Close this search box.

Reader Poll: Kane Should Have Brought Charges

kane presserLast week, the Philadelphia Inquirer published a blockbuster report that revealed that the Attorney General had dropped an investigation that found at least four city Democrats taking bribes.

Kane fought back against these charges, insisting that the case was poorly managed, the informant used was not reliable and that there was evidence of racial targeting in the case. She also noted that the case was closed before she even took office.

So, we decided to ask our readers what you thought Kane should have done. By a narrow margin, about 51%, or 337 voters, felt Kane should have brought charges.

Meanwhile 320 readers responded that Kane made the right decision to drop the case.

Interestingly, those backing Kane initially held a small yet steady lead in the voting.  On Saturday, though, Thomas Fitzgerald revealed that Kane appeared at a meeting with the Inquirer’s Editorial Board alongside noted defamation attorney Richard Sprague, who spoke on her behalf.

The press reacted negatively toward the Attorney General’s action and the fact that she had hired a lawyer, as well as the blistering coverage it received, may have been the factor that swayed the vote.

The full results of the poll are included below:

Did Kane's office make the right choice dropping the public corruption case?

  • No, the AG's office should have brought charges. (52%)
  • Yes, the AG's office was right to drop the case. (48%)

Total Voters: 664

Loading ... Loading ...


8 Responses

  1. Kane does nothing when they steal property in
    Abington for a library, when there is a library ONE mile away from the stolen land. A hidden transportation project in the works, the property is near the roslyn train station, but because her democrat friends are the criminals she refuses to help the 84 year old widowed property owner. Economic development is ILLEGAL in Pa. Ms. Kane! Do your JOB!

  2. Fina created this crisis. If these tapes are from 2011, the case should have been prosecuted before Kane took office.
    From the Inquirer article:
    “The fate of the straw-donor investigation is a puzzle. No one was ever charged in connection with the donations. The statute of limitation for prosecution expired 20 months before Kane took office.”

  3. It is my understanding that the tapes probably do not have sufficient audio evidence in isolation to prove any crime, but do provide significant corroboration for the informant’s testimony. The tapes tilt the balance toward the informant in a he said/she said situation. However, when the credibility of the informant also has serious question marks, the balance could tilt back to the target of the investigation.

  4. I’m stunned by her ineptitude in handling this crisis.

    This will end up badly hobbling the Dem’s attacks out of her office. It is difficult to overemphasize. This has become a game changer.

  5. Well it seems like they have a pretty solid case for not reporting gifts, but not really a case for corruption, which is what she was going for.

  6. Two points:

    1. As Seth Williams pointed out, you didn’t need the CI’s testimony- she had them on tape. If you can’t prosecute a case where the defendant admits his crime on tape, you can’t prosecute.

    2. Showing up to the Inquirer with a lawyer who advises you not to speak? She lost me on that one. I voted for her in 2012, but never again.

  7. I wish there was an option for “I don’t know”, which is the one I would have voted for. It seems unclear exactly what happened, and where the preponderance of evidence points is unknown at least to this lay reader.

    I’m willing to give Kane the benefit of the doubt in the meantime. Her being an actual attorney and all.

  • 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