DN Editorial: Kane's conundrum

WHATEVER THE situation, it seems we can always count on Attorney General Kathleen Kane to make the wrong decision.

The latest involves an investigation, led by the Montgomery County district attorney, into allegations that Kane leaked secret grand jury information about an investigation to newspaper reporters, then lied about it.

If indicted, she could face charges of perjury, false swearing, official oppression and obstruction of justice.

Kane said this week that if indicted, she has no intention of stepping down from her job, to which she was elected in 2012.

If indicted, Kane deserves the presumption of innocence. It will be up to a judge and jury to decide the case. But should she continue in her job as chief law enforcement officer in Pennsylvania?

The simple answer is "No."

Any official action she takes could be tainted by the charges she might face. The perception - in an office already known for playing politics - could be ruinous.

If there is an allegation of misconduct against a police officer, he or she is suspended until the outcome of an investigation - under the theory that you can't have someone under suspicion of breaking the law enforcing the law on the street.

What's true of a lowly patrolman is true of the state's chief law enforcement officer.

The root of Kane's problems date to her earliest days in the office, when she inherited a case involving a sting operation that netted evidence of bribe taking by a half-dozen Philadelphia politicians, all of them Democrats. Kane is a Democrat, too.

She not only deep-sixed the case, but when the Inquirer revealed her actions, she publicly trashed the case and the prosecutors who led the investigation, implying that it was racially motivated.

In fact, her comments could have been used by any defense attorney to defend his client if another prosecutor took up the challenge of pursuing the case.

This did not deter Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams, who prosecuted the six pols and got guilty pleas from each. Williams, who is black, said he did not think the case was racially motivated; but by the color-blind trait called greed.

Kane has been squirming about that case and its outcome ever since. It has gotten to the stage, office insiders tell reporters, where the attorney general only deals with a select few loyalists and views everyone else with suspicion. Paranoia rules.

Kane believes a cabal of white male Republicans are behind her troubles, apparently unaware that she brought them on herself by decisions she made and actions taken early in her first term.

And, it's likely to be her last. When she was elected, as a little-known prosecutor from Scranton, Kane was hailed as the next big thing in the Democratic Party. Those heady days are long gone.

Some have called for her to resign as attorney general as a sign that she realizes the mistakes she has made. That is unlikely to happen.

But, if the Montgomery County investigation yields charges again her, she should step aside while we let justice take its course.