The problem for which sundance claims to have a solution is the institutional corruption of our federal justice system, specifically the politicization of the DoJ and FBI:
The institutions of the DOJ and FBI are corrupted; not just a few people within it, but rather the entire apparatus has been weaponized, over time, by participating political members who have politicized every function within the institution.
Let's grant the premise for the sake of the argument. What is sundance's solution?
Any solution has to come from a position external to the organization or the cycle will simply continue.
Putting a former U.S. DOJ official in charge of the DOJ, regardless of former term or professional/honorable intent, only maintains the status quo. The career mechanisms inside the organization will expel any action adverse to their interests, and the rules are set to aide their retention.
He's speaking here of Bill Barr, Trump's nominee to replace Jeff Sessions as AG. And so there's no chance that you'll mistake who he has in mind, he has a picture:
In other words, not one single person who has previously worked for DoJ need apply. They're all simply part of the problem and, anyway, would be doomed, all of them without exception and without regard for experience, talent or intentions, to failure--which will come as a major letdown for all the Joe DiGenova fans out there in the conservative blogosphere. sundance knows this would be the inevitable outcome because, well, just because.
So, sundance rules out everyone with past experience, everyone who might understand the workings of the institutions, anyone who could anticipate sources of trouble, anyone who might know where likely pressure points might be to change those institutions most effectively, anyone who might have personal knowledge of qualified individuals to bring in to help carry out reforms. Here's his solution:
When an institution is failing top-to-bottom successful change is only viable when it is forced from a position external to the current corrupt enterprise. ...
[Reminder: Barr hasn't been 'internal' to the 'current corrupt enterprise' since ... 1993! sundance seems to favor a lifetime ban on conservative ex-officials. And if you don't believe Barr is conservative, then do yourself a favor and read his Wikipedia page.]
The need to look externally for officials to change the inherent nature and disposition of the organization is why CTH previously suggested the Judicial Branch (federal judges) should be considered as a likely candidate pool to correct the U.S Department of Justice.
One possible solution would be to fire every U.S. Attorney and every Asst. U.S. Attorney, in every office across the entire country, and simultaneously replace them with former or current federal judges.
This is like being in the middle of a pennant race with a lead and trading all your veterans for future draft picks, then calling up your AAA players--and seriously expecting to win. Is he kidding? Field a team of rookies? Apparently he's not kidding.
Just from a personal standpoint, let me say that during my working days I worked under the leadership of two former federal judges (Webster and Freeh), and it's not a solution I would recommend. Perhaps my experience prejudices me. Still ...
Consider what sundance says:
The career mechanisms inside the organization will expel any action adverse to their interests, and the rules are set to aide their retention.
Of course this is true--but is it really an effective strategy, to bring in people who have no experience in the management of large, politicized institutions that will resist reform tooth and nail and expect them to succeed? The fact is, much of the difficulty in gaining or regaining control of these institutions lies in the legal, regulatory, and sometimes even constitutional restraints that even an Attorney General must operate under. It's not as if these "outsiders" will be able to just wave a magic wand and change everything overnight. As history has shown, no matter how bad things seem, getting worse is always a very real possibility. And of all categories of people to set up as a likely candidate pool to magically transform politicized institutions--the federal judiciary?
For starters, I thought the whole point of being a federal judge--from a strictly day to day workplace experience--was job security like no other job in the world. With the added attraction of having the whole world kissing your ass all day long, if that's your thing. Your honor this, your honor that, if it pleases the court ('court'--that would be you, as a judge). Does he seriously expect people who gravitate to that sort of job to chuck it all and take on the endless headaches of managing the legal prima donnas at DoJ? That's the institutional equivalent of attempting to herd cats! Good luck drawing on that candidate pool--most of them aren't that foolhardy.
But even more basically, what makes sundance think that federal judges are somehow non-politicized? How does he think federal judges became federal judges in the first place? By resolutely shunning the politicians who would nominate them? Please!
Further, is sundance really unaware of how much to blame the federal judiciary is for the mess that this country currently finds itself in? Of course they're not the only problem--we have the whole spectrum of politicians and a feckless citizenry to draw on when it comes to assigning blame, but for sheer irreversible willfulness it's hard to top the federal judiciary. And if sundance says he only means conservative federal judges, well: Sandra Day O'Connor; Anthony Kennedy, David Souter--for starters.
No. Just no. This "solution" is no solution at all.