Stephens Still Wants to Impeach Kane

Kane Press ConferenceAfter everything that’s happened, it still might not be over.

According to Charles Thompson of the Patriot-News, the State House will continue to consider the impeachment of Kathleen Kane.

Of course, this should be a moot point seeing as Kane resigned last week following her guilty verdict.

Nevertheless, State Rep. Todd Stephens, the leader of the House’s investigation of the former Attorney General, doesn’t want to end the probe.

“Convictions can be overturned, pardons can be granted, all kinds of things happen,” the Inquirer’s Angela Couloumbis and Craig McCoy report Stephens as saying. “Impeachment is the only mechanism today that can ensure that Kathleen Kane never serves elected office again.”

Apparently Stephens is seeking to make sure that Kane can never hold a public office in PA again. Somehow it’s tough to imagine there is any danger of that actually occurring.

August 22nd, 2016 | Posted in Front Page Stories, Harrisburg, Top Stories | 103 Comments

103 thoughts on “Stephens Still Wants to Impeach Kane”

  1. Unsanctioned R says:

    Not me @11:56p

  2. The TRUTH says:

    Diane….. I’m so stupid….. Ok let me make this clearer as always you state generalities with no specifics when challenged.

    You “outed” Kanesdriver on here… I guess that I missed that. What was his name again?

    All these lawyers that posted on your Facebook page. What was their names? I must have also missed those postings on your Facebook page because I didn’t see them.

    The selective prosecution you spoke of. I guess Kane’s lawyer (who formerly represented John Gotti, who everyone would probably say was selectively investigated and prosecuted) is dumber than Diano because he never raised the issue. But I’m sure you have proof that this was legitimate and not something You just thought up. There is nothing that requires a prosecutor to refrain from prosecuting one case if he prosecutes the other. Plus, what do you know of the grand jury information involving other than Kane. The answer is nothing and if you read it in the paper and then posted it here it would rise to the level of hearsay.

    Can you refer to the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure or any Pennsylvania Court publication that identifies “Selective Prosecution”? While doing your research look up the term hearsay evidence. There was DIRECT evidence from live witnesses and DIRECT evidence from a document that Kane signed which states you will not reveal grand jury testimony.

    Rsklaroff is absolutely right there is no selective prosecution provision of the Crimes Code but there is the term of prosecutorial discretion and you criticize him. You’re such a joke.

    Face it your a know nothing blowhard that tries to make himself look important but fails every time. Mommy’s calling you time for breakfast.

  3. rsklaroff says:

    @ d4:

    “Truth” has expended considerable energies spoon-feeding what boils down to a simple concept that routinely is manifest by Dems [and by FBI-Chiefs who refuse to prosecute them]: Prosecutorial Discretion.

  4. The Tuth says:

    Kane is smoking hot. Judge was probably jealous.

    Anyone see Frank Fina’s latest money-driven lawsuit? This time, he is suing a journalist for telling the truth.

  5. Unsanctioned R says: says:

    WAH …….. Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh … … … WAH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wah

  6. David Diano says:

    The Truth-

    “to me suggests they thought she was innocent”

    NO… That shows how stupid you are. It MEANS that they thought the case/evidence was weak, particularly the credibility of the witnesses who had changed their stories multiple times. Has ZERO to do with Kane’s innocence.

    Here is simple example for your simple mind:
    A group of people rob a bank. There is no hard evidence on the leader. Some of the conspirators turns on the leader, who discussed with them the pros/cons of robbing a bank, but wasn’t provably involved. The conspirators changed theirs stories multiple times, and were granted immunity for their rolls, if they said the leader did it. However, the evidence was pretty circumstantial, but the jury didn’t understand the evidence was circumstantial, and convicted anyway. Also, the jury had no idea that the prosecutors robbed 5 banks themselves.

    You keep missing the point of IT DOESN’T F*CKING MATTER IF SHE DID IT OR NOT. If the people who prosecuted her for leaking, leaked their own case against her, and then refused to investigate, then they have no right to prosecute her. Their prosecution of her was itself a crime.

  7. The Truth says:

    Diano – Your quote “Kane’s team argued that the prosecution had not made it’s case, and quite a few lawyers suggested the same, and were surprised by the verdict.” Didn’t make their case and surprised by verdict to me suggests they thought she was innocent. When asked to identify the lawyers you indicated well they posted on my FB page. Can’t back your statement up as usual.

    Prosecution was selective. Just because another grand jury didn’t investigate other lie leaks so your saying she didn’t commit a crime a conspire with another to put a completely innocent man in jail. You whined in one post that she has children and wouldn’t be able to find a job. What about the innocent man she was trying to put in jail. We shouldn’t worry about him.

    You complain about selective prosecution. The lead attorney was one of John Gotti’s lawyer if there was ever a lawyer that could argue selective prosecution I think it would be him.

    Your you can’t convict her and not charge others has not merit, is not based in the law and is not a legal defense to the charges against her. If one guy robs a bank and gets caught do we say that person can’t be tried till every other bank robber is caught and tried. However, if you want to review the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure and justify your position please cite section/chapter otherwise you made it up like all those lawyers you posted about.

    Kane along with her lawyers picked her jury of her peers and was allotted preemptive strikes, strikes for cause. She and her attorney indicated they were satisfied with the makeup of the jury. The so called leaks against Kane had no bearing on her charges and was decided as such in a pre trial hearing.

    As far as you outing Kane’s driver when was that? Who was he? What was his punishment? I am not him but if so I wouldn’t rely on an ax to grind with you just the stupidity and posts that are not supported by the facts. These things have been bought to the forefront and left without a reasonable response now has bought your credibility to zero numbers.

    Finally, your obsession in leakers and posters being government officials is based on what proof?

    The term childish postings originate with you and COTT when you unapologeticly took on innocent helpless mentally handicapped children who you referred to as retards (your word) and got spanked hard for it.

    Ironic that your posting buddy COTT was not permitted to go to a regular pub
    Ic school and had to be homeschooled. Hmmmmm wonder why.

    Diano, your a failure in buisness and in life, no wife, I’m told relatives that hate you for living off your mother. A grown man that still lives with mommy., and you want to criticize mentally handicapped children.
    You have no credability and outside this blog are a virtual unknown in the Democratic Party.

    Diano, you just told THE TRUTH

  8. David Diano says:

    The Truth-

    You really can’t make a post with any truthful statements. It’s amazing. It didn’t post that anyone said she was “innocent”. I stated that I had seen statements from several people, including lawyers, that thought the case was flawed, or the DA had offered little more than hearsay from unreliable witnesses, or the case was selective prosecution (thus invalid). I DID post two examples of the best comments, but either you didn’t see them or did and are lying.

    Nothing you say changes the fact that if the prosecution is selective, the actual guilt of the defendant is irrelevant, because the prosecution is invalid.

    Kane’s (alleged) leak of a dead case did not taint any jury pool. However, the plethora of leaks against Kane did taint the jury pool (and the prosecutors in the case, because they refused to look into their own leaks). This hypocrisy renders the verdict against Kane as illegitimate.

    I have ZERO problem with Kane getting convicted/fined/imprisoned IF AND ONLY IF the other leakers (who did far more and worse) are pursued, caught, prosecuted and sentenced proportionally to the severity of their crimes.

    I don’t thing the current and former DA’s of Montco are going to have themselves arrested, questioned under oath along with their staffs and and judges who ruled in the case.

    Unsanctioned R-
    I’ve lost track of who is who. I can usually tell your real posts, but I appreciate it when the phony guys at least alter your handle slightly to make it easier.

    Truth and SpongeBob seem very “close”. Truth could be the disgraced OAG agent (kanesdriver) that I outed last year. He certainly has an ax to grind and is similarly childish in his postings.

    I hope someone does manage to expose some of the posters, as I suspect some of them may be abusing access to protected law enforcement info (like kanesdriver) or are connected to potential leakers or are posting from government work computers. I’ve seen at least one poster come from the Pa Senate server address.

  9. The Truth says:

    Guys please don’t listen to the drivel of Diano. He speaks for no one but himself. Any lingering hope of restoring his credability is gone when he was challenged in several posts to identify sources of information to which in one he replied several lawyers all thought Kane was innocent. Of course when asked he failed to identify these lawyers and was quickly exposed as a liar. He posts his thoughts but tries to make you think someone else said or did it. Always challenge his source and you’ll see. He once posted there was proof of a police department intentionally shooting at African Americans. When questioned he referenced a link to a news story that a police department was shooting at targets during their quarterly qualification that were males outlined in black. Rsklaroff has always provided legitimate sources for his posts and is fair in what he posts.

  10. Unsanctioned R says:

    BTW, it’s been about a year now since some asshole with the handle HaHaHa showed up and then began repeating himself in circle jerk postings with new made up aliases. He then further degenerated this place by posting under others’ aliases. Trained eyes know his drivel but the use of the “r” word is a dead giveaway.

  11. David Diano says:

    Guys, don’t encourage rsklaroff to post. He doesn’t realize you are being sarcastic about wanting to read his endless drivel.

    My scrolling finger is getting a repetitive motion injury skipping past his posts. LOL 🙂

  12. The Truth says:

    Brett COTT, HaHaBaldie, aka Sponge Robert . There you go again talking about performing oral sex on guys. Your obsession obviously learned from your long prison term. How were the bills paid when you were in jail? Oh yeah I know. I’m not going to embarass her though.

  13. robert sklaroff says:

    I just want to make it clear that I adopted a disinterested posture when excerpting the academic-piece; I honestly didn’t know which way I would go, particularly recalling that there was not pursuit of impeachment after the RMN-resignation.

    In fact, noting the two summary-quotes, the first clearly leaned against impeachment, while the second ultimately engulfed the first, both rhetorically and [in this case, noting criminal litigation] operationally.

    It was only @ the very last moment that I felt I had summarized the key legal-concerns that are encompassed in that précis; essentially, it was composed for those who ponder rather than for those who have taken-up-residence in sandboxes.

    Albeit unlikely, it would be apt for the legislative body’s initiative to be aborted were KK to come clean; of course, that eventuality would blow-away the likes of d4, but they are lost-souls anyway.

    Thanx are due to those who appreciate these efforts; although sporadic, they are intended to clarify, educate [particularly myself] and to yield a utile/ethical action-item.

  14. SpongeRobert says:

    Oh yeah — I am “The Tuth” too.

  15. Unsanctioned R says:

    Pay attention. Smoke and myself are two different people. Sponge and truth appear to be the same person. It’s not difficult. And I encourage the doctor to share his opinions. So what if we disagree sometimes?

  16. SpongeRobert says:

    I am not kidding — I suck dicks for $$$. Below I talk to myself as Unsanctioned R and Smokescreens. Trying to make a friend in sklaroff. He seems like he can use a blowie.

  17. The Truth says:

    rsklaroff It’s about time somebody posts some support for you other than the 2 a**es that post under multiple names supporting themselves and each other. Find your posts interesting and informative. Please keep up as there are others that feel the same as I do.

  18. Unsanctioned R says:

    What Smokesscreens just said.

  19. Smokescreens can't last forever says:

    Impeachment at this point is really moot. Kane couldn’t get elected to anything ever again.

  20. David Diano says:

    robert sklaroff-

    Proud to be a dem/liberal/progressive over a genocidal anti-Muslim/Arab racist Cruz-juice-guzzling hate-monger like yourself.

  21. robert sklaroff says:

    @ d4:

    When hypocrites/low-lives/anti-Semites/dems/libs/progressives have neither the case nor the law, you argue ad-hominem.

  22. David Diano says:

    Uncovered…. Video of rsklaroff discussing this case:

  23. TheOneYou'reWith says:

    My first glance at this headline made me wonder what David Crosby and Graham Nash had to say.

  24. the bungy says:

    Hey Sklaroff – STFU. Nobody likes you. Nobody cares what you type (over and over and over).

  25. robert sklaroff says:

    [The hyperlink cites the song “Let It Go” from “Frozen,” and it seems the message of “I don’t care what anyone says” is allegedly harbored by KK; if so, and if she “doesn’t care about right and wrong,” then she’ll have plenty to contemplate during perhaps a half-decade while isolated from the society at which she sneers.]

  26. Mr. T says:

    Stephens has not accomplished one thing in office. Impeachment is not only a dumb idea but a total waste of time, effort and legislative resources. Perhaps Stephens should be impeached. In any event, don’t vote for him.

  27. Frank says:

    Kane was framed. Of course it is going to appear that she is guilty.

  28. Pat Unger says:

    Yeah …., No ….,, nobody reads your (long) comments.

  29. rsklaroff says:

    @ d4:

    You have just reinforced another symptom [“intellectual nihilism”] to your list of manifestations of warped postings [being incorrect, uncouth and immoral]; all I did was excerpt from a quality legal analysis and “show my homework” to explain the rationale for impeachment/indictment by the PA-House.

    @ non-d4 [Everyone-Else]:

    Feel free to ensure my quotes were fair/balanced and follow-the-logic that culminated in the conclusion that–for now–impeachment is apt; if there is anything missing from this analysis/synthesis, please so-inform.

  30. David Diano says:


    He probably does think that (which shows how mentally incapacitated/deranged he is).

    I’m guessing he favors impeachment or beheading or watching the PA GOP masturbate ( or some combination thereof).

  31. Unsanctioned R(etard) says:

    No need to masturbate. Tell them to come to the rest-stop. I will blow them. If it’s someone associated with prosecution or impeachment of Kane, I will offer 50% discount.

  32. OMG says:

    Does the PPA mental patient think people will actually read that???

  33. David Diano says:

    GOP Impeachment trial = Political masturbation at taxpayer expense

  34. rsklaroff says:

    MY Conclusion, after having provided quotes from both perspectives in a disinterested fashion [recognizing the word “resignation” appears in this document 48x]:

    1. Note that “when the offense charged constitutes an indictable crime, after resignation it may be most practicable to allow the judicial process to be utilized to conclude the matter on conventional criminal grounds. The framers clearly intended the judicial process to supplement the impeachment process, even-perhaps especially-against the acts of the highest officials.

    2. Also note that “No myth of martyrdom should be allowed to surround one not worthy of such a fate. The absence of factual ambiguity must be achieved either by confession connected with resignation or by the processes discussed previously, or by some combination thereof. Otherwise, the discontinuation of the impeachment process upon the resignation of the accused, if followed by a failure of the courts, the President, the Justice Department, and the Congress to further effectuate alternatives to impeachment, together would demonstrate the inadequacy of the system properly to enforce the rule of law as the cohesive element of the state.”

    3. THEREFORE, both to preclude her from running for dog-catcher in the year 2020 and to establish unambiguous recognition of the facts, she SHOULD be impeached until/unless she CONFESSES error.

    Although this analysis was triggered by RMN, it’s applicable to a high-ranking officer in state government, for both entities are governed by the Constitution; KK has been convicted of “high crimes [felonies] and misdemeanors,” and her situation must be handled accordingly, with dispatch [indictment in September, hearing-prep in October, trial in November].

  35. rsklaroff says:

    The following academic essay informs thoughts on this issue.

    130. Judge Delahay’s resignation prior to the beginning of the next Congress apparently caused the House to discontinue the impeachment.


    [T]he impeachment process may constitutionally be continued after an accused has resigned (1) although public policy considerations may require that the proceeding be discontinued nonetheless) and that, (2) although the impeachment procedures are cumbersome and deserve to be reviewed and amended, the overall effectiveness of the impeachment process as a means of removing civil officers from office for misconduct may be enhanced rather than diminished by a resignation in anticipation of inevitable conviction and removal. Resignation should not be viewed ,as being extraordinary, extra-legal, 35 alien to, or even apart from, the impeachment process. The Constitution provides for resignations precipitated directly by the impeachment process,3 54 and they are much more frequent than convictions and removals. Under proper circumstances, resignation is a fitting and foreseeable conclusion to impeachment, a coherent part of the process.


    In the earliest impeachment, that of Senator Blount, whose removal was actually accomplished by Senate expulsion, the issue of continuing the impeachment process after resignation was vigorously debated. The argument that Congress has jurisdiction to continue the impeachment process after an accused has resigned was made by Congressman Bayard:

    “If the impeachment were regular and maintainable when preferred, I
    apprehend no subsequent event, grounded on the willful act, or caused
    by the delinquency of the party, can vitiate or obstruct the proceeding. Otherwise, the party, by resignation or the commission of some offense which merited and occasioned his expulsion, might secure his impunity. This is against one of the sagest maxims of the law, which does not allow a man to derive a benefit from his own wrong.” 355

    This point was effectively conceded by both parties, while counsel for
    the respondent argued that Blount could not both be expelled from the
    Senate under its own rules and then later disqualified from holding office by an impeachment conviction.


    Belknap was subject to the impeachment process notwithstanding his prior resignation.


    [W]hen impeachment investigations have been discontinued after the accused has resigned, Congress has reserved its discretionary authority to continue the impeachment proceeding despite the resignation.


    [P]ost-resignation impeachment is not an idle or vindictive gesture….[F]irst…the impeachment judgment may extend to both removal from office and disqualification from holding any further office. Resignation accomplishes only the first objective. Second, the accused may stand to receive emoluments and benefits upon resignation which would not otherwise be available should he be removed by conviction.


    [I]mpeachment as a political tool serves to maintain government under law; its purpose extends beyond the scope of any particular case to its effect on the constitutional structure of the state. Taking the impeachment process to conviction may have the effect of setting powerful precedential limitations on [a public official’s] conduct; Senate conviction after resignation represents the most awesome judgment that certain behavior is beyond the pale.


    Although the impeachment process may constitutionally be continued
    after the accused has resigned, several arguments can be made
    against such conduct under certain circumstances. First, when the offense charged constitutes an indictable crime, after resignation it may be most practicable to allow the judicial process to be utilized to conclude the matter on conventional criminal grounds. The framers
    clearly intended the judicial process to supplement the impeachment
    process, even-perhaps especially-against the acts of the highest
    officials. Moreover, a judicial conviction may provide an alternative
    mode for creating precedent which would restrain future conduct of the
    office. Second, Congress has alternative means to limit, at least
    prospectively, the retirement benefits for civil officers who have resigned under threat of impeachment. Third, when the offense charged
    may be nonindictable, such as abuse of powers or failure to comply
    with congressional subpoenas in an impeachment proceeding, Congress could pass a precedential resolution indicating the impeachable nature
    of such acts; it could then censure the accused officer after his resignation rather than prolonging the impeachment trial itself.’ The availability of these law-making alternatives may support an argument
    against continuing the impeachment process when the accused has resigned, but only to the extent that these alternatives are actually utilized are the purposes of the impeachment process thereby fulfilled.


    No myth of martyrdom should be allowed to surround one not worthy of such a fate. The absence of factual ambiguity must be achieved either by confession connected with resignation or by the processes discussed previously, or by some combination thereof. Otherwise, the discontinuation of the impeachment process upon the resignation of the accused, if followed by a failure of the courts, the President, the Justice Department, and the Congress to further effectuate alternatives to impeachment, together would demonstrate the inadequacy of the system properly to enforce the rule of law as the cohesive element of the state.


    [T]he limited and more simple purpose of impeachment to remove high officials from office in order to end a particular abuse of office is not frustrated by resignation.


    {Regarding RMN:} Where offenses, both criminally indictable and nonindictable, are as serious as those established, a vote of censure after resignation, rather than a continuation of impeachment proceedings, is precedentially harmful to the rule of law. In such a situation, censure is so mild when compared with the seriousness of the offenses as to be institutionally harmful, arguably indicating congressional timidity toward the concept of equality before the law when high political figures are involved. See H.R. REP. No. 1305, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. (1974).

    A simple listing of the resignations which have followed impeachment investigations suggests that the impeachment power of Congress has been successfully employed as a powerful constitutional means of removing civil officers from office where misconduct is apparent.

    Among the judges who have resigned directly as a result of an impeachment inquiry are Judges Stephens, Irwin, Bustud, Durell, Hanford, Wright, English, and Winslow.3 68 Secretary of War Belknap resigned incident to an impeachment investigation, as did a collector of customs.3 70 Finally, and most significantly, President Nixon resigned after repeated statements that he had no intention of so doing, once it appeared that impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate were inevitable. Although the Judiciary Committees in these cases either have found it unnecessary to report to the House or have reported with a recommendation of discontinuance after resignation, the possibility of including findings or resolutions in such reports often provides an effective alternative to continuing the impeachment process.


    {Tentative Conclusion:} Resignation need not represent the defeat of the impeachment process but instead may be just one aspect of its successful operation. Although the resignation of a corrupt officer, taken alone, does not fulfill all the purposes of impeachment, resignation does accomplish several important functions of impeachment without precluding the use of other available means to fulfill its further ends.


    {This adds perspective:} Nixon’s pardon as precedent may effectively nullify the clause in the Constitution that an impeached official “shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.


    The particular interworkings of the impeachment process, presidential resignation, the twenty-fifth amendment, and the pardon power demonstrate once again the limits of institutional constraints upon human discretion.


  36. PA Conservative says:

    Time to move on and address pension reform, deficit, and opioid crisis.

  37. Bono says:

    Rep. Joe Petrarca has the right attitude on this issue. Get on with real issues now that Kane has resigned.

  38. Observer says:

    HHH, not true. An impeachment only applies to the office held at the time, NOT for any future office. That felony conviction, however, if sustained on appeal, would do the trick. Apparently, Stephens is too stupid to hire a lawyer or read any case law. Can we withold his paycheck for any hours wasted on this idiotic odyssey?

  39. HaHaHa says:

    PhillyPolitico, not exactly. The point of impeachment is not only to kick the person out of office. It’s also to keep them out. This exercise in piling on would serve the purpose of locking Kane out of any public office in the event that her convictions were overturned (because the perjury conviction alone bars her from public office). It also serves to get Todd Stephens media attention, which might be his Number 1 goal.

  40. PhillyPolitico says:

    The thing is impeachment literally does nothing. She already resigned, so they can’t kick her out of office. It’s like saying “You can’t quit because you’re fired!”

    I would recommend that people read the following:

    The Cadaver Synod (also called the Cadaver Trial; Latin: Synodus Horrenda) is the name commonly given to the posthumous ecclesiastical trial of Pope Formosus, held in the Basilica of St. John Lateran in Rome during January of 897.[1] The trial was conducted by the successor, Pope Stephen (VI) VII, to Formosus’ successor, Pope Boniface VI. Stephen accused Formosus of perjury and of having acceded to the papacy illegally. At the end of the trial, Formosus was pronounced guilty and his papacy retroactively declared null.

  41. Wally says:

    Figures Seth Williams is on the ropes. He hired Corbett Scum (Fina and Friends) to be ADAs and Detectives in his Office.

    And then he hired more Corbett Scum to run his campaign:

    Add to this his bow-tie and Union League habits, Seth is basically a Republican.

  42. BRETT COTT, Convicted Felon says:

    aaron, it’s just a matter of time. Democrat = criminal

  43. Michael Jr. says:

    Mommy is REALLY mad. She is calling you all sorts of names. Did you get a job yet, Dad? Can you just give her the child-support check?

  44. Michael says:

    Brett (Pat Unger/HaHaha), “reports” commissioned by Kane don’t have a track record of showing what she (and you) would like them to show.

  45. Pat Unger says:

    Quite frankly – if she illegally leaked protected material, she deserves to be impeached.

    I want EVERYONE who illegally leaked material held accountable. Start with Rin Castille and Fina & The Corbett Pervs.

    When does Gansler’s Report come out?

  46. David Diano says:

    How can we make sure that State Rep. Todd Stephens never holds any office?

  47. PhillyPolitico says:

    Well not to get too technical Rep. Stephens, but impeachment doesn’t remove a person from office. Conviction by the Senate *after* impeachment removes someone from office. See Clinton, William.

    But I won’t let that get in the way of a good publicity opportunity.

  48. Michael says:

    Kane has about as much chance to get elected to public office as Steve Todd.

Comments are closed.