NSFW - The Porngate emails got access to the Porngate emails.  They’ve begun releasing them via the videos below.  These videos contain nudity, inappropriate language, racist “humor,” and other general awfulness.  They are not appropriate for children and clearly NSFW.  In order to avoid having inappropriate images on our website, we’re just going to link to their website.

Read More

The Citizen's Porngate coverage

See Larry Platt’s article, What’s Porn Got to Do With It, for a solid primer on just what exactly has happened in this strange and sordid tale over.

The Citizen Updates: The Kathleen Kane Chronicles

Proof of the old boys’ network emerges…not that you’d read about it in the papers. Where’s the outrage?

The Citizen Updates: The Kathleen Kane Chronicles

Proof of the old boys’ network emerges…not that you’d read about it in the papers. Where’s the outrage?

Last week, I tried to connect some dots in the sordid Porngate story that has ensnarled Attorney General Kathleen Kane and her nemesis Frank Fina in a seeming political death match. My point was that, yes, the attorney general very well may be politically incompetent and in over her headand also the target of a cabal of sexist men throughout the state judiciary.

Well, two days later, the Inquirer broke a story that seemed to provide evidence of that thesis, though the paper curiously chose to ignore the self-evident conclusion. In fact, bafflingly, the Inquirer story, headlined Kane’s Office Obtained Judge’s Private Emails,seemed more concerned with how the emails came to light than providing a full accounting of what was in them. 

Which is part of a shameful pattern throughout the porngatestory. Time and again, we havent gotten the real story, the one that goes to the heart of what kind of a judicial system we actually have in this commonwealth. Despite the statewide embarrassment that is Kathleen Kane, at least we have her mess to thank for revealing the truth about the prosecutors and judges who have long been bonding over a racist, sexist, xenophobic and hateful email chain, which includes videos like this:

Media at its best ought to signal outrage over that. Instead, we get stories that focus on arcane legal minutiaewho leaked what to whominstead of zeroing in on the true and disturbing transgressions that have come to light.

Kathleen Kane. Photo: Jesse Walker via Wikimedia Commons
Kathleen Kane. Photo: Jesse Walker via Wikimedia Commons

In the Inquirer story, writer Chris Palmer reported that Kanes representative, Ken Smukler, had acquired 2013 email exchanges between Judge Barry Feudale and two Inquirer reporters, Craig McCoy and Angela Couloumbis, and had been trying to get two media outlets to write about them. Feudale had been the judge on the Sandusky grand jury; the lead prosecutor on that case had been the aforementioned Frank Fina. Feudales correspondence with the reporters had to do with the Supreme Courts sealed order to remove him from grand jury service, a move Kane had lobbied for behind the scenes.

The story held out speculation that there had been some kind of a break-in, or hacking, of the Judges private emails. It went so far as to cite as a possible precedent the case of former CBS-3 anchor Larry Mendte, who pleaded guilty in 2008 to hacking into fellow anchor Alycia Lanes computer and leaking personal information about her to local gossip columnists. This suggested storyline fit neatly with the narrative heretofore of Kathleen Kane as some sort of imbalanced Nixon-like character, authorizing break-ins and leaks.

Despite the statewide embarrassment that is Kathleen Kane, at least we have her mess to thank for revealing the truth about the prosecutors and judges who have long been bonding over a racist, sexist, xenophobic and hateful email chain.

But the Inquirer story didnt explain why the contents of the email exchange with its own reporters might be germane to Kanes defense of the charges against her. Remember, her defense is that shes the victim of an old boysnetwork of interests, because she has had in her possession damning information on many judges and prosecutors (and some U.S. attorneys) throughout the state: Their participation in that offensive chain of emails.

In fact, when Kane responded to the Inquirer story by releasing the Feudale emails in question, revealing just how they came into her possession, it became clear that the Inquirers characterization of them was startlingly incomplete. First, how did she get them? Far from authorizing a break-in, the answer was right on the email themselves. It turns out that when the judge corresponded with the Inquirer reporters, he then forwarded the exchanges to Fina at the prosecutors formerbut not disabledOffice of the Attorney General email address. In other words, the lengthy story speculating on whether there had been some break-in or hacking of Feudales computer was not only wrong, but reporter Palmer should have surmised that prior to publishing just by looking at who Feudale sent the emails to.

Late in the article, when Palmer gets around to reporting the substance of Feudales emails to his newsroom colleagues, he leaves a misleading impression of the judge. In the exchanges with reporters, Feudale shared some material generated during his dispute with Kane,Palmer writes. But he also rebuffed the reporters on other matters, saying he could not talk about certain issues because he was bound by grand jury secrecy…” Palmer even quotes Feudale to that effect: “‘Nice try, guys, but sorry,’” he wrote at one point, in declining to answer questions. I am not willing to violate the law and my commitment to secrecy, even as a former grand jury judge.’”

But, once Kane released the email chain in question, Palmers reporting appeared mighty selective. He left out a telling exchange: Feudales offer to leak to the reporters the sealed Supreme Court order removing him from the grand jury: My problem is that the application for a Writ was sealed (as are all Kings Bench matters) so I need both of your assurance it will only be used as background and you will not reveal me as the source of such.This omission would seem to go beyond what we in journalism call burying the lead.This would be closer to ignoring the lead.

Lets underscore whats happening here, after all: Kane has been criminally charged for leaking grand jury information to the press. Here, a grand jury judge is seen leaking sealed Supreme Court documents to the press. Yet that is not the story. Instead, we get speculation about some nefarious ways this email exchange could have come to lightfair game, if the emails themselves hadnt already provided the answer: Feudale sent them to Finas AG address.

By then, Fina was working in the Philadelphia District Attorneys office, but what does it say that a judge was forwarding his correspondence with two reporters to a prosecutor who had had cases before him? Doesnt that give some credence to Kanes old boysnetwork argument, as does Feudales heaping of lavish praise upon Fina (brilliant mind, photographic memory, fierce but ethical advocate) in those missives?

Countless insiders of our state judicial system bonded over the high-minded comedy of a jerk calling himself The Amazing Racist. Wheres the outrage over that?

On Friday night, the Legal Intelligencer followed the Inquirers lead and posted a story that was more about the leaking of the Feudale emails than their substance. Lizzy McLellan and Hank Greziak reported that Smukler had earlier tried to leak to them the story of the Feudale emails and then spent significant column inches raising questions not only about where Smukler got the emails, but whether the material he acquiredscreen shotsmight have been doctored. (Full disclosure: Ive known Smukler for some 15 years and wrote about him here.) But again, the reporters would have known pre-publicationor should have knownwhether what Smukler had shown them matched what the Attorney General released.

Im mystified by the reporting of this story. Part of me wonders whether local media is protecting sources and thereby choosing sides. Another part suspects its just sloppiness; theres a fog of war feel to the fast moving Kane/porngate scandal and its easy to get bogged down in the daily he said/she said instead of keeping in mind the bigger picture.

The danger here is that thats whats been lost. While were getting stories about phantom break-ins and erroneous speculation about doctored documents, we know that judges, prosecutors, and U.S. attorneysmen and women we rely on for their judgmenthave for years been giggling together over emails that are racist, sexist, and hateful. Wheres the outrage over that? Turns out, the porngate moniker is a misnomer. Now that some of these emails are coming out, we can finally judge for ourselves. A newscast calling itself has put some of the material together here.

But if you really want to viscerally feel why this story matters, all you need to watch is that video of a jerk who calls himself The Amazing Racist. One of his videos, in which he gets a group of undocumented Latinos in his truck under the false pretense of hiring them for the day only to drive them to the INS office, was sent through the Harrisburg insider email chain. Countless members of our state judicial system bonded over such high-minded comedy. Theres something gravely wrong with thatand it was once journalisms highest calling to right such wrongs.

Header Photo: Flickr/Joe The Goat Farmer

The Philadelphia Citizen will only publish thoughtful, civil comments. If your post is offensive, not only will we not publish it, we'll laugh at you while hitting delete.

Be a Citizen Editor

Suggest a Story

Advertising Terms

We do not accept political ads, issue advocacy ads, ads containing expletives, ads featuring photos of children without documented right of use, ads paid for by PACs, and other content deemed to be partisan or misaligned with our mission. The Philadelphia Citizen is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, nonpartisan organization and all affiliate content will be nonpartisan in nature. Advertisements are approved fully at The Citizen's discretion. Advertisements and sponsorships have different tax-deductible eligibility. For questions or clarification on these conditions, please contact Director of Sales & Philanthropy Kristin Long at [email protected] or call (609)-602-0145.