What’s interesting in the news today?
1. At least 14 people have died in a mudslide in Washington state. Many more are still missing.
_______________________________________
2. The failed results of this administration’s “smart” diplomacy. Failed state, failed diplomacy. We should never have gotten involved.
And as the author notes later, the Obama admin relied on the same type of groups for security in Benghazi, and in Egypt as well.
__________________________________________
3. Democrats are now using the tactic of disparaging military service to help win elections. Rather cowardly, not to mention ungrateful of them, if you ask me.
___________________________________________
4. Remember the old days when college campuses were the place to engage in debate, and all points of view were heard and considered, that whole free exchange of ideas thing?
Yeah, good times….. Nowadays you might get assaulted by a professor for not towing the liberal line.
The irony is strong with this one….
__________________________________________
5. The DoJ is trying to convince the Supreme Court that preventing an embryo in the womb from implanting is not abortion.
__________________________________________
6. This one is just disgusting. Talk about inhumane.
_________________________________
Kane alleges that these prosecutors, out of revenge, left her holding a damaged political-corruption case that she was forced to drop, and that they then leaked the story to the press in order to besmirch her reputation. But I have looked into the facts, and they conclusively disprove this charge. These prosecutors didn’t leak this story, and I believe that not just because they told me; I believe it because the reporters themselves have said so. Kane should know that too, because those reporters have explicitly advised her office that these prosecutors were not the source of the story.
And there’s another problem with this theory: The case files were not in her office when Kane became attorney general. I have been told that before she took office, the files had been given to federal authorities, and they have stated that they never made a conclusion as to the merits of the case. No one left her with a potentially embarrassing decision to make; all she had to do was leave the investigation in the hands of federal authorities. But she didn’t do that. Instead, she asked for the files back. And then, after going out of her way to reclaim the investigation, she shut it down.
For whatever reasons, Kane has been largely silent about this important fact. She has repeatedly claimed that it was federal prosecutors who ended the investigation, and that they did so because they concluded that it was without merit. I believe that to be untrue.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20140323_Kane_s_account_of_case_doesn_t_add_up.html#aUyPTCkdv8mZYgWj.99
Kane alleges that these prosecutors, out of revenge, left her holding a damaged political-corruption case that she was forced to drop, and that they then leaked the story to the press in order to besmirch her reputation. But I have looked into the facts, and they conclusively disprove this charge. These prosecutors didn’t leak this story, and I believe that not just because they told me; I believe it because the reporters themselves have said so. Kane should know that too, because those reporters have explicitly advised her office that these prosecutors were not the source of the story.
And there’s another problem with this theory: The case files were not in her office when Kane became attorney general. I have been told that before she took office, the files had been given to federal authorities, and they have stated that they never made a conclusion as to the merits of the case. No one left her with a potentially embarrassing decision to make; all she had to do was leave the investigation in the hands of federal authorities. But she didn’t do that. Instead, she asked for the files back. And then, after going out of her way to reclaim the investigation, she shut it down.
For whatever reasons, Kane has been largely silent about this important fact. She has repeatedly claimed that it was federal prosecutors who ended the investigation, and that they did so because they concluded that it was without merit. I believe that to be untrue.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20140323_Kane_s_account_of_case_doesn_t_add_up.html#aUyPTCkdv8mZYgWj.99
Kane alleges that these prosecutors, out of revenge, left her holding a damaged political-corruption case that she was forced to drop, and that they then leaked the story to the press in order to besmirch her reputation. But I have looked into the facts, and they conclusively disprove this charge. These prosecutors didn’t leak this story, and I believe that not just because they told me; I believe it because the reporters themselves have said so. Kane should know that too, because those reporters have explicitly advised her office that these prosecutors were not the source of the story.
And there’s another problem with this theory: The case files were not in her office when Kane became attorney general. I have been told that before she took office, the files had been given to federal authorities, and they have stated that they never made a conclusion as to the merits of the case. No one left her with a potentially embarrassing decision to make; all she had to do was leave the investigation in the hands of federal authorities. But she didn’t do that. Instead, she asked for the files back. And then, after going out of her way to reclaim the investigation, she shut it down.
For whatever reasons, Kane has been largely silent about this important fact. She has repeatedly claimed that it was federal prosecutors who ended the investigation, and that they did so because they concluded that it was without merit. I believe that to be untrue.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20140323_Kane_s_account_of_case_doesn_t_add_up.html#aUyPTCkdv8mZYgWj.99
Kane alleges that these prosecutors, out of revenge, left her holding a damaged political-corruption case that she was forced to drop, and that they then leaked the story to the press in order to besmirch her reputation. But I have looked into the facts, and they conclusively disprove this charge. These prosecutors didn’t leak this story, and I believe that not just because they told me; I believe it because the reporters themselves have said so. Kane should know that too, because those reporters have explicitly advised her office that these prosecutors were not the source of the story.
And there’s another problem with this theory: The case files were not in her office when Kane became attorney general. I have been told that before she took office, the files had been given to federal authorities, and they have stated that they never made a conclusion as to the merits of the case. No one left her with a potentially embarrassing decision to make; all she had to do was leave the investigation in the hands of federal authorities. But she didn’t do that. Instead, she asked for the files back. And then, after going out of her way to reclaim the investigation, she shut it down.
For whatever reasons, Kane has been largely silent about this important fact. She has repeatedly claimed that it was federal prosecutors who ended the investigation, and that they did so because they concluded that it was without merit. I believe that to be untrue.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20140323_Kane_s_account_of_case_doesn_t_add_up.html#aUyPTCkdv8mZYgWj.99
also have to address another conspiracy theory advanced by the attorney general. She says these career prosecutors are just out to get her. She says they were mad at her because she criticized their work on another high-profile case: the investigation of Jerry Sandusky, a former coach at my alma mater, Pennsylvania State University.
Kane alleges that these prosecutors, out of revenge, left her holding a damaged political-corruption case that she was forced to drop, and that they then leaked the story to the press in order to besmirch her reputation. But I have looked into the facts, and they conclusively disprove this charge. These prosecutors didn’t leak this story, and I believe that not just because they told me; I believe it because the reporters themselves have said so. Kane should know that too, because those reporters have explicitly advised her office that these prosecutors were not the source of the story.
And there’s another problem with this theory: The case files were not in her office when Kane became attorney general. I have been told that before she took office, the files had been given to federal authorities, and they have stated that they never made a conclusion as to the merits of the case. No one left her with a potentially embarrassing decision to make; all she had to do was leave the investigation in the hands of federal authorities. But she didn’t do that. Instead, she asked for the files back. And then, after going out of her way to reclaim the investigation, she shut it down.
For whatever reasons, Kane has been largely silent about this important fact. She has repeatedly claimed that it was federal prosecutors who ended the investigation, and that they did so because they concluded that it was without merit. I believe that to be untrue.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20140323_Kane_s_account_of_case_doesn_t_add_up.html#aUyPTCkdv8mZYgWj.99
I also have to address another conspiracy theory advanced by the attorney general. She says these career prosecutors are just out to get her. She says they were mad at her because she criticized their work on another high-profile case: the investigation of Jerry Sandusky, a former coach at my alma mater, Pennsylvania State University.
Kane alleges that these prosecutors, out of revenge, left her holding a damaged political-corruption case that she was forced to drop, and that they then leaked the story to the press in order to besmirch her reputation. But I have looked into the facts, and they conclusively disprove this charge. These prosecutors didn’t leak this story, and I believe that not just because they told me; I believe it because the reporters themselves have said so. Kane should know that too, because those reporters have explicitly advised her office that these prosecutors were not the source of the story.
And there’s another problem with this theory: The case files were not in her office when Kane became attorney general. I have been told that before she took office, the files had been given to federal authorities, and they have stated that they never made a conclusion as to the merits of the case. No one left her with a potentially embarrassing decision to make; all she had to do was leave the investigation in the hands of federal authorities. But she didn’t do that. Instead, she asked for the files back. And then, after going out of her way to reclaim the investigation, she shut it down.
For whatever reasons, Kane has been largely silent about this important fact. She has repeatedly claimed that it was federal prosecutors who ended the investigation, and that they did so because they concluded that it was without merit. I believe that to be untrue.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20140323_Kane_s_account_of_case_doesn_t_add_up.html#aUyPTCkdv8mZYgWj.99
But I’m familiar with the newspaper reports, and with the attorney general’s extensive comments disparaging her own case. Her central complaint, as I understand it, is that she couldn’t possibly prosecute, no matter how obvious the corruption, because the witness who recorded the payoffs was offered immunity for serious criminal charges he himself was facing.
In other words, she apparently has electronic recordings of numerous elected officials taking money while promising their votes – and she has to let them off scot-free because she would be incapable of convincing a jury of their guilt?
Prosecutors around the country – local, state, and federal – regularly and successfully bring cases based on the testimony of some very bad men, sometimes even men who have been granted complete immunity after committing multiple murders. But the attorney general of Pennsylvania drops a case supported by hundreds of hours of devastating tapes because the main witness got a deal on a bunch of government fraud charges.
As a district attorney, I think this might be the most disturbing aspect of the whole sordid spectacle. You don’t have to be a prosecutor to know this is how it’s done. The way to take down organized crime or major drug distribution – or political corruption – is to get someone on the inside, someone who has been part of the enterprise, to give evidence in exchange for favorable treatment. It happens all the time, in prosecutors’ offices everywhere – including in Kane’s own.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20140323_Kane_s_account_of_case_doesn_t_add_up.html#7qVaLy6LQYZc98V1.99
But I’m familiar with the newspaper reports, and with the attorney general’s extensive comments disparaging her own case. Her central complaint, as I understand it, is that she couldn’t possibly prosecute, no matter how obvious the corruption, because the witness who recorded the payoffs was offered immunity for serious criminal charges he himself was facing.
In other words, she apparently has electronic recordings of numerous elected officials taking money while promising their votes – and she has to let them off scot-free because she would be incapable of convincing a jury of their guilt?
Prosecutors around the country – local, state, and federal – regularly and successfully bring cases based on the testimony of some very bad men, sometimes even men who have been granted complete immunity after committing multiple murders. But the attorney general of Pennsylvania drops a case supported by hundreds of hours of devastating tapes because the main witness got a deal on a bunch of government fraud charges.
As a district attorney, I think this might be the most disturbing aspect of the whole sordid spectacle. You don’t have to be a prosecutor to know this is how it’s done. The way to take down organized crime or major drug distribution – or political corruption – is to get someone on the inside, someone who has been part of the enterprise, to give evidence in exchange for favorable treatment. It happens all the time, in prosecutors’ offices everywhere – including in Kane’s own.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20140323_Kane_s_account_of_case_doesn_t_add_up.html#7qVaLy6LQYZc98V1.99
But I’m familiar with the newspaper reports, and with the attorney general’s extensive comments disparaging her own case. Her central complaint, as I understand it, is that she couldn’t possibly prosecute, no matter how obvious the corruption, because the witness who recorded the payoffs was offered immunity for serious criminal charges he himself was facing.
In other words, she apparently has electronic recordings of numerous elected officials taking money while promising their votes – and she has to let them off scot-free because she would be incapable of convincing a jury of their guilt?
Prosecutors around the country – local, state, and federal – regularly and successfully bring cases based on the testimony of some very bad men, sometimes even men who have been granted complete immunity after committing multiple murders. But the attorney general of Pennsylvania drops a case supported by hundreds of hours of devastating tapes because the main witness got a deal on a bunch of government fraud charges.
As a district attorney, I think this might be the most disturbing aspect of the whole sordid spectacle. You don’t have to be a prosecutor to know this is how it’s done. The way to take down organized crime or major drug distribution – or political corruption – is to get someone on the inside, someone who has been part of the enterprise, to give evidence in exchange for favorable treatment. It happens all the time, in prosecutors’ offices everywhere – including in Kane’s own.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20140323_Kane_s_account_of_case_doesn_t_add_up.html#7qVaLy6LQYZc98V1.99
But I’m familiar with the newspaper reports, and with the attorney general’s extensive comments disparaging her own case. Her central complaint, as I understand it, is that she couldn’t possibly prosecute, no matter how obvious the corruption, because the witness who recorded the payoffs was offered immunity for serious criminal charges he himself was facing.
In other words, she apparently has electronic recordings of numerous elected officials taking money while promising their votes – and she has to let them off scot-free because she would be incapable of convincing a jury of their guilt?
Prosecutors around the country – local, state, and federal – regularly and successfully bring cases based on the testimony of some very bad men, sometimes even men who have been granted complete immunity after committing multiple murders. But the attorney general of Pennsylvania drops a case supported by hundreds of hours of devastating tapes because the main witness got a deal on a bunch of government fraud charges.
As a district attorney, I think this might be the most disturbing aspect of the whole sordid spectacle. You don’t have to be a prosecutor to know this is how it’s done. The way to take down organized crime or major drug distribution – or political corruption – is to get someone on the inside, someone who has been part of the enterprise, to give evidence in exchange for favorable treatment. It happens all the time, in prosecutors’ offices everywhere – including in Kane’s own.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20140323_Kane_s_account_of_case_doesn_t_add_up.html#7qVaLy6LQYZc98V1.99
Wandering Views 