Close this search box.

PA Supreme Court Records Contradict Kane’s Claims

Kane-ConferenceThe PA Supreme Court unsealed a December order today to prove that Attorney General Kathleen Kane is free to release other emails.

During last week’s press conference, Kane professed her innocence and insisted that the real story was the fact that she could not reveal all the pornographic emails that were discovered during the Sandusky investigation.

Judge Carpenter indicated as such the next day when he revealed the AG had not filed any petition for the emails.

The unsealed order contains the following passage:

This Court notes that, per the opinion of the Supervising Judge William R. Carpenter, the purpose of the protective order, entered per the authority of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4954, “was/is to prevent the intimidation, obstruction and/or retaliation, in the ordinary sense of those words . . . . [and] was never intended to prevent the [Office of Attorney General] from carrying out its constitutional duties.” Opinion, dated 12/12/2014, at 10-11 (filed at 171 MM 2014). Additionally, as explained by Judge Carpenter, the protective order “is not intended to restrict or impact ‘appropriate public [disclosure]’ of information connected with the possession and/or distribution of possibly pornographic images by members of the [Office of Attorney General].” Id. at 11.

These revelations could provide Kane with the cover to finally release the emails. Although, if they don’t live up to the hype and fail to take down her enemies, she would no longer have a political defense.

UPDATE: Kane’s lawyer Gerald Shargel released the following statement in response:

We are pleased with the Order issued today by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.  The Order permits the “appropriate public disclosure” of the “possibly pornographic images” that Attorney General Kane referenced in her recent public statement.  We expect that appropriate public disclosure will occur in connection with the vigorous defense of the criminal charges that have been laid against her.  These images and the emails to which they are attached are essential to demonstrating Attorney General Kane’s innocence, and the abject flaws in the District Attorney’s Affidavit of Probable Cause. 

As a result of the Supreme Court’s Order, we no longer consider it necessary to move for relief before Judge William R. Carpenter. 

It is our hope that the Supreme Court will soon rule that additional, related documents are also subject to appropriate public disclosure in connection with Attorney General Kane’s defense.

111 Responses

  1. DD,

    You make a good point. kanesdriver is sounding like an internet tough guy … willing to call people names through his keyboard. He calls you a crybaby but won’t tell you who he is so you can punch him in the face. Pretty pathetic.

    He has already exposed himself as a shill for Fina. It’s fun to have one here, though. So let him be. Let him type …

    And you keep on keeping on. Don’t let them deter you. You keep on helping progressives!!

  2. Kanesdriver

    $6000/year is pocket change. Do you have any idea how many millions of dollars the party and candidates spend each year? I’m just providing voter data services.

    But, let me put this in units you are more familiar with: $6000 is only one lapdance per day (skipping Sunday of course for church).

  3. Come on crybaby. Keep trying. You sure do lose focus quickly. Pocket change? I understand work study has some pretty strict rules.

  4. kanesdriver-

    A financial stake in the party? Are you f*cking kidding? This is pocket money I make on the side. I help out progressive candidates. I’ve supported independents and even a republican (in a primary where his opponent would have been worse if elected).

    How do you make your money? You claim to be insider, so maybe you do have a horse in this race. Possibility of promotion if some people are eliminated?

    I’m on the record, under my own name, and not hiding like a cockroach.

  5. kanesdriver-

    How does this make me a paid shill for the Democratic party? If anything, I am a bit of a thorn in their side. I frequently criticize the incompetence of the HDCC and SDCC as well as Wolf’s appeasement strategy that increased the GOP advantage in the legislature.

    Also, the party has a policy of not selling VAN to Dems who challenge incumbent/endorsed Dems (I do sell to the challengers, pissing off the party). I’ve even caused the party to drop it’s prices because they were losing business. The party policy is to charge the candidates for the entire election cycle primary+general, even if they lose the primary. I, on the other hand, prorate some races. This is significant when the party wants to charge $50,000 for statewide access.

  6. That’s fine and dandy and it sounds like you have found a nice niche for yourself. However, that makes you a partisan hack that again places party above the rule of law.

    I have no political persuasion one way or the other. I have voted for both parties. You however are blinded by partisanship. Also, you clearly are biased based upon a financial stake you have in the democratic party.

  7. SB,

    It shows that he is nothing but a paid shill for the democratic party. I have said this a ton of times. He’s the problem with politics today. Right or wrong doesn’t matter it’s all about pandering to their base and destroying the other party. Be it republican or democrat. It’s not about partisanship. It’s about the rule of law.

    David is a hack that would rather fight a fight based upon his non knowledge of the topic.

  8. SpongeBob and Kanesdriver-

    I provide computer voter lists for a fee to candidates that is lower than what the Dems charge for VAN access. It’s not that complicated.

    I charge $250 for a state leg district and $1,200 for a state senate district. For a congressional district it’s $250/month. Prices vary for local council races, common pleas, etc. based on the size of the electorate for the race.

    Kane’s never been a client of mine.

  9. I do not begrudge anyone earning a living, I was just curious what one pays him for. If its not commenting (which I am not saying it is for) then what does he do for the party. It certainly goes to credibility….

  • 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