The following editorial appeared Tuesday in the Miami Herald.

The much-awaited Justice Department investigation into the firings of nine U.S. attorneys two years ago produced no smoking gun of criminal wrongdoing, but investigators have found the White House’s fingerprints all over the incident and enough evidence for a second phase of the investigation. U.S. Attorney Michael Mukasey, who had earlier rejected Congress’ requests for a grand-jury investigation, responded immediately by picking U.S. Attorney Nora Dannehy, a career prosecutor from Connecticut, to lead the new investigation. But there should be no hurrahs for Mukasey. He had no other choice.

The report by the Office of Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility was a voluminous and painstaking account of the controversial dismissals of nine well-respected U.S. attorneys, apparently for political reasons. Investigators said that the firings were “unsystematic and arbitrary,” with little oversight by former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Deputy Attorney General Paul Nulty or any other senior Justice Department official.

The report primarily blamed Kyle Sampson, former chief of staff for Gonzales, for the awkward and ham-fisted handling of the dismissals. However, Gonzales and his administrative staff “abdicated their responsibility” for oversight and supervision of the process, the report said. Worse, investigators found that Gonzales and other top Justice officials may not have given “accurate and truthful” statements about the dismissals and their role in the firings.

Overall, the findings are a damning assessment of how the firings were handled. The report acknowledges that the U.S. attorney general has wide latitude for hiring and firing U.S. attorneys for any reason or even no reason at all. But a U.S. attorney cannot be fired for illegal or improper reasons, which may have happened with these dismissals.

The special prosecutor can fill in gaps that the report is missing as a result of White House officials claiming executive privilege and refusing to give statements to investigators. Unlike the IG’s investigation, a special-prosecutor investigation will have a stronger hand to compel testimony from White House officials, including former presidential adviser Karl Rove, counsel Harriet Miers and liaison Monica Goodling.

The White House rebuffed congressional requests for testimony from these officials, thwarting the system of checks and balance between the executive and legislative branches. Now, with the possibility of a criminal investigation, the stakes are higher. In America, no one is above the law – not even the executive branch.