McKay on MTP: initial thoughts
I caught a little bit of the segment on Meet the Press that featured John McKay and fellow former US attorney David Iglesias. You can check here for Meet the Press transcripts; (today's is not yet posted as of about 9 AM PDT.)
Being outside the Puget Sound media market, I don't recall seeing McKay on television before. So while I must note that McKay's comments were serious, pointing out that politics cannot be allowed to be the determining factor in prosecutions, this is a politcal blog, which means a litte birdie kept saying to me:
"They fired THAT guy for political reasons? An articulate, distinguished, dedicated and intelligent moderate Republican? They're not geniuses, they're morons!"
Don't know if McKay has any political ambitions, and I don't know where he stands on the social issues that are often so crucial in party primaries, especially on the "R" side, but dang. If this guy ever runs for anything I hope it's for a non-partisan office. I wonder what office lawyers could run for that involves the law and is non-partisan? A supremely interesting question.
UPDATE 11:35 AM-- The MTP transcript for today, March 25, 2007, is now up. Here's an exchange from page two of the transcript where Russert asks McKay about Washington's 2004 gubernatorial election and Republican displeasure with him:
Being outside the Puget Sound media market, I don't recall seeing McKay on television before. So while I must note that McKay's comments were serious, pointing out that politics cannot be allowed to be the determining factor in prosecutions, this is a politcal blog, which means a litte birdie kept saying to me:
"They fired THAT guy for political reasons? An articulate, distinguished, dedicated and intelligent moderate Republican? They're not geniuses, they're morons!"
Don't know if McKay has any political ambitions, and I don't know where he stands on the social issues that are often so crucial in party primaries, especially on the "R" side, but dang. If this guy ever runs for anything I hope it's for a non-partisan office. I wonder what office lawyers could run for that involves the law and is non-partisan? A supremely interesting question.
UPDATE 11:35 AM-- The MTP transcript for today, March 25, 2007, is now up. Here's an exchange from page two of the transcript where Russert asks McKay about Washington's 2004 gubernatorial election and Republican displeasure with him:
MR. RUSSERT: Wednesday you gave an interview and quoted as follows on this subject: “When they go back and keep shifting stories it tends to indicate there’s a more nefarious reason that they’re not willing to admit to [the dismissals collectively]. ... That’s the real problem, and in my case it may be true because if they put me on,” the “list because I wasn’t aggressive enough in ensuring that the Republican candidate for governor was elected, then that’s a terrible thing.” Very close race for the governorship in your state, the Democrat won by just a handful of votes. You looked into the case, decided you did not find voter fraud. When you applied for a federal judgeship, that issue was raised with you. Correct?
MR. McKAY: That’s correct. I, I was able to go into the White House in a meeting with Harriet Miers and her deputy Bill Kelly, and the very first question that I was asked was, was in reference to the 2004 governor’s election.
MR. RUSSERT: And did they ask you why you did not go forward with an investigation or with indictments?
MR. McKAY: No, they actually asked me why Republicans in the state of Washington would be angry with me. And, of course, all of the actions taken by the federal government, which were not publicly discussed, were well-known to, to my supervisors and, and those who follow our work in Washington, D.C. So I was a little surprised that they would ask me about that, since our office had carefully reviewed the evidence, and really, in the case of the 2004 governor’s election here, the lack of evidence. And the decision that I made not to go forward was a really unanimous decision with the Seattle division of the FBI. So, so from our standpoint, it wasn’t controversial from an evidentiary standpoint, even though it was very controversial in the state of Washington. And, you know, we expected to be supported by people in Washington, D.C., when we make tough decisions like that. And I think that’s a, a really important problem here that folks who, who raise their hand and take—took the same oath I did to support and defend the Constitution didn’t do the same thing we did, which was focus on the evidence and not allow politics into the work that we do in, in criminal prosecutions.
