Kathleen Kane has one less Democratic ally.
In the aftermath of her law license suspension, Congressional candidate Steve Santarsiero called on the Attorney General to resign.
“In light of the gravity of the charges brought against her and today’s action by the Supreme Court, which makes it impossible for her to practice law, I am calling on the attorney general to put the interests of the Commonwealth first and resign her office,” Santarsiero said. “The citizens of Pennsylvania need an Attorney General who can prosecute serious cases.
“Attorney General Kane has a right to due process,” he concluded. “She will have her day in court. But her right to defend herself against criminal charges has to be separated from the need to have a chief prosecutor who can fully perform her duties.”
One interesting side-note is that Santarsiero is a State Representative and therefore have a vote on any impeachment proceedings that may take place in the State House.
Santarsiero is running for the open 8th congressional district seat in 2016.
PoliticsPA reached out to the campaign of Santarsiero’s Democratic rival Shaughnessy Naughton but they declined to comment.
The NRCC sent out the following response after Santarsiero’s declaration.
“If Steve Santarsiero really means it when he says Kathleen Kane needs to leave office, then he should start the impeachment proceedings against her in the state house,” NRCC Spokesman Chris Pack stated. “Unfortunately, since Santarsiero has already demonstrated that he’s the cowardly lion of Southeast Pennsylvania, his constituents shouldn’t hold their breath on him actually demonstrating that type of leadership.”
Loading ...
10 Responses
jmarsh – it was a “perjury trap” … like the EPIC FAIL used by Repervlicans with Bill Clinton …
Rep Santarsiero is well aware of the underlying issue. It was hand delivered and reviewed with his staff. So why would he not support the Attorney General?
Perhaps for the same reason he ignored repeated requests to meet about the issue. He did nothing.
Taking Kane’s license is an action which is designed to prevent her from ever offering a defense.
Should Kane be removed from office, the charges will be dropped and any opportunity to present and demonstrate the affects of improperly enacted and unconstitutional Rule 1.6 Confidentiality will be lost.
Other cases can demonstrate the matter, but cannot break the media blackout of the problem. The reason people seem to think the US Constitution is dead… is because it is being IGNORED pursuant to Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information.
jmarshak-
Maybe they put a gun to the head of the people that testified (to get immunity for their own misdeeds).
However, having a different opinion/recollection than the other witnesses is not perjury if you didn’t willfully lie.
So DD, the Republicans held a gun to her head and forced her to commit perjury?
jmarshak-
Dems have nothing gain by attacking her, and helping this political abuse by the GOP.
At this point, Democrats have nothing to gain by continuing to defend her. Better to distance yourself than look like a fool when she gets taken away in handcuffs.
Shaughnessy Naughton should just say that she hasn’t seen the evidence and Kane should have her day in court. And leave it at that.
Observer – how do you know his name is on the e-mail chain?
Lolol… Guess whose name is in the email dump that is about to happen! This guy just lost my vote – and likely the race.
You insinuate Santasiero has a conflict of interest as a PA rep if an impeachment vote. But what about the PA Supreme Ct justice (Eakin) who has been implicated in the porn email scandal? Did he recuse himself or is his secret vote the one that carried the day in that Per Curiam decision to strip Kane of law license?
Santasiero seems conflicted about that due process he admits Kane is entitled to, as he wants her removed from office now. IMO, he is just jumping on the bandwagon trying to pick up a few votes in his coming election. Not a lion at all.