Patrick Reese, the driver for Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane, leaves the Montgomery County Court House after being arraigned, Tuesday, August 11, 2015, in Norristown, Pa. The former Dunmore police chief pleaded not guilty to a contempt charge stemming from an investigation of his boss.
Advertisement
At an August 12 press conference, Kane said the leak investigation and criminal charges were a “stealth political weapon” to oust her from office and that a campaign to discredit her began after her office found pornographic and explicit video images and jokes in hundreds of emails while reviewing a predecessor’s handling of the child sex abuse case against former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky.
She remains free pending an October . 14 court appearance.
Kane was arraigned this month on charges that she leaked documents to embarrass a rival and later lied about doing so.
Evidently unswayed by Shargel’s arguments, Judge Rebar ended the four-hour hearing by denying his motion to dismiss and ordering Kane to stand trial on all charges, with her arraignment scheduled for October . 14.
The first-term Democrat hasn’t entered a plea.
Monday’s hearing was the lastest chapter in the story of Frank Fina and Kathleen Kane, which has all the pettiness and backstabbing that one expects from a good state-politics feud.
In a written statement Tuesday, the attorney general said that she’s waiting for the Supreme Court to determine whether “associated materials” linked to the “Porngate” emails could be subject to a protective order barring her from seeking reprisal against witnesses in the leak case against her.
In retaliation, prosecutors say, Kane revealed to the Philadelphia Daily News details of grand jury proceedings in a 2009 case led by Fina. A political consultant who helped Kane get elected three years ago picked up the package and delivered it to a reporter, prosecutors said.
Shargel, who once represented New York City mobsters, contended that Mondesire already lost his reputation when articles dating to 2010 alleged issues with his finances. “To avoid this I am asking a court of jurisdiction to define what materials beyond the emails themselves can be released without violating grand jury secrecy laws covering these emails and their attending documents or the protective orders shielding their distributors”. Shargel said he couldn’t lose his reputation a second time.
Kane says she hopes the state Supreme Court will decide before then what can be released and render requests for the emails moot.
Advertisement
Kane, however, has not moved to release the emails.
