Kathleen Kane Tells CNN Pornographic Emails Included Pictures of Children


KaneThe porngraphic email scandal has taken another strange turn.

In an interview with CNN on Tuesday, Attorney General Kathleen Kane told reporter Sara Ganim that the pornographic emails sent between top-state officials included pictures of elderly women and children.

“When I saw them, they literally took my breath away,” Kane said when describing the images. “They are deplorable: hardcore, graphic, sometimes violent emails that had a string of videos and pictures depicting sometimes children, old women. Some of them involved violent sexual acts against women.”

Kane did not mention who sent the images. She did add that she was being prevented from investigating the e-mail scandal because of court orders.

Lanny Davis, a spokesman for Kathleen Kane, said the two images he saw were inappropriate, but only “borderline” child porngraphy. “I wouldn’t say over the line, but I would say very close”, Davis concluded.

The Philadelphia Inquirer had additional details on some of the images.

Last week, Kane disciplined 30 staff members in regards to the emails.

Update: Kane’s office has backed off a bit from her earlier claims.

“We are not saying that it reached the level of child pornography,” Kane’s spokeswoman Renee Martin stated. “I think what she said is accurate. The images are deplorable. And some contained seniors and children.”

Update 2: Kane’s spokeswoman Renee Martin is now walking back the walk back:

“When I said that the Pennsylvania Attorney General has decided not to prosecute regarding the emails as pornography, including depictions of children contained in some emails, I misspoke.”

“In fact, the Attorney General has not made a decision one way or the other in light of the recent published opinion of the Chief Justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that the emails he had seen were ‘clearly pornographic’ and may be criminal. As a result of the issuance of a court order, the Attorney General cannot explain her views on the status of these emails, as she explained in a public statement she read prior to her testimony before the Grand Jury on Monday and on CNN on Tuesday night.”

115 Responses

  1. Sklaroff, Appositve is bad writing. Your inability to keep subject with predicate belies your jumbled and flawed thinking. The MD after your name demonstrates Jewish bigotry in admitting Jews at the expense of Gentiles. Your loyalty to Israel and justification of its status as a Jewish state while condemning the existence of a Christian state founded by Christians is remarkable for its hypocrisy. In return for WASPs saving Jews from Catholic Inquisitions and Catholic Fascism, Jews invented Communism and Jewish Bolsheviks to murder Slavic Christians by the millions, Israeli spies like the Rosenbergs and Jonathan Pollard to sell American military secrets to the Jewish allies practicing Jewish-invented Communism in Jewish-created USSR and China, killing of American sailors aboard the USS Liberty, killing of American Rachel Corrie and censoring it, conducting an assault on free speech via Jewish groups like the ADL and SPLC renaming all speech unpleasing to Jews as hate speech the campaigning to ban it. Israel refuses to define its borders so it can seize Gentlie Christian and Muslim land without due process and shell civilian homes with artillery. Antisemitism is what stupid people charge when they can’t formulate an argument and seek to censor instead. 2+2=5. If you disagree, you’re an antisemite. QED.

  2. @ DD:

    You again introduce a qualifier when the unpleasant truth – staring you in the face – states that, currently and since ’48, Israel has been a self-proclaimed “Jewish State”; when you created this criterion for American opposition [which you had defined as seeking “overthrow” inter-alia], you had assumed it was a “hypothetical” [because of your vague awareness of the pending legislation].

    I provided information regarding the [security-based] rationale for this initiative, for none of the other policies of Israel would be altered in the process; thus, you can’t reasonably claim that passage of this one Basic Law would suddenly transform Israel into a fascist entity.

    THEREFORE, again, notwithstanding your fevered protestations to the contrary, you have reinforced your opposition to Israel since its inception, explaining why you consider actions by Hamas to be “reasonable” under the circumstances.

  3. Robert-

    If Israel descends into fascism, they would still call themselves a “Jewish state”.


    It’s the nature/character of the type of Jewish state they create that is at issue. If it’s a state based upon oppression, bigotry, and religious intolerance then it’s not something to encourage or brag about.

  4. @ DD:

    The fact that you refer constantly to the security barrier as a “wall” [when it isn’t, throughout its length] telegraphs your opposition thereto [again, flying in the face of almost the entire Israeli leadership and electorate, following extensive litigation]; that you claim it solely carries negative symbolism without recognizing it has saved Israeli lives, this adds another “Jewish life is cheap” feather into your headdress.

    Barriers can be removed after peace is restored and permanent borders have been established; in the meantime, although everything Israel does is placed upon the “tut-tut” microscope, you have tacitly admitted the existence of a double-standard [recall the summary demolition of houses by Egypt, with more potentially in its cross-hairs].

    Recall also your incorrect characterization of “smuggling” tunnels, ignoring their potential to be used “offensively” [n both senses of the word]; this provides both another
    “Jewish life is cheap” feather in your anti-Semitic “cap,” but it also contradicts physical evidence [i.e., the sites where the tunnels led, deep into Israel @ multiple sites, near kibbutzim].

    Your brushed-up knowledge-base has not sufficed when faced with “Philosophy 101”-type thinking; if an entity is “a and b” … it is “a” [defining “a” as a Jewish State and “b” as “Democratic”]; whatever document you cite after’48 doesn’t negate the clear meaning thereof [of which you had previously had been ignorant].

    So, because Israel is and has been a “Jewish State” [absent any reference to Democracy in your prior pronouncements], she satisfied your criterion for being “opposed” by the USA since ’48 [and, by your definition, meriting overt actions to be overthrown]; all your tangential thinking [which includes both confabulation and loose-associations, in the psychiatric-pathology sense] serves only to recall the twitching of a dying animal [that, in your case, has long-since lost an argument based on a simple syllogism: “if p then q” and “p” yields “q”].

  5. Robert-

    Just because Israel wants to isolate and alienate itself with a wall, doesn’t mean that the U.S. should duplicate its foolishness.

    Building the wall solidifies a defeatist attitude against finding solutions/peace with neighboring countries. It’s the kind of philosophy that suits a country like Israel that promotes religious and racial purity, and frowns on inter-faith marriages.

    The U.S. is better than that, and isn’t at war with its neighbors. The U.S. should avoid emulating Israel.

    The term “Jewish State” vs “Jewish and Democratic state” is an ongoing debate within Israel as to whether the Israeli Declaration of Independence showed a clear intent for a democratic state (with ample evidence that it was).

    To clarify this matter, in 1985, Basic Law was updated to include:

    “7A. A candidates list shall not participate in elections to the Knesset, if the goals or actions of the list, expressly or by implication, include one of the following:
    (1) negation of the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state; ”

    Further updates in 1992 and 1994 also used “Jewish and democratic state”.

    If the Israelis still arguing over whether Israel is (and always has been) a “Jewish State” or a “Jewish and democratic state”, then you and I aren’t going to resolve it here.

    I agree with those who feel it always has been a “Jewish and democratic state” (and it certainly has been the official position for the last 30 years).

    You can chose to believe whatever the f*ck you want, but my position is a valid one.

    If Israel tries to switch from the last 30 years (undisputed in Basic Law) of being “Jewish and democratic state” to being just “Jewish state”, then it is a step backwards, and should be treated as such.

  6. @ DD:

    The Israeli Supremes – as per your quote – sought the solution that yielded the least disruption; the concept of “eminent domain” is comparable.

    So, as long as you have ceded the ability of Israel to have created a physical barrier [which, oh by the way, you probably oppose with regard to Mexico, right?], the lack of physical harm to those who have olive trees that have been displaced pales in comparison to the drop in suicide/homicide bombings.

    Thus, the conjoint policy of all major Israeli political parties [and personalities] has supported the barrier; thus, you cannot blame Likud for engaging in Apartheid … and you can now return to the major item-of-contention, namely, that Israel is indeed a self-proclaimed “Jewish State” that you claim America should have opposed since its inception [regardless of the degree to which this fundamental raison d’être may have been applied in a given situation].

  7. Robert-

    The “double-standard applied to Israel” is that the US doesn’t accuse them of war crimes, but shields them. It’s a double-standard that they are chastised for their nuclear ambitions and subject to international inspections.

    The ENTIRE WORLD recognizes Israel as an occupier. ALL of the sources have more credibility than Israel.

    Any Israeli politician I could find that opposed the wall, you would declare not credible. I’m not willing to waste any time looking, since opposition to the wall isn’t the issue. I don’t oppose the wall, only the illegal parts of the route. But, you keep missing the point that the issue isn’t “the wall” but rather just some sections of it that encroached onto Palestinian land. Had different leaders been in charge, I can only hope that the finally route would have been different and legal.

  8. @ DD:

    Illustrative of the double-standard applied to Israel is the absence of critique of el-Sisi for demolitions along the Philadelphi Corridor.

  9. @ DD:

    I requested credibility, and each of the references – as anticipated, cited Israel as an occupier; none recognized the origins of the’67 war [Israel was attacked by Jordan] and the fact that cease-fire lines [dating back to ’48 do not constitute international borders that are subject to International scrutiny.

    THEREFORE, you have yet to cite an Israeli politician who has CREDIBILITY [including from Labor/Meretz/Kadima, not just Likud] who decries the presence of this barrier [which has slashed deaths from Palestinian Arab terrorism].

    And, of course, you have failed to rebut the overarching point regarding the fact that, much as you might wish to deny it, Israel is currently a self-proclaimed “Jewish State.”

  10. Robert-
    The UN and The International Court of Justice are two credible international bodies. Besides the findings of the UN, 150 countries voted to condemn the fence.

    From Wikipedia:
    The United Nations:
    In October 2003, a United Nations resolution to declare the barrier illegal where it deviates from the green line and should be torn down was vetoed by the US in the United Nations Security Council. In December 2003, Resolution ES-10/14 was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in an emergency special session. 90 states voted for, 8 against, 74 abstained. The resolution included a request to the International Court of Justice to urgently render an advisory opinion on the following question.

    “What are the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, as described in the report of the Secretary-General, considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions?”

    The court concluded that the barrier violated international law. On 20 July 2004, the UN General Assembly accepted Resolution ES-10/15 condemning the barrier with 150 countries voting for the resolution and 10 abstaining. 6 countries voted against: Israel, the US, Australia, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau. The US and Israel rejected both the verdict and the resolution. All 25 members of the European Union voted in favor of the resolution after it was amended to include calls for Israelis and Palestinians to meet their obligations under the “roadmap” peace plan.

    On May 19, 2004, the United Nations passed Security Council Resolution 1544 reiterating the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention, and called on Israel to address its security needs within the boundaries of international law. In a special emergency session of the General Assembly, the United Nations asked the International Court of Justice [ICJ] to evaluate the legal status of the barrier but as Israel chose not to accept ICJ jurisdiction nor make oral statements, the opinion was advisory rather than binding. Instead, Israel submitted a 246 page written statement containing the views of the Government of Israel on Jurisdiction and Propriety to the Court.

    International Court of Justice:
    In a 2004 ruling by the International Court of Justice, “Israel cannot rely on a right of self-defence or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall”. The Court asserted that “the construction of the wall, and its associated régime, are contrary to international law.”

    So in the July 9, 2004 ruling the ICJ advised that the barrier is a violation of international law, that it should be removed, that Arab residents should be compensated for any damage done, and that other states take action to obtain Israel’s compliance with the Fourth Geneva Convention. The ICJ said that an occupying power cannot claim that the lawful inhabitants of the occupied territory constitute a “foreign” threat for the purposes of Article 51 of the UN Charter. It also explained that necessity may constitute a circumstance precluding wrongfulness under certain very limited circumstances, but that Article 25 of the UN Declaration on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts bars a defense of necessity if the State has contributed to the situation of necessity. The Court cited illegal interference by the government of Israel with the Palestinian’s national right to self-determination; and land confiscations, house demolitions, the creation of enclaves, and restrictions on movement and access to water, food, education, health care, work, and an adequate standard of living in violation of Israel’s obligations under international law. The Court also said that Israeli settlements had been established and that Palestinians had been displaced in violation of Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention. On request of the ICJ, Palestine submitted a copious statement. The UN Fact Finding Mission and several UN Rapporteurs subsequently said that in the movement and access policy there has been a violation of the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race or national origin.

    Israel’s Supreme Court:
    On June 30, 2004, the Supreme Court of Israel ruled that a portion of the barrier west of Jerusalem violated the rights of Palestinians, and ordered 30 km (19 mi) of existing and planned barrier to be rerouted.

    On September 15, 2005, the Supreme Court of Israel ordered the Israeli government to alter the route of the barrier to ensure that negative impacts on Palestinians would be minimized and proportional.

    The Red Cross:
    The Red Cross has declared the barrier in violation of the Geneva Convention. On February 18, 2004, The International Committee of the Red Cross stated that the Israeli barrier “causes serious humanitarian and legal problems” and goes “far beyond what is permissible for an occupying power”.

    Human Rights Organizations:
    Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other Human rights groups have protested both the routing of the wall and the means by which the land to build the wall was obtained.[115] The Israeli women of Machsom Watch regularly monitor events at checkpoints and report their findings. In a 2004 report Amnesty International wrote that “The fence/wall, in its present configuration, violates Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law.”[116]

    They continue:

    Since the summer of 2002 the Israeli army has been destroying large areas of Palestinian agricultural land, as well as other properties, to make way for a fence/wall which it is building in the West Bank.

    In addition to the large areas of particularly fertile Palestinian farmland that have been destroyed, other larger areas have been cut off from the rest of the West Bank by the fence/wall.

    The fence/wall is not being built between Israel and the Occupied Territories but mostly (close to 90%) inside the West Bank, turning Palestinian towns and villages into isolated enclaves, cutting off communities and families from each other, separating farmers from their land and Palestinians from their places of work, education and health care facilities and other essential services. This in order to facilitate passage between Israel and more than 50 illegal Israeli settlements located in the West Bank.

    The Canadian Government recognizes Israel’s right to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks, including through the restriction of access to its territory, and by building a barrier on its own territory for security purposes. However, it opposes the barrier’s incursion into and the disruption of occupied territories. Considering the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) to be “occupied territory”, the Canadian government considers the barrier to be contrary to international law under the Fourth Geneva Convention. It opposes the barrier and the expropriations and the demolition of houses and economic infrastructure preceding its construction.

  11. @ DD:

    First, you may wish to read two articles on the issue of the basic law [The basic ambivalence over the Jewish state and The Legal underpinnings of Israel as a Jewish state]; you will learn that your entire nomenclature-model requires modification and, as a result, your mindset will necessarily be altered.



    Second, the path taken by the barrier was heavily adjudicated internally, and you have yet to reveal an international body that credibly condemned its existence; again, there are no “borders” involved in this process, and you have yet to explain when a “Palestinian State” ever existed in Judea/Samaria.

    Third, the new nationality-bill does not alter Israel’s founding document; many feel its major goal is predicated on national-security concerns; thus, you must face the fact that – regardless of the bill’s fate – Israel is NOW a “Jewish State.

  12. @ DD:

    You will not be able to ID any Israeli leader who opposes the Security Fence, thereby undermining your claim that this is primarily a venture planned and executed by Likud; this illustrates your larger error when you equate all Israeli policy to Likud’s influence, even when Labor controlled the Knesset.

  13. Robert-

    The implementation was the Likud policy of stealing land and violating international law. I haven’t objected to the fence itself, only the sections in violation. It’s not a “vague citation”, but rather the ruling of the international court and votes by U.N.

    Also, unimplemented policies are meaningless in this context, when the implementation is the violation.

    Nothing to rectify. I stand by my claims that Israel is not acting in America’s best interests.

    Israel has as much right to exist as Palestine, Iran, Afghanistan, Egypt, Lebanon, etc.

    If Israel already is a Jewish state as you claim, then

    1) this new nationality bill would not be needed, if was restating existing status
    2) it would not be controversial
    3) it would not be condemned by Israel’s supporters

    So, the bill is something new, and NOT the same as past 66 years.

  14. @ DD:

    Again, I referred to the POLICY and not its implementation so, again, you are remiss; your vague citation of Israel having violated international law does not suffice.

    Again, this is a diversion, for you have yet to rectify the fundamental questions, now including your claim that Israel’s policies undermine America’s interests.

    And you have yet to wriggle-out from the other conclusions, for you invoked your concern with “Likud” regarding Israel’s behavior as a “Jewish State” AFTER I pointed-out that this had been established in ’48.

    Thus, it is clear why you feel Israel shouldn’t exist [and indeed shouldn’t have existed since ’48], for she is somehow blocking what you consider to be the “interests” of the USA.

    And, noting the linkage between Hamas and the Islamic State, you will have difficulty explaining how you support the rationale of the former while [presumably] opposing the behavior of the latter.

  15. Robert
    Ariel Sharon became Prime Minister in March 2001. He was Likud party when the wall was being built, therefore in charge.

    The UN and international courts determined that Israel did violate international law for some sections of the wall.

    I accept you apology.

Comments are closed.

  • When Will PA House Agree On Rules?

    • After the Special House Elections (Feb 7) (92%)
    • End of the Month (Jan 31) (4%)
    • End of Next Week (Jan 27) (2%)
    • Early February (Feb 1-6) (2%)

    Total Voters: 152

    Loading ... Loading ...
Continue to Browser


To install tap and choose
Add to Home Screen