- Associated Press - Tuesday, December 16, 2014

A look at how the Pennsylvania attorney general and the Philadelphia district attorney have characterized the evidence in an undercover state sting investigation that resulted in corruption charges against two state lawmakers on Tuesday:

WHAT THE AG’S OFFICE FOUND:

“I did not find evidence that would be sufficient to support a quid pro quo.” - Bruce Beemer, senior counsel, attorney general’s office, April 10, 2014.

WHAT THE DA’S OFFICE FOUND:

“The evidence clearly demonstrates that those payments were made because of the representatives’ official positions and their promises to perform official acts on behalf of the (confidential informant).” - Grand jury report, Dec. 16, 2014.

WHAT THE AG’S OFFICE SAID:

“We reviewed this case and according to our standards of prosecution, according to our duty, according to the law and according to our high professional morals and ethics, we said that we could not prosecute this case and it should not be prosecuted.” - Attorney General Kathleen Kane, April 10, 2014.

WHAT THE DA’S OFFICE SAID:

“The evidence outlined in the presentment is unusually damning, consisting as it does not only of eyewitness accounts, but of hours of tape recordings, and of detailed admissions by the subjects of the investigation themselves. Indeed, the fact that the subjects of the investigation agreed to testify freely before the grand jury is a testament to the strength of the evidence that had been compiled long before this matter was submitted to this grand jury.” - Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams, Dec. 16, 2014.


Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide