|
FirmhandKY -> RE: What is George Bush hiding?????? Can you say "Impeach"? (3/25/2007 9:54:12 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: farglebargle
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003615329_mckay13m.html
quote:
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.
So, his own boss back in Washington City is in on the conspiracy?
McKay ...
The headline to the story you are referencing, FB is this:
McKay "stunned" by report on Bush
Let's see what McKay considers "stunning":
McKay said one of the first actions he took on the 2004 race came in response to a request from one of his harshest critics.
Tom McCabe, executive vice president of the Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW), contacted McKay's office in late 2004 or early 2005, alleging he had evidence of forged signatures on absentee ballots cast for Gregoire.
After talking to McCabe, McKay said, he called Mark Ferbrache, supervisory special agent at the FBI, and asked him to assign Special Agent Joe Quinn to review McCabe's evidence.
McCabe confirms he received a phone call from Quinn a few days later, and McCabe sent him documents supporting his forgery allegations.
But McCabe remains dissatisfied with Quinn's response.
"[Quinn] seemed distracted, almost bothered that he was talking to me about it," McCabe said. "He never instituted an investigation; no one was ever questioned.
"It started me wondering whether the U.S. Attorney was doing his job," McCabe said.
McCabe subsequently made repeated calls on the White House to fire McKay.
And then there is this report:
Voter Fraud: A Tough Crime to Prove
John McKay, the former U.S. attorney in Seattle, said he was accused of mishandling voter fraud when he interviewed at the White House for a federal judgeship. The specific question: why he had mishandled the investigations into voter fraud connected to Washington's very close 2004 gubernatorial election. That election was won by a Democrat.
He did not get the appointment. Three months later, he was terminated.
Seems to me, he had plenty of warning that his bosses might not be too happy with his performance. Yet ... he is "stunned". Or, at least, that makes for a good sound bite, and headline doesn't it?
Lets talk about the Washington State election, shall we?
The Washington election was very, very close. Finally, the Dem was certified as winning with 129 votes.
If there were irregularities and votes counted of people who were dead, felons who could not legally vote, questions about duplicate voting of some people, inconsistent records of the number of ballots submitted, and the number of ballots counted that totaled over 129 votes, does the possibility that the Dems really shouldn't have won the election cause you to rethink things?
Reading McKay's words, he seems to be saying that yes, there were irregularities, but he didn't think that they were intentional, therefore no fraud occurred. Since no fraud occurred, then he wasn't going to investigate:
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."
But ... this doesn't mean that the election went the way that the people voted, now does it?
Irregularities in the election results:
Dead voted in governor's race
At least eight people who died well before the November general election were credited with voting in King County, raising new questions about the integrity of the vote total in the narrow governor's race, a Seattle Post-Intelligencer review has found
The evidence of votes from dead people is the latest example of flaws in an election already rocked by misplaced votes and allegations that there were thousands more votes counted than actual voters.
County officials say they are investigating the cases pointed out by the P-I. "These are not indications of fraud," said Bill Huennekens, King County's elections supervisor. "Fraud is a concerted effort to change an election."
The P-I review found eight people who died weeks before absentee ballots were mailed out, between Oct. 13 and 15, but were credited with voting in King County. Among them was an 81-year-old Seattle woman who died in August but is recorded as having voted at the polls.
No evidence of election crimes?
Today's Seattle Times reports that John McKay insists that there was no evidence of election crimes in Washington's November 2004 election. Granted, he appears to have relied solely on what the Republican legal team presented in the contest trial. And we now know that King County sandbagged discovery requests and stonewalled public records requests, and the schedule simply didn't permit the litigants to force King County to produce all of the evidence in time for the trial. Here is a summary of what I've found in the 21 months after the trial ended:
Category of suspected illegal vote Expected Documented
Provisional ballots counted from unregistered "fatal pend" voter 170 170
Provisional ballots counted from other unregistered voters 60 32
Federal write-in ballot counted from unregistered voter who
had not requested a ballot by the deadline 113 113
Two absentee ballots counted from the same voter 80 30
Absentee ballot and provisional ballot counted from the same voter 50 11
In-state absentee ballots postmarked after election day (Nov. 2) >5 5
Total suspected illegal votes 478 361
Sounds to me like McKay simply decided not to get involved. He had the ability to ask for a grand jury in order to determine if the election went the way that it legally was suppose to. He chose not too. The President chose to dismiss him for failing to make the effort to determine the full truth.
Sometimes, even US Attorney's get caught up in local politics. Who knows McKay's motivations? But, it doesn't really matter. He lost the confidence of the Administration for his performance, or lack thereof. If you lose the confidence of your boss, then you are no longer serving "at the pleasure of the President." And since the entire basis of your appointment is that you are "serving at the pleasure of the President", is it not perfectly legitimate to lose the job that is dependent on it?
FirmKY
|
|
|
|
