Attorney general should explain her actions to the public on the record

Recently, my name has been in a number of newspapers, including The Inquirer, as a result of an investigation that I supervised while I was a chief deputy attorney general for the commonwealth, working under then-Attorney General Tom Corbett and later, Bill Ryan and Linda Kelly. That long-term investigation looked into possible wrongdoing by a variety of elected officials in this state. I was not the "leak" for this story and did not encourage anyone else to leak it.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane ended that corruption investigation without charging any of the public officials involved, and she has in the past week made critical and negative assertions about my colleagues and me and the work that we performed in the investigation. An extensive Sunday Inquirer article raised questions about Kane's assertions. When offered the opportunity on Thursday to respond in person directly to questions posed by Inquirer staff, Kane arrived at The Inquirer office accompanied by an attorney - her "personal attorney," she says - and, according to the attorney, she declined to speak, at his direction, about the case, her decisions, or her assertions about my colleagues and me and our work.

I have been a lawyer for 22 years, and a public servant for almost all of that time. I have not retained an attorney to advise me to speak, or to remain silent. I am an attorney. My colleagues and I conducted our investigation honestly, ably, and with integrity. I am willing to sit down at the same table with Kane, across from Inquirer reporters and other members of the media, where we can each respond to any questions that are posed about the investigation. I have no objection to the televising of this conversation.

I invite the attorney general to the table. I invite her to bring her personal lawyer, or to bring with her any of the dozens of lawyers she directs at the Office of the Attorney General. She may consult with them at any time. I would only ask that at some point Kane herself articulate in her own words the reasons she believes she can condemn and drop an investigation, and then fail to answer questions about those actions. She should at least respond to reporters' questions, if not to mine.

Surely, an elected official should be able to and be required to speak to the citizens of this commonwealth and explain how and why she made a decision not to pursue possible official corruption, and instead chose to criticize those who sought to bring possible crimes to light, and then remain silent when called to answer.

I await the attorney general's response to my invitation to speak to the citizens of this state - unless of course she remains silent at her lawyer's direction.