On August 6th, when the Attorney General was charged on eight counts, it was revealed that her driver Patrick Reese was also charged with criminal contempt.
Reese was allegedly looking into grand jury and employee emails for Kane. He plead not guilty on August 11th.
Nevertheless, two weeks later he is still working despite the fact that office policy dictates that non-elected employees must be suspended without pay if they’re charged with a work related crime.
According to Matt Gelb of the Inquirer, though, the AG is still reviewing what to do with Reese.
Kane’s spokesman Chuck Ardo told Gelb that the issue is “under review” and will be decided soon.
Ardo also disclosed that the Attorney General’s controversial Chief of Staff Jonathan Duecker is in charge of the review. When asked by Gelb why a review would be necessary in the first place Ardo seemed flummoxed.
“I can’t answer,” Ardo said. “I’m not sure what they’re looking at.”
UPDATE: Brad Bumsted is reporting that Kane will not suspend Reese.
“It has been determined his alleged violation did not rise to the level of suspension and that the office policy never envisioned this kind of charge,” Ardo told Bumsted.
Loading ...
27 Responses
Catty. Correct. But the facts never stand in the way of Fina & Co.
Let’s try to keep up. Reese isn’t charged with a felony. He is charged with misdemeanor contempt of court. That being the case, the charge may very well not rise to the level of suspension.
Denny, Let’s not forget the interim AG was Linda Kelly who operated in a fine and respectable manner. If its not the republican card, its the porn card, if not porn, then it must be because she is a woman. When can it just be that she is incapable of being in office.
I love the pseudo-persecution complex of some overhormoned females who see nonexistent prejudice to women holding high office in Pennsylvania. Does the name, “Catherine Baker Knoll” ring a bell? Kathleen Kane’s troubles have nothing to do with her gender and everything to do with her petty vindictiveness and general incompetence.
Outrageous.
It’s unbelievable that both of these guys still have their jobs let alone Kane herself. These were not crimes committed outside their employment but carried out while still employed there. Ms. Kane thought nothing about firing employees for looking at porn which may not be a crime. I’ll say it is. Something in which some disciplinary action must be taken but firing) but now it’s necessary to review policies when it comes to Reese and Peiffer who from the grand jury report admitted to committing these crimes. SpongeBob is right on the money on this one.
Chicken Little (formerly SpongeBob)-
I didn’t say it was okay that he wasn’t suspended. I just said that maybe he shouldn’t be suspended until the preliminary hearing.
It’s not like the grand jury process is remotely fair.
OK. Now that you know it’s a policy that’s been in effect for multiple AG’s and was reaffirmed by Kane (all AG’s are required to review and reaffirm policies). So tell me shill boy. Why is it a ok for this AG who affirmed this policy to ignore it? When none in the past have made a single exception?
SpongeBob-
“Name me a single time when an AG employee was charged with a felony was not suspended without pay.”
Answer: August 2015, a driver named Patrick Reese
This was the empirical evidence to which I was referring in my comment. Do try to keep up. 🙂
It’s policy. And I agree Peifer should not get a free pass but the justice system often allows deals to be made. Also empirical evidence does not show otherwise. Name me a single time when an AG employee was charged with a felony was not suspended without pay.
SpongeBob
“No exceptions”. Empirical evidence suggests otherwise.
Is it a “policy” or a “rule”?
I really don’t care about what happens to the driver.
Didn’t Peifer admit to felony? Is he suspended? Does immunity from prosecution protect you from losing pay?
The rule is simple, if you are CHARGED with a felony you are suspended without pay. No exceptions. No JD has decided that after extensive review that the original intent of the policy did not take the current situation into account? I think he might be right. I don’t think the policy when drafted was done so with the mindset that the Attorney General would be directing a subordinate to commit said felony. Either way the policy is what it is. It’s like that across the commonwealth. Why not here?
SpongeBob-
You were the poster prior to Larry.
I don’t know if the “rule” requires a preliminary hearing first, before being relieved. The guy’s a driver. He can be replaced by Uber.
Why is my name always on your mind David? How about commenting on the fact that Reese is charged with a felony and policy is felony = gone. The guys partner in crime is giving up the goods. You have to support the suspension without pay for Reese.
Larry-
As well established as the torrid affair between you and SpongeBob?
David, it is well established that Cindy Reddington is also having a torrid affair with Kathleen Kane.
I know it was interim but Linda Kelly was the AG after TC and I felt she did a very good job considering the interim nature. Maybe if Kane was not so monumentally bad at hiding her exploits this would of not be an issue. No one spoke this way about Love bad when she was AG. Maybe because she was a professional. Kane was never fit to be AG. Also why would they introduce her personal conduct now. Wait till trial when it’s time to drop the real goodness. There is no way to spin this Kane shills. The policy says if charged with a felony off you go. And that’s why she is a joke.
Cindy Reddington-
This is the reason we can’t have nice things (like women in high elected office), because guys like Larry and others who have gender/sexually insecurities can’t deal with having women in charge.
It seems like some men on here get their rocks off by accusing the AG of having sexual affairs with every man in her life because they have personal baggage with her … like maybe they lost their job at the AG’s office, so they spend their time trolling internet websites to ruin the AG’s personal reputation. This is proof positive that Pennsylvania is/was not ready to allow a woman to get elected to the office of AG.
Larry-
There’s a legal objection you may have read about while you were getting your correspondence school law degree:
Assumes facts not in evidence.
There are already plenty of connections and actions that the DA is creating to fill in the gaps of what is actually in evidence. You are claiming:
1) There is dating/romantic relationship
2) That you’ve spoken to every person in Harrisburg and are confirming their awareness of it
3) That this (alleged) relationship is the primary factor in the driver’s current employment status
4) Do you know if the driver has had his own preliminary hearing yet? (and whether or not that is a factor, since charges being waived in a PH would render the discussion moot)
Note: “moot” is often used in legal circles to mean “deprived of practical significance. made abstract or purely academic”
Just saying, in case your dog ate the mail that day
David, “dating” may be a stretch to describe their relationship. If you question it, you are emphasizing your distance from Harrisburg.
Larry-
Please show where it is on the record that Kane is dating the driver. Is there testimony to that effect you can point to?
Kane: “Well, yes, I promoted a guy who gropes female subordinates, and yes, I have violated office policy for my boyfriend and driver to stay on the job, but, you know, porn emails!”
Cue an incoherent screed from HaHaHa aka BustaPerv aka eagleswing in 3……2……..
Montco PA Dem — it’s always good to chat with a fellow Montco Dem. in any case, if ridiculing a post where I point out the disgraceful hypocrisy that pervades that office (w a dash of sophomoric humor), makes you feel better about yourself — then by ALL means ridicule away!!!
There’s Inside Baseball and there’s eighth-grade note-passing. JM’s comments seem more like the latter.
James Barker/George Moore
vs.
Jon “Napoleon” aka “Me gusta Damon’s” Duecker/Patrick “Louie D is my homeboy” aka “Rocco” Reese/Dave “I love Haiti this time of year” Peifer
Interesting dichotomy…..