Yet another poll shows that a plurality of Pennsylvanians want Attorney General Kathleen Kane to resign.
The latest PPP survey found 45% think the AG should step down. 25% are against her resignation while 30% are unsure.
It’s also not just Republicans (55/17) that favor a resignation but independents (42/22) and even Democrats (37/34).
There is a significant gender gap, however, with 52% of men supporting a Kane resignation against 28% who are against it and 20% who are unsure. Meanwhile, just 39% of women want Kane to resign while 23% don’t want her to. 39% of women are undecided.
The Attorney General’s favorability rating is still incredibly low, sitting at 17%. Her unfavorable rating is 41%.
Finally, 56% of those polled feel Kane should not run for re-election next year while just 18% believe she should seek a second term.
Public Policy Polling surveyed 1,012 registered voters from October 8th to 11th. The margin of error is +/-3.1%.
124 Responses
Arnie, keep in mind that Kathleen and her sister strode into the AG’s Office in the same way that they approached their marriages to much wealthier men. With a look that suggests they still think of themselves as high school cheerleaders at the age of 50, they flaunted their graying long hair and their increasingly makeup-resistant wrinkles to get something of value.
And it worked! A trucking fortune bought a brilliant campaign against Tom Corbett (who wasn’t even running for the office), which turned into political office! The job even came with a bodyguard/boy toy! So, Kathleen got what she came for, and I doubt she cares what anyone thinks about her.
@ Arnie:
It’s too late now.
Kathy is a neat lady. Everybody needs to stop picking on her before she develops a complex.
@ D2 & Ha3:
The trend of public support for AG-Kane diminishes, as her lawyers try to change the subject in vain.
Bumsted accurately called her an “accused felon” and you recognize that she, indeed, may have committed “some heinous crime.”
And “her license was PROPERLY suspended over the accusation” because of the turmoil she has internally created.
Deal with the message, namely, that Wolf hasn’t followed-through with his judgment…into action.
He calls her an “accused felon” as though she committed some heinous crime.
But, she’s accused, not convicted. And her license was improperly suspended over the accusation, without trial (with one of the Supremes having his own email scandal).
By the time her trial rolls around, 65% will not want her to resign.
Great work by Kane and her attorneys. People are starting to see what was really going on. Creeps, racists, pigs and racists running around calling themselves Judges, prosecutors, and Justices.
Shame on them.
@ Montco PA Dem:
Why not deal with the contents of what was written instead of impugning its author?
I know that Bumstead has some sort of stellar rep with the Harrisburg pundit set, but I haven’t seen much reason for it lately. How do you have somebody who is supposed to be objectively reporting about state government on one hand also writing opinion pieces urging the governor and the Senate to remove Kane? Revealing your bias does nothing but make me question whether that same bias is coloring every bit of reporting Bumstead has done on this story so far.
It’s time for Gov. Wolf to bounce Kathleen Kane
http://triblive.com/opinion/bradbumsted/9269063-74/kane-office-wolf#axzz3ovtKIG9Q
Note what I wrote earlier:
October 17, 2015 at 10:20 pm
@ DD:
You are now wallowing in the world of cudda/shudda/wudda [“declaring your own innocence should never be a punishable crime even if you are lying”] instead of invoking settled law.
Multi Tasker General-
Perjury in this case is both non-violent and victimless. Perjury can have a victim if you falsely accuse someone of murder/robbery, but declaring your own innocence should never be a punishable crime even if you are lying. But, you’ve seen my other posts against perjury, so stop acting surprised.
The motivations for bringing the case are completely relevant. The GOP is abusing the system to overturn an election and to hide their own bad behavior. Selective prosecution is a bigger crime, and those who commit it do not have the moral authority to sit in judgement.
@ DD:
Wanna listen to lucidity?
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/10/18/ted-cruz-speaks-with-chuck-todd-meet-the-press-interview/
Then ask yourself if ANYTHING he uttered DOESN’T ring-true….
Diano: First, you never said “victimless” crimes, only that nonviolent crimes should not come with prison sentences. Second, there is no such thing as a “victimless” crime; there are crimes that hurt specific people and crimes that hurt all of us collectively. Third, if you dispute the last statement, then you are a friend of Wall Street fat cats who evade taxes and blue collar scum who commit workers comp fraud or welfare fraud.
Again, it doesn’t matter if charges were brought here for motivations that would not exist for someone else. Kane either committed the crimes or she didn’t. If she did, then the law has included a prison term for that conduct since long before anyone ever knew who Kathleen Kane was.
@ DD:
Buried in the aforementioned article:
“The documents, obtained by The Mail on Sunday, are part of a batch of secret emails held on the private server of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton which U.S. courts have forced her to reveal.”
…
“The memo was included in a batch of 30,000 emails which were received by Mrs Clinton on her private server when she was US Secretary of State between 2009 and 2013.
“Another document included in the email batch is a confidential briefing for Powell prepared by the U.S. Embassy in London, shortly before the Crawford summit.
“The memo, dated ‘April 02’, includes a detailed assessment of the effect on Blair’s domestic position if he backs US military action.”
*
REMEMBER that she said she was aware of the confidentiality/classified rules, although she has been contradictory regarding whether she personally approved release [vs. relied upon lawyers].
Jake Tapper got her to admit that she never acquired the “approval” for her conduct from anyone specific [except for herself], and she admitted she had no screening control if anyone had remitted anything labeled “classified” or “top-secret”…[even if some of them clearly related to GPS-related photos which are, by nature, classified].
As you would say, “Grab your popcorn” for 10/22 in the a.m.!
@ DD:
Now that we’ve disposed of your citizenship-swipe, it’s desirable to suggest that the Benghazi Committee has NOT been exposed as a political witch-hunt [by McCarthy/Hanna] because Gowdy notes that non-members of the committee know nothing of what it has learned [including c/o your favorite perv’s wife, Huma, this past Friday].
Hillary is NOT going to chew them up and spit them out, if her recent interviews are to be assessed without bias; indeed, the FACT that the Espionage Act is being assessed by the FBI should–at the least–give you pause before issuing a broad-brush dismissal of her [mis-]conduct.
The libertarians are NOT going to realize that Cruz is off the rails for, once they’re done with Rand, they will have nowhere else to go AND he captures the essence of their recoiling against Big Government; also, he WILL attract the independents with his anti-BHO radicalism.
Your subjective endorsement of Hillary [“qualified for the job…has the intelligence, experience, temperament and grasp on reality needed”] contrasts with your unreferenced condemnation of Cruz [“does not pass the smell test”]; you’ve been so sure of yourself despite the evolution of [state-level] events regarding AG-Kane, it’s not surprising that you would steadfastly maintain the Dem-establishment meme despite the evolution of [national] events regarding the R-race.
*
Consider the latest revelation c/o Hillary’s “secure” server:
“A bombshell White House memo has revealed for the first time details of the ‘deal in blood’ forged by Tony Blair and George Bush over the Iraq War.
“The sensational leak shows that Blair had given an unqualified pledge to sign up to the conflict a year before the invasion started.
“It flies in the face of the Prime Minister’s public claims at the time that he was seeking a diplomatic solution to the crisis.
“He told voters: ‘We’re not proposing military action’ – in direct contrast to what the secret email now reveals.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3277402/Smoking-gun-emails-reveal-Blair-s-deal-blood-George-Bush-Iraq-war-forged-YEAR-invasion-started.html
rsklaroff-
The Benghazi committee has been exposed as a political witch hunt. Hillary is going to chew them up and spit them out.
I’m not saying that Cruz isn’t a citizen, but after all the bullsh*t about Obama, who was born in the country, there’s a lot of hypocrisy for those birthers. Obama could have been born in Kenya, and he’d still have been a US citizen, because his mother was. The entire birther movement against Obama was pure racism.
The libertarians are going to realize that Cruz is off the rails. He will not attract the independents with his radicalism. Hillary is qualified for the job. She has the intelligence, experience, temperament and grasp on reality needed. Cruz does not pass the smell test.
@ DD:
Well, it seems you are enjoying this respite from defending AG-Kane, but you really must hold in abeyance your prediction that Hillary will get the nod until after 10/22’s “deposition” c/o Gowdy; let’s see how many times her eyes will be “saying” what she feels [“What difference, at this point, does it make?”].
Furthermore, since Cruz’s mother was born in Baltimore, he’s a “natural born citizen”; it’s indisputable that he’s a citizen and he wasn’t “naturalized” … so he was “natural born.”
Cruz will attract supporters from across the non-Establishment GOP, plus indies/dems who hate D.C.; watch how he expands his “right-wing tea-party religious” base to include libertarians, for example, along with those who respect a candidate who consistently speaks his/her convictions [and can lucidly defend them].
rsklaroff-
Cruz makes a great representative for the “Know-nothing” party that the GOP has become, but he’s not winning the presidency. The Dems would love to have this idiot as Hillary’s opponent. She’ll crush him.
And, Cruz was born in Canada, which is f*cking interesting after all the crap the birthers gave Obama over his birth certificate, as Cruz’s says Canada not USA.
Cruz may pick up supporters of Trump and Carson, as their campaigns collapse, but Cruz is still a right-wing tea-party religious nutjob.
@ DD:
It’s great to note that you contradicted your prior pledge to ignore my writings; know that each misrepresentation of his policies is easily refuted, as he did on the 33rd Floor of a private residential building that attracted a dozen people who you probably would recognize.
The beautiful point that you avoid is that his candidacy is based on rule-of-law; thus, even those who disagree regarding a given issue can still revel in how he would approach the process of finding common-ground.
He’s increasingly recognized by pundits to be a serious finalist among the GOP-POTUS candidates; resist this trend if you must, but know that his brand of populism is attractive across the political spectrum.
rsklaroff
“A modern day Reagan”? The last thing we need is more failed trickle down economics. Cruz is a guy who doesn’t understand that even Reagan realized he cut too deeply and had to raise taxes because the cuts did not produce revenue. Voodoo economics doesn’t work.
He had a crowd of 40 people? Wow! How did I miss that news? It should have been the headline on every newspaper.
The more you tout Cruz the dumber you seem (and that’s saying a lot).
He’s against gay marriage and supports constitutional amendment banning it.
He want more fossil fuel use, drilling offshore, calling it “proven energy”. He’s a climate change denier and won’t press for more adoption of renewable energies.
He’s pro-gun (anti-common-sense), supporting more than 10 rounds in high capacity magazines.
He’s for VoterID to suppress poor/minority voting.
He wants to eliminate inheritance taxes (which will keep even more wealth concentrated in the top 1%. He wants flat rate (which disproportionately hurts the poor), instead of a progressive rate. He’s backed by the Club for Growth (which should disqualify any candidate).
Basically, he’s for failed and dangerous policies, and against civil rights and science.
More:
“Senator Ted Cruz said that the president’s rhetoric is part and parcel of a broader anti-Americanism that runs deep amongst ideological leftists.”
http://www.hannity.com/articles/hanpr-election-493995/obama-takes-a-shot-at-american-14033424/
Sen. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said the current Republican leadership has “passed more Democratic priorities than Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) ever could.”
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/10/18/cruz-current-gop-leadership-is-the-most-effective-dem-leaders-weve-ever-seen/
Like it or not, he’s a consistent truth-teller!
@ Ha3:
Yes, I spoke with him thrice and he maintained eye-contact throughout; this guy constitutes the modern-day Reagan, as will become increasingly apparent, particularly during the upcoming debates.
O3 – sklaroff has met him 3 TIMES … Three …..
3 TIMES !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!
BTW – BENGHAZI !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What a pig. I wonder what fat, ugly, old Repervlicans “complain about” … Oh … that’s right … Attorney General Kane
Eakin needs to resign now.
I heard Cruz speak on 9/17/2014 @ the Constitution Center; go to the “Speaker Series” button @ the 1210 website to listen to his hourlong speech about the 2nd Amendment.
I met with him for an hour on 7/8/2015 while discussing Kurdistan; he anticipated the query’s end after the first three words uttered, illustrating his brilliance and extensive knowledge-base.
I met with him 20 days ago @ a $-raiser @ Central Park South; he wowed-the-crowd [~40 people] just after his Colbert taping.
The 45% includes people (like Eakin) who think this is funny:
Faux “motivational” poster with naked or scantily clad women and the slogan: “Sexism: Only ugly bitches complain about it.”
The 45% includes people who think Ted Cruz has a snowballs chance in hell of being POTUS.
have you met ted cruz, mr. sklaroff? I hear he is dreamy … in a herman munster sorta way.
@ DD:
Note how Ted is rising in polls/$.
rsklaroff-
Says the guy who is backing Ted Cruz.
@ DD:
You exhibit pathological denial @ your peril.
Multi Tasker General-
I was referring to “crimes” like perjury, which are victimless crimes, unlike stock fraud, embezzlement, etc. But, thanks for jumping in with a false analogy.
My rationale is that none of charges against Kane would have been brought, or a grand jury even convened, if it wasn’t purely political “gotcha”. No special prosecutor would have been assigned and the case would have been shutdown before it even started (especially if the judge was not playing politics as well). The entire case was trumped up with petty accusations, and then turned into a perjury trap where a he-said-she-said difference is falsely portrayed as a deliberate lie. This is all to jack up penalties and go after her law license, since the real goal has been to overturn an election and pretend Kane from exposing the widespread corruption and misconduct within the judicial system.
rsklaroff –
Nothing you say is worth posting, repeating or reading.
@ Observer [October 16, 2015 at 10:22 pm]:
Worth repeating:
“O3 and H3 and D2, we are the only four people left (including Kane’s attorneys) who believe that Kathleen Kane is blameless and that every story about her should be met reflexively with references to Fina and porn emails. So we have to stick together, come what may (even more evidence of her guilt, even more evidence that porn emails have nothing to do with her crimes, etc.). It may be true that we don’t have much of a grasp on reality, but, hey, at least we’re not Joebot morons like Peggy.”
@ MTG:
Worth repeating:
“Diano, by your rationale about non-violent crimes, Bernie Madoff should not be in prison. I never took you for such a friend of Wall Street tycoons. But your position is silly. Eakin has played no role in the criminal charges against Kane. The motivations of Fina, Ferman, or the Easter Bunny make no difference at all if the evidence is there that Kane violated Pennsylvania criminal statutes. And, David Diano saying “that shouldn’t be a crime (at least not for Democrats)” isn’t going to cut it. It is a crime, and Kane — who claims to have gone to law school — knew that her behavior was violating the criminal law of this commonwealth.”
It has been claimed that “There’s no use debating it now [because] AG-Kane has a trial coming up.”
The “politics” of what transpired may not patiently wait.
“All civil officers elected by the people (except the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, members of the General Assembly and judges of the courts of record) shall be removed by the Governor for reasonable cause, after due notice and full hearing, on the address of two-thirds of the Senate.” [Article VI, Section 7]
http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Constitution.html
Thus, recalling that Gov. Wolf called upon her to resign, were he to state publicly that he remains so-inclined [after the suspension has started], he might either invite Sen. Metcalfe to pursue impeaching her [Article VI, Section 6] or ask the Senate to skip that step [vide supra].
It’s unclear which entity would conduct the “full hearing” in that instance, but it seems it wouldn’t be the judiciary.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2015/08/gov_wolf_kane_should_step_down.html
One would THINK that he wouldn’t want this issue to linger….
Diano, by your rationale about non-violent crimes, Bernie Madoff should not be in prison. I never took you for such a friend of Wall Street tycoons. But your position is silly. Eakin has played no role in the criminal charges against Kane. The motivations of Fina, Ferman, or the Easter Bunny make no difference at all if the evidence is there that Kane violated Pennsylvania criminal statutes. And, David Diano saying “that shouldn’t be a crime (at least not for Democrats)” isn’t going to cut it. It is a crime, and Kane — who claims to have gone to law school — knew that her behavior was violating the criminal law of this commonwealth.
rsklaroff and Multi Tasker General-
This case should be dismissed for prosecutorial and judicial misconduct. Risa Ferman is pursuing this to get the support of the GOP machine for her judge race (because if she didn’t, they were going to abandon her).
The disciplinary board and supreme court are playing politics as well by suspending her license, especially when Eakin had a clear conflict of interest to prevent Kane from exposing his emails and behavior.
Some people think Castor would drop the case if he were DA (but I wouldn’t trust him to resist the political pressure).
Going to jail for non-violent offenses (and not even a real crime, like “perjury”) is ridiculous.
Kane Never did anything wrong . She will expose Judge Carpenter and Risa Ferman for all of their wrong doings Ladies and Gentlemen Fasten Your Seat Belts .
Looks Like a Push Poll to me I bet Most people surveyed did not even know the Name of The PA AG
There’s no use debating it now. Kane has a trial coming up. We will find out then if there is real proof. But don’t believe any moron talking about Morrow — who gave two completely different accounts. His credibility is ZERO.
Kane may or not make it through this. If she was so stupid to have committed a crime, she needs to go to jail.
In the meantime, lets weed out all the perverts and racists and woman-haters that have been exposed. In a way / they are worse than Kane.
@ MTG:
worth repeating….
“Diano, whoever her initial ‘pursuers’ were, the pursuers now are Risa Ferman and Kevin Steele and the witnesses are Kane’s own people. How do you keep ignoring that? And it’s not two dots. It’s Kane in a room full of people talking about leaking confidential materials, and those people telling her (followed by emails) that she should not do that. It’s Kane telling Morrow to expect a package from King, and that Morrow should get the contents to the press because it will embarrass Fina. It’s Morrow testifying that he received the package from King and then released the contents to the media. Then, it’s a document case showing the emails, the secrecy oath, and Kane’s testimony that is contrary to every document (and the testimony of everyone else involved). The case is pretty damn strong. I know you hate her political rivals, but she made her own bed here.”
Diano, whoever her initial “pursuers” were, the pursuers now are Risa Ferman and Kevin Steele and the witnesses are Kane’s own people. How do you keep ignoring that? And it’s not two dots. It’s Kane in a room full of people talking about leaking confidential materials, and those people telling her (followed by emails) that she should not do that. It’s Kane telling Morrow to expect a package from King, and that Morrow should get the contents to the press because it will embarrass Fina. It’s Morrow testifying that he received the package from King and then released the contents to the media. Then, it’s a document case showing the emails, the secrecy oath, and Kane’s testimony that is contrary to every document (and the testimony of everyone else involved). The case is pretty damn strong. I know you hate her political rivals, but she made her own bed here.
Well, I disagree on the strength of the case. They have each link in the chain via the testimony of her own people. When they got Morrow’s testimony, that sealed the deal. Targeted or not, she was warned about the illegality of this particular method of retribution and she went forward with it anyway. She chose to break the law and they have the people who she recruited to help her to provide testimony.
I also disagree about perjury being a desperate charge. That’s the most serious charge. It will bar her from holding any office in PA.
The relentless pursuit of Kane is the clearest evidence that she’s being treated differently. Combine that with the fact that her pursuers are the ones with the most to hide.
It’s like playing “connect the dots” with just two dots.
Completely agree, Tasker. It’s not a very good defense. But the truth is that they don’t really have any hard evidence that Kane illegally leaked protected material. And the perjury stuff is just the work of desperate prosecurors.
The more I see of this mess, the more I believe that Kane really was targeted because she had/has the goods on Fina, Eakin and company.
If she can prove that, she”ll beat the criminal charges.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=916687998417074&set=gm.781726775270456&type=3
Jennifer, are you saying that you believe it is a legitimate defense for Kane? That is, “Yes, I released confidential grand jury materials and lied about it under oath, but hey, look at these guys who really wanted to get me for exposing dirty emails!” That’s like getting pulled over for going 85 mph and telling the state trooper that the guy in the next lane was drinking behind the wheel. You’re getting a ticket for speeding. And Kane is looking at prison time.
Others have said you are crazy. Seems you are stupid too.
There is no right and wrong when it comes to Fina and Kane. They both made poor decisions just to “get” the other. But the one that got charged has had a pretty consistent defense.
The e-mails we are now seeing and the rabid dogs doing anything and everything to “encourage” Kane to resign is the proof in the pudding.
But you like Jello, if I remember correctly.
@ Jennifer Myers:
Your historical revisionism [“Kane’s defense from the start has been that she uncovered corruption and has been therefore attacked/investigated/indicted. You been under a rock?”] suggests, first, that you forgot the initial issues [Sandusky-misadventure and alleged-racism] and, second, that you perhaps need to climb from underneath YOUR “rock.”