Reversing Kane: Questions of competence |

Reversing Kane: Questions of competence

The Philadelphia district attorney’s filing of corruption charges against a retired Philadelphia Traffic Court president judge deepens doubts about the competence of Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane, who deemed the case “non-prosecutable.”

DA Seth Williams charged Thomasine Tynes, 71, with bribery, conflict of interest and conspiracy. She allegedly accepted a $2,000 Tiffany & Co. bracelet from a former lobbyist turned confidential informant, who ostensibly sought a lucrative contract to collect unpaid parking fines. Mr. Williams said that wired informant’s video and audio recordings are “demonstrable, tangible evidence of the quid pro quo” he alleges occurred.

Yet Mrs. Kane cited absence of clear “quid pro quo” evidence among reasons not to pursue the case, which originated from a wider sting operation run by the state Attorney General’s Office during Gov. Tom Corbett’s tenure there. She also mentioned concerns about possible entrapment and racial profiling. Ms. Tynes and four other sting targets, all Democrat state legislators from Philadelphia, are black. But so is Williams, who found no evidence of profiling or entrapment and is continuing a grand jury investigation of those lawmakers.

Tynes’ case will be resolved in court. Kane’s competence as attorney general — called into question by her unwillingness to file charges against Tynes — is being decided in the court of public opinion.

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.