It is generally agreed by everyone who is not a Republican (and even some of them) that politically-motivated prosecutions, like what Karl Rove's Justice Department did to Alabama Governor Don Seigelman, are wrong, horribly destructive to our theoretically-fair system of justice and an unjustified abuse of power.
Defining political prosecutions can be difficult, and I'm certainly not a lawyer, but perhaps a working definition for my purposes here might be "any prosecution driven more by political considerations than by actual evidence of criminal wrongdoing". I'm reasonably confident that the majority of Kossacks, like the majority of Americans, would agree that such prosecutions are not what we elect folks to do.
If it is "wrong" to prosecute for political purposes, I submit that it is equally wrong to fail to prosecute for political purposes, which we are in danger of seeing from our soon-to-be-new Administration.
I have seen it put forward that any attempt to investigate possible criminal acts by high-ranking members of the Bush Administration would reduce or eliminate the chances of Republican cooperation on President Obama's economic stimulus plan, making its passage and implementation more difficult.
I have also seen it put forward that investigating and prosecuting high Bush officials would break Obama's campaign pledge to "set a new tone in Washington", and would be seen by some (and loudly proclaimed by talking heads) as "political payback" and "vengeance".
Now I'm just a simple truck-driving hillbilly not accustomed to big city folks and their big city ways, but those all seem to me to be "political purposes" having absolutely nothing to do with whether criminal acts were committed, or by whom.
The politicization of Justice can cut both ways: It is as wrong and indefensible to fail to investigate and, if appropriate, prosecute actual criminal acts for political purposes as it is to prosecute for political purposes to begin with.