Respected former US Atty expresses shock over Bush

UPDATE: Or something I just learned, anyway: There's a stack of emails detailing the criteria and plans that led to the ouster of eight U.S. attorneys.

EXCERPT But, please GO HERE there is a video you will want to see

By Richard A. Serrano, Times Staff Writer
March 14, 2007


WASHINGTON — Just weeks after President Bush was inaugurated for a second term in January 2005, his White House and the Justice Department had pretty much settled on a plan to "push out" some of the nation's 93 U.S. attorneys.

(and i'm surprised over my own personal drama?? this is how those thugs ROLL all together -- git r done ....)

But which ones?

D. Kyle Sampson, chief of staff to Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales, came up with a checklist. He rated each of the prosecutors with criteria that appeared to value political allegiance as much as job performance.

He recommended retaining "strong U.S. attorneys who have … exhibited loyalty to the president and attorney general." He suggested "removing weak U.S. attorneys who have … chafed against administration initiatives."

And back to the former respected us atty of wa state


John McKay's fate was sealed as revealed by 112 White House messages released Tuesday which detail how the U.S. attorney's fate was sealed after the contested governor's race. They refer to Washington state where a hotly contested governor's race was ultimately taken by Democrat, Christine Gregoire. (I remember that fight --- I was thinking of moving to WA and was keeping an eye on things -- it was ugly and then it cost this guy his job because he didn't play right for Shrub)


Former U.S. Attorney John McKay said Monday night he was "stunned" to hear President Bush told Attorney General Alberto Gonzales last October that Bush had received complaints about U.S. attorneys who were not energetically investigating voter-fraud cases.
McKay doesn't know if Republican unhappiness over his handling of the 2004 election cost him his job as U.S. Attorney for Western Washington, but the new revelations contained in a Washington Post story are sure to reignite questions about McKay's dismissal and whether it was connected to Washington state's hotly contested governor's race.
"Had anyone at the Justice Department or the White House ordered me to pursue any matter criminally in the 2004 governor's election, I would have resigned," McKay said. "There was no evidence, and I am not going to drag innocent people in front of a grand jury."
The conversation between Bush and Gonzales, along with e-mails and documents that the White House plans to turn over to Congress today, suggests the firings of McKay and seven other U.S. attorneys last year may have been politically motivated, despite previous Justice Department and White House denials, according to The Washington Post.
It is not clear whether the materials shed new light on McKay's firing.
Nonetheless, Bush's concerns about voter-fraud investigations will surely heighten the spotlight on how McKay monitored the 2004 race -- and how local and federal Republican officials reacted to his inquiry.
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 charges and did not convene a federal grand jury because "we never found any evidence of criminal conduct."
McKay detailed the work of his office in a recent interview. He spoke out because he believed Republican supporters of Dino Rossi, still bitter over his narrow loss to Democrat Christine Gregoire, continue to falsely portray him and his office as indifferent to allegations of electoral fraud.
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.

For the full article -- RIGHT HERE