i don't know anything more about corruption in the pmo than anybody else, although any sane analysis of democracy (beginning with plato) would argue it must be there.

but, i immediately pointed out that the most likely cause of the indigenous attorney getting sacked was a refusal - or the perception of a refusal - to take particular types of instruction.

i wouldn't be surprised if the story ends up being that the pmo didn't feel comfortable intervening, rather than that they actually did.

but, i'm sure there's a story there. and, i would expect that conspiracy theorists will find more salacious details by focusing on the new appointee rather than the old one.