March 25, 2007
Westneat defends McKay

Danny Westneat today writes that John McKay was fired for being too honest.

Westneat praises McKay for heading the Legal Services Corp. under Clinton and defending the agency from partisan Republican attacks. (Westneat neglected to note that McKay's LSC was under scrutiny for grossly inflating its caseload numbers).

Westneat also defends McKay

because he refused, as U.S. attorney, to launch a criminal probe of the 2004 governor's election ... "We work on evidence, and there was no evidence of voter fraud or election fraud."
I'm still curious what McKay did to investigate the hundreds of illegally counted votes that were discovered after the contest trial, and if he investigated, why he concluded that it was not evidence of fraud. I'm also curious whether Westneat asked McKay about any of this before penning his column.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 25, 2007 10:32 AM | Email This
Comments
1. Article after article in the MSM refers to McKay being fired because of the 2004 Governor's Race. McKay has mouthed off about this too.
There was an article today where McKay said Harriet Meiers asked him about the Republican concerns about the 2004 Election...as if this were not a legitimate question.

What every single article has failed to mention is HOW DID McKAY RESPOND????????

McKay should certainly be willing to walk the public....or Congress..thru precisely the scope of his investigation, what he looked at, who he talked to....
Clearly, McKay ends his investigation with information presented at the trial, despite clear & convincing evidence produced after the Trial due to the stonewalling of KingKounty on Public Records requests.

It is sooo obvious the sham being perpetrated on the public by McKay and the MSM.
Can't one reporter interview McKay and ask him to explain the scope, what he looked at and who he talked to?? Seems like a legitimate question...but one that will be dodged.
Ask McKay the question...then watch his "weasel-word" answers.

Keep pressing for the Investigation Files...
If McKay concluded there was no evidence of "illegal activities" (McKay uses the FRAUD word--FRAUD is one example of ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES), shouldn't those files be made available under the Freedom of Information Act???

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on March 25, 2007 10:45 AM
2. It doesn't matter the facts of the case vis-a-vis McKay.

What matters is that BusHitler fired him. THAT'S the causus belli for the left.

Even though a US Atty is an at-will job, and US Attys may be removed at the pleasure of the president, the fact that it was BusHitler that did it is ipso facto reason to believe McKay.

Employers let employees go all the time. It's just convenient right now to make an issue of this.

I'm surprised the MSM hasn't tied BusHitler into the dog/cat food poisoning. Surely Halliburton is tied in somehow?

Posted by: steve miller on March 25, 2007 10:49 AM
3. 1 McKay's firing for being incompetent is justified.
2 McKay whined on Meet The Press Sunday morning
3 McKay did not protect the environment
4 McKay should have placed a Federal monitor at UW Medical School and the 2 hopitals
5 Norm Maleng was asleep, as usual, since he allowed medicare/caid fraud to be perfomed at a county hospital - Harborivew
6 The "dirty little secret" is that Blue Cross and Blue Shield paid for fradulent procedures for those covered by insurance
7 Christine Gregoire and Deborah Senn did nothing to prevent this fraud

Posted by: HIker on March 25, 2007 11:15 AM
4. #3 Did you listen to what was discussed on the Meet The Press interview. Performance related?? I don't think so. Everything about these firings is political. Once appointed - Feds are supposed to be IMPARTIAL. I give Inglasias(sp?) credit. He sent the requests for a job recommendation/reference to see if the "performance" issue was fact. It was not. Fire McKay if you want, take the heat, but Gonzales is gone for lying about it. Get someone in there that at least knows what his office is up to.

Posted by: ROCKETDOG on March 25, 2007 12:35 PM
5. Am reminded of a joke where Bush the Pope were sitting lakeside chatting. The Pope's miter [sp] was blown off his head and blown into the middle of the lake, floating there. All of the entourage members scrambled for boats to go get it. Bush said hold on a minute, walked out over the water to the middle of the lake and retrieved the head gear. Next morning, headlines all over the world proclaimed "Bush Can't Swim".
No matter what he or his administration do, it will be turned into a scandal. Politics at its unashamedly most vengeful and envious.

Posted by: katomar on March 25, 2007 12:55 PM
6. I like blogging because I don't knit and try and delay household chores. I have figured the end game for some of the players, but not all. Since I am an independent and don't know all the personalities of the players, I throw this question out. What is the end game for:

1. The Lame Stream Media and Dems
I think it is stick to Bush at any and
all costs

2. Gonzazes
I think a graceful exit so that someone like
Fred Fielding can enter and mudwrestle in DC
fashion

3. Bush
To end this particular "scandal" and focus
on Iran

4. The fired Attorneys, what is the point
of the media tour?
Anyone running for office here

5. Dino Rossi
I think he pulled the pull and sent a message
to the troops, that if I run I expect total
loyality

The best analysis of this mess came from a blogger
on Postman:
You go to the prospective water buffalo lodge R or D,you learn the secret handshake,you drink the kool aide,and you man your post.
You stop drinking the Kool aide you forget the secret hand shake your out of the lodge...

That is just how it is ..has been and always will be.
I don't need any details at 11 on this one.
So Mckay didnt make grand pooh bah.
Next time keep drinking the kool aide and don't forget the secret handshake.

Posted by Publicbulldog at 07:37 PM, Mar 24, 2007

Thank you Publicbulldog, if the Lame Stream media had listened to you, we could have saved a lot of trees and ink.

Posted by: WVH on March 25, 2007 01:08 PM
7. #2 right on the money.

this is a series of carnival patron steerings to the freak show tents in order to dissuade the public from the main tent & the Dems' REAL actions & how they are REALLY solving our country's problems.

and Westneat? throwing his immense, unimpeachable credibility and name-recognition behind someone? (chortle chortle)

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on March 25, 2007 02:24 PM
8. Danny Westneat, proud card carrying member of the Leftstream Media asking probing questions? Of course not. Only if this was a Republican. The Fourth Estate works hard to promote the ideas of the left.

On their own merits, the ideas of the left; Marxism, Victimization, Redistribution of Wealth, Taxation, Collectivism, Multiculturalism, Environmentalism could not stand credibly against ideas on the right. It's only with the constant crutch of the Leftstream Media that the left has any chance.

Westneat is not concerned with what Stefan's uncovered since the trail, because he does not have to be. As soon as evidence arises to the level that it can no longer be suppressed by the Lefstream Media, then the stories will begin to reflect the truth. Until then, it's a screen for incompetent and nepotistic Democrats like McKay.

Posted by: Jeff B. on March 25, 2007 03:14 PM
9. Come on Shark. We all know that Bush and Rove have blown it with this issue. It is one thing to fire US Attorneys at the start of an administration, like Clinton and other Presidents did. It is something else to fire them during an administration due to the fact that one didn't like their politics. If this is not the case and incompetence is, then why doesn't Bush just come right out and say it. Why doesn't Bush allow Miers and Rove to testify in public? You are all for public exposure when it comes to the Democrats, where is your call for fellow Republicans. All Bush needs to do is tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may. What is wrong with telling the truth????????

Posted by: tc on March 25, 2007 03:38 PM
10. "U.S. attorney stays honest, gets fired"
www.columbian.com/opinion/news/03092007news113589.cfm

Another opinion by the leftstream.
Isn't that enough? Why do you waste time looking
at the facts when you could just read the newspaper and let them think and decide for you?

Posted by: Margaret on March 25, 2007 03:59 PM
11. The only reason Westneat thinks McKay is "honest" is because he turned a blind eye to the election fraud of 2004 and allowed Westneat's illegimate Queen to be enthroned without any inconvenient investigations or additional controversy. As with all the lousy, stinking 'Rats, the only thing that mattered was that Fraudoire got into office. That was Mission Accomplished for the 'Rats. You can bet your a$$ that if Rossi had somehow come out on top (which would never have happened thanks to the King Co. 'Rats) McKay would have been all over him like white on rice. Westneat is just parroting the official 'Rat line: McKay is "honest" because Fraudoire "won".

Posted by: Interested Observer on March 25, 2007 04:11 PM
12. You guys are giving Westneat too much credit. He is not an investigative reporter--his job is to slap 700 or so controversial words together a few times a week on a topic that is given to him. I doubt he understands what a US attorney even does.

Posted by: Organization Man on March 25, 2007 06:04 PM
13. Since we have Faux News Distortion, and 80% of talk radio conservative, plus the 5 to 1 conservative think tank numbers, the "liberal media" myth is hilarious. Never mind the corporate ownership of most of the main stream media, and we all know who panders to the corporations.

Who is the liberal on Faux News? Add in CNN's right wing slant, and MSNBC's all over the map with Olbermann left, and the rest sucking up to Bush I would say the media is pretty much right wing.

The media is right wing. Period.

Just remember the thing that really pisses off the righties the most.

Pointing out their lies on a daily basis. Calling politicians liars when they lie is not left, or right wing. It is called doing the news. When I watch Hannity tell his viewers we found WMD's in Iraq, I wonder how he can get away with it....

How many lies does one have to swallow before they refuse to watch the liars any more?

Posted by: Facts on March 25, 2007 08:31 PM
14. Hey Facts,

Where would you put NPR and PBS? What about ABC,NBC, and CBS? You, certainly aren't arguing that the the New York Times, LA Times, Minnesota, and Post Intelligencer newspapers aren't at least secular progresive? I know other posters catagorize them as leftoid. I catagorize them a lame stream media. They don't dig for facts and they try and pretend they are impartial. That is what I like about European papers, they let you know that they are socialist like a Le Monde or Conservative like the Times.

Posted by: WVH on March 25, 2007 08:41 PM
15. "I'm still curious what McKay did to investigate the hundreds of illegally counted votes that were discovered after the contest trial, and if he investigated, why he concluded that it was not evidence of fraud. I'm also curious whether Westneat asked McKay about any of this before penning his column."

Of course not. That would be called "research," or "reporting," and Westneat generally doesn't have much interest in either.

Posted by: stu on March 25, 2007 10:33 PM
16. Of course not. That would be called "research," or "reporting," and Westneat generally doesn't have much interest in either.

Not only would it be research and reporting, it would be one other thing liberal reporters are adverse to, and that is, work. If there is any other defining characteristic of today's so-called "reporters", other than biased and liberal, it would be lazy. The thought of actually going out and doing legwork and original research is something that usually never crosses the so-called minds of today's journalists. They're too elitist for that. They think of themselves more as wordsmiths and editors and pretty faces on the tube. Real work, checking out facts, digging for information, is something for lesser beings like staff and interns. That's another reason why the "traditional" media forms are dying. You've got unpaid bloggers and internet posters who are willing to do more real work than mainstream media "reporters". Sharkansky's efforts on exposing the fraud of the 2004 election are an example of that. So was the exposure of the Dan Rather/National Guard Memogate scandal. If it weren't for the non-traditional media a fraud of national scale would have been perpetrated on the American public. It took laymen to expose that. Where were the so-called "tough" and "feisty" mainstream media reporters on that one? I'll tell you where: sitting on their lazy a$$e$ penning (often fraudulent) anti-Bush stories.

Posted by: Interested Observer on March 26, 2007 05:32 AM
17. Heh.

It's not "one thing to fire at the start and another to fire in the middle of an administration." That's a made-up argument that collapses when examined.

Here are the facts:
Bush is the President.
The US Atty's serve at will.
Bush can ask for their resignation at any time.

I know it's scandalous to think that Bush might do something you don't like, but there it is.

Posted by: steve miller on March 26, 2007 05:40 AM
18. #4 RocketDog
I did listen to Meet the Press at 10am on KONG
McKay should have been gone earlier
Sorry Nelson

Posted by: Hiker on March 26, 2007 08:55 AM
19. Shark,

You keep claiming that it was "clearly illegal" to count the "fatal pend" provisional ballots.

However, this is clearly not proven. As you concede yourself this was done following legal advice that it was permissible:

"A spokesman for Sims, Sandeep Kaushik, confirms that a number of fatal pend provisional ballots were counted last November, following advice that Logan requested and received from Janine Joly, the deputy prosecuting attorney assigned to the elections office."

Moreover, 110 of the registration forms that you claim were defective for lack of a signature, were in fact signed by the voter, just not under the oath line. There was a strong legal basis to argue the signature requirement was substantially met here. At a minimum it was not "clearly illegal" to accept them.

In order to prove a violation of federal election law, you have to show that accepting "illegal" ballots was "knowing and wilful" and with the intent to "deprive the public of a fair" election. That is just too high a bar to meet here. Whether Jolley's legal opinion was right or wrong, the election officials were entitled to rely on it.

And as I mentioned the DOJ guidelines make clear that the Feds shouldn't criminalize the normal errors and mistakes in the election process.

I believe that similar allegations regarding provisional ballots were presented to Judge Bridges at the election contest, including the legal advice to count the ballots. He found that in general no fraud had been shown.

Posted by: crawford on March 26, 2007 10:23 AM
20. Here are the facts:
Bush is the President.
Wow, really?

The US Atty's serve at will.
They also serve in a separate and independent branch of Government known as the Judicial Branch. The Judicial Branch is supposed to be uninfluenced by partisan bickering and uphold the law as it's written.

Bush can ask for their resignation at any time.
He did not ask them to resign, he fired them. When people asked about why they were fired, Gonzales said before Congress that it was due to Performance Issues. So people looked into the fired US Atty's performance records. That didn't quite sync up with Gonzales testimony.

People dug deeper and found that the US Atty's felt pressure to enforce some laws (NM Dems) and ignore others (Rep. Cunningham [R-Cal]). Now it looks like the firings were politically motivated and Gonzales lied to Congress (bad idea).

Now when you add that to the neat little PUSA appoints the US Atty aka 'No Senate Approval' provision that a Senator tucked into to the Patriot Act it really makes things look suspicious. Looks like Bush did not want his new US Atty's to go through the traditional checks and balances that make this country what it is.

It's now appearing that the Executive Branch was trying to (maybe using?) the Judicial Branch as a political tool for it's own means. This is pretty much what the idea of Separation of Powers was trying to prevent when it was originally implemented back in the late 1700's.

Posted by: Cato on March 26, 2007 01:25 PM
21. Cato, this is from Wikipedia:

"U.S. Attorneys and their offices are part of the Department of Justice, and thus of the executive branch of the government. U.S. Attorneys recieve oversight, supervision and administrative support services through the Justice Department's Executive Office for United States Attorneys."

Now, tell me again, who is it that heads the Executive Branch?

Posted by: Interested Observer on March 26, 2007 01:33 PM
22. Yes, Cato, the three branches are Congress, the Executive, and the Judicial. "Judicial" means judges (as in Supreme Court), not AG's.

Posted by: katomar on March 26, 2007 02:07 PM
23. A lesson in elementary civics here. The US Attorneys work for the Dept. of Justice. This is different than the Judicial Branch. The DOJ is an Executive Branch department. It has a Cabinet officer as its head, the Attorney General of the US. The DOJ falls under the purview of the Executive, headed by the President. As such, personnel decisions for positions within the DOJ fall within the purview of the President.

The Judicial is a separate and co-equal branch of the tripartite form of government that we have. That relates to the administration of justice, through the mechanisms of the federal courts. Personnel within the DOJ certainly interact with the Judicial, but do not fall under its purview.

The Executive can make nominations to the Judicial but the system of checks and balances requires Congressional approval. Likewise for Cabinet officers, one of whom heads the DOJ. The Legislative holds power over the Judicial and Executive through the process of impeachement and conviction. The Founders originally intended that the Legislative Branch wield the most power, followed the the Executive, then the Judicial, although all were ideally to remain independet and co-equal. It is somewhat of an ironic twist that today the intent of the Founders seems to have been turned upside down.

Posted by: Interested Observer on March 26, 2007 02:23 PM
24. Thank you IO, I stand corrected.

I still maintain my opinion if there's nothing to hide then why lie to Congress?

BTW, Gonzales should resign for the numerous FBI abuses of the Patriot Act.

Posted by: Cato on March 26, 2007 02:55 PM
25. OK. FWIW I'd like to know the reason as well. I'd have liked Klink to have explained why he canned 93 US Attorneys back in '93. But I won't say it isn't his right to do so. Elections have consequences. The President is entitled to have his own team in place. Those changes can be made at any time. Just because a ballplayer is on the roster at the beginning of the season doesn't mean they will be there at the end. Changes happen. Any political appointee knows that. These aren't career positions. They are temp jobs at most. Anyone who plays the game will know they can be out of a job with little or no notice.

Posted by: Interested Observer on March 26, 2007 05:24 PM
26. And now Hillary admits that (a) her husband justly got rid of the US Atty's when he took over; (b) she will do the same when SHE takes over; but (c) it's bad when Bush does it.

The facts are, Bush can hire & fire at will. He runs the Executive branch.

Posted by: steve miller on March 26, 2007 06:05 PM
27. And now Hillary admits that (a) her husband justly got rid of the US Atty's when he took over; (b) she will do the same when SHE takes over; but (c) it's bad when Bush does it.

The facts are, Bush can hire & fire at will. He runs the Executive branch.

Posted by: steve miller on March 26, 2007 06:05 PM
28. insurance houston texas auto

Posted by: insurance liability auto texas on March 27, 2007 02:33 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?