A.G. Kathleen Kane's saga of porn, politics, vengeance

T RY TO THINK of a rise and fall in Pennsylvania politics as stunning or rapid as Kathleen Kane's.

Got one? Yeah, me neither.

A year ago, just 10 months in office, the state's first woman and first Democrat elected attorney general was being touted for governor or U.S. senator.

These days she faces possible criminal charges amid rumors of resignation.

Quite a fall.

In 2013, she rocketed to national notice, elating her Democratic base.

She closed a loophole to stop residents denied gun permits here from getting them from Florida. She rejected Gov. Corbett's effort to privatize the lottery. She refused to enforce the state's ban on same-sex marriage.

When MSNBC's Democratic cheerleader Chris Matthews interviewed her on "Hardball," he hinted that one day she'd run for president.

And now?

Her public image is plummeting and she's caught in a complex legal web putting her political career in peril.

As a result, she's lawyered-up: New York defense lawyer Gerald Shargel, who once represented John Gotti; Washington crisis manager and former President Clinton counsel Lanny Davis.

To some, this says that she thinks she's in trouble. To others, she's just exercising her rights. Either way, taxpayers aren't footing the bill.

Still, says one former prosecutor, "I'm not sure you prevail in our courts with a lawyer from New York and a crisis manager from Washington offering interpretations of Pennsylvania law."

What to make of Kane's saga, packed with porn, politics and vengeance?

Last week, she testified before a grand jury run by a special prosecutor authorized by Pennsylvania Supreme Court Chief Justice Ron Castille to look at illegal-leak allegations against her.

There are concerns about that process, questions about Kane's competence, and all the dramas linked to one thing: an ongoing venomous feud between Kane and former Chief Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina.

The two have been toxic since Kane fulfilled a campaign pledge to review the Jerry Sandusky case, which was headed by Fina, which had to sting.

Speaking of which, then came the sting case: five Philly public servants caught on tape taking cash from a lobbyist cooperating with prosecutors.

It was headed by Fina, who called it solid, but was dumped by Kane, who called it flawed. News of the case broke before Kane released Sandusky findings - timing that she called "suspect" (read: leaked by Fina).

It's now with Philly D.A. Seth Williams, for whom Fina now works.

Still with me?

OK, then, stung by the sting, Kane releases porn emails found on state computers during the Sandusky review. They topple several officials with ties to Fina, and a state Supreme Court justice.

Fina, according to Inquirer reporting and other sources, was part of the porn party but unnamed by Kane.

Why? Because he's also a witness before a grand-jury investigating Kane for leaking material from another grand jury to the Daily News.

That material was from a 2009 case looking at financial doings of former Philly NAACP chief Jerry Mondesire, who never was charged. It raised questions as to why not.

Guess who headed the Mondesire probe?

If you guessed Fina, you're paying attention.

Kane and her lawyers now say that such material was provided but did not violate grand-jury secrecy.

Montco Judge William Carpenter, a former prosecutor overseeing the grand jury investigating Kane, gagged Kane from publicly naming Fina in any context because any negatives could be seen as witness intimidation.

Chalk one up for Fina.

Kane asked the Supreme Court for emergency relief, citing separation of powers, but because anything related to grand juries is (supposedly) sealed, a court spokesman won't confirm the appeal, let alone discuss its prospects.

Meanwhile, a memo just circulated to all D.A.s expresses concern over gagging Kane. It was sent by Democratic Northampton County D.A. John Morganelli, a past president of the state D.A. association, who's worried about how and why it was done and whether it has implications for other prosecutors.

He tells me, "I'm very suspicious about this . . . there's no process that I'm aware of for this procedure."

He's not alone. Former and current state prosecutors, a judge, D.A.s and others I spoke with could not explain the Kane muzzle, which, say sources, also prevents further investigation or action on porn or anything related to Fina.

I sought explanation from Castille. No response. An aide says that all information about the case is under grand-jury confidentiality.

So, we're left with questions and suspicions.

Not so much about Kane's descending star. Whether she's the victim of a smarter prosecutor (read: Fina) or a violator of laws she's sworn to enforce, she is the cause of her fall from grace.

It was Kane who responded to stings from the sting in March by seeking a meeting with the Inquirer's editorial board, then showing up with Philly defense lawyer Dick Sprague (who in the past successfully sued the Inquirer), then refusing to talk.

It was Kane who claimed in June that her Sandusky review had found that undue delays by prosecutors (read: Fina) could have resulted in two additional victims, an assertion unmentioned in the 166-page report. Her office later said she misspoke.

It was Kane who hid a bizarre early-morning accident in her state vehicle last month, which went unreported for 10 days, raised questions and left her with a concussion.

And it was Kane who last week tried - as she had done with Sandusky - to up the ante, telling CNN that the "hard-core, graphic" porn found in emails include images of children shared by prosecutors (read: Fina) investigating Sandusky.

The next day, her office said the emails did not include child pornography, a crime subject to prosecution. A day after that, her office said that Kane hadn't decided whether to prosecute such a crime.

Credibility is a terrible thing to lose. Kane's is currently wandering unattended.

She could reclaim it, if it turns out that her legal woes are driven by some star chamber of judges and prosecutors out to stop further porn, or other, revelations.

But that would take a stunning and rapid rise for her and fall for others (read: guess who?).

Blog: ph.ly/BaerGrowls

Columns: ph.ly/JohnBaer