Friday, January 1

Who Are The Leakers, Ms. Ferman?

Among all of the bluster about AG Kathleen Kane's alleged orchestration of a grand jury leak, why didn't the media ask Risa Ferman for the name of the leaker?


Ray Blehar

According to Montgomery County District Attorney (DA) Risa Ferman and the media, Attorney General (AG) Kathleen Kane has committed the crime of the century by allegedly orchestrating a leak of grand jury information.  

The crazy thing about all of this bluster (over Kane) is that information from grand juries and criminal investigations are leaked with regularity to the press.  At Ferman's press conference, one (honest) reporter more or less asked Ferman what the big deal was about the leaks.

The fact is that the media rarely, if ever, treats leak cases with any seriousness at all -- unless it involves someone they want to take down.

Pardon me while I reminisce back to the case of CIA employee, Valerie Plame... 

...the media was in a lather to see Karl Rove and/or Dick Cheney "perp-walked" out of the White House for leaking classified information about the identity of a CIA agent.  The media waited in great anticipation for the results of the special investigation and when it happened it was a non-event. Neither Rove nor Cheney were found responsible.  The actual leaker, Richard Armitage, was not charged and received little to no media attention. 

As it turned out, the investigation ended up charging an underling in Cheney's office named Lewis "Scooter" Libby.  Like Kane, Libby didn't leak information that was subject to secrecy rules.  And, much like Kane, he got caught in a perjury trap and was found guilty of that and lesser charges.  

About 8 minutes in to  Ferman's press conference, she announced the full list of charges -- which did not allege Kane leaked grand jury information.  Instead, Ferman charged her with conspiracy.

The press conference was almost over before any reporter asked a question that came close to getting at the identity of the persons or person behind the leaks, however, the question was more like an accusation --  that Kane's head of her security detail, Patrick Reese, was involved in the conspiracy with Kane.

In order to clear the matter up, Ferman responded by giving an explanation of what a conspiracy is.

"If you read through the evidence, it is clear for the evidence we gathered, that while the Attorney General orchestrated and directed the scheme, that she, herself, did not compile the materials and deliver them to Mr. Morrow.  So clearly, there were at least one other, perhaps, more individuals involved, and that is the crux of conspiracy.  What a conspiracy means, in the most basic terms, is the act of one is the act of all. So all of the people involved in the leak of that information can be responsible."

Ferman:  Claims conspiracy is an "act of all," but doesn't charge leaker, co-conspirators. 

So after hearing Ferman's explanation of a conspiracy, the press naturally asked who else was involved, right?


King: Leaked information but wasn't charged

The next question was: "If Kane is convicted of these crimes, should she lose her law license?"

Clearly, the media really doesn't care who the leaked grand jury information or that grand jury information was leaked at all.  It certainly hasn't spent any time at all demanding answers about James Reeder's investigation into the Sandusky and DeNaples grand jury leaks.  

And if leaking grand jury information was such a terrible crime and betrayal of public trust, then why didn't Risa Ferman charge the leaker -- Adrian King?  

The evidence in the grand jury presentment clearly shows the grand jury information (i.e., the 2009 memorandum and emails) was provided to Josh Morrow by Adrian King.

 Morrow testified that King left a clasped envelope containing a manila folder for him to retrieve.  The manila folder's contents included the 2009 memo, two emails, and the Miletto transcript.  Under the grand jury act, the 2009 memo, and perhaps the two emails,  were subject to grand jury secrecy rules.  The transcript was not.

Going backwards in time, King testified that a plain (unmarked) sealed envelope was left on his desk (by someone) and that he took it with him to Philadelphia and provided it to Morrow. 

The evidence in the grand jury presentment (paragraph one below) clearly shows that AG Kane did not have the 2009 memo and/or the emails in her possession until 24 July 2014, thus could not have placed it in the unmarked envelope for King.  

However, that didn't stop prosecutors from trying to make it look like Kane put in the memo and emails in the "packet" -- not envelope --  for King (paragraph 2) that was eventually released to the press.  But the fact is being aware of a document and discussing it does not equal evidence of possession of the document.

Unless you believe in time travel, the grand jury found no evidence that Kane put the 2009 memorandum and emails in the envelope for King.  

Let's review:

April 22, 2014: King found a sealed UNMARKED envelope which -- according to sworn testimony -- he believed contained campaign information for Morrow.  

April 23, 2014: Morrow received a clasped envelope from King that contained a manila folder -- "packet" -- with the word JOSH written on it.  Within that manila folder -- "packet" -- was the 2009 memorandum and emails.

June 6, 2014:   Chris Brennan's Philadelphia Daily News article containing information from the 2009 memorandum went to press.

July 25, 2014:  An email was sent to AG Kane that included the 2009 memorandum and the emails as attachments.

The timeline of the evidence speaks for itself.  What was allegedly left for King was not the same package that King delivered to Morrow.  And if King was the only person to possess the packet, then he added the 2009 memorandum and the emails.

Let me go out on a limb here and guess that Adrian King testified under a grant of immunity and that is why he wasn't charged.   

The only question that remains is if anyone else from the AG's office conspired to leak this information (to undermine AG Kane) and who they are.

Don't hold your breath waiting for Risa Ferman's "ongoing investigation" to identify those individuals.

Up next: Luckily, Ferman wasn't under oath at her August press conference

Best Wishes for a Happy & Truthful New Year!


  1. Thanks Ray for yet another in-depth, exhaustively researched, clear explanation of what's really going on in this farce of an "investigation." Take good care of yourself in the new year. We have "miles to go before we sleep."

    1. Happy New Year, Carole.

      I appreciate the kind words and for your perseverance in finding the truth.

  2. Happy New Year, Ray. I would really enjoy a sit down with KK. I would just like to speak with her and get a feel for the person.

    1. Happy New Year, Bob,
      I haven't met KK either, but many others in the fight for the truth have. I never thought to ask them what she's like.

      While I don't have a clue what her personality is like, I believe that she underestimated what she was going up against when she challenged the Corruption Network.

      It's clear that both Dems and Republicans are part of the network, because her own party isn't doing much to help her, if anything.

  3. Ray, I especially like your observation that Risa Ferman calls Kane's supposed conspiracy to leak an "act of all". And Ferman claims that Kane "orchestrated the scheme" but didn't compile or deliver the information. Really? Orchestrated, but didn't compile or deliver the leaked material? Where is the "evidence" that Kane 'orchestrated' a conspiracy? It's obviously not there, or it would have been presented at Ferman's fake charges press conference.

    So this would indicate that Kane is being framed by Beemer, who wants her job, and almost certainly is the one that leaked the information to the media in an attempt to make it look as though he was told to do so by Kane. Interesting, 'an act of all' yet Beemer is not part of the 'all'? Is Beemer so stupid that he doesn't realize that he is now number one leak suspect? Risa Ferman even tells us someone other than Kane leaked the information. And Beemer is obviously not a Kane loyalist. He's a corrupt holdover that has been subverting Kane at every turn. And as you say, Did the media ask Risa Vertri Ferman who actually leaked the material? Ferman didn't even openly charge Patrick Reese with leaking the information because he didn't. So Risa Ferman is walking on thin ice with her hat trick lies to the public. She can't actually prove anyone leaked anything or who they are. And she admits Kane didn't compile or deliver leaked material. So if Ferman has no evidence for us on who allegedly leaked for Kane, then how is Kane guilty of perjury?

    Bruce Beemer has clearly disqualified himself as a viable replacement for Kane should she be illegally removed from office by Beemer and his Kangaroo court. Every single one of these people that have falsely accused Kane, Paterno, President Spanier, Curley, and Shultz need to serve some serious prison time. As far as I'm concerned, until that happens, the system is still broken.

    1. Truthseeker,
      Agree that Beemer may have had a role in setting up Kane. As you say, he logically has a lot of incentive to get her removed and he is a Corbett holdover.

      The only thing Ferman has on Kane is the alleged perjury charge based on the oath they allegedly found in the AG's office.

      I will be writing about that soon....and it is about as legitimate as the email evidence in the PSU 3 case.

  4. If the goal is simply to force Kane out of office and ruin her reputation, the GOP prosecutors don't have to have a winnable case.

    Prosecutors have wide discretion on who they indict. AG Kelly didn't indict Dr. Dranov and John McQueary for failure to report child abuse yet they seemed more culpable than Curley and Schultz because they talked to Mike McQueary within an hour of the 2001 shower incident.

    As first deputy AG, wouldn't Bruce Beemer automatically take over as Acting AG should Kane be forced out?

    Governor Wolf would name a replacement but Beemer could serve until the replacement was confirmed. Given the contentious relationship between Wolf and the GOP legislature, they could easily stall confirmation until a new AG is elected in Nov.

    1. I'm sure the goal is to force Kane out of office and ruin her reputation. However, with this repeated and predictable playbook-style sham prosecution that is being used by the corrupt network, it's just a matter of time before these people have their reputations ruined permanently. And Kathleen Kane will be vindicated and have her reputation restored. Ray has spelled it out for us in his "The PA Corruption Network's Playbook" article.

      My point about Beemer disqualifying himself from taking over as Acting AG is based on his leaking of grand jury information to the media. It doesn't matter if he claims Kane told him to do it or not. It's an ethics issue that brings into question his integrity. And it especially brings into question his motives for leaking the information. So the result of ousting Kane(an alleged leaker), to have Beemer fall into her position would be to have one leaker replace another. But apparently that's okay if the replacement leaker is under the thumb of the corrupt Tea Party thug network in PA. Bruce Beemer can continue to protect the Second Mile child abuse victim factory. He can continue to protect Frank "false flag" Noonan, and he can even protect Risa Vetri Ferman from going to jail for bringing false charges against the duly-elected Attorney General of PA. Bruce Beemer will also protect Cynthia Baldwin from being disbarred for deceiving the PSU 3 about who she represented. And most of all he can protect Tom Corbett and Louis Freeh from going to prison for their probable RICO Act violations. It's clear to me that both have profited from enabling and covering up state-sponsored child prostitution.

      Does anyone have any idea at all why newly-elected Governor Wolf hasn't declared a state of emergency within the government that he is supposed to be overseeing? Is he violating the oath of office that he took to uphold the integrity and the laws of his state? Instead of talking plainly about the out-of-control corruption that now defines our state's judicial system, he tells Kane to resign. I'm sorry Mr. Wolf, but I don't think you have the courage to do the right thing.