Prosecutor McKay explains why he may have been fired

Imagine if your supervisor said this about your job performance:

"An effective, well-regarded and capable leader ... (who) establishedstrategic goals that were appropriate to meet the priorities of thedepartment."

You'd probably think that you were in line for a promotion -- am I wrong?

U.S. Attorney John McKay was given this positive performance rating just one year before he was forced to resign fired by the Justice Department.  McKay thinks there were some sour feelings over the fact that he chose not to investigate the 2004 gubernatorial election in the state of Washington, which Democrats won by about 50 votes.  Republicans pressured McKay to investigate the matter, and were pissed when he chose not to:

John McKay of Seattle, said he received acall in late 2004 he considered disconcerting from Ed Cassidy, a formerchief of staff to Representative Doc Hastings, a Republican ofWashington.

At the time, Mr. McKay was weighing whether toconvene a grand jury to investigate allegations of voter fraud in aclose gubernatorial election won by a Democrat, a course he ultimatelydid not pursue. He said Mr. Cassidy called to inquire about the statusof the investigation.

Mr. McKay said he cut off the conversation,telling Mr. Cassidy that he was certain he would not want to ask aboutconfidential prosecution matters. The former prosecutor said at thehearing, “I was concerned and disconcerted by the call.”

AfterMr. McKay’s testimony Mr. Hastings said in statement that the call wasappropriate. “It was a simple inquiry and nothing more — and it was theonly call to any federal official from my office on this subject eitherduring or after the recount ordeal,” Mr. Hastings said.

Coincidence that McKay was canned two years after the refused to help the Republicans overturn the 2004 gubernatorial election in Washington?  Or does it follow along the same line of the other prosecutors, many of which were fired at the request of lawmakers.