Posted on 10/21/2007 9:20:27 PM PDT by nj26
The U.S. Inspector General may recommend criminal prosecution of departed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales at the conclusion of an investigation, possibly as early as next month, the fired former U.S. attorney for Western Washington told a Spokane audience Friday....
McKay said he was summoned to Washington, D.C., in June and questioned for eight hours about possible reasons for his firing by investigators with the Office of Inspector General, who will forward their final report to Congress.
My best guess is it will be released sometime next month, and likely will include recommendations for criminal prosecutions of Gonzales and maybe others, McKay said.
Gonzales lied about reasons for the firings when questioned under oath in July by the Senate Judiciary Committee and now has hired a lawyer and is refusing to answer questions from the Inspector General, McKay said.
The White House said McKay was fired for poor performance ratings of his office, but the ex-U.S. attorney said he and his office got exemplary reviews just three months before he was fired.
The chief law enforcement officer for the United States should not lie under oath, McKay told the bar association.
It was reported last week that Gonzales has now retained a high-profile defense lawyer, and apparently is refusing to answer questions from the Inspector General, which could signify the investigation is nearly complete, McKay said.
(Excerpt) Read more at spokesmanreview.com ...
The lesson is never, ever make deals with Democrats, especially Clintonites.
-PJ
Is he referring to clinton?
Based on the hearings, various articles, and reading thousands of pages of emails, I disagree. I hope they string Alberto up by his ankles. Based on the performance of he and his cohorts, I lost total faith in our justice system. (Yes—Janet Reno and Jamie Gorelick did the same thing, but I expect more out of Republicans).
There was a pretty good interview with Carol Lam (fired US Atty from San Diego) in the Stanford Lawyer the other day.
http://www.law.stanford.edu/publications/stanford_lawyer/issues/77/LegalMatters.html
Still trying to get to Pres. Bush, Chaney, ANYONE they can take down -
Democrats operate like the Sicilian Mafia - Vendettas to the end - while they get nothing else done
Largest case of voter fraud in Washington State history?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003808207_votefraud27m.html
McKay was an arrogant worthless POS that got what he deserved. Gonzales? Don’t make me repeat myself!
Based on the hearings, various articles, and reading thousands of pages of emails, I disagree. I hope they string Alberto up by his ankles. Based on the performance of he and his cohorts, I lost total faith in our justice system. (YesJanet Reno and Jamie Gorelick did the same thing, but I expect more out of Republicans).
Amen on all counts.
He's a scumbag through and through, unworthy of the public trust. I expect better from Republicans.
Thanks. I guess you and I are in the minority here.
The firings of those leftist lawyers isn't one of them. If Alberto does get charged with some violation, then we need charges from when Clintoon dumped 93 of them...
1. They weren’t leftists
2. Bush fired all the US attys when he came into office, just as Clinton did. The two scenarios are not comparable.
This does not sound correct, The press would have had a field day with this story. Never mind that Clinton did it. It would have been the evil Bush then.
Got a link to this? From everything I've heard and read, he didn't.
Here is how Kyle Sampson (Gonzales ex-Chief of Staff) described it in emails released during this fiasco:
“Clinton fired all Bush USAs in one fell swoop. Has been described to me as have your offices cleared out by the end of the week. We fired all Clinton USAs (except Mueller and Warner), but staggered it more and permitted some to stay on for, several months (including Mary Jo White in SDNY who we permitted to stay on for many months).”
[email March 04, 2007]
“Reagan U.S. Attorneys appointed in 1981 stayed on through the entire Reagan Administration; Bush41 even had to establish that Reagan-appointed U.S. Attorneys would not be permitted to continue on through the Bush41 Administration.”
[email January 09, 2005]
Er... doesn’t support your assertion...
Yes. It does.
As do a wealth of other articles citing emails and the historical record.
Read up!
I fail to see a problem here...
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.