- Why is it OK for them to implicitly accuse the White House of orchestrating their dismissals as political payback without citing specific evidence? "It seems that given that no one takes credit at the Justice Department, that it can only be coming from one place, and that very strongly means the White House," McKay told the Times. That's pretty vague coming from a former prosecutor. Does he know something the rest of us don't? Let's hear it.
- And what about the 2004 gubernatorial election in Washington? It's time to pursue disclosure of the evidence McKay and the FBI reviewed, to put to rest once and for all accusations by some that electoral corruption went unpunished. McKay has said that lots of evidence was considered and he came to a decision that there wasn't enough to make a case. It sounds like a judgment call, which is his job to make. But if we are to believe that McKay's firing was punishment by the Republican party, his decision not to prosecute becomes relevant to the public: Was it the right decision? Let's see the evidence. This would probably involve a months- or years-long documents request under the federal Freedom of Information Act.
I hope to speak with McKay at the Mainstream conference next weekend. I'll ask him, among other things, to explain why hundreds of illegally counted ballots are not evidence of election crimes, but that telephone calls are evidence of obstruction of justice.Put that way, the question sounds pretty rhetorical. But it's an increasingly fair one to ask.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!