Thread: U.S. Attorney: 'I was ordered to resign'

U.S. Attorney: 'I was ordered to resign'

By GENE JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer Thu Feb 8, 12:38 PM ET

SEATTLE - 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.
ADVERTISEMENT

"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.

The dismissals have been heavily criticized by Democratic lawmakers and others.

"John McKay has worked diligently for our region and it is deeply disconcerting that he could have been let go for political reasons," said Sen. Patty Murray (news, bio, voting record), D-Wash.

Robert Lasnik, the chief federal judge for the Western District of Washington, said he and fellow judges could not understand the firing and were dismayed that the Justice Department implied there was anything wrong with McKay's performance.

"This is unanimous among the judges: John McKay was a superb U.S. attorney," Lasnik said. "For the Justice Department to suggest otherwise is just not fair."

All U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and may be dismissed for any reason, or no reason at all.

A provision in the reauthorization of the Patriot Act that took effect in March allows the attorney general to appoint U.S. attorneys indefinitely without Senate confirmation.

Some Democrats have complained that the White House is using that provision to reward political allies by replacing U.S. attorneys who fall out of favor.

On Thursday, a Senate panel advanced a bill to curb the Justice Department's power to replace federal prosecutors indefinitely. The Judiciary Committee voted 13-6 to send the measure to the Senate floor, where Democratic officials planned to bring it to a vote quickly. Three Republicans also backed the bill. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has promised to submit every replacement for Senate confirmation.

No permanent replacement for McKay has yet been named.

McKay declined to say whether he had made any politically charged comments that might have drawn the ire of Justice Department officials.

The Seattle Times reported Thursday that in his last performance review, McKay received a highly favorable report from a 27-member team from the Justice Department's Evaluation and Review Staff.

"McKay is an effective, well-regarded and capable leader of the (U.S. attorney's office) and the District's law enforcement community," the EARS team wrote in the report, which was obtained by The Times.

The head of the review team, Roger McRoberts, deputy criminal chief of the U.S. attorney's office for the Northern District of Texas, would not comment Wednesday to the newspaper.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070208/ap_ ... ey_seattle

Well , bUsH has a policy of outsourcing American jobs to illegals and anchor babies ,Its actually one of the few things he knows how to do .

Some Democrats have complained that the White House is using that provision to reward political allies by replacing U.S. attorneys who fall out of favor.

I think Bush the Dictator replaces anyone who does not agree with him or refuses bend to his will. IF he were King 300 years ago it would be "OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!"

Now wait a minute. Here is a case where you guys have no idea why this attorney or any other may have been asked to step down. You haven't identified any plausible motive for any unfair dismissal of this guy. Yet you have somehow inflated this skeletal information into some sort of conspiracy. What gives? And please don't give me the usual "Bush is the Devil so there must be something going on" nonsense.

This site is slipping into a discouraging pattern of incensed radicalism. Can't we maintain objectivity, or is this site going to end up being what many of its enemies accuse it of being, which is a clearinghouse for reactionaries. Why give our enemies ammunition by leaping to one wild conclusion after another?

This is what happens when you disagree with Bush, resign. This is not the first time. Rumsfeld and Powell are a few examples.
"Whole stories" and "real reasons" are something we never get.

"If it quacks and walk like a duck, it must be a duck."

Originally Posted by dyehard39

This is what happens when you disagree with Bush, resign. This is not the first time. Rumsfeld and Powell are a few examples.
"Whole stories" and "real reasons" are something we never get.

"If it quacks and walk like a duck, it must be a duck."

Where is there any evidence that this man was asked to resign for "disagreeing with Bush?" Do you guys just make up what you want to be the truth and run with it? I'm not saying it didn't happen, but the story above makes no indication that's the case.

I'm trying to be objective, but with 7 or more of them fired you wonder what's up?

Bush has a track record now of not being truthful about the war, immigration and trying to start NAU . I know we don't have the whole story but it does make me uneasy and wonder what Bush is up to when he starts mass firings like he did his generals. I think he wants all his YES men around him and nothing else.

http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=F ... ic&t=53915

There seems to be a little bit of skullduggery in the AG's office...

Well, if it is not Bush personally asking these attorneys to step down then it could be a political move. Secondly, it's quite possible that under Clinton's administration the Dems did the same sort of house cleaning late in his term.

Might have to get those judges out of the way so they don't block his illegal alien agenda. Is it possible that certain lawsuits developing around the country can be effected by these judges?

Dixie

Originally Posted by Dixie

Well, if it is not Bush personally asking these attorneys to step down then it could be a political move. Secondly, it's quite possible that under Clinton's administration the Dems did the same sort of house cleaning late in his term.

Might have to get those judges out of the way so they don't block his illegal alien agenda. Is it possible that certain lawsuits developing around the country can be effected by these judges?

Dixie

It's not only possible, it's a fact. It is fairly typical for an administration to "clean house," as you put it, particularly if there is a chance that the next administration will be from another party and if the people being cleared out were appointed by an administration from the other party. I think that one of the things that most disappointed Conservatives about Bush during these two terms (other than the obvious problem with immigration) is that they felt that he had let them down by not clearing out more activist judges and other appointees and replacing them with strict constructionists and others more aligned with the political philosophies of mainstream America.