Six federal prosecutors in Minnesota resigned on Tuesday over the Justice Department’s push to investigate the widow of a woman killed by an ICE agent and the department’s reluctance to investigate the shooter, according to people with knowledge of their decision.

Joseph H. Thompson, who was second in command at the U.S. attorney’s office and oversaw a sprawling fraud investigation that has roiled Minnesota’s political landscape, was among those who quit on Tuesday, according to three people with knowledge of the decision.

Mr. Thompson’s resignation came after senior Justice Department officials pressed for a criminal investigation into the actions of the widow of Renee Nicole Good, the Minneapolis woman killed by an ICE agent on Wednesday.

MBFC
Archive

  • AmbitiousProcess (they/them)@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    7 days ago

    Kinda depends.

    If your job is heavily based on results or hitting quotas, quitting might not be the best choice in most cases, since if you weren’t meeting the requirements set, you’d be fired anyways. (e.g. if their metric is "10 protesters jailed a week, you can’t really be “gumming up the works” by only jailing 10 protesters instead of the 20 your coworker is doing. If they needed 10 more from you, they’d up the requirements or hire/transfer another person)

    But if your job is more abstract, something specialized that’s hard to find replacements for, etc, then it can be worth it. (e.g. you’re the only person who knows how this legacy system with no documentation functions, if you quit and they need tech support, they’re fucked. Or another example, if your job relies on your team making new guidelines for how to best identify protesters, but you effectively sabotage every regular meeting with long speeches, bringing up old issues and re-opening them for discussion, asking how effective new decisions really are to draw them out, etc)

    In this case, federal prosecutors are:

    • Harder to replace (you need a lot of experience and education)
    • Damaging existing efforts when they leave (one of those resigning was working on major fraud cases someone else will now have to pick up)
    • Slow to get replacements working for (since old cases being handed off to new people need to be entirely re-examined and learned about all over again)

    So resigning was probably a good choice compared to just going “it’s taking a while, sorry” and then them looking at the work and seeing it’s just way slower than before on purpose in tangible ways, then having them come after you for “sabotage” or whatever they try to brand it as.

    • reddig33@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      7 days ago

      Slow to get replacements working for (since old cases being handed off to new people need to be entirely re-examined and learned about all over again)

      You’re assuming the current administration will hire or promote someone competent as the replacement. Slow walking cases and tying them up in red tape might have accomplished more than simply handing them to someone who doesn’t care about following the law.