Archive

The Kane dilemma | TribLIVE.com
Editorials

The Kane dilemma

In dribs and drabs — and now in one large dollop — the commonwealth’s prospective criminal case against Attorney General Kathleen Kane finally is on full display. And it is quite ugly.

Monday’s long-awaited public release of a Norristown grand jury’s presentment against the first-term Democrat AG details a shocking tale of alleged perjury, false swearing, abuse of office, official oppression and obstructing the administration of law. And it allegedly was orchestrated in an attempt to embarrass her political enemies.

Kane denies any wrongdoing.

Whether Kane is charged with these crimes continues to rest with Montgomery County District Attorney Risa Vetri Ferman. Not only must Ms. Ferman decide whether Kane goes to trial on the grand jury allegations but also whether she should be found in criminal contempt of court for firing a protected witness.

Kane, of course, deserves her day in court. But given the allegations, and the evidence supporting them — primarily inconsistencies in her grand jury testimony with that of multiple witnesses — it’s difficult to see how she can credibly remain as Pennsylvania’s chief law-enforcement officer.


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com 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.