Sound Politics: McKay calls for investigation by Justice Department Inspector General

March 15, 2007

McKay calls for investigation by Justice Department Inspector General

The former U.S. attorney in Seattle, John McKay, says his firing and the firing of seven other federal prosecutors should be investigated by the Justice Department's inspector general.

McKay says he's the only indepdent authority in the department who reports to Congress.

McKay told The Associated Press in an interview today that if the inspector general doesn't investigate then the case may go to a special prosecutor.

I support John McKay's call for an independent investigation into his termination. Among other things, the investigation should reveal all of the evidence of possible election crimes from 2004 and determine what exactly John McKay did to investigate that evidence.

Meanwhile, the Senate has started issuing subpoenas for McKay and other fired U.S. Attorneys.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 15, 2007 04:32 PM | Email This

Comments

1. I can see the Inspector General investigating, since there are serious issues raised about administrative and management competence, both on the part of the Department of Justice leadership and the U.S. Attorneys who were released from service.

But a special prosecutor? There may be serious political faux pas and managerial problems, but there is nothing to suggest that anyone in DOJ -- be it the DOJ leadership or the released U.S. attorneys -- committed any sort of crime.

Posted by: Richard Pope on March 15, 2007 05:15 PM

2. So will we finally get to see the file of Mr. McKay's "Extensive, exhaustive review of the evidence?". This ought to be fun. Since we know ACORN was active in '04 and caught in the act in '06 maybe we can ask him about his inability to connect the dots.

Posted by: Huh? on March 15, 2007 05:19 PM

McKay says he's the only independent authority in the department who reports to Congress.

What does he mean? He sends reports to Congress? I thought he reported to DOJ.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on March 15, 2007 05:20 PM

4. Hoo hah! It looks like a Senate investigation might be just the ticket to uncover and actually examine the evidence McKay was presented following the Wenatchee trial. Dunno if our sterling Senators would go to great lengths to prevent such an examination, but we can always hope that even if they did, other channels might direct attention to where the Times, the P-I, Logan, Huennekins, Sims, Reed and McKay have all hidden their eyes.

Posted by: Hank on March 15, 2007 05:23 PM

5. Dangit, that was me with the Hoo hah.

Posted by: Hank Bradley on March 15, 2007 05:25 PM

6. What's the big deal? McKay can easily get a job with the ACLU where he belongs.

Posted by: Walters on March 15, 2007 06:04 PM

7. There was no crime, here, but it is now very clear that Dan Bartlett and probably Tony snow lied to the press, and to the American people.
Even worse, it looks as if Alberto Gonzales lied under oath to congress in January. When will they learn to tell the truth when the laws have not been broken? It's so depressing watching the good guys go down with nobody to blame but themselves.

Posted by: war weary republican on March 15, 2007 06:37 PM

8. "McKay told The Associated Press in an interview today that if the inspector general doesn't investigate then the case may go to a special prosecutor."

Gee...To bad "We the people" didn't have a "Special prosecutor" option when McKay decided to put an end to the election fraud investigation...We were stonewalled at McKay's level.

Hey McKay? How does it feel to be ignored?

Well....You just go boy! Send your grievances to the top! The higher the investigator - the more will be revealed from your 2004 non-investigation....

Posted by: Deborah on March 15, 2007 07:10 PM

9. I thought the Special Prosecutor statute expired back when Klink was President. He was getting tired of those mean old 'Pubs putting those Special Prosecutors on his case and he got his friends in Congress to let the thing die. What'd he have going, like 4 or 5 of those at one time?

If anyone merits a Special Prosecutor, it's this scumbum down in Louisiana, Jefferson, of "cold cash" fame. The lousy bum walks off with 70 bills in bribe money in his freezer, and Pelousy lets him sit on the Homeland Security committee, of all things. What a swamp of corruption the 'Rats have going there in the House o' Representin'.

Posted by: Interested Observer on March 15, 2007 07:33 PM

10. OK.

Now we have a blog feeding the stories that are about to take down the President's Attorney General and further tarnish a deeply bruised President and his party.

This looks like the GOP catfight version of the Democrat Viaduct fight. But this potentially far more damaging for the Republicans.

It will leave a deep divide in the state party heading into 2008. Not that 2008 is looking much like a stellar year for the GOP anyway.

Wake Up!

Posted by: Jennifer on March 15, 2007 07:48 PM

11. Had McKay investigated the reports of KCE fraud- and actually done something about it- Gregoire might have an ounce of credibility that she won an election- McKay didn't- so supposing that everything Sharkansky and folks turned up was actually legit and not fraud- McKay and Gregoire would both be legitimately employed right now.

Gregoire is still employed for another year- however not legitimately.

McKay got his just desserts.

Posted by: Andy on March 15, 2007 07:59 PM

12. Stephan, and the others who submitted things to McKay...

Send them on to Alberto Gonzales.

They probably have all the 'official' complaints from the GOP as a party, but the claims that weren't followed up on with you may not have made enough of an internal paper trail for 'higher' to see them.

Posted by: Al on March 15, 2007 08:43 PM

13. Getting McKay under oath and being able to question him about his conduct is great news.
Perhaps McKay somehow believes this is a one-sided situation where only HE can question about why HE was wronged....
WRONG!
McKay may very well have opened up Pandora's Box.
This could be very interesting.
I'd love to see all his correspondence & phone records.

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on March 15, 2007 09:17 PM

14. PRC here we come!!!!!

Posted by: chris on March 15, 2007 10:06 PM

15. Got excited there. I will try again.

PRR here we come !!!!!!

Posted by: chris on March 15, 2007 10:20 PM

16. RIHARD IM NOT A LAWYER BUT HERE IT IS IN A NUT SHELL THE PRESIDENT HIRES AND HE FIRES END OF STORY.

Posted by: ME on March 15, 2007 11:30 PM

17. Stephan, IMHO you and Bob Edelman should send a copy of the files, including exhibits, that you sent to John McKay and the local FBI to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the District of Columbia FBI, and all members of the House Judiciary Committee. Let John McKay explain to them why he didn't investigate your findings. I find it difficult to believe that they would see nothing wrong with the 2004 election.

Posted by: Janet on March 15, 2007 11:56 PM

18. THE PRESIDENT HIRES AND HE FIRES END OF STORY.

Firing competent State Attorneys so they can be replaced with incompetent political hacks? Hardly seems right.

Looks like the Gonzales is going down (no suprise,he lied).

Posted by: Cato on March 16, 2007 09:17 AM

19. "Firing competent State Attorneys so they can be replaced with incompetent political hacks? Hardly seems right."

Oh, you mean like Clinton did when he took office? When he fired ALL 93?

This is quite the non-story.

Posted by: Shaun on March 16, 2007 09:25 AM

20. Cato:
It may be right, it may be wrong. But it is certainly not a crime for the President to fire an attorney who serves at his pleasure. This is a giant mountain made of a tiny molehill - like the so called Plame scandal.
It is all a distraction from the real and important stuff (such as how will President H. Clinton respond when a dirty nuke goes off in LA or Phoenix.)
Focus people! Hundreds of thousands of American lives depend on it.

Posted by: Steve on March 16, 2007 10:25 AM

21. Oh, you mean like Clinton did when he took office? When he fired ALL 93?

Well the difference is that Bush is firing the political hack he appointed himself.

The trend seems to be that if these Attorneys were not doing enough partisan investigations they were dismissed.

It is all a distraction from the real and important stuff

Like how Dubya continues to bungle the Iraq war?

Posted by: Cato on March 16, 2007 10:54 AM

22. Cato,

The Bush administration was faced with a choice:

Fire these guys under the excuse that they are incompetent, and even worse, disloyal to the administration that appointed them,

Ask these guys to resign and when they refuse, thank them for their valuable and loyal, though no longer needed services, and say that it is simply time to bring in some new blood.

Would Bush/Gonzalez have faired any better with Option 1 than they have with Option 2? I say Republicans should stop playing nice, because they get bit in the ass anyway. Jeesh! Call a spade a spade, and let things clarify.

Posted by: huckleberry on March 16, 2007 11:46 AM

23. I'm on the side of "non-story". I want, like the writer above, to hear the official democratic stance on nuclear war. If they so dislike war, which US city are they planning offering as a sacrifice to show the World how sweet and nice we really are??? But back to the MSM soap opera.....

Posted by: ljm on March 18, 2007 10:17 PM