I'll concede that this administration is directing the attorney general's office, but that's the whole point of appointing your own people!

There is a finite amount of prosecution that can be done at the federal level. If the administration wants to go after drug dealers, or organized crime, or tax cheats or abortion clinic bombers or counterfeiters, they would direct the attorney general's office to proceed with that direction.

If a prosecutor was unwilling to go along, I would move that person out and get someone in there who would follow directions. W doesn't seem much interested in prosecuting illegal immigration. Clinton went after abortion clinic bombers and right wing tax exempt organizations. You have to pick your spots.

We'll just have to "agree to disagree" on this one, but I know the "abuse of power" when I see it, and it's scary imo. Do you want a justice department that "follows WH directions" instead of "following the law"? I would assume from your perspective, that replacing appointees for ANY agency (i.e. FBI, IRS, etc.) that don't "follow directions" is appropriate too :(? I don't care WHO is in power, the "checks and balances" provided by the separation our branches of government are important, and there for a VERY good reason imo.

Keith, I may need to go back and review my civics 101. Is the Attorney General part of the Executive branch or the Judicial? It's Judicial right?

Traditionally, the president gets to appoint the Attorney General with Senate approval. And he gets to appoint federal prosecuters. That system seems flawed to me as the line between checks and balances overlap. But W didn't come up with that system, he just used it.

The president does appoint the director of the FBI, CIA etc with Senate approval, but those are definitely Executive branch.

They are NOT part of the judicial branch. They are part of the exec. branch. DOJ is a federal agency. US Circuit Courts and the SCOTUS are not part of the exec. branch. Exec. branch cannot fire anyone in the judicial branch, but they can fire anyone they want at DOJ.

In a nutshell, employees not performing in the manner expected were let go, isn't that about it?

The head of the executive branch fired a few guys in the AG's office because they were not doing what he wanted them to do. If you were the President, is this better or worse than firing them solely because they were hired by the guy who sat in the big chair before you and have values and priorities that are inconsistent with your own?