122 x CRS = IOKIYAAR

I think it would be a good twist of the knife to list all the good prosecutions made by those fired attorneys over last several years & then ask these administration lackeys 'so this wasn't a priority of the administation? Hmmm.'

They'll either have to say 'no, putting a corrupt congressman in jail was not one of our priorities or no, busting the major interstate meth ring was not one of our priorities' or they'll have to sqirm. I vote for sqirming.

“The distinction between political- and performance-related reasons for removing a U.S. attorney is, in my view, largely artificial. A U.S. attorney who is unsuccessful from a political perspective, either because he or she has alienated the leadership of the department in Washington or cannot work constructively with law enforcement or other governmental constituencies in the district, is unsuccessful.”

Performance/Political

If an administration instructs its Justice Department to emphasize civil rights cases, or organized crime cases, that is a political choice and a perfectly legitimate one. To then judge US attorneys on their performance relative to that emphasis is also perfectly legitimate.

If an administration instructs its Justice Department to vigorously pursue political corruption cases against members of the other party, and to suppress cases involving members of its own party, that too is a political choice. But no one with a proper respect for the rule of law can regard it as legitimate. To judge US attorneys on their performance with respect to that objective is fundmentally ill-advised and profoundly unethical. Strictly speaking, however, it may remain legal. [It is only explicitly illegal to dismiss a US attorney in order to obstruct an active political corruption case.]

With the above understood, does anyone on the administration’s side still want to defend: "The distinction between political- and performance-related reasons for removing a U.S. attorney is . . . . largely artificial."

The mistakes I made here were made honestly and in good faith.

Shouldn't that have been transcribed with scare quotes?

The mistakes I made here were made honestly and in "good faith."