The big story of the week is that Attorney General Kathleen Kane ended a three-year criminal investigation which produced evidence of corruption – yet no charges were filed.
The story, which was first reported by the Philadelphia Inquirer, concerns an investigation which allegedly found that at least four city Democrats had accepted bribes for votes.
Kane responded with a press conference Monday morning and an interview with Brad Bumsted of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review in which she denied any wrongdoing.
According to the Attorney General, the case was poorly managed, the informant was not reliable and there was evidence that there was racial targeting in the investigation.
Already pundits are debating whether Kane’s image has been tarnished or burnished by the whole affair.
So, we decided to ask you our readers, was the Attorney General right not to bring charges in the case?
Loading ...
12 Responses
You do not need the informant if he stopped cooperating whether that is true or not. You have the tapes. The tapes and all the information have to be in evidence and the chain is followed along with any paper trail attached. The Tapes and how they were handled, chain of custody, etc , is the case along with the case Agent who can put the case before a grand jury without any informant. The tapes if they were handled properly is the case. To go outside her own agency which is full of all the legal expertise ever needed in the form of CDAG’s, DAG’s is the most Ms. Kane needed to do. Her lack of experience and confidence in her own staff is showing that she needs better communication. She has an entire agency with extremely low morale because of her inexperience. It shows. The only reason to go outside is if she wanted to prosecute federally in which she has cross-designated DAGs, unless somehow the investigation got too close.
Go ahead General. You are doing a fine job.
Keep up the good work.
Ali refused to cooperate with the AG’s office, the fed’s and Marsico/Chardo once Fina made a sweetheart deal with him. Case closed!!
Very difficult cases to put in front of a jury.
Preemptive retaliation from the ex employees afraid of the coming Sandusky report.
She did the right thing, never easy.
Kane is obviously protecting her political buddies. She shoudl resign.
Militant Republican Moderate-
Kane sees an honest elected official every day: when she looks in the mirror.
KKane——-thank God we finally have a voice of reason in the Attorney General’s Office!!! She has done the right thing!
You have remember Kane is from Lackawanna County, she would not know an honest elected official if she saw one.
Fina is the Big Worm in this barrel of Rotten Apples – and now he doesn’t have the balls to be quoted by name. And that sweetheart deal for Ali when he was a lame duck? That was the equivalent of hush money. My only fault with Kane is not fighting hard enough to void that deal and put that Ali behind bars for this half-million dollar Fraud. Seth Williams better watch his back with that snake working for him…
Sunday’s front page was beautiful wasn’t it? “Who cares” is the answer.
The question you should be asking is “What the hell was Frank Fina thinking when he greenlighted this morass?” We know Southeastern Rs were disappointed that “Bonusgate” didn’t snag any of the Philadelphia delegation but this seems an ill-advised remedy. Why did he drop the charges against Ali just after Kane’s election but before her inauguration, when nothing had been done on the case for a year and a half? Is it a coincidence he targeted one of the very few legislators who dared to speak out against “Bonusgate?”
Casablancapa.com: SEND IN THE CLOWNS-Williams told the Inquirer last April, “Philadelphians think we turn a blind eye to political corruption in Philadelphia. I wanted them to know that we don’t – and that we will abdicate our responsibility of prosecuting the appropriate cases in Philadelphia.” (Inquirer 4/29/13)
That sounds good, but we think otherwise. Williams hired Fina, Blessington, and Costanzo because he could count on them to turn a blind eye to corruption when ordered, especially when personally and politically expedient. Here’s just a few examples of how these politically motivated prosecutors put their old boss Corbett’s career ahead of justice:
Fina, Blessington, and Costanzo were the same team that followed Corbett’s instructions to leave his close political allies in the State Senate Republican Caucus untouched in the bonusgate investigations as Charlie Thompson from the Patriot News outlined last year (Patriot News 2/27/13). In fact, these three supposed corruption busters actually turned away the tipster who eventually brought down State Senator Jane Orie and Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin (2/21/13).
They ignored a referal from the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission that found former Republican State Representative Matt Wright from Bucks County guilty of using his taxpayer funded legislative staff for the exact same purposes as the bonusgate defendants. Instead Fina, Costanzo, and Blessington followed Corbett’s orders and ignored the referral because of strong connections in the case between Wright and the powerful Deon family (Inquirer 1/30/10).
Fina, Costanzo, and Blessington were found by the Patriot News and the ACLU to have no problem helping Tom Corbett’s nascent gubernatorial campaign by egregiously abusing the state grand jury system to silence political opponents (Patriot News 5/25/10)
Worst of all is the unfolding scandal surrounding Fina’s role in slow-walking the Jerry Sandusky investigation to avoid negative repercussions for Corbett’s campaign for governor. As post-indictment riots attested the repercussions of the child molestation indictment proved quite harmful to the vaunted Penn State football brand and consequently quite unpopular. In fact, Fina and Costanzo were both still at the OAG when Corbett’s replacement made the politically expedient decision to delete millions of emails. Both men stood by and allowed their destruction. (Pittsburgh Tribune Review 2/14/14)