Total Chaos: Pennsylvania Democrats WALK OUT of Hearing on Members Accused of Taking

[Gingersnap]

Total Chaos: Pennsylvania Democrats WALK OUT of Hearing on Members Accused of Taking Bribes

by
BRYAN PRESTON
Bio
May 6, 2014 - 8:34 am

This morning, the Pennsylvania House State Government Committee held a hearing on the case of the Democrats caught accepting bribes in exchange for voting against voter ID in the state. The case against the Democrats is well-documented, yet Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane, a Democrat, scuttled it shortly after she took office. Kane also accused the career investigators who built the case of racism.

That charge doesn’t stand up to any level of scrutiny. The investigation targeted Republicans and Democrats, male and female, black and white. As it so happens, only Democrats chose to accept the bribes, and those members who did happen to be black.


Today’s hearing included PJM’s J. Christian Adams and other witnesses. As Adams and the other witnesses were about to testify on Kane’s “corrosive effect on election integrity,” the Democrats on the committee attempted to adjourn, to prevent Adams from speaking. That motion to adjourn failed. Then a Democrat (apparently state Rep. Michael O’Brien) attempted to make a point of personal privilege to block Adams’ testimony from being heard. That was ruled out of order. The Democrats persisted.

The committee chairman, state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, had that Democrat who tried to block Adams’ testimony on a point of personal privilege seized and ejected from the hearing room.

After that, it was total chaos. All of the Democrats on the committee got up and stormed out of the room.

The committee is looking at whether Kane should be impeached for scuttling the investigation and smearing the investigators. Even some fellow Democrats in Pennsylvania, including Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams, who is both black and a Democrat, have strongly objected to Kane’s actions.

Why aren't we hearing more about this nationally?

PJ Media

[Novaheart]

Why aren't we hearing more about this nationally?

PJ Media

In reading the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Kane says that she decline to prosecute because of serious flaws in the investigation.


The articles of impeachment sponsored by Mr. Metcalfe claim the attorney general failed to uphold the duties of her office when she opted in July 2013 against fighting a challenge to the marriage ban, saying she believed the law to be unconstitutional, and when she decided to not bring charges against Democratic state representatives who the Philadelphia Inquirer reported accepted money from an undercover operative.

After the Inquirer report, in March, Ms. Kane said flaws in the investigation, which began before she took office, crippled any chance of a prosecution.



Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/local/re...#ixzz312h1WEdQ

[Adam]

Why aren't we hearing more about this nationally?

Probably because it apparently isn't going anywhere.

Inky:

Tuesday's hearing was a nonvoting session. It is unclear whether Metcalfe's push will ever get a committee vote, let alone a vote on the House floor. Republicans, who hold the majority in the chamber, privately say it is unlikely.

I remember hearing about some of this some months back. Most specifically:

Kane, the first woman and the first Democrat to be elected as the state's chief legal officer, has taken some controversial stands since she took office 16 months ago, including her refusal to defend the state's same-sex marriage ban against a federal court challenge.

Kane has said she could not ethically defend the law because she believes it is unconstitutional. An outside legal team hired by Gov. Tom Corbett's Office of General Counsel is handling the case — at rates of up to $400 an hour for the lead attorney.

"Once the attorney general starts deciding which statutes she will defend and which she will not, based on her personal political beliefs, the stability and security of legislative law in the commonwealth are severely threatened. We cannot know what positions she will take on future cases," said James Clymer, a lawyer and longtime political activist from Lancaster.

I'm not sure about Pennsylvania law in this regard, but in Tennessee, the state AG must defend the law (and other state interests) in court no matter how much they either disagree with the law or otherwise feel that the state is in the wrong. For this reason, virtually everything in the Tennessee Legislature gets run past the AG's office to help ensure that there won't be court issues down the road (for example, making sure there isn't a case that a proposed law cannot legally enforced without violating the state constitution, usually a language issue). I remember this topic came up when Holder declared that he simply wouldn't bother defending DOMA in court any more; in Tennessee, the AG may not legally make such a decision. They must either put up a vigorous defense against a challenge, even if their defense is a losing one, or they may resign, or in certain cases (usually a direct conflict of interest) they may recuse themselves and direct the governor's office to hire third-party counsel.

I never heard the outcome (if there was any) of this question regarding Kane.


This, though, is pretty damning:

The articles of impeachment sponsored by Mr. Metcalfe claim the attorney general failed to uphold the duties of her office when she opted in July 2013 against fighting a challenge to the marriage ban, saying she believed the law to be unconstitutional, and when she decided to not bring charges against Democratic state representatives who the Philadelphia Inquirer reported accepted money from an undercover operative.

After the Inquirer report, in March, Ms. Kane said flaws in the investigation, which began before she took office, crippled any chance of a prosecution.

That has the distinct aroma of bullshit all around it.

Four hundred hours' worth of audio and video tape of legislators very obviously accepting bribes and then following through with the bribed activity. This was an absolute slam-dunk, à la Tennessee Waltz. Yes, she has prosecutorial discretion, but this was obvious and unavoidable. There probably ought to be a federal probe into this, though I'm not holding my breath that Eric Holder is going to step up to the plate and actually enforce the law any time soon.

[Gramps]

There probably ought to be a federal probe into this