March 21, 2007
John McKay in today's newspapers
P-I: "Justice Dept. saw McKay as 'effective' -- yet bristled at his 'insubordination'"
New York Times: "Gonzales Bowed to Politics, a Former U.S. Attorney Says "
Seattle Times: "McKay went from hero to zero with Justice Department"
Especially worth noting: (1) a bi-partisan panel split on party lines whether to recommend McKay for a federal judgeship. (only the Democrats supporting him)
(2) McKay's public criticism of the DoJ on policy issues. A reader well-versed in the unwritten code of conduct for political appointees wrote that this is a career-limiting move:
Talking to the press outside of talking points or approved messaging from HQ is bad, especially when you're voicing personal opinion over being a spokesperson for the administration. Publicly pressuring HQ on a policy issue is really bad.
(3) Still no documentation of what McKay actually did to investigate election crimes from 2004.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 21, 2007
11:27 AM | Email This
McKay documented his approach to the 2004 elections himself. He looked at the evidence from the Wenatchee trial, passed judgement, turned off his mind and refused to consider the subsequent evidence that Stefan pried out of King County's unwilling clutches.
The reason the papers defend McKay is that they too turned off their minds regarding King County's election malfeasance - and did so before Wenatchee. Afterwards, their guy having won the election and the trial, they left their vaunted curiosity and their duty to inform the public switched solidly 'off' - and put a lock on the switch.
Where is the evidence of what McKay claims to have investigated?
Hopefully they will release those files since no illegalities were allegedly found.
Stefan, keep using the term Election Illegalities...that is what this is about. NOT FRAUD! Fraud is a very high crime with a very high standard of proof. It is the LEFTIST PINHEADED KLOWNS strawman.
It's also about what precisely was the scope of McKay's investigation. Who did he talk to? What did me look at? Did he look at information belatedly released by KingKounty in their stonewalling efforts???
This is NOT just about the 2004 Election RESULT. That is over. This is about ILLEGAL ACTS.
After Clinton fired all 93 US Attorneys in March, 1993, how many Republican prosecutors did he appoint to replace them? George W. Bush appointed at least one Democrat, John McKay, to head the US Attorneys Office in Seattle, and look at the way the Democrats have politicized that appointment, and now the decision by the Justice Department to let him go AFTER his 4-year term had expired? Do Democrats want a Democrat to ever be appointed by a Republican president again?
I'm convinced that McKay did not live up to his oath when he refused to investigate this state's 2004 election debacle. Given that Sam Reed, a Republican, has turned out to be equally worthless as a gatekeeper, party affiliation alone can't be assumed to be the only factor in McKay's inaction, but it leaves you wondering whether he had a loyalty to Democrats that was sufficient to keep him from investigating King Ron, Logan, and the cabal of elected and appointed officials who made a series of very questionable, if not illegal decisions during the counts, recounts, and subsequent testimony.
But all of these considerations are irrelevant. The only relevant point here is that Democrats never cared about the handling of US Attorney appointments and firings until they figured out how they could use it attack a Republican president. And anyone who believes this issue would exist if not for the biased coverage and irresponsible journalism these clowns at papers like the Seattle Times and PI engage in, just don't get it.
So the Justice Department "bristled at his insubordination." US Attorneys function at the pleasure of the president. Fire him!
"Gonzalez bowed to politics." Who wants to argue that politics is not part of every appointment and firing of appointees? Political considerations are why presidents are authorized to appoint people to these positions.
"McKay went from hero to zero." McKay is a Democrat. That makes him darn close to a zero by default!
He was praised up to a month before he was fired for incompetence. What gives? Mutiny.
A couple of days ago when there were reports that a successor to Gonzales was being looked for. However, it was the unspecified individuals again. It turns out that it may have been one of the higher ups in the Justice Dept. that is backstabbing and deliberating leaking information and just generally trying to create this situation. He/They are doing a good job of it.
I would give the names that pop out of my head but I can't recall for certain. But, these guys are trying to organize a mutiny against their bosses- Bush and Gonzales. Incidentally, these boys are Democrats.
I find this a bigger story than anything so far. MSM isn't covering this angle, but bloggers seem to be on it.
The new blog, Politico, seems to be veering to the left these days, so they are reporting that Gonzales is out. I guess they are trying to create a maelstrom that will only subside if they get their way.
Politics at its ugliest.
5. This is an area -- especially in the Puget Sound Basin -- every important position is held by a DEMOCRAT -- for this very reason the local US Attorney must be a thinking REPUBLICAN willing to act. Why McKay was allowed to stay past his 4 years (and why he was appointed in the first place) is beyond me. The reason that the local (Democrats) are making such a fuss is to 1) weaken a newly-appointed Republican Attorney whoever they may be; and 2) there may be enough in McKay's files (if they have not been erased or destroyed) to put several investigations on the fast-track...
McKay is a Republican--every single article has stated this, as well as the Western Washington U.S. Attorney Web site. John McKay stated that he didn't pursue charges for voter fraud because he couldn't find sufficient evidence: "Frankly, it didn't matter to me what people thought," McKay told a House Judiciary subcommittee. "There was no evidence of voter fraud."
It doesn't make sense for Republicans to continue to state that there was voter fraud. According to this site, "evidence" was sent to the FBI and that agency, which has the power to obtain all the original documents, also didn't find evidence of voter fraud.
The dismissal of the U.S. Attorneys is being investigated because there are White House memos that show that people who were identified as not being "loyal Bushies" were the ones who were dismissed. One of the dismissed attorneys was investigating a high-level CIA official.
And keep in mind that this isn't the first time that the Bush administration has done this type of thing. In 2005, U.S. Attorney Frederick A. Black was demoted after serving more than 10 years as a U.S. Attorney for Guam a day after he started an investigation of Jack Abramoff:
This is an investigation of ethical behavior. When Bush entered the White House, he pledged that there was going to be a new era of "integrity and ethics" with his administration. Now, every time one of these scandals breaks, every Republican in America starts pointing to Clinton and starts whining "but he got away with blah, blah, blah."
Evidently, Republican mothers never tell their kids "and if your friend Bill jumped off a cliff, would you do it too?"
Rats!! I was going to do a reference check on my previous paragraph, but couldn't find the references.
But, it seemed there were two gentlemen in Justice (and I think at least one was the one who gave the glowing report) who started the rumor that Gonzales was out. It was reported in the papers Monday as breaking news. There were no names given as to who made the statements.
Then the blogger/article mentioned that these individuals were deliberately attempting to demean Gonzales and were leaking reports, etc. to the media in violation of Justice rules. There were passing all the information that would make Bush and Gonzales look bad to their lefty buddies.
However, the Justice people who would have made the decisions were not these two gentlemen.
I'll keep looking but it is not my forte.
Let me get this straight Swatter...Justice Dept officials told Gonzales the wrong information which led his to testify falsely before congress as to the real reason the U.S. Attorney's were fired. Further the (unknown/unnamed) Democrats in the Justice Dept. went as far as to throw out names of possible Gonzales replacement to make make him the Bush Admin look bad?
Look at the facts:
1) Eight Attorney Generals are fired at once (very odd)
2) Gonzales chief-of-staff email conversation with the White House about whether the (subsequently fired) US Attorneys are being partisan enough ("loyal bushies").
3) Gonzales chief-of-staff fired
4) Bush not letting anyone testify under oath
Looks more like Bush screwed the pooch and doesn't want to admit he fired them for Political reasons and not "performance reasons" as originally claimed. If he really wanted the truth out he would let Rove/Miers testify under oath in a closed door session.
Currently Dubya is just digging himself a deeper and deeper hole. Meanwhile he gives Dem's have great fodder for 2008 since the GOP candidates won't touch the issue (and wisely so).
9. McKay is a Republican. The WSJ incorrectly mentioned that he is a Democrat, but that is not true.
10. It doesn't make sense for Republicans to continue to state that there was voter fraud. According to this site, "evidence" was sent to the FBI and that agency, which has the power to obtain all the original documents, also didn't find evidence of voter fraud.
How would they know? They did not launch an investigation into it. We have no reason to believe they have even REVIEWED all of the evidence that Stefan has uncovered SINCE the trial. If McKay had done his job, he would have at the minimum done an investigation into all of the illegally counted ballots after the trial.
Fine. He fired them for political reasons. So what? It's politics. People - gasp! - even Democrats can and will fire people for political reasons. Whoop de freaking do.
The fact that all the usual suspects are now speaking up for this "Republican" tells me all I need to know.
I wonder what manufactured scandal we'll be subjected to next.
Bottom line: the US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. They are inherently political appointments, and can be removed by the President (or his appointed representatives) at will.
So what's the problem? If the President chooses to change his press secretary, chief of staff, a cabinet member, or a US attorney it's the same thing - it IS a political post!
This is much ado about nothing...
Unlike the facts regarding election illegalities that Stefan's documented. THAT is what should be investigated, not the firing of a political appointee!
13. He fired them for political reasons. So what?
Gonzales claimed they were fired for Performance issues (i.e. they did a lousy job). Turns out this was not the case, in fact most people seemed quite pleased with them (see Reichart's comments on McCay). In fact a lot of them were doing their job when some powerful GOP party individuals felt they were not doing enough to help the party win races / smear the Democrats. Those US Attorneys who did not go above and beyond in those aforementioned fields were subsequently fired.
If they were fired because they were not good attorneys that's one thing, if they were fired because they we're not "loyal bushies", it's quite another.
There is a system of checks and balances in this country, Bush doesn't seem to like it. This was a Dubya way of saying 'hey, these people aren't partisan enough, let's find someone who will do everything in their power to keep us in power by making the other guys look bad'.
14. A favorite soundpolitics.org topic is bias in the media, yet Stefan's post conveniently omits any mention of Reichert saying today that McKay's firing was unfair. Stefan is a hypocrite, and his hypocrisy knows no bounds. Practice what you preach and tell the whole story!!!
15. McKay was dismissed for performance issues as has been detailed here on this site. Reichert is simply wrong, but he's entitled to his opinion.
16. McKay was dismissed for performance issues as has been detailed here on this site.
Those are opinions of some GOP conspiracy theorists who still can't get over the fact Rossi lost. Let's see who says Rossi lost...a GOP Judge, A US Attorney, and the FBI. Three separate organizations passes on investigating voter fraud charges. Yes, the circumstances surrounding Rossi's loss were a bit sketchy but it's really time to move on and stop blaming others for something that's not there.
Not every article states that McKay is a Republican. This from the Wall Street Journal makes a pretty clear statement that he's a Demcorat:
"Take sacked U.S. Attorney John McKay from Washington state. ... None of this constitutes proof that the election was stolen. But it should have been enough to prompt Mr. McKay, a Democrat, to investigate, something he declined to do, apparently on grounds that he had better things to do."
You also state, "it doesn't make sense for Republicans to continue to state that there was voter fraud. According to this site, "evidence" was sent to the FBI and that agency, which has the power to obtain all the original documents, also didn't find evidence of voter fraud."
On a matter of this import, the FBI could easily have been convinced, but without approval from the US Attorney to fund an investigation, it would have died right there.
Several years ago I and others were invited to speak to the US Attorney in Seattle about charges we had made against King County on a land use issue. The FBI was convinced to the extent that it invited us to argue the need for an investigation to the US Attorney. Unfortunately, just as was likely with McKay, that US Attorneys Office we were dealing with had no interest in going after King County and a major corporation, regardless of the wrongdoing we had identified and proven sufficiently to the FBI.
As for charges that the Bush administration has engaged in unethical behavior, I have little tolerance for critics who make false charges for political advantage. Bush was acting completely within his authority to replace the 8. He waited until their terms were up, unlike Clinton, and retained carryovers from the Clinton administration, unlike Clinton from Bush Sr. At least two that Clinton fired were in the middle of investigations of wrongdoing by the Clintons and Dan Ronstenkowski, while the principal reason being advertised for the dismissal of the Bush-8 was their unwillingness to investigate wrongdoing.
The only unethical behavior is among Hillary, Schumer and others who've allowed their personal political conflicts of interest to drive them into alleging wrongdoing where none has occurred, and engaging in the politics of personal destruction in trying to force Alberto Gonzalez to resign.
There is no comparison between Clinton's firings of all 93 in '93, and Bush's dismissals after the terms were up for these 8. The only comparisons are the ones being invented by the hate-Bush crowd and their allies in the media that have helped them orchestrate this non-scandal into one.
'hey, these people aren't partisan enough, let's find someone who will do everything in their power to keep us in power by making the other guys look bad'.
Sounds like a Democrat tactic to me. "Let's trump up a lot of BS to make the other guys look bad."
McKay sat on his thumbs during the 2004 election and got was he deserved...fired. That's good enough for me.
This problem would have gone away a long time ago if Bush had simply responded right at the beginning, "The US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President, and we we are not obligated to explain or justify this internal personnel action." And then repeated that response every time someone tried to bring up the subject. No "clarifications," no "apologies," and certainly no appearances in front of Congressional committees.
Unfortunately, as they have done so many times in the past, the Republicans continue to believe that if they engage the Democrats and reason with them, the Democrats will "play fair." For some reason the Republicans still haven't figured out that the Democrats will spin and distort everything they can if they see an opportunity to damage this Administration.
CAREFULLY WATCH McKay's verbage as well as the KLOWNS........they keep saying there was no Voter FRAUD!!! The F----word is not the issue. They use the F----word knowing Fraud is virtually impossible in Washington to prove.
Unfortunately, my friends who are always right are also using the F----word. STOP IT!!!!!!!!!
It's about ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES....not necessarily Fraud.
21. Three separate organizations passes on investigating voter fraud charges.
Yes, very cozy isn't it? Were they afraid of finding something? Perhaps the people (like McKay) had their own political aspirations and messy investigations like that would not have won him any political favors. This is not about Rossi winning or losing Cato. It's about whether McKay did his job well. The simple fact is that he didn't. A good prosecutor would have investigated it.
Kenny Dale Hill @ 14 sez:
A favorite soundpolitics.org topic is bias in the media, yet Stefan's post conveniently omits any mention of Reichert saying today that McKay's firing was unfair.
Kenny, Congressman Reichert is talking like a woman. Your politics and his sounds like women's politics. Who said that the handling of McKay, or anyone, has to be fair? How do you measure fairness in a matter such as this?
I urge you to look instead to the law. We are a nation of laws, not fairness, and our Congress should concern themselves more with what is legal than what is fair.
Do you see the distinction?
23. What the underlying issue boils down to is that the KC Democrat Political Machine deliberately and systematically put in place measures which mad it very easy for those disposed to cast extra legal votes to do so and staffed the positions within the KC Elections with people who would look the other way.
24. Kenny, Congressman Reichert is talking like a woman. Your politics and his sounds like women's politics.
Wow huckleberry, not only are you stupid but your sexist too.
our Congress should concern themselves more with what is legal than what is fair.
What is illegal is lying before the Senate. Gonzalez will have to resign as so many other "loyal Bushies" have done before him. =)
What's your purpose cato? Want to see what hay you can make in the lame duck presidency? Do you really think Gonzales ran the Justice Department? Do you really think Janet Reno did either? Do you think the President can get a handle on the cia, fbi? Can Booth Gardner get a handle on the Department of Social and Health Services? (Booth did try, cato)
If you have ever worked in government, you know there are little gremlins that work to stop the agency from performing. They leak and they peek.
Here, they are making things tough for Gonzales. And tell me, Gonzales said the firings weren't political, but in the end, part of the reason for the firings was politics? So, people like yourself can go around and say Bush lied, people died, or is it Gonzales lied and people....
26. John McKay is a Democrat. Anyone in the know politically has known that since his name first surfaced as a potential U.S. Attorney. His previous job was head of the Legal Services Corporation which uses our tax dollars to incite the poor (in the guise of giving them legal advice). The people who work for the LSC are some of the most liberal, anti-American leftists in our country. They are out to sabotage our freedoms. No Republican could ever head this office, especially when the President at the time was Bill Clinton.
Bottom line: John McKay is and always has been a Democrat.
27. If they were fired because they were not good attorneys that's one thing, if they were fired because they we're not "loyal bushies", it's quite another.
Only in your hyper-charged partisan world, Cato. Where everything is Bush = evil, everything else = good. You wouldn't know thing one about John McKay, or any other US attorney, if this entire incident wasn't being blown out of proportion in another psuedo scandal.
And it's quite possible - other than in your partisan zeal to call everybody who has a different version of events a 'liar' - that we don't know why McKay was deep-sixed. It's entirely possible people are stating he was fired for performance when maybe they're too nice to say he was a back-stabbing little twerp who should've been canned long ago. Who knows? My point is, who cares?
It's simply another chance to whine about something you knew little about until your liberal masters put it before you.
What you should be worried about is your most ethical congress. You know, the people who are following the 2006 election 'mandate' (snort) and changing the way things are done in DC. You know, those with the 28 percent approval rating. But no, you're willing to forget your leaders' ineptness in order focus on this trivial nonsense.
You know what's going to be fun? When Bush is gone in 2009 and you frantically search the world over for somebody else to provide you fodder to manufacture your latest, ignorant outrage. Until then, this is just another in a long line of tedious mole hills.
And for the last effing time, Cato and the rest of you fools, Judge John Bridges is not a 'GOP' judge. He's a good judge and has always played it straight.
The Rossi case being lost had more to do with poor strategy, a lack of statute and missing evidence than any sort of 'Gee. Even 'your guys' didn't think there was a case' BS.
I swear. This gets so old, rehashing the same crap over and over and over again. Go play on your little blogs, kay? Fling feces with the rest of the chimps.
When Clinton came in and told the 93 then USAs to clean out their offices in ten days, what was the reason?
Performance issues? Not good Clintonites? Not Democrats? Appointed by Bush(I)?
Or was it just that he could?
If the dismissals had nothing to do with performance, then all the other reasons have to do with POLITICS.
Why are the Democrats so mad that Bush fired people HE hired?
CNN? TV Cameras?
Maybe it is all just a show to distract the public form the fact that Pelosi's grandiose 100 hour plan has come to a stop in the Senate and no meaningful legislation is going forward...
He fired them for political reasons. So what?
Gonzales claimed they were fired for Performance issues (i.e. they did a lousy job).
Personally, with my employees, if they don't act out according the policies of my company that's considered bad performance.
If you're a US attorney and the official policy of the Administration is different from how you're acting, don't be surprised if you get canned. For bad performance - you're not supporting/doing what you're supposed to do.
If they were fired because they were not good attorneys that's one thing, if they were fired because they we're not "loyal bushies", it's quite another.
If the US attorneys are appointments by the Administration, they're political appointments. Meaning firing for not paying attention to the political and state goals of the Administration IS POOR PERFORMANCE!
It would be like Tony Snow coming out daily and giving Ms. Pelosi's speaking points, not those from the White House. Firing in that case is completely justified.
32. Part of Bush's comments last night on this issue advised that some of the firings had to do with failure to prosecute illegal immigration and election fraud cases. Makes one wonder if McKay was one of those who fell into the category of election fraud cases? Either way, it is the President's discretion. They are "political appointees" and so of course, the firings or requested resignations were "political". Represent the boss or get fired.
A Seattle Times article a few days ago quotes several people who were involved in the investigation for voter fraud. The investigation didn't produce enough evidence to take the issue to trial. Even the attorney had the strongest suspicions possible that voter fraud had taken place, he still had to have some kind of tangible proof. On this site, Stefen showed notes on the outside of envelopes, but without seeing the corresponding forms, I wasn't convinced. Because the notes could have been made in error or there may be rules in place for resolving some of those issues. But an FBI investigator WAS assigned to the case.
The unfortunate truth in law is that you must have proof before you can make charges. There's a box of investigative material sitting in a warehouse somewhere that shows what McKay's office did to investigate this matter. Maybe he'll turn that into a book and then you'll know what steps were taken. But to say that he didn't look into it because charges were never filed does not necessarily follow a logical line of reasoning.
And you may not realize it, but to a Democrat (or independent), when the White House says that political appointments are "made at the President's pleasure" it sound like Bush thinks he's the king of America or something. This attitude is riling many Americans--not just Democrats. My family fought in the Revolutionary War and I've gotta tell you that statements like that is a big red flag (to me) that Bush has been corrupted by power. That kind of attitude is un-American. Americans believe that "all men are created equal," including the President! He can't fire a person just because that person didn't do something outside of the normal rules of law just because the President tells him to do so! (Assuming that the normal rule of law requires that a grand jury only be held when there is sufficient evidence to do so).
Concerning whether McKay is Republican or not, I think I understand now how the Republican mind works. See, when McKay was appointed in 2001, he put into the bio (on the Attorney General's Web site) that he was a Republican because the super secret plan to put Gregoire into the Governor's seat had already been hatched by those scheming Democrats and they wanted to hide the fact that McKay was a Democrat! Yeah, that makes sense!
A question for you, "technomom" --
Did McKay's office and/or the FBI look at the specific illegal votes that I alleged in this post
Please answer "Yes", "No", or "I don't know".
Read my reply. I said "There's a box of investigative material sitting in a warehouse somewhere that shows what McKay's office did to investigate this matter. Maybe he'll turn that into a book and then you'll know what steps were taken." Until this material is published in some way, nobody knows exactly which voter records his team looked at.
If you sent this information to the FBI then I would certainly assume that they took a look at it. If the FBI receives information of fraud and upon investigation finds some truth to it, they would certainly turn over any evidence they had to McKay's team so they could put together a grand jury. And if the FBI DID hand over evidence, and McKay didn't act on it (presumably because he is incompetent as the White House states) then why don't the Republicans in Congress pull in some FBI agents before the grand jury to provide this information? If they did that, it would put rumors to rest that the White House "leaned on" a U.S. Attorney to conduct a grand jury (circus) for "the President's pleasure".
This whole story is bad for Republicans, period. That's why the Democrats in the Congress are keeping it alive and string it out.
This blog is just adding fuel to the fire. That's stupid.
"The unfortunate truth in law is that you must have proof before you can make charges."
WHAT??? That's not any sort of truth, unfortunate or not. The only 'proof' needed is that the evidence sustains the charges. You've got it exactly backwards. The charges come first - and at trial, the charges are 'proven' or 'disproven' largely on the basis of the evidence submitted (the behavior of the testifying parties has some effect also). The proof is in the verdict, not the indictment nor the charges.
In the case of Stefan's ballot displays (which have been available for all of us to see on this blog), the evidence of King County malfeasance is plenty strong enough to bring charges. And the behavior of the Elections Department in attempting to withhold public records from the inspection of a citizen is additive in demonstrating there was something to hide. So here we have both solid evidence, and sleazy behavior via the belated and grudging access to the public records. Additional damaging evidence might well turn up on discovery, were a case launched on what is now known about the ballot-handling and counting. A jury of practically-minded citizens might very well decide on examination of these items that the evidence was indeed 'proof' of County malfeasance.
A Seattle Times article a few days ago quotes several people who were involved in the investigation for voter FRAUD.
See, she uses the F----word FRAUD, when FRAUD is not the issue.
Nice try===NO SALE!!
You also have to question whether the FBI agent assigned to look into the election irregularities had the correct type of experience to dig into the election data, like Stephan did, or like a forensic accountant would have done. Not every FBI agent is trained to do that type of work.
If the agent didn't care enough, didn't have enough time, or didn't have the expertise, then it's no wonder they couldn't find enough evidence.
I just think it is funny as hell how all of this is coming back to bite George W. Bush in the rear. I warned Bush in January 2001 that Mike McKay could not be trusted. McKay was Chair of the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign in Washington, yet he gave money to Gregoire and Sims and endorsed liberal judicial candidates while serving in that position. And Bush put McKay in charge of the selection committee to hire a new U.S. Attorney, along with other self-professed "Republicans" like Norm Maleng.
McKay preferred Anne Bremner, who pretended to be a Republican. When it was exposed that Bremner was a Democrat who had given money to Locke and Inslee in October 2000, John McKay (Mike's younger brother) applied for the position instead and got it.
The end results are not surprising, only the ultimate method by which this corrupt pile of garbage has collapsed. It is proper and fitting for Bush to be exposed for the corrupt fool that he is. Anyone who betrays the people who supported him doesn't deserve the privilege of serving them.
Self-professed Republican Dave Reichert (who also supported Sims and other Democrats, before the chance for a promotion to federal office presented itself) is also a nice part of this puzzle. Reichert was tasked with forming a selection committee to replace John McKay. So he picks Mike McKay and Norm Maleng -- the same jokers who gave us John McKay in the first place. And who do they recommend? Rick White, who was suspended by the state Supreme Court in 2003 for failing to pay bar dues, and is still not licensed to practice law!
Reichert adds another act to this comedy (or tragedy, if you are a Republican) by suggesting that Bush re-appoint John McKay, at least until the firing is "investigated". At the same time, Reichert neither withdraws nor explains his recommendation of lapsed lawyer White for the position, but strongly vouches for McKay's qualifications.
All this is making Darcy Burner into an extremely attractive choice for 2008. At least we know where Burner stands. And Burner also had the wisdom to realize how corrupt the Republican leadership in this state is, and the courage to leave the party she had grown up with and had participated in its presidential primary as recently as 2000.
I disagree Pope. Reichert's a bit of a RINO, as is McKay. But Burner is an avowed socialist, with an anti-American, moonbat supporting streak to boot. As foolish as this mess is, it's not a reason to elect a Marxist. Besides, she'll flub it again anyway. She's to arrogant to visit Pierce County.
Fitting for McKay. He failed to scrutinize, so he got scrutinized.
42. Don't Worry Pope posted the same lame crap about Burner over at HA. Feel free to jump on board the Darcy Bandwagon, between Richard and Goldy how could she lose? I mean aside from the fact that she is a raving socialist sychophant that lacks experience, character, and doesn't volunteer in her local community (except for photo-ops at Ames Lake Community Club meetings) and doesn't vote unless she thinks people are looking. Sounds like another boffo candidate to support. Plus she's unemployed for four years so she wouldn't have to quit her day job.
43. Keep up the good work, it's obviously in the interest of the GOP to keep this story as high-profile as possible (?!). The longer the story takes to play out the closer it gets to the 2008 elections. Can't wait till the rest of the emails and memos come out, can you?
Kenny@14 writes: "A favorite soundpolitics.org topic is bias in the media, yet Stefan's post conveniently omits any mention of Reichert saying today that McKay's firing was unfair. Stefan is a hypocrite..."
Bias? Nah. This is just proof that Reichert is part of the Logan/Sims/Vance/Gregoire/Reed/Bridges/McKay conspiracy.
45. Does any of this mean, that utimately something will finally be done about the stolen election?
Stefan and the tiny group that agree with him are all that is left of those who aren't willing to admit that Bush/Rove usurped all norms in this political firing. Fire all when you get elected, that's normal. Fire some after you LOVE them because they aren't political operatives is downright wrong on all counts.
Embarassing that Stefan refuses to understand this...even though a number of republicans have figured it out.
Marginalize away Stefan...bye....bye....bye
47. Rollingeyes: No, unfortuantely Bush remains president though he stole it (you are talking about Florida, right?).....the only stolen election in the past 10 years...
1. Go ahead and try an attack me. I am an independent and while a conservative Christian, I am not right wing. I attempt to judge each issue
2. For better or worse, there is a significant portion of the voting population which views this
past election as not legitimate. I, myself, think it stunk to high heaven. Are you saying an investigation will cause harm?
3. A question to you, why are you afraid of an impartial investigation of the 2004 election. Are
you afraid that where there is smoke there is fire?
4. Actually, David et al, is a lot more clever than you. You have one note, he has two or three. I won't say they is close to making music, but they are more useful than just a pitch tone.
Obviously, Stefan may be on to something, the trolls are getting nervous.
49. Hey StefanisWrong, give Stefan credit: he is willing to stick with a cause even when both parties are moving far away from his view. Examples include opposing voting by mail, opposing more funding for public education, denying man-made climate change, and supporting the firing of the US attorneys. Such stubborness can be dangerous when combined with power -- a similar denial of reality caused George Bush to create the Iraq mess -- but it's relatively harmless in a blog. And occasionally he makes a good point.
WVH asks, "why are you afraid of an impartial investigation of the 2004 election?"
May I answer even though you didn't ask me? I'm not afraid of an impartial investigation. One was conducted through the legal process (in front of a right-leaning judge) and another was conducted by a Republican US attorney. You can debate the results of those investigations, and they were limited by time and statute, but you can't seriously argue that the people involved were partial to the Democrats.
By way of comparison, the 2000 presidential election involved a Supreme Court decision along party lines. Whether the decision was right or wrong (and I will try really really hard not to get into that here), objectively the powers involved were partial to the Republicans, so there is at least (!) the suspicion of bias. But there's no such indication of bias with the 2004 WA governor's election.
You're lying. You've made a claim, back it up. You've said that President Bush stole the election. Prove it.
At least Stefan Sharkansky has shown documented proof that existing election laws were broken - in the way ballots were handled, what was counted, how some people voted multiple times.
So you've made a claim, show some proof. Or else you're nothing more than a lying mouthpiece without a shred of integrity.
At least I am willing to admit, I don't know. If there was an impartial investigation conducted
1. subpeona power
2. Individuals placed under oath
3. review of records
4. If there were other election
were similar and compared to this past election
and this investigation was similar to those?
If that were done. Then I think that everyone could shut up and you and I could go back to sparring on the laundry list of items we disagree on.
Was that done? Do you know? Please tell the pajamahadeen what you know.
Of course, when one party of the court case CONTROLLED all the questionable information (that Stefan's since brought to light) and sandbagged the production of evidence...
To prove fraud in this state has been set impossibly high; however, to prove illegalities is easier to do, and I think the information Stefan has brought forward is enough evidence to show there was a lot of illegal stuff with the last election...
54. I think that something is going on with Stefan's investigation because all of a sudden there is an outbreak of trolls. I would love to get off this issue so that we could get back to the education mess. But, Stefan keep digging.
55. WVH- I don't know any more than you and I have read in the papers about the investigation. I therefore can't be sure whether the investigation was appropriately thorough, any more than I can with any other criminal investigation. I believe it was appropriate based on what I've read in the papers and on this site. I am sure it was impartial.
56. WVH- "Outbreak of trolls"? Hah! We haven't even heard from David Matthews yet...
That is precisely why McKay's entire investigation file (which he concluded showed new VOTER FRAUD---which is not what he should have been looking for----) should be open to the Public and a full/open hearing of what precisely was done by McKay both before & after the Trial should be held. That would satisfy me.
And why not??? If nothing was found, what is there to hide??
Clearly McKay is hiding behind the FRAUD standard and the Trial as the mystical cut-off date for data to investigate. Folks are wise to this Bruce. Words have meanings. Review what McKay has said. He's being so careful not to lie....that it is obvious his investigation:
1) Was not of adequate scope
2) Attempted to prove the impossible--FRAUD---rather than Illegal Activities.
3) Failed to include investigation of data made Public AFTER the Trial.
Open the Investigation File.
Have McKay show & explain what he did & why.
And answer tough questions PUBLICLY!
technomom: "...to a Democrat (or independent), when the White House says that political appointments are "made at the President's pleasure" it sound like Bush thinks he's the king of America or something."
You must have missed all seven years of "The West Wing." (I confess: I'm a conservative Republican, but I loved the show. Great writing, great acting, and heck, for the most part the Republicans were portrayed as sincere and decent.) In nearly every episode someone on President Bartlett's staff would repreat the mantra, "I serve at the pleasure of the President." An appointed US Attorney is no different.