Earlier this week, I wrote
about the Philadelphia Inquirer’s report on an
investigation into local Philadelphia politicians apparently caught
on tape taking bribes apparently shut down by Pennsylvania’s
attorney general, Kathleen Kane (D). An assistant press secretary
for Kane wrote to me in an effort, he said, to make sure I had all
the facts, whether or not I agreed with the attorney general. The
press secretary summarized the office’s case on the case:
The investigation was dormant and basically left for
dead when Attorney General Kane took office. I have attached a
timeline of the investigation’s recording for your reference.
[PDF]
Just 45 days before her inauguration, prosecutors forgave the only
informant of 2,000 felony charges related to defrauding taxpayer
funded programs to feed low-income children and seniors. This deal
destroyed the informant being compelled to testify. A Republican
district attorney agreed with this determination.
As a follow up, I asked why prosecutors forgave the informant,
whether there would be an investigation into that or any other
aspect of the case, whether the attorney general would suspend or
review any other cases built around confidential informants
trawling for crimes, and whether the attorney general’s office
would release the tapes made by the informant of the alleged
bribe-taking if they are no longer useful as evidence. The press
officer did not respond to my questions as of the time of this blog
post.
A Philly.com op-ed also listed a litany of issues with the
attorney general’s defense of her decision to drop the case,
including:
She says crimes were committed but there’s “nothing we
can do to salvage this case.”She says the No. 1 reason is the “shot” credibility of informant
Tyron B. Ali, because the state forgave 2,000-plus charges against
him filed in 2009 in connection with a scam to defraud a low-income
food program.But Ali audiotaped those taking money or gifts. Why not let a jury
hear the tapes, compromised informant/witness or not; or release
the tapes to the public?Kane says the tapes can’t be released because they’re
“evidence.”But if there’s “nothing we can do to salvage” the case, what are
they evidence for?She says federal prosecutors wouldn’t take the case. But
the Inky
[the Philadelphia Inquirer] reported yesterday that
the FBI in Philly looked at the case and made no judgment on
whether it could be prosecuted, and that the U.S. attorney in
Philly declined comment on the case.Kane also said she’d “consider and push for” an investigation by
the State Ethics Commission, which requires public officials to
report gifts. Failure to do so can lead to fines and/or prison
terms.But since Kane killed the sting case last year, one wonders why she
didn’t seek such an investigation then.
Since then, Kane has
hired a lawyer for a possible defamation suit against the
Philadelphia Inquirer, which broke the story. In fact, she
met with editors and reporters from the Inquirer Thursday
flanked by two lawyers, and refused to speak for herself. The
lawyers say they will investigate the prosecutors involved in the
bribery case, and allege the Inquirer’s sources, which the
newspaper has not disclosed, used the paper as a “weapon” to attack
Kane.
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1gR0txA
via IFTTT