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.
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.