PA-Gov: Wolf Urges Kane to Resign

PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL KATHLEEN KANE CONGRATULATES GOVERNOR TOM WOLF FOLLOWING HIS INAUGURATION CEREMONY AT THE STATE CAPITOL IN HARRISBURG, PA ON JANUARY 20, 2015.Governor Tom Wolf has released a statement in the wake of Attorney General Kathleen Kane being found guilty on nine charges.

The statement is as follows:

“Today is a sad day for the commonwealth and the people of Pennsylvania. Attorney General Kane has been convicted of serious charges. These are unbecoming of the commonwealth’s top law enforcement officer.

“As I have made clear, I do not believe Kathleen Kane should be Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I believed this when she was charged, and today, after conviction, there should be no question that she should resign immediately.

“While there is no simple procedure to remove a civil officer, the Office of Attorney General and its employees, as well as the people of Pennsylvania deserve to move on. I implore Attorney General Kane to do what is right: put the commonwealth’s residents first and step down from office.”

Gov. Wolf first called on AG Kane to resign just over a year ago when she was first charged.

19 Responses

  1. Tom Wolf needs to appoint someone else. Thank you for making the resignation happen but Castor is not fit to be AG

  2. No, Isaac, that’s not the “only logical route,” but it is the most advisable route when the prosecution witnesses are telling the truth and there is no truthful rebuttal. When a defendant can testify to facts that would introduce doubt, that defendant will testify. Here, with every reason to respond to damning evidence (text messages), Kane stayed silent because it was all true and she would only dig a deeper hole by testifying and being cross-examined.

  3. Why would any attorney take the stand and risk perjuring him or herself in this scenario? The only logical route here was for Kane to decline to take the stand to avoid an unpredictable cross-examination and allow her counsel to make the argument that the witnesses against her were biased and lying, leaving enough room for reasonable doubt for the jury to acquit, which is exactly what happened sans the acquittal. Mr. Diano isn’t the only one guilty of armchair attorney-ism here. You other folks seem to have gotten your law degrees from Google… or perhaps Widener.

  4. Sklaroff, if you are looking for additional charges, it will be the criminal violation of the Election Code for using campaign funds to finance her criminal defense after she announced that she would not run for office.

    The law says that campaign funds may only be used “to influence the outcome of an election.” There is no possible way that her criminal defense could influence the outcome of an election, especially after she announced that she would not run again.

  5. I must apologize to the PoliticsPA readership for not having monitored this page…after it had “0” comments initially; d4 has been polluting y’all with his deceit, although others have satisfactorily filled the vacuum.

    David “Demented/Discredited” Diano does raise an intriguing point, albeit unknowingly and obliquely: Can AG-Kane be charged with another count of Perjury DURING a trial???

  6. SpongeBob, I appreciate the entertainment value of Diano’s amateur lawyering. He routinely botches the most fundamental concepts, and it’s hardly a speed bump in his bizarre ranting. He just keeps on going, even after being schooled on his mistakes. And, backed into a corner, he’ll just say the most inane grade school things like “well, it shouldn’t be illegal.” Which we all know really means “it shouldn’t be illegal when a Democrat does it.” But, hey, in a year of complete and utter Democrat corruption, what other line of argument could Diano offer?

  7. David, do you just make this stuff up as you go? Have you ever been in a courtroom or actually read any laws? You are clueless about the process. Kane signed her guilty verdict by not taking the stand. She knew she would open herself up to far worse and the verdict was just. Maybe you could comment on why all these democrats in PA are such criminals?

  8. DD – there is no such thing as a defendant in a criminal case “testifying against [her] accusers”


  9. Unsanctioned R-

    I think you mean: Absofrackinglutely not.

    Also, I think Kane could have testified if the Defense kept the questions in a range that didn’t open up the Prosecution to areas they didn’t want. I think some questions about her “state of mind” or “interpretation” of the evidence could have protected her from further trumped up perjury charges (and let her sneak in some of her opinions on the motivations of her detractors and the email scandal). She might say that she believed Fina had leaked information about the sting and was looking into him, when the attacks against her were ramped up.

    While her “opinion” isn’t evidence, her “state of mind” and what she believed that guided her actions, could have painted her in a more favorable light.

  10. Kane couldn’t even testify against her accusers without perjuring herself again. And to answer David’s question: Absofrackinglutely.

  11. Kane has been convicted of non-serious, bullsh*t, trumped up charges.

    Wolf has been only too eager to fill her job with Josh, so he can run for Gov, when Wolf declines to run for a second term.

    Did Wolf put the “commonwealth’s residents first” when he approved more fracking permits?

  • Reader Poll: Who Should the GOP Nominate for Governor?

    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...
Continue to Browser


To install tap and choose
Add to Home Screen