Kathleen Kane — Faux Martyr or True Saint
Kathleen Kane, martyr to the end, finds once again she is being persecuted for her righteousness. But is there a smidgen of truth to this characterization?
Kane made headlines for her Jeffersonian stance — even if her party does deny that storied Founding Father — of refusing to follow what she perceived as an unjust law. However, is this all there is to the story? A Pennsylvania attorney general who places herself upon the pyre for sake of the constitutional cause of good government, a defender against corruption?
The martyrdom and potential sainthood of Kathleen Kane comes in threes. The Patron Saint of Same-sex Rights, the Patron Saint of Minorities, and the Patron Saint of Morality. Since she’s an attorney general, let’s examine her case.
To start us off, there is Kane’s “bold” stance to not enforce the law banning same-sex marriage. As the top law enforcement official in Pennsylvania, there should have been other ways to handle the matter, if Kane truly believed in the marriage equality cause. Not to mention, she sacrificed herself, accruing all of the benefits of sainthood but none of the downsides. Anyone is welcome to stand up for something they believe in, but that same person must be willing to face consequences. It’s as though Joan of Arc proclaimed: “Hey, I wanted to be a martyr for this cause, but what’s with all that wood and torches?”
Kane is a faux martyr, which begs the question that same-sex couples should be asking, namely, was she playing politics then? “Bravery” would have been demonstrated by Kane had she taken her stance at a different time in American history, when homosexuals were being assaulted or killed, and then standing up for them. Assuming a favorable stance towards same-sex marriage, as a lot of the country was doing at the time and right before the Supreme Court sided in its favor, reeks of political convenience and seeking to score points, and not bravery.
Unsurprisingly, Kane’s own case has now become a question of who is more morally bankrupt, herself or Frank Fina
Then there is the decision to throw away the bribery case, purportedly on account of its being racially motivated. Those under scrutiny — who accepted the bribes — were, in fact, African-Americans. They also happened to be members of Kane’s own Democratic Party, which association alone seems to have directed her whole decision to dismiss the case in question. Furthermore, as this writer has written for the Rant Lifestyle website, the lead prosecutor who wanted to move the matter forward was Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams. Williams is an African-American (and a Democrat), who’s publicly stated that the notion the case was racially motivated was “ridiculous.”
A sting, long story short, was conducted against Republicans and Democrats. Four representatives took the money, and were public about their enthusiasm. Over 400 hours of audiotape and videotape were secured in this investigation, revealing that in one specific instance a legislator was asked to vote against something. With the lobbyists’ money in hand, she did just that, later lying about it when publicly questioned.
Phillymag reported online that Williams followed the case to its logical conclusion, and all four public servants pled guilty to corruption charges. Now, information has emerged suggesting that DA Williams himself is being investigated by the FBI. Though Kane denies spreading that information— and so far there are no signs of this investigation publicly— the timing seems curious.
Of course, now that Kane is facing her current charges of oppression, perjury, conspiracy, and others, we arrive at the third rung of her martyrdom, one that surely guarantees her sainthood . . . or at least keeps her current profession intact.
Unsurprisingly, Kane’s own case has now become a question of who is more morally bankrupt, herself or Frank Fina, Fina being one of the prosecutors fired for his alleged involvement in the porn email scandal. It is certainly an interesting defense, considering her party tends to see pornography as a harmless vice. So, who is truly immoral? That isn’t the most pertinent question, but Kane would certainly prefer to answer that than answer to the charges she’s facing. Kane of Arc, as it were, grasping at straws in a bid to save her flailing career, claimed she was being prosecuted to silence her over the porn case. Now, it’s been reported that she was able to do as she pleased all along. So, naturally, she will do the right thing and release that info to prosecute the individuals for misconduct? Nope. Her lawyer craftily said they’re happy it was made clear that she could, but she’s going to hold onto it for her trial. So, in essence, the case she so passionately, vigorously, self-righteously wanted to prosecute was a trump card, a wild card to distract from her predicament.
Regardless of political power or clout, race, gender, or orientation, no one is above the law. Especially, those elected to enforce it.
No matter how bad this porn scandal is, and it’s alleged to be pretty big, it doesn’t change a thing. Honestly, for the sake of the people of Pennsylvania, just fire them all and start over, those ensnared in the porn scandal and Kane, too. Our current AG doesn’t seem to care about Pennsylvania, or its inhabitants, so why not? Her trial, entourage, security — indeed, the whole kit and caboodle — are costing Pennsylvanians daily. After all, why should the savior of Pennsylvania law have to pay for any of this herself?
Not to mention the fact that Pennsylvania has effectively been without an attorney general during this mess. Either hers is the most useless, innocuous position on the books, or there is irreparable harm being caused, as she is allowed to keep her livelihood and not be at least temporarily replaced. Her supporters are rallying for her to keep her position, and not to be suspended, but why? Perhaps they like paying her and for her, as she isn’t doing her job.
She alleges intimidation and claims martyrdom . . . wah, wah, wah . . . but what about the real intimidation she exercised against the Philadelphia Inquirer for simply doing their job, and the kind she could be behind against DA Williams. No one should be surprised if this porn case turns into a “War on Women,” or some such manner by which Kathleen “First Female AG” Kane can use her gender and position to distract from and evade her charges. If that transpires, you heard it here first.
It remains to be seen whether Pennsylvania courts will play politics with Kane’s indictment, or prosecute her like any other Jane Q. Public. Certainly, if the tables were turned, Kane would think nothing of crushing the Average Joe or Jane in a similar case, especially if it was a member of the opposite party. But isn’t that indicative of her short tenure thus far? Playing politics, instead of enforcing the law. Picking favorites, instead of treating everyone equal. Considering that her party both shunned and turned its back on her, perhaps she shouldn’t have turned her back on equal justice under the law. What kind of message — since everything is about a message and firsts — does it send when the top law enforcement official in a state is held to a different standard? The top law enforcer in Pennsylvania says she won’t prosecute wrongdoing, or enforce the law, so why should an Average Joe or Jane abide by it?
Regardless of political power or clout, race, gender, or orientation, no one is above the law. Especially, those elected to enforce it.
The prosecution of Kane shouldn’t be partisan, or complicated. Lady Justice is blind because justice should be a simple matter of the facts. Did she, or did she not, break the law? Anything more than that is politics, which is why any politician seeking to avoid a guilty verdict would prefer the show, the circus. Sadly, in 21st-century American politics, apparently, so would the citizenry.
Even if Kane beats this case, she is far from squeaky clean, and shouldn’t the top lawyer in the state be just that? That is, unless Pennsylvania’s judicial system’s new motto is “Do as we say, not as we do.” In Kane we Trust.
Kathleen Kane, faux martyr . . . or truly fit for sainthood? The verdict is still out.
