Dem Attorney General Who Refused to Prosecute Corrupt Dem Pols Threatens Reporters


After Pennsylvania papers reported that Attorney General Kathleen Kane refused to prosecute corrupt Democratic officials who were caught on video and audio taking bribes to oppose Voter ID, she responded by accusing critics of racism and sexism.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane on Sunday lashed out at critics of her decision to shut down an undercover investigation that had captured leading Philadelphia Democrats – including four members of the state House delegation – on tape accepting money.

Kane blamed “cowardly anonymous sources” for providing “an inaccurate and sensational version of the details” of the case, which were made public in an article in The Inquirer on Sunday.

The paper reported that prosecutors in the Attorney General’s Office had run a sting for three years that captured at least five city Democrats on tape accepting cash or money orders, and in one case a $2,000 bracelet. In the end, no one was charged.

In a statement Friday, Kane said the investigation was poorly conceived, badly managed, and tainted by racism. She also said those who criticized her handling of the case were sexist.

The only thing missing from the holy trinity of vicimization is homophobia. But I’m sure Kane will get to that.

And then she went down to the newspaper office and refused to talk on the advice of her lawyers.

It was a surreal scene that you expect to see when a criminal suspect comes down for an interview, not when a public official goes to meet with a newspaper.

Kane arrived at a Thursday morning meeting with Inquirer editors and reporters, flanked by a pair of lawyers, Sprague and his son, Thomas A. Sprague. The meeting began on an unusual note when the elder Sprague announced that Kane was his client – and that she would not speak.

Her office had asked for the meeting following the newspaper’s story Sunday that disclosed the corruption investigation and her decision to halt it.

During the meeting, Sprague suggested that The Inquirer may have been used by the sources of its stories – “wittingly or unwittingly” as a “weapon” to attack Kane to defend themselves from potential charges of wrongdoing in the management of the probe.

“I intend to look at the investigation from the very beginning to the conclusion of it, and in terms of what has been published, by this paper and others, to take appropriate action on behalf of the attorney general against those responsible for the defamatory and the false publications that have been made,” Sprague said.

Editor William K. Marimow defended the newspaper’s treatment of the story.

“In my opinion, this is precisely the kind of issue that requires public scrutiny, specifically the conduct of public officials who accepted cash or gifts from an undercover agent and the quality of a three-year investigation launched and ended by a state law enforcement agency.”

Democrats however are not fond of public scrutiny. The Party of Corruption wouldn’t last very long if it had to follow the law.

  • Richard Fontaine

    Can you impeach an Attorney General? Seems like that is pretty much needed in this case.

  • wileyvet

    Turn up the heat on her, and maybe you will see this headline in The Inquirer “Kathleen Kane Kwits”

  • truebearing

    Who calls for a meeting and then refuses to talk? What kind of an idiot did Pennsylvania elect?

    • Ellman48

      She called the meeting and her lawyer did the talking. One day lawyers will accompany politicians on the campaign trail to advise them whether they have to answer questions posed by constituents. We might see Democrats doing this in 2014. We can call it something like “The Lois Lerner Strategy”.

  • Berceuse

    The Pennsylvania Democratic Party machine is among the most powerful and corrupt in the nation. But, hey, when you’re striving for the sacred utopian ideal, a little corruption is not only tolerable but absolutely critical to success.

  • A Z

    “to attack Kane to defend themselves from potential charges of wrongdoing in the management of the probe.”

    Pretty much us versus them. We have to vote them out and prosecute other under the letter and spirit of the law. We have no choice.

  • VHG1

    I’m wondering if a lot on NY’ers and NJ’ers moved to PA and just kept voting democrat and don’t realize they’re just going to have o move again after the totally crew up PA!

  • Ellman48

    Lawyers are becoming more popular pets than dogs. If you have enough money to buy them they go with you wherever you go. Even dogs can’t offer as much protection as they do. In their company you don’t have to say anything regardless of your offense or your crime. Someone should start a Lawyers Kennel so the rest of us can use them for protection, especially since the US Constitution and other laws no longer guarantee that justice will be served – unless you have a pet lawyer handy. I’d like to bring one along when I go on job interviews and shop for major appliances or get a traffic ticket.

    Do politicians have to pay for their lawyers? Or do we taxpayers pay for them as well?

  • Elizabeth Cape Cod

    Why not cut to the chase and put the lawyers of elected representatives in office in their place . Lawyers do all the talking anyway..