Report: Grand Jury Recommends Criminal Charges Against Kane

KaneA grand jury investigation into whether Attorney General Kathleen Kane illegally leaked information has recommended charges against the AG.

According to Craig R. McCoy and Angela Couloumbis of the Philadelphia Inquirer, the jury favors presenting charges of perjury and contempt of court.

The decision of whether to arrest Kane falls to Republican District Attorney of Montgomery County Risa Vetri Ferman, as the case was filed in Montco.

This case stems from a June Daily News article that suggested Frank Fina fumbled a case involving a Philly civil rights leader.

Kane and Fina have a well-known feud and it is possible (if not likely) her leak was an attempt at retaliation after the Inquirer revealed Kane had shut down a promising case looking into the corruption of Philly State Representatives.

The Attorney General insists she did not leak or authorize anyone to leak any material that hadn’t been approved for outside dissemination.

Ferman is currently conducting a review of the grand jury presentment.

Update: Attorney General Kathleen Kane released the following statement on Friday:

I did nothing illegal. Period. Any fair and impartial review of the facts would conclude that. This seems to me to be another political attack on my attempt to clean up Harrisburg and its political culture.

They have fought me all the way, including an effort to impeach me.

Since taking office, I have torn up their questionable contracts, cleaned up their investigations, broke their pornography ring and prosecuted corrupt officials.

I will continue to clean up Harrisburg, despite these attacks that seem to be more about politics than the merits.

110 Responses

  1. Robert-
    The KEY word is “allegedly”.

    My understanding is that the release of the non porn related information was completely unintentional and accidentally included in other valid information. Kane was either unaware it was in the material she approved for release or it was added in after her approval. The only “embarrassment” seems rather hollow from someone who merely came under investigation, but wasn’t even charged.

    The only “threat” seems to have been from some underling of Kane’s who had knowledge of the porn emails and was warning people in glass houses to stop throwing stones. There is no evidence that Kane asked this person to intimidate political enemies, nor that this person had the authority to release the information or cause Kane to.

    As for the porn:
    McCaffery could hardly be called a political enemy of Kane’s, yet he fell as well. If Kane was being political, she would protected a valuable Dem supreme court seat. That more republicans were involved is the result of it occurring during a republican administration that picked/promoted these people.
    While there would have been much satisfaction at Fina all over the newspapers, that is not proof of wrong doing by Kane. Fina’s need of a court order to keep Kane from even mentioning him is telling of how far the GOP is willing to go to cover themselves up.

  2. @ DD:

    I am focused on the release of ANY/ALL Grand Jury data that, allegedly, was employed to embarrass enemies [recalling Mondesire].

  3. Robert-

    This info about the porn emails should be fully released, regardless of how it was discovered as part of grand jury investigation. Grand jury secrecy does not cover the misbehavior of government employees.

  4. @ DD:

    What justification can you conjure that would suggest that releasing any facet of the Grand Jury data [whether legal or illegal] served to fulfill the allegedly desirable goal of “policing” her AG-office?

    Your evasions are epic, although not inconsistent with your already-destroyed credibility; how do you conceptualize HER behavior within this context, now that she admits having released info that had not previously been made public???

  5. Robert-
    What is your problem? I’ve answered the question as my justification. Stop pretending I didn’t answer the question. Learn to read.

    Whether or not YOU consider it sufficient justification isn’t the point. Just because you may disagree with my answer doesn’t mean you can claim I didn’t answer the question.

  6. @ DD:

    What justification can you conjure that would suggest that releasing any facet of the Grand Jury data [whether legal or illegal] served to fulfill the allegedly desirable goal of “policing” her AG-office?

    [Inasmuch as you failed to answer this question four-times (despite writing about disparate matters that regurgitate prior lap-dog writings), it is re-re-reposted. FOCUS!]

  7. Robert-

    I already answered this question, yesterday at 2:02 pm

    “Exposing the porn-email and the cozy relationships between prosecutors and judges is policing the department to restore confidence in how public official conduct themselves. Under Corbett, such behavior was commonplace among the high ranks.”

  8. I am well award of AFSCME, but I am sure that the person or persons who has or had porn on their computers and was granted immunity is not in the Union.

  9. @ DD:

    What justification can you conjure that would suggest that releasing any facet of the Grand Jury data [whether legal or illegal] served to fulfill the allegedly desirable goal of “policing” her AG-office?

    [Inasmuch as you failed to answer this question thrice (despite writing about disparate matters), it is re-reposted.]

    *

    @ Roger:

    Doug inappropriately used “NLL” [“A Non-Lesbian Lesbian. Meaning, two straight women acting as a lesbian couple for either humor, entertainment or revenge.”], and your view of the necessary self-discipline when blogging should not be corrupted by him.

    urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=NLL

  10. Peggy/David, allow me to introduce you to something called the government employees’ union.

  11. Doug-

    The porn emails aren’t classified. But, nice try at straw man argument.

    And, BTW, abuse and wrong-doing by NSA and CIA that violates their charter and the Constitution should be exposed to the public.

  12. Peggy, NSA and CIA documents are also work product funded by taxpayers. Is it your right to see them , too?

  13. Peggy, You won’t be voting for Her anymore, trust Me. What about The Ghost Employees and staged accidents? Doesn’t that bother you Peg?

  14. To whoever wrote “you can do anything with your computer on your lunch time”. No you can’t. If you work for the Commonwealth, that computer belongs to the taxpayers. As a taxpayer, I want to see where my tax dollars are going. Release the names of who had porn on their computers.

    Oh, by the way, I not only voted for Kathleen Kane, but I love Penn State, JoPa and the Paterno family. I have said this before, the voters spoke and they will speak again!

  15. Lol welcome to the Internet roger. You may be in line with whatever stupid moral code you’ve made up for yourself but most still think your opinion is still absolute garbage.

    And NLL I suggest buying a new dictionary or maybe trying the Google if that’s what your only definition of sycophant is.

  16. She’ll have to turn her hair blond and do Stamps.com commercials again. “can you buy just stamps, no”.

  17. Peggy, workers can look at anything on lunch breaks. If I were you I would be more concerned with Her workers getting paid and not even showing up for work. I know Cole is worried about it. More to follow.

  18. @ New_Liberal_Lion:

    What justification can you conjure that would suggest that releasing any facet of the Grand Jury data [whether legal or illegal] served to fulfill the allegedly desirable goal of “policing” her AG-office?

    [Inasmuch as you uncouthly injected yourself into this discussion by defending the guy for whom you function as a rhetorical-sycophant, this query is re-reposted and directed @ you.]

  19. Peggy, “Allegedly”, KK used the emails to extort others, which is why she was, “allegedly”, gagged from releasing all of them. I too would like justice, but you should point your ire in her direction.

  20. I am a taxpayer and a liberal who vote for Kathleen Kane. I want ALL the porn emails to be released. This is my right as a taxpayer to find out how my taxes are being spent. We should all be upset if one man can be exempt from having his porn emails released, then why not all be exempt? I again say – I want ALL the porn emails released and let the chips fall.

  21. @Sklaroff

    “You have been a reliable sycophant for D.D. while being uncouth in the process”.

    The definition of sycophant is someone who kisses up to the wealthy. Is D.D. wealthy? Where in the hell are you going with this??

    The definition of uncouth is someone who is dirty or embarrasses the family.

    I’m quite sure somebody in your family is embarrassed of you.

  22. @ DD:

    What justification can you conjure that would suggest that releasing any facet of the Grand Jury data [whether legal or illegal] served to fulfill the allegedly desirable goal of “policing” her AG-office?

    [Inasmuch as you failed to answer this question, it is reposted.]

  23. @Doug

    de·cen·cy
    noun
    -behavior that conforms to accepted standards of morality or respectability.

    You should try being decent sometime Doug, especially on posts like these if you would like others to take you seriously and value your opinion. Have a great weekend.

  24. Robert-

    Exposing the porn-email and the cozy relationships between prosecutors and judges is policing the department to restore confidence in how public official conduct themselves. Under Corbett, such behavior was commonplace among the high ranks.

  25. @ DD:

    What justification can you conjure that would suggest that releasing any facet of the Grand Jury data [whether legal or illegal] served to fulfill the allegedly desirable goal of “policing” her AG-office?

  26. @ Dave:

    Regardless of whatever innovation you want to cite … she has policized the office.

    @ Roger:

    Recall her premature announcement of intent t seek reelection … it seems she may be facing uncomfortable reality.

  27. Kane’s campaign website went down this week.

    KathleenGKane.com, her campaign web address now redirects to her government website AttorneyGeneral.gov.

    Interesting development considering she no longer can receive online donations directly to the campaign.

  28. I don’t know how all of this will turn out, but it seems like she has done some things to improve the state government (what an inovation!) and has probably made political enemies. Best of luck Ms. Kane!

  29. @KDPF

    I 100% agree that the Attorney General and Auditor General should be non-partisan positions. I believe both positions should be nominated by the Governor and go through a confirmation process in the state senate, very much like cabinet appointments on the federal level. It would also save a lot of money come election time. Same goes for how judges should get on the bench. The judiciary, by it’s very nature, should be non-partisan.

    Regarding Josh Shapiro, I personally think he would be a great candidate for the US Senate in 2016.

  30. @Roger, Josh Shapiro has zero prosecution experience. Just what we need a self-aggrandizing politician to replace a self-aggrandizing politician in what should be a non-political position.

  31. Not so fast my friend. Some of what you say will happen. She will be in no position to make any deals soon. All you have to remember are cars, ghosts and relatives.

  32. What follows is simple…

    1) Kane cuts a deal which requires her to resign. She does so after Wolf takes office.
    2) Wolf appoints a replacement, say hello to Attorney General Josh Shapiro.
    3) A.G. Shapiro gets elected in his own right in 2016.
    4) Take a wild guess who the Democratic nominee for Governor is in 2022…

  33. Unsanctioned R-

    Considering the number of hacks there who have been getting leaked information and covering for the leakers to smear Kane, you are going to need a new monkey.

  34. A fingerless monkey could count the number of GOP hacks at the Inquirer on either hand.

  35. A very strong statement from Kane. Bravo.

    Her statement contains one fatal flaw:

    “Any fair and impartial review of the facts would conclude that.”

    It’s going to be difficult to get the rabid GOP political hacks to even look at the facts, let alone give them a fair or impartial review.

    However, this is what real juries and cross-examinations are for.

  36. Alright Guy’s, lets get back on point. Don’t all of you Guy’s want to know when She will be indicted on a completely different charge and for what?

  37. BTW, my dad’s etching says, “Opinions are like assholes, everyone’s got one.”

  38. I just wish he spent a little less time and a little more money on good advice so that he could have avoided the rookie mistake.

  39. @ Doug and Unsanctioned-R:

    I have provided context that undermines both the factual and conceptual underpinning of any reasonable attack on Guzzardi; it seems that jealous people wish to pick-on a guy who simply acted based upon deep personal concern [by playing rhetorical games], instead of lionizing such a heartfelt time-expenditure [by failing to undermine the essence of what he posited].

Comments are closed.

Email:
  • Best Cheesesteak in Philly


    • They Ain't Listed Here (33%)
    • Dalessandro’s Steaks and Hoagies (29%)
    • Pat's King of Steaks (9%)
    • John's Roast Pork (9%)
    • Steve's Prince of Steaks (9%)
    • Tony Luke's (6%)
    • Geno's Steaks (4%)

    Total Voters: 232

    Loading ... Loading ...
Continue to Browser

PoliticsPA

To install tap and choose
Add to Home Screen