Payback

by digby

I hope that all of you Pacific Northwest readers keep this in mind as we look toward the next election:

McKay, who stepped down recently, said in an interview that his positive review in May 2006 didn’t explain his ouster, nor did the phone call he received in December from a Justice Department official who ordered him to resign.

The 65-page evaluation described McKay’s relationship with most of the federal judges in his area as “excellent” and praised the quality of his office’s work.

McKay “is an effective, well-regarded and capable leader,” the evaluation stated.

The review had some criticism, including descriptions of several administrative problems in McKay’s office.

But the issues were apparently minor because the director of the executive office for U.S. attorneys later wrote McKay, praising him for his “very positive” evaluation.

“I understand that the recent evaluation of your office went well,” director Michael Battle told McKay in a letter dated April 7, 2006.

Despite the praise, Battle called McKay and other U.S. attorneys in December to ask them to step down.

Supporters said they believed McKay may have been removed because he was seen as a maverick.

McKay came under fire when right-wing organizations in his state claimed that he wasn’t aggressively pursuing voter fraud allegations against Democrats in the 2004 governor’s race. Christine Gregoire, a Democrat, was eventually declared the winner by a margin of 129 votes.

I love how someone is seen as a “maverick” for refusing to “find” voter fraud where there wasn’t any.

This is reason number 2,862 that Republicans must be removed from power. Giving cronies positions to the best political stepping stones is probably not unprecedented. But removing federal prosecutors from office because they didn’t agree to overturn an election is something else entirely.

.