Archive

ShareThis Page
The Kathleen Kane chronicles: The Pa. attorney general’s credibility is gone | TribLIVE.com
Editorials

The Kathleen Kane chronicles: The Pa. attorney general’s credibility is gone

What a hot mess Kathleen Kane has become. And we can only assume that, past being prologue, the muck that Pennsylvania’s attorney general has mired herself in will only get deeper.

The latest installment was delivered in a week in which Ms. Kane, lawyered- and PR-upped, confirmed the worst-kept secret in Harrisburg — a grand jury is investigating her to determine if she violated grand jury secrecy in another case, allegedly to embarrass a rival prosecutor. Kane, a Democrat, now more than intimates that the current grand jury probe is a conspiracy against her.

Then on Tuesday, Kane dropped what appeared to be a bombshell: In a CNN interview, Kane said sexually explicit emails traded by attorneys in the AG’s office, judges and police contained child pornography. Investigators previously stressed that no child porn was among the traded emails.

Less than 24 hours later, however, another bomb dropped: Kane’s spokeswoman recanted the claim.

So, on national television, the attorney general of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania smeared those implicated in the embarrassing trading of randy emails with a scarlet “CP” on their foreheads, then didn’t have the guts to personally retract her charge. That’s despicable.

Kathleen Kane has lost the little remaining credibility she had. And we frankly can’t see how she can continue to serve as state attorney general.


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.