Feb
10
2016

Democrats inexplicably spurn Republican lifeline in Pennsylvania.

Awwww, shucks.

An effort by Senate Republicans to oust embattled Attorney General Kathleen Kane [DEMOCRAT] through a little-used provision of the state Constitution fell short this afternoon, with supporters of removal winning a majority of senators but not the two-thirds needed.

[snip]

Ms. Kane, who has been charged with perjury and other crimes, faces a second legislative initiative on the question of removing her from office. As the Senate debated this afternoon, the House by a vote of 170-12 adopted a resolution authorizing a committee to investigate her conduct and determine if she “is liable to impeachment.”

Oh, man, it’s a real shame that we can’t immediately have this woman removed from office before the April 26th primary in Pennsylvania. Nope. Can’t do it, more’s the pity. Guess we’re going to have to wait until the middle of election season before the actual impeachment. Golly gee, isn’t that just awful?

Moe Lane

PS: Sarcasm?  Moi?

10 Comments

  • Luke says:

    The left and their silly tribalism. It’s gonna be the death of them.

  • YeaVerily says:

    ‘Circling the Wagons’ and ‘Manifest Destiny’ are common bedfellows in our history, do not lose sight of that. Ever.

  • Finrod says:

    It will amuse me tremendously if this whole situation helps turn PA red in the Presidential election.

    • nicklevi86 says:

      That particular windmill’s been spinning or a while.
      .
      Although{If I may mix folk legends} if anyone’s wooden shoe jams the Dem machine’s gears, it would be her’s.

  • DemosthenesVW says:

    Broadly speaking, there are two ways to approach a choice: choosing the right, and choosing what is in your own interests. Sometimes, they align; sometimes, they don’t.
    .
    What we have here is a situation where a bunch of PA state senators tried to do the right thing by removing a constitutionally disqualified officeholder, even though it would have been in their interest to leave the matter alone and let her scandal continue to benefit their party. They were stopped from doing so by a smaller group of senators, presumably on the very narrow view that (as Luke said) she’s one of the tribe, and it is in their interest to protect her.
    .
    So be it. All they did was to kick the situation down the road, to a point where another Republican attempt at removing Ms. Kane will be both right and profitable. Although it would probably be better for the whole state if the Democrats had just gone along with the removal, it’s always nice when your opponents give you a chance to advance your principles and your interests simultaneously.

    • acat says:

      That’s adjacent to the thoughts I’m having .. *why* would the Dems reject this offer to clean *their own house*?
      .
      Of course, I’m assuming that – in her position – Ms. Kane could have come across information that would be of interest to .. someone.
      .
      Putting this in your terms, the Dems’ public obligations may be trumped by their private needs..
      .
      Mew

  • 1_rick says:

    6? Did you forget about Gilmore? (It’s OK, so has everyone else.)

RSS feed for comments on this post.



Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com