Wage (25%)
    • Legalizing Adult-Use Marijuana (24%)
    • None of the above. Something Else. (20%)
    • Economic Development (14%)
    • Higher Education (8%)
    • Public Transportation (8%)
    • Workforce Opportunities and Innovation (2%)

    Total Voters: 51

    Loading ... Loading ...
Continue to Browser


To install tap and choose
Add to Home Screen