The latest batch of House Judiciary Committee memos seem in conflict: Seattle's U.S. Attorney John McKay was being backed by the White House and Justice Department for a federal judgeship here last year shortly before the adminstration moved to push him and other federal prosecutors out of their jobs. Actually, the ultimate result in either case would have been the same, leaving McKay without the U.S. attorney's chair. But a larger question now emerges: While the administration was firing U.S. attorneys for purely political reasons, was it also trying to load up the federal judiciary for similar political motives? McKay may have been 86'd in part because he backed deployment of a computer software crime-fighting system others didn't want (McKay says that couldn't have been the whole reason, but hasn't said what else was). But if he landed the federal bench seat he actively sought with the aid of his friends in the White House - despite his inexperience in the courtroom - was there a presumption Judge McKay would rule favorably in cases brought by his former office under the Bush Justice Department? More memos please.