Reader Poll: Kane is Guilty

Kane-sadOur readers aren’t optimistic about Kathleen Kane’s chances.

Last week, we asked if the AG would be found guilty or innocent of the twelve charges against her.

537 respondents believe Kane will be declared guilty.

On the other hand, 223 readers think the AG will emerge unscathed from her trial.

The full results are included below:

Do You Believe Kathleen Kane is Guilty or Innocent of the Charges Against Her?

  • Guilty (71%)
  • Innocent (29%)

Total Voters: 760

Loading ... Loading ...

August 9th, 2016 | Posted in Features, Front Page Stories, Harrisburg, Poll, Top Stories | 19 Comments

19 thoughts on “Reader Poll: Kane is Guilty”

  1. rsklaroff says:

    @ d2:

    Give one example equating Israel with anti-Black prejudicial treatment and, in the process, uphold a pledge to relieve us all of the need to fact-check you–in general–after AG-Kane has been convicted.

    And note the challenge on an updated web-page on this site: “Care to try to explain-away the notarized affidavit as an ‘honest error’???”

  2. David Diano says:


    Israel justifies its existence as a religious state and routinely treats non-Jews with prejudice that rivals decades of southern whites abuses against blacks (and also Jews).

    The perjury charges remain bogus. Getting all 12 jurors to convict is going to be very difficult.

  3. rsklaroff says:

    @ d2:

    You cannot reasonably equate your opposition to Israel’s existence as an expression of religious freedom; again, you have self-marginalized your credibility.

    Take note of how “well” the trial is going for your-gal:

    Kane Told Beemer “Don’t Worry” About Grand Jury Leak

    As recompense for your myriad manifestations of deceit on this web-site over the years, you should “resign” therefrom after AG-Kane resigns from office.

  4. David Diano says:


    So, now you are opposed to expressions of religious freedom?

  5. rsklaroff says:

    @ d2:

    I will not spare you my verifiable outrage, which has nothing to do with your anti-Semitism/anti-Zionism…thoroughly documented in the past…inclusive of your having condoned “NAKBA-DAY” [the “catastrophe” of Israel’s re-establishment on 5/15/1948].

  6. David Diano says:


    Spare me your false outrage. If these people were openly prejudiced against Jews (instead of privately), you’d be up in arms about it.

  7. rsklaroff says:

    @ d2:

    Your broad-brush condemnations are almost as reprehensible as your exhibited-prejudices; ignorance abounds in your world but, alas, it begets the type of intolerance you pretend to despise.

  8. David Diano says:


    Of course you support gay rights: you are in love with Ted Cruz and want his Cruz-juice.

    However, you are 100% wrong about the anti-LGBT bigotry. These “religious” people aren’t discriminating against people getting married for the second or third time or adulterers or atheists. No, there are homophobic bigots trying to use religion as an excuse. Don’t forget, the objection to inter-racial marriage by the bigots a few generations ago used equivalent “religious” arguments about the “mixing of the races”. And, today, many of Trump’s supporter are part of that same white-supremacist movement.

    If they refused to bake cakes for inter-racial couples or Muslims or Jews, would you support them?

    I bet that if it ever was proven that Jesus and his apostles were gay, then anal sex would become a sacrament.

    While many feel the first amendment protects the hate-speech of organizations like the KKK, FoxNews and the RNC, let’s not pretend it’s not hate speech and an attempt to impose their religious values on others.

  9. rsklaroff says:

    @ D2:

    First, I support gay rights, but there is a faith-based reason for people who decline to feel involved in a rite they religiously oppose; this is not comparable to anti-black bigotry…and you know it. Cruz supports the Constitution in its entirety, choosing not to ignore the First Amendment, no matter how his views are [mis-]characterized by lib-zealots such as yourself.

    Second, what Todd said to the press is c/w what he told me directly; he is discharging his duties while being mindful of how they differ from the criminal case, just as was occurring in the Senate when AG-Kane’s ability to function was the focus of the inquiry. Thus, you perpetuate your defense of AG-Kane while you ignore the fact that Cong. Fattah immediately resigned [after a day of “pondering” marked by universal condemnation] before sentencing; AG-Kane should mirror that behavior for the good of PA and, indeed, her party [although you remain loath to admit it].

    “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”

  10. David Diano says:


    You are confusing purity with pure-stupidity. Santorum/Huckabee are equally duplicitous religious bigots who are just vying for the attention of the evangelicals with their holier-than-thou bullsh*t.

    Cruz thinks that “religious freedom” is supporting bigots who won’t bake wedding cakes for gay couples or refuse other services. This is NO DIFFERENT than the bigots who wouldn’t let blacks sit at the counter.

    Here is the source of my statement regarding the GOP intent (and Castor even made a rebuttal comment about it), so once again you don’t know what you are talking about.

    “Rep. Todd Stephens, who chairs the House subcommittee tasked with determining if the attorney general’s conduct warrants impeachment, said the subpoenas will be issued regardless of whether Kane is acquitted or convicted of charges related to her alleged leak of secret grand jury material.”

    So, the House is going ahead, and they aren’t doing it without the advanced expectation that the GOP Senate will support impeachment, regardless of the outcome of the regular trial.

    Bruce Castor pretty much called out their dickishness:
    Bruce Castor, the first deputy attorney general and de facto legal head of the office, said he doesn’t understand the need to continue with impeachment in the event Kane is acquitted.

    “Even Pennsylvania is part of the United States where the criminal defendant is presumed to be innocent until found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,” he said, “and not a single person in the history of Pennsylvania has been impeached when they were not convicted of a crime.”

  11. rsklaroff says:

    @ d2:

    Ted’s purity placed the Constitution over Evangelism; you may recall the taped-chat on Madison Ave. prior to Iowa, when he made this point “privately” and was attacked by Santorum/Huckster as NOT being sufficiently Christian thereafter.

    So, again, you are both incorrect and vile; it appears you have not matured during the hiatus of posting @ this site.

    Also, disproving your claim about the PA Legislature, I spoke a few months ago with a state-rep who explicitly denied the GOP had any intent comparable to what you claim [as usual, absent sourcing]; WHEN she is found guilty, she will [and should, albeit belatedly] resign [thereby trying to help the statewide-D’s prior to the election].

  12. David Diano says:


    She wouldn’t have to resign immediately. The GOP assholes in the PA senate are planning to try and impeachment her even if she’s acquitted. That’s what political d*ckheads (and losers) they are.

    Ted’s “integrity” is all about defying the constitution with religious litmus tests and establishing a right-wing (fake) Christian theocracy. But, Ted did stick to his guns being a total asshole and giving Trump the figurative “finger”. It was fun watching the conservative “purists” having their little pout and breaking party unity so they could go down with the ship.

  13. HaHaHa says:

    I fully support pathological liars like Kathleen Kane and Hillary Clinton, as long as they’re Democrats. If any Republican faced the very same charges, I would cream my shorts over how GUILTY they are.

  14. rsklaroff says:

    @ d2 & Ha3:

    Ted’s integrity remains intact and, regarding your support for AG-Kane, she’d have to resign if convicted for–otherwise–the legislature would act precipitously…in either way [impeachment vs. direct].

  15. David Diano says:


    How’s your Ted Cruz 12-step recovery program going? LOL

    Verdicts are determined in the courtroom, not polls on a blog, with Republican nutjobs with an ax to grind against the first Dem and woman AG.

    Kane is still standing, and even a conviction, given the appeals process, would still allow her to serve out her term. Since, removing her was the entire point of this witch hunt, I’d say she already won.

  16. HaHaHa says:

    Hey mental patient!! Welcome back. How’s Ted Cruz doing as nominee? Oh yeah ….

    And on top of it all – AG Kane still standing. Not removed. Not impeached. Still AG. LOL.

    I was right and you were wrong

  17. rsklaroff says:

    @ DD:
    There is too much evidence undermining any potential initiative to “believe” anything she might say…and you KNOW it!

  18. HaHaHa says:

    Correct, DD.

  19. David Diano says:

    If 30% of the jury believes Kane, she won’t be declared guilty.

Comments are closed.