The Kane Report: A credibility killer
There are a number of takeaways from Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane's forthcoming report on then-Attorney General Tom Corbett's handling of the investigation that led to the arrest and conviction of Jerry Sandusky, Penn State's serial child molester:
• First, of course, is the finding (according to sources) that Mr. Corbett, a Republican and current governor, did not delay the investigation of the former assistant football coach for political gain.
• Second is the conclusion that Corbett's office did not necessarily err in using a statewide grand jury to build the state's case.
• Third, Ms. Kane, a Democrat who commissioned the report by a third party, is forced to wipe egg from her face. Not only did she allege Corbett “probably” allowed politics to influence his decision-making in the case, she maintained that impaneling that grand jury wasted too much time.
• Fourth, from the tenor and framing used in the report — no accusatory nature and just the facts, ma'am (again, based on the information of sources) — the report, written by Widener Law School professor H. Geoffrey Moulton, comes across as eminently credible.
Kathleen Kane staked much of her personal and professional reputation in making accusations against Tom Corbett. And while there likely is additional material to be gleaned from the full report, it's clear that Kane's credibility has taken a significant hit.
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.
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- ‘Canary in a coal mine’: The SSDI dilemma
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- Mon-Yough Laurels & Lances
- U.N. Watch: The Gaza follies
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Open contract negotiations: Let the sunshine in
- A school choice victory: Follow the child
- Sunday pops
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances