Close this search box.

Senate Committee Begins Kane Hearings

Kane-ConferenceIt begins.

Last month, the State Senate created a committee to determine whether Attorney General Kathleen Kane should be removed from office.

While Kane questions the authority of such a committee, they are nonetheless proceeding with their first hearing today.

According to Brad Bumsted of the Tribune-Review, the first witnesses will be representatives from the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association.

“The question before our committee is whether or not an attorney general can fulfill the duties of that office with a suspended law license. I am keen to find out what the district attorneys have to say on this question,” said Sen. Art Haywood.

Kane’s law license was suspended by the State Supreme Court in September.

Meanwhile, the committee has subpoenaed Kane for documents but she is refusing.

“Because she believes the Senate acted unlawfully, she does not believe they have the authority to issue a subpoena,” her spokesman Chuck Ardo stated.

60 Responses

  1. Is this what Castille was talking about when he said the following:

    “It’s totally bizarre,” Castille said. “There are really strange things going on here.”

    Nick Field stated: “Castille’s remark is pretty much the perfect description of this situation.”

    How about now, Mr. Field? No comment?

  2. Sen Sean Wiley (D-Erie) seems to be the only person at the hearing with a grasp of the issue. Administrative duties are not impacted and AG rarely ever went to court anyhow. No need to with all those assistants. Only the small county DA’s actually go to court, so their testimony was way off the mark.

  3. Is that true? In 23 states, the AG doesn’t even have to be an attourney? How,in God’s name, can the Senate call Kane “incompetent” then? This is looking more and more like a set-up every day.

  4. Fake Ha3 (AKA Troll-Boy Larry) is coming unglued again. It is sad wham that happens – but funny too!!

  5. I’m now repeating my own posts under different screen names to make it look like more people agree. But even as “Pat Unger,” I can’t name any state AGs or Supreme Court justices who are not attorneys with active licenses. That wouldn’t even make sense, would it?

  6. Wow. I wonder when the Senate is going to introduce the following facts (compliments of Ha3) —

    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.

    Let me guess; these facts will never come up. Kangaroo Court indeed.

  7. I admit that I cannot name a single state AG or a Supreme Court justice who is not an active member of the bar. Doesn’t happen. Ever. *Picks mic back up and walks away with tail between legs*

  • 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