« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
McKay: "First Question" was about Republican Criticism
In case you missed it, here's former U.S.A. for Seattle John McKay on Meet The Press yesterday. McKay described how the "first question" asked by Harriet Miers and her deputy when he sat down for an interview for a federal judgeship was "why Republicans in the state of Washington would be angry with me."
Transcript below...
You can read the full transcript here. The excerpt:
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.
O.T. but is Duncan Hunter on the same page as everyone else? He referred to Lam as an attorney general and, on top of that, he claims Lam was criticized for not prosecuting low-level drug dealers five or six years ago. Lam was only appointed USA in September of 2002, less than five years ago.
March 26, 2007 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
"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"
Does this fit on a bumper sticker?
March 26, 2007 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is really sad here is that people of character and integrity (who happen to be Republican) cannot work in this adminsitration. Either you twist your oath of office tomake it fit the poilitcal agenda of GWB or you are out. While I have little respect for most of the policies of the Republican party - I do have respect for principled Repub's who may disagree with me on issues. Now - with the corruption, politicization, incompetence and lies (everything from WMDs, mission accomplished, Heckuva job brownie, coalition of the willing, gagging scientists on glabal warming, Plan B contraception, abortion and cancer risk and global warming) the whole agenda of politics, lies and corruption and the lack of respect for the law (wiretapping, FISA, torture,USA scandals) just compounds the republican association. Only republicans who totally disassociate themselves from Bush can have any legitimacy....
March 26, 2007 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can picture the hearing. The grilling of this lady.
The question: "Ms. Miers, do you know why people are angry with you? Tell me why you think they are!"
Do you think she'll have a clue?
March 26, 2007 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm. Low level drug dealers. Low hanging fruit, a way to raise the bust numbers and usually, the low level guys fold because they can't afford the lawyers who can get their cases thrown or reduced, so the conviction rate goes up. Does this coincide with Hastert's demand for harsher prosecutions of marijuana busts? That would also coincide with Brent Ward's anti-porn crusade which prosecuted consensual adult porn, more easy low hanging fruit, at the expense of child sexual abuse and child porn cases.
A perfect position for a greenhorn loyal Bushie to burnish his creds and the GOP's standing with the tighty-righties.
Mayberry Machiavellis every day in every way.
March 26, 2007 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's safe to assume that anyone with even a shred of independent thought realizes that "testifying", in private, without a transcript, and not under oath is a miscarriage of justice.
That being said and with the clarity of hindsight, how do Bush and Cheney defend their "testimony" to the 9/11 Commission?
It was given in private, with no transcript, not under oath, limited to a few members of the commission, and Bush/Cheney pre-approved all the questions that would be asked.
I'm just saying...
March 26, 2007 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given the pervasive politization, of which these USAs can't be unaware, it must have taken uncommon integrity to not pursue some of these cases to mollify party operatives.
I haven't heard anyone report on the validity of
claims made by Republicans that a crime was committed. It might be clear, in some of these voter fraud cases, that someone did something illegal.
If you find a body, and it is clear there was a murder, there still may be insufficient evidence to
charge someone.
It would be interesting to see the evidence from failed cases that some of the more loyal USAs
went to court with.
March 26, 2007 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was struck by this bit from last Friday's column by Dan Froomkin in the Washington Post:
"Or, as White House Watch reader Charles Posner wrote to me in an e-mail yesterday: "Dan - I think everyone is looking at the Justice Dept. scandal form the wrong end - it's not the firing, but the hiring that's the crux of the issue. Rove has a plan and a list. The plan is to install partisans in the prosecutors' office in order to target Democratic congressmen. Of course, Rove can hand pick each prosecutor without Congress's involvement as allowed by the secret provisions of the Patriot Act. Now, where's his list?"
Maybe I have missed it, but has there been a discussion of whether or how Congress can force these new USA appointments that have just been made to go through a Congressional approval process? Please make my day... I would love to hear that Rove's plans are dust!
March 26, 2007 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It was given in private, with no transcript, not under oath, limited to a few members of the commission, and Bush/Cheney pre-approved all the questions that would be asked."
Which also happens to be the way they gave testimony to Patrick Fitzgerald in the CIA Leak Case. I guess that way they can still look down on Bill Clinton for lying to a grand jury.
Do any of the 30% that still support them realize they would have had to perjure themselves or take the fifth by now in all of these scandals if not allowed these privileges? Guess they really do believe they are above the law.
March 26, 2007 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
"What is really sad here is that people of character and integrity (who happen to be Republican) cannot work in this adminsitration."
Perhaps it will soon dawn on people like correctnot right, who wrote the foregoing, that people of character and integrity AREN'T REPUBLICAN.
This ain't your Daddy's Republican Party, the party of Javits, Rockefeller, and Edward Brooke. It's the party that people like McCarthy and Nixon dreamed about--the party of Nofziger, Ailes, Atwater, and Rove. The Republican Party as it exists today is a criminal enterprise hell bent on the destruction of democracy and western culture, dedicated to the enrichment of corporate fascists, and determined to shackle the average American with permanent ignorance and destitution.
"Honest Republican" is an oxymoron.
March 26, 2007 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a sidebar, of course--but Miers' query as reported contains a condescending tic that typifies whose who would flaunt power. You've likely heard it yourself after being radared at 15 over the limit, or driving with those expired tags: "Mr. Jones, do you know why I pulled you over?"
As if the WA GOP's anger over Rossi/Gregoire could have escaped ANYONE'S notice, let alone the DA's...
March 26, 2007 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly, I don't think her question was so out of line. It was open-ended and it was framed in such a way as to give him the opportunity to make a statement of prosecutorial independence, just as well as deference. What they DID with his response could be inappropriate, whatever...but the question seems to me to be pretty cautious and clever.
March 26, 2007 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
LongTom said, "people of character and integrity AREN'T REPUBLICAN." and I call Bullsh*t on that. To argue that no Repubs have integrity is no more plausible than arguing that all Dems HAVE integrity, and we can see clearly that a certain Dem Rep from LA has put the lie to that. LongTom, a more fair and accurate statement is that the party of Lincoln has been hijacked by the neo-cons and corporatist greed. It's not too long ago that the Democratic Party was booted from control of Congress for due cause. Power breeds confidence and arrogance, and unfortunately it takes an ocassional figurative blood-letting to rid the system of poisons.
I firmly believe that it takes two parties with integrity for democracy to work. One party allowed to run freely quickly runs aground in the muck.
And my code is "expert"! So there!
March 26, 2007 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, bruce, it's possible I have misread her tone...but then again, this Administration has rarely failed to validate my cynicism :-( Of course, even then, in a CYA sense, it IS admittedly much shrewder framing than "Hey, why didn't you play ball and file vote-fraud indictments to help Rossi?"
So...do you believe that Miers & Cie. approached McKay's candidacy for the judicial slot with open minds--or pro forma, with rejection a foregone conclusion?
March 26, 2007 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
It looks like the rejection was a foregone conclusion. As with the state trooper asking if I know why I was pulled over, the point of the question is not just to get me to admit guilt, but to make me culpable before myself and, so, assure my cooperation in the ensuing proceedings.
March 26, 2007 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink