Posted on 02/08/2007 11:44:35 AM PST by mac_truck
Former U.S. Attorney John McKay said his resignation was ordered by the Bush administration without explanation seven months after he received a favorable job evaluation.
"I was ordered to resign as U.S. attorney on Dec. 7 by the Justice Department," McKay said Wednesday in a telephone interview from Washington, D.C. "I was given no explanation. I certainly was told of no performance issues."
McKay, who had led the Justice Department's Western Washington office, previously said only that he was resigning because it was time for him to move on.
His comments came one day after Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty acknowledged to the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Justice Department had fired seven U.S. attorneys in the West in the past year, most of them for "performance-related" reasons he would not divulge.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
"Another reason to really win rather than just spout slogans and throw your vote away on someone who cant win."
Yep, because we're going to get more of the same thing regardless of whether it's Rudy, Mcain or Hillary.
I'll admit I was caught off guard by Rummy's exit, but then, I was caught off guard by the Dems winning ALL OF CONGRESS.
I wonder, had he kept Rummy, where do you think we'd be today? If we weren't talking about a surge, the only topic of conversation these days would be hearings and Dem grandstanding with Rummy stammering, and Abizaid etc sniping.
I just don't see that Bush had many options, and this is the only way he could retain the offensive WOT...weak as it is.
He seems to have been OK with it until the Deputy AG suggested he'd had performance problems. He's just defending his rep at this point.
Clinton fired every one of them in his first week of taking office. In this case it is only one for Bush and it in his second term. The guy does serve at the pleasure of the POTUS.
Did he fail to prosecute Border Patrol agents at the behest of Mexico?
Why the outrage over only seven?
Liberal bias is hard to hide....I think they've finally given up on trying.
a smidge off topic but Johnny Sutton is the US Attorney in Texas who aggressively prosecuted Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean and is aggressively going after a number of other LEO's now. The current (and future) targets have all had the temerity to fire at vehicles full of illegals who were trying to run them down. I'd love the see Bush (that use of his name alone signifies a substantially lessened amount of respect) tell Johnny to pack his pencils and daggers and leave....now.
USA's are political hacks and subject to those whims and demands.
If you think they're apolitical and focused on justice, you're sadly naive.
The difference is that back then the federal prosecutors had to be confirmed by the senate. The Patriot Act has changed that feature. Now Attorney General Alfonzo Gonzales appoints the D.A.s. and also has a hand in firing them. I much prefer Senate confirmation.
An excerpt From the link above about the controvesy of political appointments.
"Putting A Face To The Action"
One of the most controversial of these appointments is that of J. Timothy Griffin, the new US attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
What makes Griffin, 34, qualified for this position? The Arkansas Democrat Gazette notes that he was "once an aide to former presidential adviser Karl Rove." The Times Record (Ft. Smith, AK) says he was Rove's "director of opposition research." His legal credentials include a stint in the U.S. attorney’s office in Little Rock in 2001-02, as a military prosecutor at Fort Campbell, Ky., and as a Judge Advocate General in Iraq.
Yes, all of them. The scuttlebutt was that there some active cases involving 'Friends of Bill' that could be deep-sixed and firing all the Federal DA's gave cover to the few he wanted out of the way.
You are mistaken.
Hmmm...let's see:
*Western U.S. Attorneys are "dismissed" from their jobs with the Justice Dept.
*The Attorney General is Hispanic
*Border Guards are arrested, tried and imprisoned under false pretenses because our so-called Homeland Security Department LIED to Congress
*On the SAME DAY that little bit of info is leaked out, Mr. Ramos is beat up in prison (IMO, that was a warning to ANYONE who tries to enforce U.S. law at the border)
*The drug guy's mom in Mexico calls her friend in OUR high places to get her baby out of jail and now she's suing us because the poor little CRIMINAL was shot while acting like a...hold your breath..CRIMINAL.
*We don't bother putting armed guards at our border...they are window dressing only.
*There's probably more things to tie together, but I don't have them.
The problem was not Rumsfeld leaving - it was the stupidly-timed, classless and demeaning way it was done. It would have made no difference at all to wait a week or two and then announce it. Doing it in such a knee-jerk way, the day after the election did nothing except portray the Administration as weak and desperate.
Nevermind...I'm just a conspiracy theorist.
You're right. The trick is not to refill their positions. Lawyers are a dime a dozen and most of them aren't worth the dime.
Tell that to the border patrol.
Some of them are confirmed but not all. No I am not mistaken. You are mistaken. The Patriot Act has changed a lot.
Here is the AG.s statement regarding this.
"Gonzales Statement
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales insists that the AG's office is "fully committed to ensuring that with respect to every position we have a Senate-confirmed, presidentially appointed U.S. attorney." In the year since the reauthorization took effect, 11 federal prosecutors have resigned or announced their resignations - some at the urging of the Bush administration, Gonzales said. He described a range of reasons for ousting sitting U.S. attorneys, from their job performance to their standing in their communities, and noted that federal prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the president.
Gonzales repeatedly cited the Patriot Act when discussing the replacements, but twice refused to say when asked whether any of the personnel changes at issue pertained to national security. Since when has this Administration not used every inch of power -- and then some -- that has been granted by Congress? If the AG isn't interested in bypassing the Senate's advise-and-consent role, then why did the Republican party insert this clause into the bill?"
Not that they would understand it......"sigh"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.