March 16, 2007
John McKay and his interesting double standard

Back in 2005, John McKay insisted he couldn't comment on any possible investigation into allegations of fraud in the 2004 election, yet at the same time he was only too eager to announce he was conducting a different investigation.

From our archives, May 20, 2005

Now we know what the priorities are:
John McKay, the U.S. attorney for Western Washington, will direct a preliminary FBI investigation into possible federal criminal violations by Spokane Mayor Jim West, McKay's office said Friday
Not that I have any sympathy for Jim West, but why is it that the U.S. Attorney can announce that he's investigating West, 10 days after he said he couldn't legally announce any investigation, such as into the King County election fraud scandal?

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 16, 2007 10:41 AM | Email This
Comments
1. Could it be that this U.S. Attorney is more concerned about people jerking off in their offices than he is concerned about election fraud?

It's the concervitive thing to do. People went after Clinton for getting blowjobs in office. A investigation into voter fraud is not going to change the election outcome. May as well go after the fresh meat.

Posted by: Cato on March 16, 2007 10:58 AM
2. I remember thinking that very same thing at the time of the West investigation!

It seemed odd that McKay was so verbal and public about the West investigation (Which I thought was a good thing!) Yet - he was completely silent on the topic of the 2004 election fraud.. I don't recall McKay ever making a public statement on the election fraud allegations or evidence or even the dismissal of an investigation....

I remember looking on his website where it lists what his office was involved in (to a point..certainly not ongoing investigations). I assumed at the time that he was still actively involved with the election fraud investgation and thus it was not listed among his office's agenda.

Now - to hear that he never even considered looking into the mountain of evidence uncovered and neatly presented by Stefan and other's ....is unbelievable!

I also remember that we had a certain poster here at SoundPolitics, who seemed inappropriately concerned that McKay's office was going to get involved. This poster would demand evidence of the Feds involvment and question me and other's who claimed that the investigation was inevitable..He really seemed bothered at our confidence that an investigation was in the works! Granted - that wouldn't be odd behavior for some of our more liberal posters...but what was odd - was this poster's change in concern at one point. He seemed to know (long before it was apparent) that the investgation was not happening......

Just one of those things that struck me as odd at the time..

Posted by: Deborah on March 16, 2007 11:30 AM
3. No wonder the lefties are whining about this dolt getting fired.

CATO: An investigation into election fraud might not change the election but it could clean up a process that is now corrupt. Are you satisfied with how KC Elections conducts their business?

Posted by: Jack Burton on March 16, 2007 11:35 AM
4. Sigh, once again Cato drops by to spin like a whirling dervish. Oh, pardon me, that's so culturally insensitive.

Stay on task, Cato. Slick Willie was prosecuted for PERJURY. Remember? Lying under oath, obstruction of justice, and suborning perjury.

Lawyers don't lose their law license for five years for sex. They lose their law license for five years for lying under oath.

Get the difference? Somehow I doubt it.

Now, back on topic. West was a Republican. Investigate and prosecute. Sims and Logan are Democrats. Deny a problem, don't investigate, don't prosecute. Very simple, really.

Posted by: Obi-Wan on March 16, 2007 11:58 AM
5. McKay has said that his office "looked into" the reports of possible irregularities in the 2004 election and concluded that there was nothing to investigate. Am I correct in assuming that any correspondence, internal memos or reports that formed the basis for that decision are now subject to FOIA disclosure?

Posted by: Patrick on March 16, 2007 12:02 PM
6. #5 - all he did was look at the evidence in the Chelan case, nothing else. He did nothing, or at least he hasn't said he did anything, with evidence that Stefan uncovered on his own through public records requests following that trial. This is what uncovered all of the illegal votes that were counted.

Posted by: Palouse on March 16, 2007 12:19 PM
7. but it could clean up a process that is now corrupt

"Could" being the key word here. We COULD clean the process up or we COULD blow a lot of taxpayer money on something that won't make a bit of difference. I'm thinking the later.

Stay on task, Cato. Slick Willie was prosecuted for PERJURY.

And why was he on the stand in the first place? Could it be the GOP was hammering him about his extramarital relations in office? I fail to see the difference.

Posted by: Cato on March 16, 2007 01:00 PM
8. And this guy was running the Bush/Cheney campaign for 2004! No wonder Republicans have been losing!

Posted by: Michelle on March 16, 2007 01:40 PM
9. No, Michelle, John McKay was not running the Bush/Cheney campaign in 2004. Mike McKay was the state chair of Bush's campaign

Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on March 16, 2007 01:53 PM
10. OK, wrong brother.

Posted by: Michelle on March 16, 2007 03:25 PM
11. Let's see.....

McKay was public with the fact that he was involved in a preliminary investigation of the 2004 election. (His office said, in 2005, that they were watching the Chelan proceedings -- and invited folks to submit any additional evidence of wrongdoing beyond the court proceedings to the FBI.)

McKay was also public with the fact that he was preliminarily investigating the Jim West matter.

He did not comment on the substance of either investigation while each was in progress. (Such matters must secret be kept secret by prosecutors, of course.)

Two investigations. Both disclosed without specifics in order to protect the secrecy of the process. Where's the double standard again?

This is low-brow stuff, Stefan. To any thinking person, there's an obvious difference between commenting on the substance of an ongoing preliminary investigation and announcing that a preliminary investigation is underway.

The latter is something that McKay did in both cases. The former is something he would never do in any case.

While your eyes might be blinded to it by the specter of so many Republicans who have been convicted of or admitted felonies in recent months, John McKay was and is a Republican with integrity who did his job as a prosecutor fairly and honestly. Simple as that.

And one more thing. Anybody who wants to continue to pretend that the replacement of McKay was about legitimate performance issues should read this: "U.S. Attorney candidate White can't practice law in this state" http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003621382_webwhite16m.html

V

Posted by: Vonnegut on March 16, 2007 05:05 PM
12. remember McKay saying he didn't have jurisdiction to investigate vote fraud in Washington when US Attorneys in Ohio and Wisconsin (or was it Michigan) were doing just that?

McKay knew there was vote fraud going on but refused to investigate and prosecute it. McKay is corrupt as heel.

Posted by: Don on March 16, 2007 05:12 PM
13. do not forget, no federal crimes were found of Mr. West. RIP

Posted by: fRED on March 16, 2007 05:20 PM
14. Good one, Stefan. What a lot of BS from that guy, huh?

Posted by: Michele on March 16, 2007 06:48 PM
15. " But these officials serve at the president's pleasure! He can fire any of them anytime for any reason. If he didn't like their hairstyle, he could bounce them. In fact, their four year terms had all expired and they were being carried on month-to-month anyway. "

" So what is the big deal? The Democrats (and some confused Republicans like Senator John Ensign of Nevada) say that Gonzales fired the prosecutors for political reasons - that they failed to be sufficiently aggressive in prosecuting certain cases such as voter fraud prosecutions. Well, so what? That's why we have political appointees in the US Attorney jobs. If we wanted nonpolitical figures, we would make them civil service positions. We have an appointed Attorney General and appointed US Attorneys precisely so that the president can impact their prosecutorial decisions to conform to his policy and program priorities. "
Dick Morris,
Dick Morris Reports,
VOL. 1, No. 3
March 16, 2007

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 16, 2007 07:52 PM
16. Time to get rid of the so-called "moderate" Republicans. John McKay, Sam Reed, Norm Maleng, Dave Reichert, and Rob McKenna need to know there is no place for them or the "Republicans" who vote for them. Their leadership in this party has brought us down nothing but failure, a slip to the left, and Democrat hegemony.

Posted by: don on March 16, 2007 09:57 PM
17. At this point, Bush would be best served if he grew a pair, grabbed a microphone and said this:

"I fired those people. It was my decision, and my right. The buck stops here."

"While my people might have handled this a little better, we all know that the democrat tizzy over this issue is nothing more then their continuing effort to weaken this Administration in their efforts to discredit our war effort."

"Those people are fired, they are going to stay fired, and Alberto Gonzales will remain my Attorney General, regardless of the efforts of any democrat buffoons to make hay while the sun shines."

The president's failure to tell the d's to jam it is what's causing all of this... and he needs to put an end to it... now.

Posted by: Hinton on March 17, 2007 12:12 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?