We favor the move by the Pennsylvania House Judiciary Committee to give the Subcommittee on the Courts the authority to conduct its investigation and to recommend impeachment proceedings against Attorney General Kathleen Kane.

The full House needs to approve the resolution before the committee - made up of four Republicans and two Democrats - can get started. The committee would have subpoena powers, so it would not be just a paper tiger.The impeachment process can also be used as a backup in case the removal process underway in the State Senate loses steam.Under the Pennsylvania Constitution, the state House of Representatives has the "sole power" of impeachment. If the House impeaches Kane, the state Senate would hear the case, and at least two-thirds of the senators would have to concur if she were to be found guilty.Many Americans have the misconception that "impeachment" means "guilty." It does not, as we saw with former President Bill Clinton. He was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, but the U.S. Senate did not convict him.We were one of the first to call for Kane's impeachment last year after many of her missteps came to light. For her part, as she has continually done whenever criticism about her job performance has arisen, she indignantly had this to say about the impeachment prospect:"As a taxpayer, I'm wondering why the Republicans have spent so much time and money on doing everything they can to remove an independent attorney general who has an ongoing investigation by a special prosecutor into racist, misogynistic and homophobic emails," Kane commented. "Why isn't the Judiciary Committee looking into the exchange by the judiciary and alleged cover-ups by government officials to fix a judicial system that is clearly broken?" she asked.The Judiciary Committee's action has been described as a "baby step" in the process to impeach Kane, but it opens a second front in her battle to survive a struggle to save her job, and it could be the opening round that sets the stage for the impeachment trial which would be held in the state Senate, possibly as early as this summer.Kane, a first-term Democrat, who says she may seek re-election this year to a second four-year term, but who has not yet announced formally, has been accused of illegally giving grand jury documents to a Philadelphia newspaper as a way to embarrass one of her most persistent critics, longtime chief deputy attorney general Frank Fina, then trying to cover up her misdeeds by lying to a different grand jury. Kane has consistently denied the charges.Fina left the state job to take a job with the Philadelphia prosecutor's office where he has since been demoted because of unsavory emails that he had sent on his state government account.In August 2015, at a Capitol press conference, Kane said she broke no laws and contends that the charges against her are an effort to prevent her from exposing the emails, which she said include pornography and racist and misogynistic jokes. She says a court order blocked her from releasing the emails.A week later, however, the state Supreme Court unsealed documents showing Kane was given the OK to release the emails eight months earlier. Kane was caught in a big lie.Last September, the state Supreme Court suspended Kane's law license, raising questions about whether she can serve as attorney general. Kane said she can. Others, including members of the state Democratic Party and many in her own office, don't agree. Imagine, the top prosecutorial officer in the state without a law license. We don't care how you slice and dice it, this borders on the unprecedented. It's akin to trying to do a two-handed task with one arm tied behind your back.Talk about unprecedented, it just keeps coming:• Oct. 23, the Senate convened a panel to look into removing Kane from office• In November, the panel recommended that the full Senate consider Kane's removal.• On Dec. 1, Kane appointed former Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler to lead a special team to investigate the emails. That prompted questions over Gansler not having a Pennsylvania law license, the cost to Pennsylvania taxpayers of his contract and his investigation and his own political baggage.• On Dec. 9, Kane's driver, Patrick Reese, was convicted of the charges that he spied on emails related to the investigation against Kane.• On Dec. 16, A Philadelphia prosecutor alleged that Kane and her twin sister, Ellen Granahan Goffer, a state prosecutor in her sister's office, received inappropriate emails. Kane released the emails received by her sister days later but said they did not merit discipline. One of the emails was shared with Kane before she became attorney general. Goffer also has been on the attorney general's payroll since before her sister was elected. Still, it's not healthy for her to remain in her sister's office, because it smacks of nepotism. As we frequently point out, perceptions of a conflict of interest are just as damaging as the real thing.OK, so there you have it. How damaged does a person have to be to come to the realization that the game is over? Kane apparently doesn't get it, which is why the General Assembly needs to remove her from office.BRUCE FRASSINELLI |

tneditor@tnonline.com