You insinuate that the direction of an office does not change with the character of its occupants? That can quite kindly be described as extreme fatuosity.
It may change slightly or in Clinton' case, grossly.
I note that you circumvented The Point so as to make a naive assumption about me. Here is The Point: The tell tale sign as to whether they are the fox is to ask yourself, "have they honestly come clean and sought and acted in an honest and consistent manner to identify the internal problems and how the facilitated the mess?" Has the occupant/Ashcroft or any of the above office holders done that? No. The fox is asking/demanding to guard the hen house with more of the same.
The problem must be accurately identified in the fullest sense with the all the facts gathered up to that point in time before an effective solution can be formulated.
Address The Point.
Additional understanding. "A" Point tactic is to address a smaller or secondary issue amongst a bigger issue in attempt to make the smaller "A" Point issue take the place of the larger Primary issue. The Point is the Primary issue and cannot be objectively replace by any "A" point issue. Anyone who uses an "A" point tactic should be given the benefit of the doubt that they made an honest error. If the person from that time onward into the future uses the "A" point tactic without acknowledging it as a secondary/smaller issue is intentionally trying to win a Primary issue argument by illegitimate means