I do not allege that Kane has been found guilty. I do allege that she WILL be found guilty, because the evidence is so strong. No one defends Kane. It is laughable that you guys continue to do so. It is ridiculous and selective outrage that you ignore the evidence against Kane while getting so worked up over Eakin (who is not even charged with any crime).
Kane indicted - charges filed
- Thread starter WishfulLion
- Start date
I do not allege that Kane has been found guilty. I do allege that she WILL be found guilty, because the evidence is so strong. No one defends Kane. It is laughable that you guys continue to do so. It is ridiculous and selective outrage that you ignore the evidence against Kane while getting so worked up over Eakin (who is not even charged with any crime).
Yes he did. Eakin sent emails to folks at the OAG, to their OAG email addresses. This would put the emails on OAG servers, which is how Kane got her hands on the emails in the first place genius.
Eakin has violated ethics and conflict of interest policies. He cannot credibly adjudicate. End of story on him.
Kane is getting railroaded. She may be guilty. If so, then good riddance.
Kane is getting railroaded. She may be guilty. If so, then good riddance.
No, here is what's to be seen. Eakin sent mildly pornographic emails from his home account. He sent e-mails that some people could find offensive and others may consider simple humor. He should not have done so, simply because it opens up (as Demlion) would say - the loss of APPEARANCE of IMPARTIALITY.
But that's what's been done. Not sent from work. You're simply a liar when you allege otherwise. I note that you never posted a link that shows what you allege is correct. Liar.
I see no conviction that Eakin has violated ethics. So far, I only see evidence that he's been cleared. That may change. I find it amusing that you seem to know nothing about the evidence against Kane. Interesting.
Perhaps some of us see only what we want to see. Kane getting railroaded....that's a good one.
Done with this thread. Waste of a nice Sunday. Peace out Wishful.
Yes you did. You keep saying "Kane is a criminal" if that's not assuming someone's been found guilty then I don't know what is. Now you're being even more dishonest by trying to claim you never alleged Kane was guilty. Truly astonishing...smh
You're a complete joke. Your post didnt address single point I brought up (especially the part at the bottom where I explained why its NOT selective outrage re: Kane and Eakin), because you dont have anything to say to support your argument.
Go ahead and counter my points, I'll be waiting.
Eakin's hidden contacts aren't going to be able to cover up for him any longer. For that, I am sad.
Nothing racist. Just hollering at my boy.
Eakin should resign if for no other reason than engaging in behavior unbecoming of a Supreme. The appearance is awful and unacceptable period. Fina and the rest of the scumbags should be fired or perhaps worse depending on what can be proven. I am not a fan at all of Kane being removed from office, as she was elected and has yet to face her accusers. The voters will rightfully remove her because she has made a mockery of the office of the AG. The tit for tat (sorry couldn't help myself) death by 1000 cuts pissing contest between Kane and her adversaries has gone well beyond ridiculous. It is a gift from Kane that so much is being exposed blow by blow (sorry again 
) as her ship sinks, but anyone who thinks any of that that would have gone anywhere if the "old boys" had backed off of her is dreaming. If she ends up helping PSU with her last acts it will be happenstance. I will take it, but I want more than revenge.
) as her ship sinks, but anyone who thinks any of that that would have gone anywhere if the "old boys" had backed off of her is dreaming. If she ends up helping PSU with her last acts it will be happenstance. I will take it, but I want more than revenge.This is almost exactly right, and is exactly what I've said a thousand times. There were numerous recipients on the e-mails that Eakin received and sent. One of those addresses was an OAG address for a guy by the name of Baxter. That's how Kane got the e-mails.
Some further details include: There is actually no evidence that Eakin opened the e-mails he received. The e-mails Eakin received are more offensive than the ones he sent.
Simply link the article that shows that Eakin used his work computer, or his work account, or accessed his private e-mail account from work and you'll be correct.
Eakin should resign if for no other reason than engaging in behavior unbecoming of a Supreme. The appearance is awful and unacceptable period. Fina and the rest of the scumbags should be fired or perhaps worse depending on what can be proven. I am not a fan at all of Kane being removed from office, as she was elected and has yet to face her accusers. The voters will rightfully remove her because she has made a mockery of the office of the AG. The tit for tat (sorry couldn't help myself) death by 1000 cuts pissing contest between Kane and her adversaries has gone well beyond ridiculous. It is a gift from Kane that so much is being exposed blow by blow (sorry again
Are you a fan of Kane and Eakin getting together and resigning together? As you say, neither has faced their accuser.
Eakin already admitted what he did. Apology accepted pal but you still gotta go!
Seriously you're all over the map here. If you agree with my post then why did you disagree with Chris92's post of "Sending/Receiving porn on the commonwealth's equipment and/or network is a big deal from an IT security stand point."
That's exactly what Eakin did by sending porn emails to OAG email addresses/server.
You've also now completely backtracked on your numerous statements that "Kane is a criminal".
Enough with the strawman, no one is saying Eakin is a criminal or needs to be charged because of his actions. All we're saying is that due to his emails from a fake name private account to high level state prosecutors AND his failure to recuse himself from a vote when he had a clear cut COI, he no longer has the honor to call himself a judge. It's conduct unbecoming of a judge.
Are you seriously stating Eakin didn't email state employees at their work email addresses? Have you read the articles? I remember when you were you simply claiming the emails were found because they were forwarded. Before that you said his account was hacked. Have you read the articles?
The FACT is that her license to practice is suspended. She can litigate that, but why should she be treated differently than any other lawyer. If your license is suspended you can't practice. Period. Lawyers don't get to pick and choose if the suspension is valid. There is a process for that but in the meantime she should be on administrative leave at the very least.
It is as if more than one person is posting under that name.
Elected officials do not get placed on administrative leave.
We need more emphasis on Civics in our schools. That is a certainty.
It is also a fact that the vote to suspend her license was corrupted due to one of the voters failure to recuse himself due to MASSIVE conflict of interest (Eakin).
Eakin tries to sandbag the person who is exposing his emails and you think this is no big deal?? That it didn't corrupt the process?? Who knows if any of the other SCJ had some skin in the game just as Eakin did?
Because of this, using Kane's license suspension to prop up/support your argument is baseless.
When her license is suspended by folks who dont have a vested interest in seeing it suspended, let me know.
This post is in response to Demlion's post this morning. It's important to get the subject line there so everyone can see it each time they view the board.
So the PA Supreme Court judges can nullify an election by suspending the law license of any AG the don't like - for example an AG who stumbles into evidence of their wrongdoing.
Did you see where those same judges who suspended Kane's license are maneuvering to protect Eakin?
http://mobile.philly.com/beta?wss=/philly/news&id=360650191&akljdfaf
Pee-yew.
Last edited:
I did not state that his account was hacked, although I do recall earlier that for whatever reason, some posters were acting like I was saying that. I think they did not understand how the e-mails came into Kane's possession.
I am stating that Eakin used his personal account to receive and send these e-mails. I am also stating that a guy by the name of Baxter with an OAG account was included on e-mails that Eakin sent, received, and/or forwarded. From Baxter's OAG account, Kane got the e-mails.
Eakin did NOT use his OAG account, or any other government account to send these e-mails. I truly don't know what's so hard about that.
Nittany Ned, there is no evidence, or allegation, that he did so. You would think that had he done so, that allegation would have been made.
If everything he's done is on the up and up, why the need to rig the system?
If someone accuses you of something, instead of doing everything you can to make it go away and silence your accuser, why not just stand up and face the accusation and defend yourself. You know, if everything is "all good", there shouldn't be any problems, right?
Let's all remember that this isn't just about porn emails. It's been said that the porn stuff is merely just the tip of a very large iceberg.
I do not. And I agree that he (or someone on his side) is trying to rig the disciplinary board. That cannot be allowed.
But it is much more reasonable that he's trying to stack the disciplinary board because he's worried about what's already been demonstrated (that he sent/received pornographic material from his private e-mail account), rather than to believe that an allegation that no one has made is true.
You CAN be against Eakin without abandoning logic and facts.
Yes, but in this case, the detection method is strong. It is like space aliens. The absence of evidence that they exist has led many rational people to believe that "Aliens do not exist. They're a figment of George Nori listeners. Only idiots believe in aliens."
I think we are on pretty safe ground when we say that IF evidence existed that Eakin was accessing his private account from work, we would already have it. You COULD make the point that such evidence is no longer available, so we'll never be able to know if he did it.
Oh come on now. Everyone knows if you want to contact a friend on personal matters you send emails to their work addresses when they aren't there.
So, you are saying that because Baxter was copied on an OAG account, it follows that Eakin would log on to his personal e-mail account FROM WORK. Why does that follow? Are you saying that it doesn't make sense that he sent an e-mail from his house at 9pm (for example) to Baxter's OAG account simply because he knew that Baxter couldn't reply at 9pm?
That could make sense if these were e-mails that needed urgent replies. But if I recall correctly, they were not e-mails of that type. They were mostly e-mails about non-work related activities. And remember, only one e-mail that Eakin SENT (as opposed to received) was considered even mildly pornographic (it featured a topless woman and some joke that I can't remember).
What he did was send possibly virus infected porn to OAG email servers. If he did it during working hours it's even worse.
You only seem willing to defend his emails but the emails are the least of Eakins concerns.
The 2 bigger issues, which you gleefully continue to not address, are Eakin showing a lack of ethics by not recusing himself from a vote where he had a conflict of interest and trying to manipulate the review of his conduct/emails by placing a friend of his on the judicial tribunal. Just like the other undisclosed conflict of interest, this latest gaffe wasn't disclosed to the public until the media called them out on it. This shows a complete lack of ethics, morals, and integrity.
When you add all three issues together you get conduct unbecoming of a judge. Whatever Kane, Clinton or any other person did or didn't do in their lives won't change the above issues with Eakin.
You know, I'm not really defending his e-mails too strongly. I simply explain exactly what they are, and are not, to the best of my ability.
I have already addressed the issue of placing an extra republican on the JCB, above. Unless you are insane, you will find my comments satisfactory: "And I agree that he (or someone on his side) is trying to rig the disciplinary board. That cannot be allowed."
I don't address the recusal issue because I'm not sure what my position is on that. I don't know the timing, and I'm not sure I agree that he should recuse himself. My belief is that Kane charges came first, then Kane retaliated. But again, I'm not sure, so I hold my fire.
