From the Tribune (Editorial):

Firing offenses?

Published March 9, 2007

For weeks, the Justice Department has been under fire over its sudden dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys at the end of last year. Critics accuse the department of removing able prosecutors because they took on politically inconvenient cases or simply to make room for administration cronies. Those claims cast a shadow over the federal justice system.

On Tuesday, six of those who were fired testified on Capitol Hill about their experiences, and the accounts raise disturbing questions.

To dismiss so many U.S. attorneys all at once is hardly the norm, and it created suspicions of a hidden agenda: If they were performing poorly, why did the failures all escape notice until now?

In the case of Bud Cummins, who served in the Eastern District of Arkansas, there was no failure. His superiors admit they canned him to provide a job for a former aide to White House political adviser Karl Rove. Cummins said Tuesday that he also got a call from a Justice Department official warning that he and the other fired prosecutors would be wise to keep quiet. That lends credence to the worst fears.

New Mexico's David Iglesias said he had gotten unpleasant calls from two Republican members of the state's congressional delegation about possible criminal charges against Democrats. "I felt leaned on," he said.

John McKay of Seattle said that after he decided not to pursue allegations of voter fraud in a governor's race won by a Democrat, then-White House counsel Harriet Miers asked him why he had "mishandled" the case.

As questions unfolded, the Justice Department had said that (except for Cummins) the U.S. attorneys were relieved for performance reasons, but offered few details. On Tuesday, Principal Associate Deputy Atty. Gen. William Moschella finally provided some specifics. San Diego's Carol Lam was faulted for not pursuing enough alien-smuggling and firearms cases, McKay for accepting too-lenient sentences, and Paul Charlton of Arizona for ignoring department policy in a death penalty case. Iglesias allegedly fell short on border enforcement.

Are these claims justified? A couple of congressional hearings are not enough to answer that question. The Senate Judiciary Committee plans to subpoena several Justice Department officials to learn more, and the ethics committees are expected to look into whether some members acted inappropriately in contacting prosecutors about pending cases.

Congress should keep probing, and the administration should keep responding, until all the facts are known and informed judgments can be made. The U.S. attorneys hold critical offices in the judicial system--offices that have to be protected from political interference.