The Kane affair: Stop to the games
What kind of game is Kathleen Kane playing? We are forced to ask that question following revelations that Pennsylvania's attorney general sought to attach what can only be described as a self-protection codicil to giving up the case file in the celebrated, but unprosecuted, sting that allegedly ensnared a number of Democrat Philadelphia pols.
Never mind that Ms. Kane, also a Democrat, still believes crimes were committed, she cited legal flaws in pulling the plug on an investigation that predated her assuming office. Everything from allegations of racial bias to a credibility-killing plea deal with a confidential informant who would have been the prosecution's star witness were invoked.
The bias claim subsequently was rebutted by those who say the probe was not confined to black public officials. And then Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams, a fellow Democrat, blasted Kane's handling of the matter. Kane countered by announcing that if Mr. Williams wanted the case, he could have it. But she later claimed Williams was conflicted because he was endorsed for the Philly DA job five years ago by two of those stung. Kane is prosecuting someone else under a similar past endorsement circumstance.
Now comes word, from Williams, that Kane sought something akin to immunity in return for giving Williams the case file — that as part of his investigation he would not review Kane's handling of the sting's end game. Williams, citing the law, has balked.
It's time for this soap opera to end. The time is now for an independent counsel.
Show commenting policy
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.