Maybe. But a case doesn’t have to be winnable for prosecuting to be a public benefit. Expose what really happened and let the juries and the voters decide.
A healthy attitude. The problem is that the Feds declined to take up the case.
In response, Attorney General Kathleen Kane stated, “My record speaks for itself that prosecutions have no political agenda. Of the 11 public corruption cases we have brought so far, the majority involve Democrats. I will not sit back and allow lies from those who seek to destroy the public’s trust in me or my office.”
Article questioning the Phili Inquirer’s journalistic standards. I confess I’m dubious about many of their claims: http://www.phillyrecord.com/2014/03/pols-on-the-street-should-kane-sue-inquirer/
My take: this development deserves a thread and it deserves investigation. A $2000 gift by a lobbyist fails the smell test, regardless of what influence actually was peddled. Also, even if the bribe was entrapment, and therefore couldn’t be prosecuted, there’s the matter of reporting: “Those who sources say pocketed the cash failed to report it, as required by law, on annual financial disclosure forms for public officials, records show. Under state law, those omissions may be considered false swearing to authorities, a crime with a penalty of up to one year in jail.”
If that’s not illegal, it should be.
And I suspect that that is part of the problem. DC has the same issue. When you exist in a de facto one party system with no opposition party checking up on you it’s easy for corruption to fester. This is the main reason I would rather have the Republican’s reform and become sane rather than disappear entirely.
According to the article, the previous AG (who is a Republican) spent three years on this investigation and only produced four possible cases. Which he declined to prosecute while he was in office.
The only evidence we have that Republicans were involved in the investigation is an anonymous source.
The new AG (who is a Democrat) reviewed the investigation and had the FBI and the county DA (who is a Republican) also review it. They determined there was not a winnable case.
The new AG has prosecuted Democrats in previous corruption cases.
So do we have a Democrat covering for other Democrats? Or do we have a new AG who saw that her predecessor was wasting time and money on an investigation that was going nowhere (and was possibly politically motivated) and shut it down?
I disagree with this. The government should not put somebody on trial if it knows it’s unlikely to win. It’s harassment by the legal system and it’s a waste of public resources.
The person you are quoting does not seem to see winning as the only goal. They just want information to be made public in a trial, so that the voters can also decide.
To further both goals, it would seem to make sense just to do a proper investigation and make it all public.
Yet it happens all the time when the AG sees political advantage in it. Eliot Spitzer was the master. And he was rewarded for it.
The problem is his lack of precision which shows his own biases. I knew instantly that this thread was started by either you, Shodan, magellan, or adaher. The thread would just not have been titled this way if written by anyone else.
You guys just look at the world through this lens of Democrats being the enemy and want to jump on any connection. The idea that the AG was doing his job didn’t even cross adaher’s mind. He didn’t check the null hypothesis.
(And, yes, you are better than most of them–except when you get on an anti-Democrat kick every so often.)
It’s not a waste of resources if it provides honest information about public servants. For myself, I wouldn’t consider it harassment if the prosecutors have good reason to believe a crime had been committed.
Not to mention AGs prosecute cases they can’t win all the time if it puts an issue in the news. And Philly politicians taking bribes should be in the news.
According to Kane, the investigation was tainted:
Unprosecutable. Politically motivated. Dirty dems or dirty pubs too? Who knows.
That’s assuming what she said is true. That sounds suspiciously like what Republicans accused the IRS of doing. Could be true, could also just be something Kane seized on because she heard about it and it gave her a pretext to drop the case. And of course not inform the public.
Explicit racial targeting in state law enforcement is also something the public should know about. It sounds like Kane just wanted to sweep the whole unpleasant thing under the rug rather than find out the truth.
That’s begging the question. You’re assuming the allegations are true. If they aren’t true, what justification would there be for accusing people who are innocent?
Keep in mind the allegations that individuals took money are attributed to “sources”. How credible are these anonymous sources?
Kane has said she reviewed the evidence. So did DA Ed Marsico and the FBI. They said there is no case. And Tom Corbett never filed any charges during the three years he had this evidence.
Then release the paperwork on the investigation to the media. For two reasons:
-
The threshold for the public losing trust in politicians is, and should be, much lower than the standard of guilt in a criminal trial.
-
Politicians aren’t entitled to the same confidentiality rights as other citizens. Any information that is in the public interest should be released.
Racial shield at full force, captain.
So you feel that government officials should be encouraged to charge their political opponents with crimes even if they don’t have any evidence to substantiate the charges?
That’s not what happened here. An investigation was done, politicians did in fact take bribes. Their constituents can best judge whether they were unfairly entrapped, and the media can confirm or refute whether African-American members were targeted or not.
In either case, the public should know. Isn’t Tom Corbett up for reelection? Shouldn’t voters know if he led a racially-motivated investigation while AG?
No, you don’t know that. What you actually know is that a person whose identity is unknown claims that some politicians took bribes.
When Kathleen Kane went on record to say that only black politicians were being targeted, you raised the possibility she was lying. Why don’t you display the same skepticism about the anonymous source’s allegations?
That’s a fair point. All other things being equal, we should give more weight to attributed quotes than to anonymous ones.
On the other hand, we should give more weight to people revealing information than to those who tried to hide it and coming up with explanations for hiding it quickly when they find out a story is breaking.
I’d also note that she declined to be interviewed and simply issued a statement. Which is a good sign her explanation would not stand up well under questioning from the media.
The article also notes that an attributed source, the lead prosecutor, denies Kane’s charges that the investigation was targeting black politicians.