58 Responses

1. I have asked Sy Snyder to institute some sort of control over the IP-addresses of those who persist in undermining the ID’s of posters.

2. A reader who wishes to fully understand the corruption rushing through the veins of the Republicans in Harrisburg need only click on the following hyper-link and read the undisputed allegations which have been summarily admitted by the offending party and which clearly and unabashedly establishes the corruption of the Republicans. I hesitate to use the term “old boys network” because I prefer to pontificate utilizing longer words, but this is an example of the old boys network Ms. Kane has been up against:

   http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20151111_Glaring_conflict_in_Porngate_probe_.html

3. OH no !!! Not a fatally flawed formulation …. ROFL …

4. @ Ha3:

   Your formulation is fatally flawed and, thus, you may also wish to initiate a process of retribution comparable to the homework assignment that confronts d2; for details of this Herculean task that he confronts, note how I provided him an example of how he might start cleaning the Aegean Stables on another page herein:

   https://www.politicspa.com/kane-will-face-trial-on-additional-charges/70644/

5. This bears repeating. sklaroff – take notes!

   The perjury charge held over today is nonsense. They could never prove that she remembered signing it when she indicated that she didn’t remember signing it. The whole case is trumped-up nonsense designed to get the Clown Car to where they are now … with the Repervlican-controlled Senate looking to overturn an election.

   Here’s a short summary of how it went down:

   Repervlicans realize Kane has all their disgusting, racist e-mails … the ones that Repervlicans Corbett and Ryan tried to destroy

   Repervlican Castille (who wants to be AG) approved the grand jury; Repervlican special prosecutor appointed by Repervlican Carpenter

   Repervlican shill-boys start leaking material to Craig & Angela

   Repervlican Ferman gets case, realizes it is BS and starts scurrying to find real evidence

   Repervlicans leak more material … Repervlican Castille leaks material

   Repervlican (Lamb) controlled DB acts on the trumped-up criminal case

   Repervlican Senators start their embarrassing inquiry using an obscure provision from 1800s drafted to address low-level politicians who become senile.

   Can’t make this stuff up.

6. There is no way anyone should answer “Yes” because what the Senate is doing is in no way an “investigation.”

   What they are doing is trying to rail-road the duly elected Attorney General of Pennsylvania.

   And I doubt it will work. They are going to have to impeach her if they want her gone. And that would mean a full trial for Kane. They don’t seem to want that for some reason.

7. LOL @ the mental patient!!! Time for some more TEA, sklaroff?

8. @ aaron:

   And if you add “impeachment” to the tabulation, her support is significantly diminished.

9. look again, mental patient. right now – it is 50/50. LOL

10. @ d2:

    note that the clear majority are now favoring this Senate probe, so you cannot expropriate the undecided-vote to justify opposing this action

11. @ Whole Story:

    I would not have a problem with citing the owner of the Inqy when quoting from this publication [assuming it had some relevance to what was being analyzed]; indeed, I have lotsa problems with its coverage of Israel and Republicans, notwithstanding his ethnicity.

12. So — why does it matter who owns the tribune?

    Lewis Katz, owner of the INKY, is Jewish. I think I’ll say that after every article.

13. @ Ha3:

    You are incorrect when you claim you are “sure you wouldn’t react if every time the Inquirer attacked Kane, somebody wrote a caveat that ‘the owners of the Inquirer are Jewish’,” because I would apply one set of “rules” as aforementioned.

    Also, AG-Kane is being prosecuted for MUCH MORE THAN “ONE alleged leak,” as has been amplified today:

    https://www.politicspa.com/kane-will-face-trial-on-additional-charges/70644/#comments

14. @ aaron:

    I note relevant background information when it may inform what is [and what isn’t] contained in a piece, particularly when the gravamen thereof relates directly BOTH to the credibility of the review-article being cited AND to what actually transpired.

15. Fake me, Kane returned clear conflicts to Risa Ferman. Hmmm, why would Kane do that? Kane simply failed to respond to the Somerset DA in two cases that were referred for conflicts (no allegation of personal animus, perhaps just incompetence there). The DAs statewide are complaining about a significant uptick in conflict cases being refused by the OAG for no reason or for personal reasons.

16. O: When did I say anything about a “majority” of the Senate?

17. Impostor Me – Is Kane really refusing to handle conflict cases from D.A.s she doesn’t like? Where’s your proof?

    That would be a serious problem (but you are a troll who is not to be trusted).

18. Pat Unger, I think you’re confused, again. Eakin can’t be prosecuted for looking at emails. Even Kane’s Groper-in-Chief Duecker can’t be “prosecuted.” And there’s plenty of proof that Dueker groped two women. There was enough proof that an HR director recommended that Dueker be fired. Kane instead fired the HR director. See how that’s a problem? See how that’s different from criminal convictions as prerequisites for impeachment?

19. Happen to agree with Troll-Boy Larry/Fake Ha3 that promoting someone who sexually harasses women is wrong. Problem is – there is no proof that the guy did it; just allegations.

    Of course – applying Troll-Boy Larry’s Eakin Rule: the guy Kane promoted has not been convicted of anything. So – everything is kopasetic. It’s all good.

    The problem here is really partisan politics. The Repervlicans (45% of the “Yes” voters above) believe Kane is always wrong. They are reckless in their denouncement of Kane.

    Reasonable people can see that Kane may be wrong sometimes, that she may have even committed a crime, and that she should be held accountable if she did … while also using the rest of their brains and common sense to look at the actions of the lynch-mob.

    I happen to believe that the lynch-mob in PA is MUCH more dangerous than the AG (who may have leaked one document). After all – the lynch mob leaked several documents.

    What’s good for the goose is good for the pervert.

20. Story is wrong. Tkaes more than a majority of the Senate. Look it up. Then, look up what the actual intended use of the clause is.

21. I agree with Ester, Kane should be able to go buckwild and promote sexual harassers and disrupt drug task force operations and refuse to handle conflict cases from DAs she doesn’t like and generally cause chaos throughout our criminal justice system. Why? Because she’s a Democrat and I hate FINA!!

22. I agree with Mr. Unger below. A Kangaroo court is exactly what this looks like. Set up for one purpose. Shame on you, Senators!!!!!!!!!

23. Whole Story – very good point re: Morrow. I had forgotten that their star witness has told TWO DIFFERENT STORIES.

    The AG’s Office had been Repervlican forever before Kane was elected. The people there did nothing while Fina & The Corbett Pervs made a mockery of that Office. They did nothing while Sandusky was allowed to continue raping children. They did nothing about the racism. Nothing about the sexism. Now we are supposed to care that the Repervlican cronies that work there do not like Kane?

    Give me a break. One of them is here commenting all the time. He used to go by “kanesdriver” and he has been exposed as an Agent at the AG’s Office. Despicable.

24. Whole Story,do BOT respond! Speaking of bots, me and my alter ego, H3, are both joebots. We despise Fina for bringing to light the widespread pedophilia that was allowed to go on in PSU football facilities. And we also love Kathleen Kane. So, if this were a Republican going through the Senate proceeding, we would consider it perfectly legitimate. Diano would be creaming himself over the solid evidence. But, it’s yet another corrupt Democrat in a long line of corrupt Democrats getting exactly what she deserves, so it’s a kangaroo court. See how that works, Whole Story?

25. Seriously sklaroff. You are exposed again.

    I’m sure you wouldn’t react if every time the Inquirer attacked Kane, somebody wrote a caveat that “the owners of the Inquirer are Jewish.”

    LMAO. Two sets of rules.

    Speaking of two sets of rules: AG Kane is being prosecuted for ONE alleged leak. When is someone going to investigate/prosecute the people responsible for the MANY illegal leaks of protected material fro the Kane grand jury?

26. It is great to have a Repervlican troll so desperate to be taken seriously that he is using my screen name here on PoliticsPA. I really am honored.

    Mr. Story – Do bot respond to that Troll-Boy. He is a little sore that the truth has come out about this Kangaroo Court they are running in Harrisburg. He will settle down soon. He just needs another cup of TEA.

27. Whole Story, please explain how anyone is trying to “have it both ways.” The criminal proceeding has nothing to do with the Senate proceeding. The standards and scopes are different. In the Senate, “reasonable cause” to remove could simply mean that she has been disrupting the operations of the state’s district attorney’s offices, spying on her own employees, firing people for wholly improper reasons, and — oh yeah — practicing law without a license (which is a crime).

28. Hold on a second. It has NOT been proven that Kane broke any laws either. Republicans cannot have it both ways. Kane has been convicted of NOTHING.

    The use on an obscure provision from the 1800s doesn’t seen kosher. The Senate better cool their heels. They can impeach Kane if they want to get rid of her.

    There is no question that this provision was not meant to apply to circumstances like these; especially when you consider the very strong defense that Kane has to the “leak” charges. The key we witness (Morrow) has told two vastly different stories. He is, by definition, a liar.

29. Okay, so I admit that Eakin broke no laws and cannot, therefore, be impeached. I also admit that we as a state have ratified many times the very provision of the constitution being used by the Senate. It is, therefore, not a kangaroo court but instead a very legitimate exercise when “reasonable cause” exists to remove Kane. All I can do now is call people names.

30. Fake Ha3. Do not address me as if I will respond. You are a pathetic Groupie Troll. Have a conversation with one of your other screen-names.

    Kane continues to say to all Repervlicans, woman-haters and bigots: PROVE IT IN COURT OR SHUT UP.

    Can’t wait til she releases the next round of e-mails. Hope this one contains the videos that Fina & The Corbett Pervs watched at work … on their taxpayer purchased computers.

31. excuse me, sklaroff – but why does it matter who owns the tribune?

    Lewis Katz, owner of the INKY, is Jewish. Why don’t you point that out when they write on this subject?

32. Unger, you talk a lot about what was “intended” but none of that bullshit appears anywhere in the plain text of the constitution. And the constitution has been amended several times, so it is presumed under the law that we as a Commonwealth intended to keep that provision as is. Looks like your girl Kathleen is out of luck!

33. The State Senate is attempting a “back door impeachment,” in violation of the sole powers vested with the state House of Representatives, and to which the Attorney General was not intended by framers to be subjected.

    The provision they are trying to use was intended to apply to “low level” officials so the burdensome impeachment machinery would be saved for more important issues – like whether to oust a duly elected Attorney General.

    This is a face. Pretty soon – everyone will know it.

34. Hey Pat Unger, impeachment requires a crime to have been committed. I understand the laws that Kane broke, but what laws did Eakin break? None, as far as I can tell.

35. BTW, it may be the arrogance of AG-Kane that facilitates her political demise; even though she doesn’t recognize the legitimacy of the committee, by not having cooperated, she has not provided the potential for exculpatory evidence to have been inserted into the record…for future reference.

36. The Trib article cited infra is overtly incomplete; when it cites the “March 2014 newspaper story in The Philadelphia Inquirer [that] questioned her decision on a political corruption case which was thought to embarrass and intimidate her,” it neglects to recognize that she claimed it had been promulged due to racism; the Trib is black-owned.

37. Troll-Boy Larry pretending to be his hero again. He really needs to join the Ha3 Fan-Club already. Anywho – MacVeigh was correct:

    Wayne MacVeagh, of Dauphin and Lebanon Counties, offered a prescient warning to today’s Pennsylvanians when he told the convention that limiting removal of elected officers to a single legislative body, without a full and fair impeachment trial in both houses, “seems to me like a very dangerous power… (T)here may come a time of popular excitement, times of unjust prejudice, when the whole power of changing the elective officers of this state will rest in two-thirds of your Senate, without any trial, without any hearing, without any opportunity for defense.”

    “It is not unusual for one political party to have two-thirds of the Senate,” MacVeagh went on. “You cannot tell that the political power of the Senate will always be as evenly balanced as it has been heretofore, and it seems to me that to allow a mere numerical majority of two-thirds of that body to say that certain persons who have been elected and commissioned to hold these offices shall vacate them, and that they shall be turned out without any trial or judgment in any court of law … is putting a dangerous power in their hands.”

    There is much “excitement” now amongst Repervlicans. But – somehow Eakin is still a Judge? When does the Senate vote on his impeachment?

38. Of course, going senile is never mentioned in that provision at all. In fact, all it says is “reasonable cause.” Since there is no other AG in the country who lacks an active law license, I would say that is reasonable cause! Go get her, Senate! Be gone, Kane!

39. The Senate committee is trying to use a provision from the 19th century meant to remove low-level politicians who have gone senile. Seriously?!?

    Well said, Kraig.

40. Somewhere, sklaroff is eating Jello … wondering where it all went wrong …

41. I’m no fan of Kane’s. And I hope she goes to jail if she really leaked documents. But the Senate’s action is a mockery. Here’s a good read for those who aren’t caught up:

    http://www.phillytrib.com/news/the-story-behind-the-kathleen-kane-crisis/article_87a5936e-6d6c-5f90-a6e7-40c52a9a1b52.html

    Bottom line — Kane found a bunch of stuff that proves some very powerful people (prosecutors and judges) are bigots. There is proof that some are corrupt. There is information that could undermine convictions. So – the Harrisburg establishment decided to take her out.

    The hit-team has included Frank Fina (her sworn enemy), Castille (who wants her job), and a bunch of others who don’t want their bigotry/corruption to be exposed.

42. Where were these “concerned” senators when a supreme court justice was accused (and convicted) of a felony, or when members of their good old boy network are accused (and convicted) of felonies? Because the felons were republicans they got a free pass? Can’t wait until the next round of gerrymandering happens and the majority of voters get to have a real say.

43. Hell no, I don’t support this lynch mob, gang of 6 do nothings! The Senate should clean up their own house and do some real work–stop grandstanding. I support Kathleen Kane.

44. Exactly, Kraig. It is worse than a joke, though. It is a bunch of corrupt politicians trying to oust an elected official without due process. The last thing they want is for Kane to have a right to defend herself. Why do you think that is?

    This has been a lynch-mob from the get-go. it started with the smear campaign. And then the illegal leaks. Then immense pressure was put on R- Ferman. All of it was designed to get Kane to resign. And none of it is working.

    This Senate debacle is going to blow up in their faces. I hope Wolf is reading. Wise up, Governor!!

45. I sure do. I can’t name a single state where the AG doesn’t have a license to practice law!

46. The kane detractors seem to be getting desperate now. This committee is a joke. They are trying to use a provision from the 19th century meant to remove low-level politicians who have gone senile. Seriously?!?

47. David – That does appear to be the motivation. An impeachment proceeding would require a trial. The nonsense they are pulling now seems to be more nonsense from the Harrisburg establishment. Kane may be naive. She may have broken the law. But she was elected. and there are rules. Start impeachment proceedings and prove something!

    This is looking bad for the Senate. Bad for the Disciplinary Board. She is being rail-roared.

48. The poll should be: Is the GOP so afraid of a trial where Kane can offer a defense that they must resort to legal fabrications to justify and implement their desire to remove her?

    (Hint: the answer is YES)

49. 22 states do not require their attorneys general to be licensed members of the bar. Nor is the U.S. attorney general, or justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, required to be members of a state bar.

    This is just another end-around on the Constitution.

    And the poll question is ridiculous. There is no “investigation” being done by the Senate.

50. @ voter:

    I provided lotsa relevant hyperlinks on another page…
    https://www.politicspa.com/senate-committee-begins-kane-hearings/70593/comment-page-1/#comments
    …and they include a rejoinder to the attack on the committee, composed in the past but still on-point:

    *

    I read-through these hyperlinks, and I believe there are key “distinctions with major differences” between the two situations, notwithstanding the fact that PA adopted a new Constitution in the interim [1968].

    It seems that the circumstances under which jurisdiction was denied in the old case [not choosing to be triers of fact] differ in the instant case [assessing ability to function without an active license]. Indeed, one could argue that the latter situation affords a level of “infirmity” that would comport with how to conjure the “original intent” of the clause.

    The key-discussion occurs on page 32 [page 34 of the hyperlink], noting the exclusion of “impeachable or indictable offences”; not being able to act as the AG [for whatever reason, including what the Supremes imposed] would seem to comport with empowering the Senate to act.

    Note that “incompetency” is included, a “reasonable” cause that could relate directly to the job-requirements of the AG; furthermore, this would correlate with concern that the internal turmoil therein would have been triggered and then could impede the AG’s office from administering justice.

    Therefore, it would seem that the Senate could act summarily, after having afforded the due process requirements [in a hearing] that would be delimited by whether she could faithfully discharge her duties; the Supremes wouldn’t harbor any “fingerprints” in this regard, even if the proceedings are perceived as having been triggered by their disciplinary activity.

    I would think that some elements of what transpired legally [in the MontCo indictment, which BTW would survive any electoral results] could bleed into the proceedings noting, for example, her having signed-off on maintaining ALL Grand-Jury secrets [and not just those impaneled during her reign] despite what she swore thereafter.

    It would be intriguing were she to “plead the 5th” under such circumstances for, surely, she’d be desirous of defending herself against losing her job; perhaps this enhanced pressure would yield her resignation, recalling how RMN was encouraged by Kissinger/AuH20/Scott/Rhodes to hang-it-up just before the Senate was to tackle this “crook.”

    Regardless, despite aggressive attacks from AG-Kane’s defenders, I’ve argued for months [@ PoliticsPa] that the Commonwealth [and both political parties] would benefit by her earliest possible exit [mediated perhaps by Metcalfe]; this pathway would appear to be the least painful and, further, it seems the idea has caught-on [finally!] and will be tackled ASAP.

    *

    PIVOTAL is the focus on her ability to function without an active license, NOT whether she is innocent/guilty of any criminal act.

    I posted this info @ 2 sites, so the disinterested observer can review the primary data without “noise”:

    http://www.yardbird.com/kathleen_kane_direct_removal_clause_in_PA_constitution_was_once_tried_and_failed.htm

    http://newslanc.com/2015/10/26/capitolwire-senate-weighing-into-legal-gray-area-to-initiate-possible-action-against-kane/comment-page-1/#comment-283370