We learned more details today about the dismissal of Seattle-based U.S. Attorney John McKay.
The AP has put together a timeline of events surrounding McKay’s dismissal which provides additional insights into why McKay was left off a list of nominees last year for an open federal district judgeship in Washington State even before the Department of Justice asked for his resignation as U.S. Attorney:
A close friend in the White House counsel’s office – McKay won’t say who – told him the administration believed Republican members of the judicial selection commission opposed him for not diligently investigating claims of voter fraud during the 2004 governor’s election, which Republican Dino Rossi lost by 129 votes after two recounts.
“That was what they understood as being the reason I was not selected,” McKay said. “That was the first I had heard inside the White House that they were concerned about this.” . . .
McKay called Harriet Miers, then the White House counsel, in August and asked for an interview with the intent of correcting the record and making his case for the judgeship. . . .
Miers agreed to interview him. McKay met with her and other White House lawyers on Aug. 22.
Their first question, McKay said, was “Why would the Republicans oppose you?”
On today’s Meet the Press, McKay repeated that version of events, telling Tim Russert, “[T]hey actually asked me why Republicans in the state of Washington would be angry with me.” As the Washington Post noted this evening, that characterization of McKay’s meeting with the Miers seems to further implicate the White House in a political purge:
McKay’s disclosure of an explicit White House question about the damage his decision caused to his standing among party loyalists added new detail to his previous statement that Miers accused him of having “mishandled” the voter fraud inquiry.
The use of the phrase “mishandled” left open the possibility that White House officials — who last September were weighing whether to recommend McKay for a federal judgeship — merely disputed McKay’s professional judgment. McKay’s statement yesterday instead lent new credence to suspicions that partisan political concerns weighed heavily in his subsequent firing.
It probably didn’t help McKay that many Washington State conservatives mistakenly thought he had worked for the Clinton Administration:
Known as âJohnnyâ to friends and family, John McKay served as president of the Legal Services Corp. in Washington, D.C., before being named U.S. attorney. The Legal Services Corp. was created by Congress in 1974 as a private nonprofit corporation to provide legal services to the poor.
Though McKay headed Legal Services Corp. during the Clinton administration, he wasnât appointed by the president and didnât work for the administration. Even so, Vance and others said the perception among conservatives was that McKay had worked for the Clinton administration.
âI knew who he was,â Tom McCabe, executive vice president of the Building Industry Association of Washington, said of John McKay. âHe worked in the Clinton administration.â
McCabe was one of those who publicly called for McKayâs firing after he declined to investigate the governorâs race. The Republican-controlled Congress in the 1990s sought to eliminate the Legal Services Corp., and McKay worked with Gorton and Dicks, among others, to save it.
Tony Williams, Gortonâs former chief of staff, recalled that when passions were running high following the 2004 governorâs race, McKayâs connection to Legal Services and mistaken connection to the Clinton administration raised some eyebrows in conservative circles.
âIf people Googled him and saw he ran Legal Services ⦠I can only imagine what my more conservative friends thought,â Williams said.
One can only imagine.
