Questions about the timing and expense of impeaching Attorney General Kathleen Kane dominated a Tuesday hearing by the House subcommittee tasked with investigating her conduct in office.
Minority Leader Frank Dermody, who led the 1994 impeachment against state Supreme Court Justice Rolf Larsen, said the state's last impeachment cost about $1.5 million. When adjusted for inflation using Bureau of Labor Statistics data, a similar investigation would cost $2.4 million.
Impeachment comes with another cost: Time.
"Jeff and I lost about a year of our lives in 1994," said Dermody, a Democrat who testified alongside former Republican state Sen. Jeff Piccola.
"It's a long and arduous process and, if you decide to go down this path, I wish you the best," said Piccola, who now works as a private real estate and family law attorney.
Kane, whose law license was suspended last fall, faces criminal charges related to the alleged leak of secret grand jury materials. Her trial has been scheduled to begin in August. Last week, Kane announced that she did not plan to seek reelection in November.
The subcommittee could eventually make a recommendation to impeach Kane, which would then be considered by the House Judiciary Committee and then the full House. The House would need a majority vote there in order for an impeachment trial to take place in the Senate. Two-thirds of the Senate would then have to vote to sustain a conviction.
Rep. Todd Stephens, the Montgomery County Republican leading the subcommittee, said the next step will be to decide whether -- and who -- to retain as outside counsel. That attorney would then guide the panel's process from there on, he said.
Piccola, in his testimony, advised the panel to strive for bipartisanship, seek outside counsel and to keep their audience, other lawmakers, in mind.
Stephen F. Ross, a Pennsylvania State University law professor, said lawmakers will ultimately decide how to define misbehavior with regard to Kane's possible impeachment. But that definition will set precedent for future impeachments, he said, when the balance of power in the Legislature may have shifted.
"You're now sort of the prosecutor, the judge and the Supreme Court judge," he said.
Unlike the failed Senate removal process, which was centered on the question of whether Kane could continue on with a suspended law license, the House impeachment investigative could cover a wide range of issues.
Ross said the House's decision could be a political one based on that loose definition of "misbehavior"; a simple vote of "no confidence" against Kane's leadership; a vote on specific allegations of abuse of power, which is not necessarily criminal; or a determination of serious criminal conduct.
Stephens said he believes there's no interest in pursuing a political impeachment against Kane.
"This is about the integrity of the office of attorney general," he said, "and, in the broader context, of the justice system in Pennsylvania."
While the investigation will focus on Kane's actions and those of her office, Stephens said, it could also end up exploring other areas, such as the email exchange between various state officials that she made public.
"We're going to have to follow the facts wherever they lead us," he said. "But, at the same time, we're mindful of the timeline we're under. I don't know if we're going to be able to turn over every rock."
The possible expense is another factor that Stephens said the panel will consider at the every step of the way.
Media reports from Larsen impeachment showed that much of the estimated $1.6 million cost went to attorneys for the various parties involved. That figure also excluded the cost to support and defend Larsen through the process.
On Tuesday, Stephens said he didn't believe the possible Kane impeachment would cost as much as Larsen's. In 1994, he said, the House had to figure out the process, which had last been used in the 19th century.
"They were the trailblazers," he said. "We are the fortunate beneficiaries of all of their work, so the procedure is already laid out."
In 1994, the Larsen impeachment followed his conviction for conspiring to obtain drugs via fraudulent prescriptions. Kane's impeachment process, however, may run concurrently with her criminal trial.
That fact was not lost on the Democratic members of the panel, Dermody or Kane herself.
"She continues to believe that the House is putting the cart before the horse by proceeding with its hearings before the criminal justice system has had the opportunity to do its job," Kane spokesman Chuck Ardo said Tuesday.
Dermody said investigators were able to interview witnesses in the criminal case against Larsen because they were no longer needed by the prosecutor.
"The criminal case here is not until August," he said. "I'm sure the DA would not want the Judiciary Committee snooping around."
Stephens, a former U.S. attorney, said he's cognizant of the needs of prosecutors. He had himself briefly considered a run for Kane's seat in the April primary.
"There's a very big difference between suggesting you think you might be able to do a better job than someone and suggesting they need to be impeached," he said, when asked about whether that could impact his decision-making. "The bar for impeachment is and, ought to be, very high. I take that very seriously."
He also emphasized that the process is still in its infancy.
"We won't make a recommendation until we have all the facts," he said.