WSJ misstated Seattle U.S. attorney's "grounds" for not pursuing voter fraud charges
Discussing the growing controversy surrounding the Bush administration's decision to fire eight U.S. attorneys, a March 14 Wall Street Journal editorial asserted that former U.S. attorney John McKay -- identified in the editorial, apparently falsely, as a Democrat -- "declined" to investigate allegations of voter fraud in the 2004 Washington state gubernatorial race "apparently on the grounds that he had better things to do." In fact, McKay testified that he did not convene a grand jury to investigate the matter because "there was no evidence of voter fraud."
From the March 14 Wall Street Journal editorial:
Take sacked U.S. Attorney John McKay from Washington state. In 2004, the Governor's race was decided in favor of Democrat Christine Gregoire by 129-votes on a third recount. As the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and other media outlets reported, some of the "voters" were deceased, others were registered in storage-rental facilities, and still others were convicted felons. More than 100 ballots were "discovered" in a Seattle warehouse. 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.
During a House hearing on the U.S. attorney firings, McKay testified:
McKAY: It is very true that the controversy surrounding the 2004 governor's election was one that had a lot of public debate. I was aware that I was receiving criticism for not proceeding with a criminal investigation. And, frankly, it didn't matter to me what people thought. Like my colleagues, we work on evidence, and there was no evidence of voter fraud or election fraud. And, therefore, we took nothing to the grand jury.
Further, according to a March 13 Seattle Times article, "McKay insists that top prosecutors in his office and agents from the FBI conducted a 'very active' review of allegations of fraud during the election but filed no charge and did not convene a federal grand jury because 'we never found any evidence of criminal conduct.' " The Times also reported: "McKay also wanted to make it clear that he pressed ahead with a preliminary investigation, despite the hesitation of Craig Donsanto, the longtime chief of the Election Crimes branch of the Department of Justice, who ultimately concurred with McKay that no federal crimes had been committed in the election."
The Wall Street Journal's assertion that McKay -- who was appointed to the position by President Bush -- is a Democrat apparently stems from a letter sent to Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) by Tom McCabe, executive vice president of the Building Industry Association of Washington, in which McCabe called McKay a Democrat. But Chris Vance, the former state Republican Party chairman, was quoted in a March 14 Seattle Times article referring to McKay as a Republican, stating that "he felt compelled to approach McKay [on the election matter] as a fellow Republican." An October 31, 2001, Seattle Times article about McKay's swearing-in as U.S. attorney described McKay as a "moderate Republican," and a May 20, 1999, Associated Press article identified McKay as a Republican and quoted him referring to the GOP as "our party." The Department of Justice website documented that McKay previously worked for Republican Rep. Joe Pritchard (WA) and as a White House fellow under George H.W. Bush in 1989-90. Also, according to Seattle Post-Intelligencer columnist Joel Connelly, McKay's family has been "involv[ed] in four Bush Presidential campaigns."
From the March 14 Wall Street Journal editorial:
And it may be this very amateurism that explains how the current Administration has managed to turn this routine issue of replacing Presidential appointees into a political fiasco. There was nothing wrong with replacing the eight Attorneys, all of whom serve at the President's pleasure. Prosecutors deserve supervision like any other executive branch appointees.
The supposed scandal this week is that Mr. Bush had been informed last fall that some U.S. Attorneys had been less than vigorous in pursuing voter-fraud cases and that the President had made the point to Attorney General Albert Gonzales. Voter fraud strikes at the heart of democratic institutions, and it was entirely appropriate for Mr. Bush -- or any President -- to insist that his appointees act energetically against it.
Take sacked U.S. Attorney John McKay from Washington state. In 2004, the Governor's race was decided in favor of Democrat Christine Gregoire by 129-votes on a third recount. As the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and other media outlets reported, some of the "voters" were deceased, others were registered in storage-rental facilities, and still others were convicted felons. More than 100 ballots were "discovered" in a Seattle warehouse. 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.
"Voter fraud" in the 21st century is like the Loch Ness monster: talked about at length, searched for by some die-hard believers, but, ultimately, something that has never been proven and for which no evidence exists.,,
Pardon? They why have there been convictions regarding the same?
OK - I know this is an editorial, and therefore "opinion", however, shouldn't the WSJ do a tiny bit of research before stating its opinion to its readers? Assuming a US Attorney appointed by "W" to be a Democrat is fairly ridiculous to begin with. How ignorant are the editorial board members of WSJ?
I wonder what WSJ's opinion is of the 18,000 lost votes in the Sarasota, FL congressional race. Could the fact that the votes were lost in primarily Democratic precincts color that opinion?
I just tuned in Der Rushbo on the way to lunch, and got the righty spin on the Attorneys; They're comparing the numbers Clinton replaced when taking office (normal to turn them over), with Bush's recent firings well into his second term.
I tried looking for apples-to-apples numbers, but I've got to get back to work.Anybody have a link to a reality-based comparison of Bush's replacements on taking office vs. Clinton's?
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002613.php
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/crs-united-states-attorneys/?resultpage=1&
Thanks, OLive. You're good.
Bill Clinton fired 93, Bush fired 8.
They are appointed positions by the president. He can hire, he can fire.
you all are a bunch of hypocrits.
Knowing what an imperfect memory you seem to have, try looking at Item 2 of the Articles of impeachment for Richard M. Nixon.
It's just another example of the corruption inherent in the presidential patronage system. These attorneys should be civil servants, not political appointees.
you all are a bunch of hypocrits.
And you are a sneering ignoramus who can't even spell "hypocrite."
It is routine practice for a new administration to call for the resignation of a large number of political appointees, including US Attorneys. Yes, Clinton did it; so did Bush in 2001 and nobody yelled about it - because it was, again, SOP.
But dismissing 8 USAs six years into a president's term, if not entirely unprecedented, is at least nearly so. Doing it for what is now known to be clearly partisan political reasons is unquestionably unprecedented. That is the difference here. And anyone that doesn't understand that is being willfully obtuse.
And remember, too, that not only did they fire these guys in the middle of the term, but they were THEIR OWN PEOPLE!
The analogy between appointing all new attorneys at the beginning of an administration, and firing your own in the middle of the term, is fatuous. Do these righties know how to THINK? Or doesn't it matter?
Ding! The issue isn't that the attorneys were fired, because that does happen all the time. The issue is that the attorneys were fired not at the beginning of the administration, but in the middle of a term, and that some of those fired apparently had not toe'd the administration's line when it came to pushing charges against political opponents on a whim.
I like the L.A. Times counterpoint: the jerk never should have been nominated. See excerpt in "Editorial Pages Call for Axing Attorney general" at http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003557783.
My added thought: his (Gonz.) holding the job is yet another product of a week-kneed Congress. He should never have been confirmed. Everyone who failed to vote against confirmation, rep & dem alike, bears responsibility for what he has helped do to our Constitution and our country.
Let us hope that this is the beginning of the end for these creeps. I've been convinced for years that the Bush administration has been the most corrupt in modern history, perhaps in all of U.S. History. The pieces are beginning to fall into place...more evidence is surfacing that Iraq was about oil, after all. If we had a real free press, it would have all been exposed years ago.
Who knows...we may finally get to see Rove do the frog march.
i think they might get some competition from the nixon, harding and grant administrations for most corrupt. what i think puts them on another level is their willingness to do anything to promote their own interests and hold on power. i don't think even the nixon administration would have gone out of their way to out a cia agent, with the casual indifference of this group to the security of the country. in a very dangerous world, they made future cia contacts all over the world reluctant to deal with us.
to:leatherhelmut re: clinton firings v. bush firings
how many did clinton fire IN THE MIDDLE of his term in office is the operative question. it is customary to fire them upon taking office. thus, your analogy is totally off. the next time you decide to repeat a karl rove talking point, perhaps you should first double check to make sure it is not one of his patented misleading statements.
Which is exactly what I noted as the BS talking point in my first post, which helmet head blew right by to repeat the new talking point he'd learned and call people hypocrites.
Here's yer biscuit, fluffy. Good Republican.
"They are appointed positions by the president. He can hire, he can fire." -- LH
Of course that one of them successfully prosecuted Randy "the Dukester" Cunningham would have nothing to do with it.
or
"Former New Mexico U.S. attorney David C. Iglesias testified that Domenici called him at home in October to ask whether indictments would be issued before the election in a probe of alleged courthouse construction kickbacks related to a prominent local Democrat. Iglesias said he received a similar call earlier from Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.), who allegedly quizzed him about "sealed indictments." -- WaPo
No the GOP would never play politics with something as serious as the DOJ, terrorism, or war.
Firing federal prosecutor McKay for his fact-based approach to the 2004 Rossi-Gregoire election is final proof (as if we needed more!) of the toxic stupidity of the Republican right wing in the divided state of Washington. That Gregoire won throuigh fraud is an article of faith among the rural Republican faithful of Eastern Washington. This feel-good lie was fed to the Republican base by the Rossi forces as they cried "Fraud!" the minute the recounts started to go against them. Their chief lawyer, party hack Dale Foreman, charged fraud at every opportunity until he and Rossi were laughed out of the court of a Republican judge in Eastern Washington two years ago.
Washington State's democratic integrity was damaged in 2004 by self-serving Republican charges of illegality. But don't hold your breath waiting for any apology or admission of error. Bush and Rove and Cheney and their political hit-men aren't about to give up on what they consider a winning strategy.
DPS...Seattle
It is without doubt that John McKay was fired due to inaction re: Rossi-Gregoire election. If one had followed the articles written in the Seattle Times and the PI enough was written to cause one to believe there were problems with the electoral system in King and Snohomish County. I guess incompetence is not fraud so there was no need for McKay to call for a Grand Jury. That being said, why was the incompentent not purged? You can't have it both ways. This is a two chapter book and the first chapter has been written. We await the second chapter and it will be written at the end of the next governor's election.
"incompetence" is a relative term. There were more than 2 million votes cast in Washington State's 2004 gubernatorial election and the original count was within 0.1% of reality. (Uhhappily, that 0.1% kept shifting back and forth as more votes were counted until 129 votes...less than 0.01%!...determined the winner.) That's infinitely better than many other states, including Ohio and New Mexico, where elections were decided without due process comparable to that of Washington State. And should any critic of Washington State's electoral performance care to reference the Florida debacle of 2000, they'll have plenty of both fraud and incompetence to consider. Of course, they won't. Those complaining about the Washington State process are Republicans, and don't have the stomach to consider Florida 2000 in detail.