Both parties are bad on DoJ operations because both parties' insiders and base voters like an abusive DoJ. Vote for Rand Paul or Bernie Sanders in the primary and -- if enough fellow Americans agree -- you could change that. If candidates like that start getting votes, others will follow along on better DoJ operation.

It is entirely the responsibility of intellectuals and opinion leaders -- including ordinary smart people like HN readers -- that Americans haven't been educated to care and vote on the issue. We appear ready to continue voting for it to get worse.

This is not a greater debate about the vague idea of a surveillance state, it's about a very concrete case the federal government could either choose to prosecute or choose to drop. The current administration chose to prosecute.

That decision was a decision entirely up to the executive branch, which is entirely up to the electorate. Making (not well supported) assertions about "republican adminstrations pushing a surveillance state" does not change those facts.

So which party or candidate has made dismantling the DoJ their key issue? Because a president really only gets one or two Big Things plausibly accomplished.

The Democrats clearly won't do it, and we can rest assured the Republicans will busy themselves with abortion and warmongering with Iran.

Then vote third party, and when your friends tell you to vote for Hillary! explain to them exactly why you're not doing it: that she will do nothing to tear down the Bush/Obama surveillance state that went after people like Xi and Schwartz, and indeed will probably expand it.

Third parties do change things, even if it's just the major parties co-opting their positions after getting a scare in the election. "Hey, Party X took ten percent of the vote simply by opposing mass surveillance. Maybe we should get some of that action."

Most of the people who work at the DoJ are not elected or appointed, and they probably have a fair amount of influence on what is visible to the AG.

It would have likely gone the same way with any other administration.

My CEO doesn't watch what I do on a daily or ever basis. I have my assignments and my evaluation criteria, and that criteria does not change when the CEO changes.

Personnel at the working level don't change much with new administrations, and the personnel rules and evaluation criteria likely don't change at all. Agents have to investigate and arrest, prosecutors have to prosecute and win.

I'm sure the President and AG had no hand in deciding whether to start and continue this investigation.