"[Attorney General Kathleen] Kane said ... federal law enforcement officials agreed with her that the case was 'flawed and nonprosecutable.' But [Philadelphia District Attorney Seth] Williams and the other sources say the U.S. Attorney's Office in Philadelphia never made such a judgment about the sting during the several months that prosecutors reviewed the case file." (Philadelphia Inquirer, 4/9/15)
"Feb. 22, 2013: Attorney General Kane's Senior Executive Deputy Attorney General and Special Agent in Charge of the Bureau of Criminal Investigations meet with the U.S. Attorney's Office and the FBI in Philadelphia to determine what, if any, interest they had in adopting the corruption investigation or using the informant in other investigations. Both advised they did not want to adopt the pending corruption case and had no interest in using the informant at that time (p.5, OAG response, Oct. 4, 2013)." (PA Office of Attorney General, 4/10/14)On January 15, 2013, at the same time Kane was taking the oath of office, Chief Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina directed an OAG agent to deliver to an FBI agent a a thumb drive of recordings, made during the course of a sting investigation into public corruption. Kane did not direct him to do so, and Kane was not aware that he did so. In fact, Kane first would learn about the investigation "in a cursory manner" two days later from Fina.
A little more than a month after that, two of Kane's top staffers met with the U.S. Attorney's Office and the FBI. The feds said they had no interest in pursuing the case.
Now, how they came to that conclusion without ever making a "judgement" about the case is not for us to say. Williams may have some method of determining whether or not to pursue a case without making a judgement about it, but what do we know? We're not lawyers.
Williams characterizes the feds declining to take the case as Kane "aski[ng] for the case back." We're not sure why someone would have to ask for something back from someone who never took it in the first place.
Furthermore, "federal law enforcement officials with knowledge of Case File No. 36-622 have shared with current members of the OAG executive staff their opinion that the case is flawed and not prosecutable." As Kane has not said who the officials are, Williams has no way of knowing what judgments they shared with Kane's staff.
Not content with being wrong about what happened with the feds, Williams compounded his mistake by insisting, "You [Kane] have repeatedly asserted it was the previous prosecutors who dropped charges against [Confidential Informant Tyron Ali], when in fact it appears that it was you who did so, and then sealed the proceedings to keep them from public scrutiny."
Again, we are not lawyers, but we are pretty sure that it is judges who seal court records, not prosecutors.
In this case, the judge sealed the records September 12, 2013, "after the informant's attorney initially requested charges to be dropped per agreement signed before Attorney General Kane took office."
A request, by the way, that was accompanied by an affidavit from none other than Frank Fina himself.
We have previously explained that Williams' childish insistence that Kane "dropped the charges" is disingenuous. Fina signed an agreement to drop all charges against Ali on November 30, 2012 - 45 days before Kane took office. Kane wanted to nullify the agreement Fina signed, but because the agreement was a legally enforceable contract, she was forced to honor it on November 8, 2013.
Considering that records in the case had been sealed - by a judge - two months earlier, the timeline does not support Williams' claim that Kane "dropped the charges, then sealed the proceedings."
How did Williams manage to come to such extraordinarily erroneous conclusions?