Kane’s office backtracks on prosecution in email scandal |

Kane’s office backtracks on prosecution in email scandal

The Associated Press

HARRISBURG — Attorney General Kathleen Kane has not decided whether to prosecute anyone in a scandal over the email exchange of pornography by state government employees, a spokeswoman said Thursday, pulling back an earlier statement about whether anyone could be charged over child pornography.

“When I said that the Pennsylvania attorney general has decided not to prosecute regarding the emails as pornography — including depictions of children contained in some emails — I misspoke,” spokeswoman Renee Martin said.

A day earlier, Martin had said there was no child pornography in the hundreds of emails and, had there been, someone would have been charged. But an outside lawyer for Kane, Lanny Davis, said Thursday that Martin was not in a position to say that, and no decision on the matter has been made by prosecutors. An internal review by Geoffrey Moulton, a former federal prosecutor whom Kane hired, determined that none of the images rose to the level of child pornography.

Neither Davis nor Martin would say that they believe child pornography was involved.

To underscore the position that some sort of prosecution could be possible, they pointed to an Oct. 27 published opinion regarding a state Supreme Court justice’s suspension over the emails.

In it, Chief Justice Ronald Castille mentioned a video of an adult that he said “is clearly obscene and may violate the Crimes Code section on obscenity.”

Reporters’ questions about child pornography were set off by a Tuesday TV interview given by Kane.

In the interview, Kane seemed to suggest the emails in question had contained child pornography. She told the interviewer that the emails included “hard-core, graphic, sometimes violent emails that had a string of videos and pictures depicting sometimes children, old women. Some of them involved violent sexual acts against women.”

Kane did not elaborate on that comment, and she was not pressed by the interviewer. In any case, no one who had viewed the emails to that point had described them as having involved child pornography.

The week has brought a series of eyebrow-raising developments for the attorney general.

On Monday, Kane testified for 2½ hours in front of a grand jury investigating whether her office had breached grand-jury secrecy in a separate case.

Martin’s statement on Thursday said Kane can’t elaborate on the email scandal because of a court order in the grand-jury secrecy investigation. The email scandal already has cost a handful of government officials their jobs, including the Supreme Court justice and Pennsylvania’s environmental protection secretary.

Kane has said her office initially discovered pornographic and explicit videos, images and jokes in hundreds of emails during an examination of how state prosecutors handled the Jerry Sandusky child-sex abuse case under her predecessors — a review she promised when she campaigned for the office two years ago.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.