The faces change but the tactics remain as they have always been. It would be nice to see more of them take Dwyer's road out of town but they'd only be followed by more crooks. That was and remains the status quo in PA, get elected, get power, get money. I had hoped that Kane could pull something out but I was never very confident of that. Moulton's report sealed the deal for me, he is as the others.
Kane Case Not a Sure Thing.
- Thread starter ralpieE
- Start date
She is a disaster in your eyes cause?
Again, the lady was voted in as AG, she was to uphold the law and make sure others are too
Her discovery of porngate was more then the 2 prior acting AG did at anytime.
She would never get elected today. She has been a disaster. Most dems know it and her own party wants her to step down.
Porngate is just another example of her incompetence. She tried to play politics and she tried take down REpublicans and ended up taking down Seamus Mccaffery. LOL
She was pushing porngate while looking the other way as her political allies were taking bribes.
You need to stay focused. Kane committed a crime and then lied about it to the grand jury....
UOTE="Nittany Ned2, post: 386673, member: 5530"]Pft!
Actually do you want a little history lesson? Want to know who one of the biggest leakers of grand jury testimony? Richard Lewis Thornburgh....do some reading.[/QUOTE]
If someone commits murder, we don't let them walk because someone else committed a murder. They are charged and given their day in court.
Kane isn't a victim. She has been charged with committing a crime and will be given the opportunity to defend herself.
Actually do you want a little history lesson? Want to know who one of the biggest leakers of grand jury testimony? Richard Lewis Thornburgh....do some reading.[/QUOTE]
If someone commits murder, we don't let them walk because someone else committed a murder. They are charged and given their day in court.
Kane isn't a victim. She has been charged with committing a crime and will be given the opportunity to defend herself.
she had her trial already?
What political allies of hers were taking bribes? The democrats in philly (aka blingsting) didn't take bribes (there was no quid quo pro established) they were accused of taking gifts and not reporting them. As unbelievable as it is, it's not illegal in PA for politicians to take gifts as long as they are reported. In total the philly democrats took less than $30K in unreported gifts. Ali (the undercover person making the tapes) took OVER 400K from the state's elderly and kids (think about that for a minute) and Fina signed a nolle pros. deal (drop all charges) with Ali WEEKS before Kane took office. To put things in perspective, Fina et al. ran such a bush league investigation of Ali/blingsting that they had OVER $30K in unreported expenses for their investigation which is more than the alleged unreported gift amount the philly democrats took, how ironic. Fina et al. still haven't been able to explain how over $30K in tax payer money went unaccounted for and still offer no explanation to this day as to what happened to it...hmmm
This move by fina effectively killed the case because without Ali's cooperation they couldn't verify the tapes, etc. Kane was the one who ended up dropping the charges but she was simply executing on the deal that FINA MADE/playing the hand that fina dealt her. It was a well played move by Fina since he got the philly press to hammer Kane for dropping the blingsting charges based on politics when in reality it was due to him giving Ali a completely free pass for defrauding the state out of hundreds of thousands of $$$. Why isn't the press outraged that fina let the big fish go in order to go after some minnows?? That is the question people need to be asking but no..they are buying Fina's B.S. hook line and sinker b/c he feeds them info for their stories which they get to make money off of.
That's awfully strange, because nearly all of them have pled guilty to bribery-related charges, which you claim here didn't happen. They must have really poor attorneys to let their clients plead guilty to something that never occurred.
Edit: I'm also curious if you ever read the presentment from the Philadelphia Grand Jury - I suspect that you only read the initial press reports and Kane's defense of her actions. In the presentment, they were able to capture on tape a clear established quid-pro-quo from multiple defendants, for both then-pending votes (Voter ID and Liquor Privitization) as well as the legislators' loyalty for bills that would be proposed in the future.
Last edited:
So Lynne Abraham -- the same Lynne Abraham who was hired to investigate The Second Mile and then dropped that investigation -- wants to take Kane's place.
http://www.politicspa.com/lynne-abraham-interested-in-possible-ag-appointment/68283/
I'd say that it's unbelievable, but it is Pennsylvania.
http://www.politicspa.com/lynne-abraham-interested-in-possible-ag-appointment/68283/
I'd say that it's unbelievable, but it is Pennsylvania.
What was the punishment imposed for these "guilty" pleas?
No dunce hat for you today Mr. simons96....that was really witty
like it, like it ....right there with Bob Hope & Jack Benny with the one liners
Hope the board moderators are pleased with the black board work
No dunce hat for you today Mr. simons96....that was really witty
like it, like it ....right there with Bob Hope & Jack Benny with the one liners
Hope the board moderators are pleased with the black board work
I shall do my penance in a corner while I review Criminal Law/Trials 101
I don't believe Wolf would be asking for Kane's resignation if she didn't commit a crime.
Last edited:
Why would people need to be "bribed" for voting the way that they clearly would be expected to vote?
Judge Thomasine Tynes was sentenced to 23 months in prison (served concurrently with her previous conviction), Rep. Waters pled to 9 counts of conflict of interest for 23 months probation and $8750 in restitution, and Rep. James pled to one count of conflict of interest for 12 months probation and $750 in restitution. Representatives Brown, Brownlee and Bishop are awaiting trial.
Duh. He would if he was smart. Which he is.
Now that he has a stated position, he doesn't have to keep answering the question over and over.
Sully, please.
You and Dawson, you both live in the same dreamworld. It doesn't matter what I believe. It only matters what I can prove. So don't tell me what I know, or don't know. I know the LAW.
There are lots of people who think that they can get away with breaking the LAW. Kane was one of them. And that's why she is in trouble.
well if you say she broke the law, then that's good enough for me!!!
Would you expect a democrat from Philadelphia to support liquor privatization? Representatives Waters and Brown both were swayed to support liquor privatization efforts after accepting money, with the expressed reason being the money that they were given. Rep. Brown was even swayed to change her position on low-income cell phones, even though she had publicly signed a letter in support of the issue. Even more importantly, Rep. Waters testified to the grand jury that he accepted money in direct exchange for political favors.
LOL.....thanks, now I know just how conflicted and FOS you are....and now so shall everyone else:
Tynes (the former Traffic Court Judge) pled "guilty" to CONFLICT OF INTEREST (not bribery).....and got no additional punishment (on top of her previous convictions related to her fixing tickets during her time as chief of the traffic court - totally unrelated to the so-called "bribery sting")
And if anyone needs a refresher on the political motivations of the Judge (Garvin) in this case....you can read it here:
http://articles.philly.com/2014-12-...-thomasine-tynes-undercover-operative-tyron-b
Further, and this is the REALLY good part:
Her "cooperation" in the "bribery investigation" was used to leverage a lighter sentence in her pre-standing conviction for her ticket-fixing activities in traffic court
http://articles.philly.com/2014-12-05/news/56761342_1_judges-philadelphia-traffic-court-satisfaction
So.....the end result of her plea for CONFLICT OF INTEREST (in the so-called bribery sting) was to REDUCE her sentence on previous, unrelated convictions.
LOL........your conflictions are showing.
_______________________
The other two you cited, also pled to CONFLICT OF INTEREST (not bribery) with no jail time and a total of a couple thousand dollar fine. Less than the costs that would be incurred in contesting most summary charges.
LMAO.
________________________
And yet these "convictions" were lauded long and loud by the Philly area Judiciary......taking incredible and unprecedented opportunity to tout these "convictions" as a black eye on Kane....for not pursuing the BRIBERY scam charges.....charges that NONE of the defendants were convicted of.
LMAO
What a dope!!!
In conclusion, let me just finish with:
Last edited:
As Marbles already said, what was the quid quo pro if they were going to vote that way anyway?
Also it doesn't matter what was on the tapes since the OAG had no way to compel the person who made them (Ali) to testify/corroborate what's on them. Without Ali's cooperation the tapes were worthless. Not only did Fina sign the nolle pros. deal weeks before Kane took office thus sandbagging the case, he also sat on his ass for 18 MONTHS doing nothing with the case before Kane eventually got handed the flaming bag of dog poop which the case was at that point. Then when Kane tried to put the flaming bag of dog poo out by dropping the case, Fina hammers her in the press....how nice!!
Seth Willaims, who now employs his buddy Frank Fina, had a very verbal dispute with Kane when she dropped the blingsting charges (which was forced via Fina's nolle pros. deal) . Williams was all over her for "playing politics" so Kane said hey if you think this case is so great you are free to prosecute it yourself. So of course Williams went ahead and charged the democrats. I'm guessing they plead out of it when they realized Williams had a hard on for prosecuting them regardless of the law, it's probably only a misdemeanor or something anyway. Williams basically filed charges on them out of spite. What a GREAT guy!!
Again, the REAL question is (which you continue to avoid addressing by the way), why did Fina give a free pass to the guy who took over 400K from the state's elderly and children to go after some black democrats who took less than $30K in unreported gifts? Why aren't you up in arms over that?
You should pay a bit more attention. I've clearly articulated for Marbes that the legislators were persuaded to vote in favor of privatization, as well as change their votes and positions on a number of other measures as a direct result of the money they received.
Additionally, if you were paying attention, you would have learned that at the time Kane claimed that the informant stole over $400,000, the AG'a office had confirmed that the amount stolen was actually under $100,000 - meaning that even if charged to the maximum, the sentence wouldn't have included any jail time. In other words, while the maximum statutory punishment was strong enough to elicit cooperation, a max sentence of no jail time is light enough to warrant dropping charges if he cooperated.
Again, you should really pay a little more attention beyond what came out of Kane's mouth in the immediate aftermath, because you could actually learn quite a bit before making the claims you made - it's all able to be confirmed pretty easily.
"You should pay a bit more attention. I've clearly articulated for Marbes that the legislators were persuaded to vote in favor of privatization, as well as change their votes and positions on a number of other measures as a direct result of the money they received."
Gee....that sounds like BRIBERY to me.....
So why were none of these Scoundrels convicted of Bribery? LMAO
Didn't the douchebag Seth Williams tout the incredible strength of this case?
Why was the only jail time involved a REDUCTION in jail time for a previous, unrelated conviction.
A nice little payoff to use to get some cooperation.....and allow Seth and the boys to grandstand before a bunch of Dupes, Dopes, and Sycophants (although, you - personally - might just qualify under multiple demographics)
Wow, you really are trying your best to polish a turd, I have to give you credit. You need to stop accepting the bull crap coming out of Fina's camp at face value. You still didn't answer the question. Even if going by your #'s, why did Fina nolle pros. a guy who took $100K from the state to go after a group of people who collectively took less than $30K in unreported gifts? Ali is still the big fish here no matter which way you cut it, yet Fina gave him a pass....I want to know WHY. Fina did NOTHING with the case for a year and a half. If the case was so great why didn't he bring charges himself? Instead he sat on the case for 18 months then as soon as Kane was about to take office he signs a nolle pros. deal with Ali....yeah, nothing shady going on here....please move along.
Another question, what happened to the $30K+ during the investigation that Fina et. al. couldn't account for? Did it just vanish? That's a lot of tax payer money to just go missing during an investigation.
Fina's handling of the Ali case is VERY similar to how he handled the Mondesire one, which was the case Kane supposedly leaked GJ info from in order to embarrass Fina for completely effing it up.
You continue to look past the FACT that the tapes Ali made for the OAG (which supposedly show the quid quo pro you claim above) were worthless without Ali's cooperation. Fina's sandbagging made that impossible by removing the leverage the OAG had to compel Ali to testify.
"You should pay a bit more attention. I've clearly articulated for Marbes that the legislators were persuaded to vote in favor of privatization, as well as change their votes and positions on a number of other measures as a direct result of the money they received."
Gee....that sounds like BRIBERY to me.....
So why were none of these Scoundrels convicted of Bribery? LMAO
Didn't the douchebag Seth Williams tout the incredible strength of this case?
Why was the only jail time involved a REDUCTION in jail time for a previous, unrelated conviction.
A nice little payoff to use to get some cooperation.....and allow Seth and the boys to grandstand before a bunch of Dupes, Dopes, and Sycophants (although, you - personally - might just qualify under multiple demographics)
He continues to avoid your very salient points.....Seth and Fina are some true scumbags....two peas in a pod. I weep for the citizens of Philly that these amoral clowns are in charge of upholding the law.
Some of them have already been convicted. Kind of disputes your point that it is not illegal.
Convicted? They didn't even go to trial, they plead out--with only a fine and probation, no jail time --probably just to save themselves the money of fighting it. The others are still awaiting their day in court. See bfj's posts above.
One or the other of us is confused about that. Since you are so sure, I would like a link to that to educate myself.
AND...NOONE was convicted of BRIBERY in this massive "bribery sting".....
The only Jail Time was a REDUCTION for a prvious conviction......which begs the question "Is it a conviction if the sentence is NEGATIVE Jail Time?????"
All to be able to pontificate to idiots, rubes and sycophants.....and a conflicted media (see Philly Inky).
Don't know whether to laugh or cry
What a bunch of dopes
Here is a link to the Grand Jury Presentment, which includes quotations from the tapes of Brown and Waters' meetings with the informant: http://www.phila.gov/districtattorney/pdfs/grand jury presentment on waters-brown.pdf
Fair enough. I believe the initial press reports reflected the understanding that the only votes the legislators were asked for were surrounding Voter ID. I don't believe it was until the presentment was released that the full extent of what the legislators were asked to do by the informant became known to the public.
That's great...too bad those tapes are WORTHLESS without Ali's testimony/cooperation...which dissolved the minute Fina signed a nolle pros. deal with Ali. You can thank Fina for that, not Kane. She was simply playing out the hand that fina dealt her before she even took office.
One more time, why did fina give the big fish a pass to go after some minnows?? Since he's all high and mighty, why didn't Seth Williams go after Ali? If Seth was that upset about a group of democrats taking less than $30K in unreported gifts surely he was outraged over the $100+K Ali stole from the state's elderly/kids right?? But nope, not a peep from him about Ali walking off into the sunset.
I notice you still haven't responded to bfj's posts repeatedly pointing out to you that these democrats weren't even charged with/plead guilty to bribery but only conflict of interest, etc...and the whole thing amounted to no jail time for any of the minnows that accepted a plea deal. Williams went after these minnows to save face after his public grandstanding against Kane for dropping the case.
He's a circle jerker........its just what they do.I notice you still haven't responded to bfj's posts repeatedly pointing out to you that these democrats [U said:
Make inane, inaccurate, straw man statements, outright lies - when necessary, irrelevant unsubstantiated tripe, obfuscations and diversions.........then move on
Asking him to do anything else would be like asking a fish to ride a bicycle.
I'm not entirely sure why you neglect to mention that although Fina brokered the nolle prosse agreement, Kane is the one who submitted it to the court and carried out the agreement nearly nine months after Fina left office. Additionally, the nolle prosse agreement carried with it clear stipulations that the charges would be dropped if and only if the informant carried out his end of the bargain - that is, testifying against the defendants. I'm not entirely sure how or why you continue to argue that the tapes would have been useless in court, considering that Ali would have been available to freely verify and authenticate them - or else he would break the nolle prosse agreement. Here is a link that verifies: http://articles.philly.com/2014-03-27/news/48599566_1_kane-operative-tyron-b-ali
Even more, even if what you say is true and that the only evidence against them (the tapes) was unusable in court, why in the world would the defendants accept any kind of plea agreement? The answer is that the tapes were perfectly fine to use in court because Ali was and is perfectly able to testify, lest he break the agreement that, once again, Kane chose to execute and submit to the court. It wasn't until Kane chose to drop the charges that the nolle prosse order - and the stipulations that the agreement only would take effect after Ali testified truthfully - took effect.
As an aside, your claim that the defendants (or can we call many of them convicts) weren't charged with bribery is plainly incorrect. They were all charged with bribery, as well as felony conflict of interest and other charges. I think you know as well as I do that defendants and prosecutors come to mutual agreements over guilty pleas on a routine basis, which might include a plea to the lesser charge in exchange for the greater charge being dropped. We can all see how it plays out in court when Rep. Brown is the defendant, charged with bribery, conflict of interest and related charges.
Wow, your posts sound exactly like you're a mouthpiece for the bastion of journalistic integrity known as Philly.com (aka Fina's bully pulpit).
Still avoiding the MAIN question in this whole ordeal....why did Fina cut a deal (dropping ALL, not some but ALL 2,088 charges) giving the big fish a TOTAL PASS to go after some minnows?? I guess you're not curious about this b/c you don't want to know the answer....the answer is: Fina is a corrupt scumbag.
Do you have a link/copy of the signed nolle pros. deal where it says that Ali still needs to cooperate after it's signed? Forgive me if I don't take Philly.com (aka Fina's cheerleaders) at their word. The only thing the article mentions regarding this is the following: "The noncooperation agreement, reviewed by The Inquirer, says that all charges against Ali were to be dropped - but only after he had testified, and testified truthfully."
Also, in the very article you linked it says that Kane wanted nothing to do with executing the deal that FINA signed however she was forced to do so when Ali's lawyer filed a motion to compel:
"At the news conference, Kane said Ali had "no accountability to the prosecution, either. That CI, he had no credibility after all his charges were dumped. He could have stood on the stand and said, 'I don't remember a thing.' "
"Kane's office dropped the fraud charges late last year in sealed motions in Dauphin County Court in Harrisburg, after she had decided that the sting was deeply flawed and that any prosecution would fail. The withdrawal ended her office's dealings with Ali.
"The decision to drop all charges against the CI rests squarely on Mr. Fina's shoulders," Kane said in a statement Tuesday.
"Any attempt by Mr. Fina to distance himself from the 'deal of the century' is acknowledgment of his poor decision-making," she said.
Fina declined to comment. (really?? no comment defending your action of dropping THOUSANDS (2,088 to be exact) of charges against a guy who violated the state to the tune of $400+K?? big surprise...)
Ali's lawyer, Robert J. Levant, also declined to comment. (big surprise)
In her statement, Kane's office said she initially had "no intention" of carrying out the agreement with Ali, but did so in late 2013 after Levant went to court to force her to comply.
Asked about the case, Gilbert J. Scutti, the former head of the criminal division of the U.S. Attorney's Office in Philadelphia, said that regardless of when the charges were dropped, he believed the generous deal with Ali would have prevented a successful prosecution.
"In my view, the case was lost the moment that the deal was cut," he said.
=============================================================================================
So now you're trying to rationalize Williams over charging the minnows. Of course he overcharged them with bribery, etc. (which is the MO for most prosecutors) because he knew he was going to get most of them to plea down anyway. None of your spin will change the FACT that the folks who did plead guilty, didn't plead guilty for bribery.
You continue to bring up "big fish" and "little minnows". In my eyes, I take public corruption - quite literally, legislators sworn to uphold the public trust selling their votes for cash - to be much, much more serious than misuse of state grant money. To me, public officials selling their votes under the table to the highest bidder - even when they admit that doing so would be against the wishes of their constituents - are the "big fish". The public interest, to me, is more important than pure dollar figures.
Edit: And, for what it's worth, I wasn't able to find a copy of the signed nolle prosse agreement, but I haven't seen anything disputing the Inquirer's account. You seem to have a convenient habit of simply writing off any evidence - no matter how strong or irrefutable - that doesn't conform to your preconceived view as "lies" or "spin". It must be convenient when the only evidence a truth-seeker will accept is evidence that he agrees with. I would think a truth-seeker would strive to deal in accuracy, regardless of whether he agrees or disagrees with its conclusion.
Last edited:
Haaah!!! So, in other words you have no way to rationalize Fina dropping ALL, not some mind you, but ALL charges against Ali to go after a group of people that collectively took a fraction of what Ali took from the state. There's no logical explanation for that other than Fina wanted to help out a friend or wanted to sandbag the case so he could try and smear Kane b/c he knew when she took office his porn ring, foot-dragging on the JS investigation, and God knows what else would be discovered. Over $100,000 of fraud carries 9 to 16 months of jail time. Thats nothing to sneeze at. Ali got ZERO jail time.
Uhhh...I'm not writing off evidence, I'm asking FOR evidence of what you're claiming. Show me the proof that the nolle pros. agreement stated Ali still had to cooperate (if this document says what Philly.com claims it says why didn't they provide a link??) for the charges to get dropped. All you've been able to provide is a website newspaper claiming to have seen it and commenting on it and that's FAR from irrefutable anything, let alone evidence. Some scumbag newspaper out of Philly's word isn't good enough for me.
Fina is a corrupt scumbag porndog. I'll take Kane's word over his or Philly.com any day.
Similar threads
