The uproar over Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane's shutting down a case where prosecutors gathered evidence against five Philadelphia Democrats is getting louder and more confusing.

        If you remember, Kane shut down the case – which involved an undercover informant capturing the Democrats on tape accepting money or gifts – citing it was flawed and not prosecutable.

        As of a few weeks ago, all we had was a case of he said-she said.   After several Pennsylvania newspapers went to court to ask a judge to make public the secret court documents that detail the sting investigation, more information came out.

        Even the Philadelphia District Attorney, Seth Williams, had a problem with Kane shutting down the case.  Kane's response to Williams was that if he felt the case was prosecutable, then he should go ahead and prosecute it himself.  Williams took her up on the offer and requested the files.  He still hasn't received them.

        Here's where it gets even more interesting and confusing.

        As more information is released, we find out that the sting's lead prosecutor, Frank G. Fina, (who now works for Williams) sought to remove the case from Kane's control shortly before she took office, believing she faced a conflict and should not be making decisions in the case.  Kane said she had no conflict.  Fina indicated a conflict was posed by the fact that two Kane campaign supporters, including Judge Daniel D. McCaffery, had dealings with the undercover informant.  Kane was not happy at all with Fina's charge of conflict of interest.

        Fina instead turned the case over to federal prosecutors in Philadelphia.  The U. S. Attorney's Office did not pursue the case and it was reported that they only started looking into the file when Kane's staff asked them not to proceed so the new Pennsylvania Attorney General could evaluate the case.  Of course, Kane decided not to prosecute.

        As of last Thursday, Kane issued a letter to Williams (her first correspondence to him since April 9) informing him that she would not turn over the files until certain legal issues were resolved.  In the letter, she raised potential conflicts (where did we hear that before) that Williams faced in handling the case.  Kane's office also wanted to ensure that Williams would limit his review to the facts in the case and not focus on her decision not to bring charges.  Huh?  If he chooses not to prosecute or prosecutes and loses, Kane looks good.  If he chooses to prosecute and wins, Kane doesn't look good.  In both cases the focus, from the public's perspective, will be on her decision not to prosecute – right or wrong.

        In response to Kane's letter, Williams was quoted as saying "It is apparent that Ms. Kane doesn't really believe I have a conflict, or she wouldn't have repeatedly suggested I take over this case."

        Perhaps Kane's challenge to Williams to prosecute the case was not a good political risk.  The case would actually be handed back to Fina, who was originally running it for the Commonwealth.  A successful prosecution or making the information on the tapes public could prove embarrassing.

        As of Tuesday morning, Kane now says she will release the files to Williams by the end of this week.

        To the public, this entire episode in Pennsylvania jousting between two high-ranking law-enforcement officials is frustrating and sounding more and more like a game more suited to adolescent finger-pointing and playground one-upmanship.

        Let's hope that the truth comes out, justice is served and that this game ends soon.