By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Eight additional federal prosecutors in Minnesota are preparing to leave the U.S. Attorney’s Office, following the recent departures of six senior officials. These exits reportedly stem from mounting pressure from the Department of Justice (DOJ) to pursue an investigation into Renee Good’s widow, despite a lack of apparent illegal actions on her part. Internal frustrations are also attributed to the office’s handling of the killings of Good and Alex Pretti, with notable resignations including civil division chief Ana Voss. The DOJ has referenced a memo regarding attorneys undermining the constitutional order by refusing to advance good-faith arguments.
Read the original article here
It appears that the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minnesota is experiencing a significant exodus of its legal professionals, with eight more federal prosecutors recently announcing their departure. This adds to a prior group of six, including Assistant U.S. Attorney Joe Thompson, who had already signaled their intentions to leave. The underlying reason cited for these departures is mounting pressure from the Department of Justice (DOJ) to pursue investigations that many of these prosecutors find ethically questionable, specifically concerning the widow of Renee Good.
This situation raises serious concerns about the integrity and impartiality of the prosecutorial process. The idea that prosecutors are being coerced into investigating individuals who are perceived as victims, or into protecting actions that have led to serious harm, is deeply troubling to many observers. It’s widely felt that such directives betray a fundamental lack of empathy from administrative levels, forcing good people to make untenable choices between their professional ethics and their continued employment.
The departure of experienced and presumably principled attorneys creates a vacuum that is likely to be filled by individuals who are more aligned with a particular political agenda, rather than a commitment to justice. This shift in personnel is seen by many as a direct consequence of what is perceived as the weaponization of the DOJ, where its power is being utilized to target perceived political opponents and to prosecute citizens exercising their constitutional rights, all for the sake of political gain and to appease a specific base of supporters.
There’s a sentiment that this trend leads to the appointment of individuals who are not necessarily chosen for their legal acumen or dedication to the rule of law, but rather for their willingness to follow orders, regardless of their ethical implications. This raises questions about the future effectiveness and fairness of the office, as well as the broader implications for the administration of justice across the country, especially when considering the potential for such tactics to be replicated elsewhere.
The commentary suggests a significant ethical dilemma faced by these prosecutors. They are caught between a rock and a hard place: either comply with directives they believe to be unethical and risk professional compromise, or refuse and face dismissal, or voluntarily resign. The notion is that there is little professional upside to remaining in such an environment, as passively complying or attempting to work from within to resist such pressure is unlikely to yield positive results and could even damage future career prospects.
The act of resignation, in this context, is viewed by some as a necessary form of protest, a refusal to be complicit in what they perceive as an unjust system. While some may criticize this approach, arguing that it simply opens doors for less scrupulous individuals to take their place, others contend that this is the only principled stand available. The hope is that by stepping down, these individuals are not endorsing the new direction of the office, and that any replacements, chosen for their obedience rather than their merit, will ultimately prove to be ineffective.
The specific case involving the investigation into Renee Good’s widow is highlighted as particularly egregious. From a purely human perspective, pursuing the deceased’s spouse rather than investigating a death – especially one involving such a serious injury – is viewed as deeply flawed and unjust. This suggests a misallocation of prosecutorial resources and a departure from what many would consider standard investigative priorities.
The current situation in the Minnesota U.S. Attorney’s Office represents a significant portion of the total personnel. With approximately 140 individuals employed, including over seventy Assistant U.S. Attorneys, the recent departures account for a notable percentage of the office’s workforce. This exodus, then, is not a minor reshuffling but a substantial attrition, impacting the operational capacity and potentially the morale of those who remain.
There is considerable skepticism regarding the caliber of individuals who will replace those departing. Concerns are raised that the new appointees will be less competent, perhaps described as “ambulance chasers” who are unlikely to succeed in court. This perspective suggests that the focus has shifted from pursuing complex legal cases, such as fraud, to more politically motivated or personally intrusive investigations, thereby diminishing the overall effectiveness and reputation of the DOJ.
The question of who will fill these vacated positions is a pressing one, particularly in the current political climate. There’s a widespread fear that these roles could be filled by individuals with strong partisan allegiances, rather than a commitment to impartial justice. This raises the specter of the DOJ being used as a tool for political retribution, a scenario that many find alarming and a betrayal of public trust.
The idea of prosecutors resigning versus being fired is also debated. Some argue that resigning is the only ethical option when faced with unjust directives, as it avoids complicity. Others, however, advocate for staying and being fired, believing that this could lead to legal challenges and expose the wrongful nature of the directives. The sentiment is that forcing the administration to act by firing these individuals would be a stronger statement and potentially more impactful in the long run.
The situation prompts reflection on the broader implications for the justice system. If experienced prosecutors are forced out due to ethical objections, it raises concerns about how significant cases, potentially involving powerful figures, would be prosecuted in the future. The effectiveness of the DOJ in upholding the law and holding individuals accountable hinges on the integrity and independence of its prosecutors.
Furthermore, the DOJ has issued guidance that appears to discourage refusal to carry out directives. A memo from the Attorney General suggests that attorneys who refuse to advance arguments or appear in court undermine the constitutional order. This creates a challenging environment for prosecutors who may feel compelled to choose between their conscience and their career, with the administration framing refusal as a dereliction of duty.
The analogy of asking a certified mechanic to tamper with brake lines is used to illustrate the perceived ethical compromise being demanded. It suggests that the administration is asking its legal professionals to engage in actions that are fundamentally wrong and harmful, all in the name of politics. This ethical quandary is at the heart of the current departures.
Many express a strong sense of disapproval and disappointment regarding the ongoing situation. The hope that these departures might send a clear message about the unacceptable nature of the current directives seems to be tempered by the understanding that the current political climate may not be receptive to such messages. The fear is that any principled stand will be met with further entrenchment of less ethical practices and personnel.
There’s a prevalent call for prosecutors to resist, to not resign, and instead to make their superiors fire them for refusing to follow unlawful or unethical orders. This approach, it is argued, could lead to wrongful termination lawsuits and create a public record of the administration’s alleged abuses of power. The belief is that remaining and actively resisting, even to the point of being fired, is a more powerful act of protest than simply walking away.
The concern is that by leaving, these principled individuals are allowing less qualified or more politically compliant individuals to fill their roles, thereby strengthening the hand of the administration. This creates a cycle where ethical professionals are sidelined, and the DOJ becomes an instrument of a particular political agenda. The hope is that those who replace them will be demonstrably incompetent, thereby highlighting the flawed decision-making at higher levels, but this is a gamble with significant stakes for justice.