Having at one point been a political appointee in the Justice Department, I see nothing wrong with a President's putting in place the people he wants to advance the priorities he prefers. That's one of the reasons we have elections.
To say that, however, is not to say that politics ought properly infuse everything the Department does. The tradition is that DOJ is more or less faithful to the Executive's constitutional duty to see that the law is faithfully executed.
One could not say that has been the case with Eric Holder. His de facto repeal of mandatory minimum statutes for a class of cases he, rather than Congress, determined, is the example that first comes to my mind. Others would point to his use of an engorged version of prosecutorial "discretion" in declining to enforce large swaths of immigration law.
This article takes a closer look at the breathtaking extent to which Holder has jammed politics into the Department's day-to-day operations. One can hope it will be better under Loretta Lynch. I have my doubts.
See also Debra Saunders' column in the SF Chron, "Eric Holder's sorry sense of justice," http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/saunders/article/Eric-Holder-s-sorry-sense-of-justice-6067504.php
Although not Holder's responsibility, the Bowe Bergdahl case has also shown a curious lassitude. Almost as soon as the swap was done (four high level terrorist commanders for one AWOL foot soldier), questions started surfacing about whether Bergdahl was actually a deserter, if not a collaborator.
An investigation was undertaken, press questions were fended off, and the matter largely slipped out of the news. (This is one of the advantages of investigations with no stated end-points).
About ten days ago, NBC reported that, as a result of what was found in the investigation, Bergdahl was, indeed, going to be charged with desertion, see http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/bowe-bergdahl-likely-be-charged-desertion-officials-say-n294466
With the President's recent and seemingly not-very-perturbed stance toward various ISIS atrocities, however, bringing the questionable Bergdahl swap back into the spotlight seemed like a bad PR move, and it has once again receded from view.
The perniciousness of this Administration can be summed up with one name: Musa Ali Daqduq.
I'm not sure I understand exactly what Debra Saunders was getting at in the article you linked, Kent. Maybe you can clarify? The bulk of the piece faults Holder for being "slow to use the U.S. Pardon Attorney’s Office to champion relief for low-level drug offenders — many of them minorities — sentenced to decades behind bars thanks to the excesses of federal prosecutors" - a position that seems anathema to what I usually read on this site. Do you agree that part of the problem with Holder's tenure has been an unwillingness to push for pardons for low-level drug offenders?
The piece then compares the DOJ investigation into the Ferguson case with the Oscar Grant case, and suggests that there was a political motive to quickly finding no wrongdoing in the Ferguson case, but dragging out the Grant shooting. I must be missing something, because I don't understand what the political motive is. Why was it more politically beneficial to quickly absolve Darren Wilson and not Johannes Mehserle? What am I missing here?
- Victor