ADVERTISEMENT

State Judicial Conduct Board reviewer of porn emails also was recipient

You just can't make this stuff up! Where are the "hatchet-men" for the corrupt OG BOT on this board who love to claim that Kane is corrupt - pretty laughable that their masters are clearly tied into the GOP aparrtchik and are far more corrupt, un-principled and morally-vaccuous than Kane could ever hope to be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nittany Ned2
Two points.

1. The proceedings of the JCB should NOT be private/confidential. We need to see everything in order to trust them.

2. Dooley is pretty much irrelevant. The board voted unanimously. That does not erase point 1 - everything should be fully transparent.
 
Eakin, Dooley, and Graci should all step down. All three men had conflicts of interest which they never disclosed before voting on or being involved with issues/reviews. This shows a lack if morals and ethics which are imperative for them to be trusted to do their respective jobs.

I wouldn't be surprised to find others besides Dooley and Graci who sit on or are involved with the JCB who also had a COI/was one of the porn dogs. What a disgrace PA has become smh
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChiTownLion, simons96 and Fayette_LION
And leave the state to kane? A known criminal who will shortly be convicted of perjury? No.
 
As I stated correctly before, disclosure was needed, but there's no need to step down or resign. Really, those who are calling for heads of republicans, but are fine, just fine with Bill Clinton's abuse of power over a 19 year old intern are hypocrites.

Nothing more, nothing less.
 
You're embarrassing yourself, and embarrassing fellow Republicans (like me). Stop justifying this behavior. It wasn't acceptable for Clinton, and it still isn't acceptable. If it was acceptable, why hide it? Why not have a presser and say, "yes, I looked at porn, I exchanged tasteless jokes... deal with it." Here's why: It's reprehensible behavior for a Supreme Court justice, just as much as Clinton. He got away with perjury, happy? He got disbarred, just not convicted at impeachment. Let it go. Don't vote for his wife. (And as an aside, be grateful he wasn't convicted. Gore as president might have been able to use the power of incumbency for the handful of votes he needed in NH/FL to win the election.)

Finally, this is just the latest layer of the corruption for Pa. courts. It's been going on for years, but for me it was highlighted, and accelerated, by the "Kids for Cash" scandal in Luzerne Co. When I heard the first rumblings, my first thoughts were troubling. When I read about it, it was clear these kids were railroaded. But you know what? The state Supreme Court decided UNANIMOUSLY not to hear about or investigate the case. Only, and ONLY, when presented with overwhelming evidence did they revisit and vacate all the bogus convictions. However, even after the judges and major players were convicted, there are STILL unanswered questions: The state (Luzerne Co. prosecutors) KNEW that what was going on was wrong and against the law. How many of them were charged? That's right, none. Why was the state given a pass? Because, and here's where I'm veering into opinion, the state can't admit fault lest it be on the hook for losing lawsuits. (Stop me if this sounds familiar to the Sandusky/CYS/DPW mess ... PSU served up by the state for the state's malfeasance/incompetence/corruption.)

I cannot stand all this political BS on a Penn State football board. Talk football, talk Penn State, talk about our NCAA problems, talk about what bars to watch the game at, or who has advice about what vacation spot or grill, but take and keep the politics elsewhere!
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206, ChiTownLion, Nittany Ziggy and 1 other person
Moops, you're not a republican.

A republican would at least be aware that all of the e-mails were on private e-mail accounts, and seen by Kane only because another recipient (someone by the name of Baxter) was copied on the same e-mail chain.

A republican would know that they can't even determine if Eakin looked at the e-mails, they only know they are in his inbox.

A republican (and a democrat if a democrat were at risk) would argue that a person's private e-mails are just that - private.

Did you know these things?
 
There are a number of dishonest people who will now say "The e-mails were on state servers", OMITTING the critical fact that this is only true because a nobody by the name of Baxter is copied on many of them.
 
WishfulLion said:
Moops, you're not a republican.

A republican would at least be aware that all of the e-mails were on private e-mail accounts, and seen by Kane only because another recipient (someone by the name of Baxter) was copied on the same e-mail chain.

A republican would know that they can't even determine if Eakin looked at the e-mails, they only know they are in his inbox.

A republican (and a democrat if a democrat were at risk) would argue that a person's private e-mails are just that - private.

Did you know these things?
Click to expand...


LOL. The RINO card.
 
Wishful Lion reminds me of that old Blue's Brothers line about a "Wish Sandwich", where you have two slices of bread and wish you had some meat. Only, in his case, he has two hands on the keyboard and wishes he had a brain. Go@Damn, you are a lunkhead!
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206 and simons96
WishfulLion said:
Moops, you're not a republican.

A republican would at least be aware that all of the e-mails were on private e-mail accounts, and seen by Kane only because another recipient (someone by the name of Baxter) was copied on the same e-mail chain.

A republican would know that they can't even determine if Eakin looked at the e-mails, they only know they are in his inbox.

A republican (and a democrat if a democrat were at risk) would argue that a person's private e-mails are just that - private.

Did you know these things?
Click to expand...

A republican would know that anything on a state server is the property of the state, and not the individual. If they wanted them to stay private, they should not have sent them, and definately not to a coworker. It is just bizarre to read some of your posts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206 and Aoshiro
nittanymoops said:
Finally, this is just the latest layer of the corruption for Pa. courts. It's been going on for years, but for me it was highlighted, and accelerated, by the "Kids for Cash" scandal in Luzerne Co. When I heard the first rumblings, my first thoughts were troubling. When I read about it, it was clear these kids were railroaded. But you know what? The state Supreme Court decided UNANIMOUSLY not to hear about or investigate the case. Only, and ONLY, when presented with overwhelming evidence did they revisit and vacate all the bogus convictions. However, even after the judges and major players were convicted, there are STILL unanswered questions: The state (Luzerne Co. prosecutors) KNEW that what was going on was wrong and against the law. How many of them were charged? That's right, none. Why was the state given a pass? Because, and here's where I'm veering into opinion, the state can't admit fault lest it be on the hook for losing lawsuits. (Stop me if this sounds familiar to the Sandusky/CYS/DPW mess ... PSU served up by the state for the state's malfeasance/incompetence/corruption.)
Click to expand...
+1

Our best (and only?) chance at exposing the whole thing and cleaning house on both sides is with Kane in command as the ship goes down.
 
WishfulLion said:
There are a number of dishonest people who will now say "The e-mails were on state servers", OMITTING the critical fact that this is only true because a nobody by the name of Baxter is copied on many of them.
Click to expand...
But back to the OP, a guy was essentially helping to decide if his own actions were appropriate. Do you see a conflict there??
 
Sure I do. Now, I've recused him. Let's revote. OK. revote complete. New vote is 11-0.

Look, there's no question he should have said, "I don't think I'm conflicted, but I was also on the receiving end of some of these e-mails." Someone else could have then challenged that, and so on and so forth.

I do not support the lack of disclosure, not any more than I support kane lying about having signed a confidentiality agreement that she lied about.

Let's keep it all in perspective - the republicans in this case are not perfect.

However, Kane is without question a criminal. She will be convicted of Perjury.
 
Chitown - Kane, the perjurer in command? I'll take the guy who sent no pornography from his private account and RECEIVED some pornographic material on his private account.

I note again that some posters on this board use their private accounts to send pornographic images all the time. Some of them are condemning Eakin.
 
WishfulLion said:
Chitown - Kane, the perjurer in command? I'll take the guy who sent no pornography from his private account and RECEIVED some pornographic material on his private account.

I note again that some posters on this board use their private accounts to send pornographic images all the time. Some of them are condemning Eakin.
Click to expand...

It is as if you are a county employee.
 
Marbles, that's pretty funny. I was completely unaware that county employees used impeccable logic and had a good sense of proportion.

Now a typical county employee might think that a judge who was a recipient of pornography on his private e-mail account is a bigger problem than a perjuring attorney general, but maybe I'm mistaken.

I thought you libs were big on social libertarianism - you know "Weed, man", "prostitution should be legal", etc. Surprised a little nudity in a citizen's home has you so upset.

Note: Anyone who says "the e-mail was on a state server" is lying by omission. They omit that it is only on a state server because some other dunderhead (baxter is his name) is copied on these e-mails. Eakin's account is private, and does not appear to have been accessed at work.
 
WishfulLion said:
Marbles, that's pretty funny. I was completely unaware that county employees used impeccable logic and had a good sense of proportion.

Now a typical county employee might think that a judge who was a recipient of pornography on his private e-mail account is a bigger problem than a perjuring attorney general, but maybe I'm mistaken.

I thought you libs were big on social libertarianism - you know "Weed, man", "prostitution should be legal", etc. Surprised a little nudity in a citizen's home has you so upset.

Note: Anyone who says "the e-mail was on a state server" is lying by omission. They omit that it is only on a state server because some other dunderhead (baxter is his name) is copied on these e-mails. Eakin's account is private, and does not appear to have been accessed at work.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that you sound a lot like Teej, minus the relentless cutting and pasting. Nevertheless, relentless.
 
91Joe95 said:
A republican would know that anything on a state server is the property of the state, and not the individual. If they wanted them to stay private, they should not have sent them, and definately not to a coworker. It is just bizarre to read some of your posts.
Click to expand...

The review you had on "Shark Sandwich", which was merely a two word review, just said "Sh*t Sandwich"
 
Marbles, I'm committed to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Its been a part of me for a long time.

There's a faction on this board that takes every opportunity to slam a republican, while pretending that Kane isn't a criminal and they want to do it with no pushback. That's not going to happen.

There's little doubt in my mind that Eakin is somewhat of a clown (do you know he gives his decisions in poetic verse), but if what he's done is grounds for dismissal from your job (and yes a judge is held to a higher standard than a store clerk), then lots of the guys who post on this board would be in trouble, and frankly I think that's wrong. What you do in private is your own business, and Eakin deserves the same treatment, whether you agree with him politically or not.

But I think that most people caught lying at work (as Kane has done under oath) would understand that they're being fired for just cause.
 
WishfulLion said:
Marbles, that's pretty funny. I was completely unaware that county employees used impeccable logic and had a good sense of proportion.

Now a typical county employee might think that a judge who was a recipient of pornography on his private e-mail account is a bigger problem than a perjuring attorney general, but maybe I'm mistaken.

I thought you libs were big on social libertarianism - you know "Weed, man", "prostitution should be legal", etc. Surprised a little nudity in a citizen's home has you so upset.

Note: Anyone who says "the e-mail was on a state server" is lying by omission. They omit that it is only on a state server because some other dunderhead (baxter is his name) is copied on these e-mails. Eakin's account is private, and does not appear to have been accessed at work.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how it got there, once there the state owns it and it is no longer considered private. Are you seriously disputing that. No one had to go into his home to get it. His own actions caused it to happen. Its called personal responsibility, and you don't seem to believe in it. I don't know how you call yourself a conservative with your views.
 
WishfulLion said:
Chitown - Kane, the perjurer in command? I'll take the guy who sent no pornography from his private account and RECEIVED some pornographic material on his private account.

I note again that some posters on this board use their private accounts to send pornographic images all the time. Some of them are condemning Eakin.
Click to expand...

"Alledged perjurer" please (yes I am trolling you...but you've earned it!)
 
91Joe95. No, I'm not disputing that the state has every right to print out the e-mails from Baxter's account and make the obvious conclusion that those same e-mails MUST reside on Eakin's account.

And yes, the mistake is absolutely Eakin's, and no one but Eakin's.

But I will make it clear EXACTLY what did occur, and what did not occur.

Would you not agree that many posters attempted to allow the casual user to believe that Eakin was posting porn from his desk at work? Now, everyone knows EXACTLY what Eakin was doing, and what he was not doing.

The truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth. It is almost like those old time lawyers understood science.
 
So, Seth Williams is a democrat DA in Philadelphia and Kane is an insane democrat AG. Got it. Can you guys advise if you are against Seth Williams or for him. I can't tell.

"Two weeks ago, the affidavit of probable cause issued by the Montgomery County District Attorney's office revealed that Attorney General Kathleen Kane vowed to go after District Attorney Seth Williams, explicitly 'to make Seth pay.' Attorney General Kane ordered political operatives to gather negative information regarding District Attorney Williams, and said 'this is war.'

"District Attorney Williams denies these allegations. His campaign finance records are a matter of public record, and he will cooperate with any authorities who may wish to review them.

"According to recently released court documents, Attorney General Kane threatened to go after District Attorney Seth Williams: 'I will not allow them to discredit me or my office,' Kane wrote in the email. 'This is war.'

"She wrote in an email that she would 'make Seth pay.'"
 
WeR0206 said:
Eakin, Dooley, and Graci should all step down. All three men had conflicts of interest which they never disclosed before voting on or being involved with issues/reviews. This shows a lack if morals and ethics which are imperative for them to be trusted to do their respective jobs.

I wouldn't be surprised to find others besides Dooley and Graci who sit on or are involved with the JCB who also had a COI/was one of the porn dogs. What a disgrace PA has become smh
Click to expand...
Some blog recently gave Pa. an "F" in political ethics. Lobby people complain because it costs so much money to bribe politicians in Pa.
 
Note - Seth seems OK, offers to turn all records over immediately and denies the results. Cites a documentable threat from Kane to "Make Seth Pay"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W

The FDA was forced via FOIA to release thousands of pages of Moderna clinical trial data and it’s not good. Sudden death, heart attacks, embolisms etc

Replies
0
Views
131
Current Events Board
WeR0206
W
Ten Thousan Marbles

There are a whole lot of gaping holes in the Durham Report.....

Replies
8
Views
306
Current Events Board
LafayetteBear
LafayetteBear
ChiTownLion

"My Letter of Apology"

Replies
180
Views
4K
Current Events Board
m.knox
M
Ten Thousan Marbles

More to ignore, Book 13....

Replies
95
Views
3K
Current Events Board
Ten Thousan Marbles
Ten Thousan Marbles
C
  • Locked

Penn State just announced, back to full masking for all

Replies
23
Views
4K
Penn State Football
razpsu
razpsu
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back