“Your Honor, the President is acting Like He’s in Charge and We Want It Stopped”

[Moonglow]

Small children on the playground know that if you can’t win an argument any other way, you always play the faulty-research card, as in:

“Where did you get your information?”


The Bureau is 100 percent within the executive branch. If the president wants to get personally involved in any investigation, that’s his prerogative. If he wants to fire his director for failing to pursue a case, or pursuing a case too closely, or investigating a matter that he doesn’t want investigated, he’s well within his authority to do so. He can fire a director every day of the week until he gets one who enforces the law the way he wants it enforced. It was part of the genius of J. Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI under six presidents, that he was always able to position himself as the chief executive’s confidant and personal intelligence operative, altering his agenda according to whoever was in office. James Comey didn’t feel the need to do that, so Trump didn’t trust him.

Even more to the point: Every time the president signs an executive order, somebody files a suit against him, claiming the right to investigate why he’s doing what he’s doing and whether he’s doing it for the right reasons or because he has sinister intentions caused by demonic fake-news sources.

://takimag.com/article/your_honor_the_president_is_acting_like_hes_in_charge_joe_bob_briggs/print#ixzz53Ojchnj8

The emperor (Trumpchange) has no clothes.

I thought that was Obama.

You would because of your bias....It happens to all presidents so whining about how Trump is treated while extolling the same acts while another president serves is just plain old hypocrisy....You either support all the same or hate all the same...

Thanks for telling me how I think.

Most liberal of you.

Thanks for telling me how to think, most whatever you are at the moment you...

 

[OKTexas]

Oh boy, another regressive that believes in fairy tales. LMAO

See post #14.


.

So you have no counter argument, how regressive of you.

How about you show me where in the Constitution where federal law enforcement authority is derived. In fact show me where an AG is even mentioned in the Constitution.


.

No counter-argument? Do you understand how the justice system works? Congress makes laws, The Supreme Court interprets the laws, and the DoJ enforces it. The DoJ including the AG doesn't just do what the POTUS says... they enforce the LAWS set forth by Congress and the Constitution, and how they have been interpreted over the years by the Supreme Court. As much as everyone wants to believe the POTUS has supreme power, he doesn't.

Ok, show me one supreme court decision that says the president doesn't have the authority to tell the DOJ what to do. All constitutional federal law enforcement authority is derived from Article 2, Section 3, he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed. He, in that phrase, is the POTUS. You can pretend that the DOJ is part of the judicial branch all you want, that doesn't make it true. If you want that changed, see Article 5.

BTW, your dear leader instructed the DOJ not to defend a federal law called DOMA, was that obstruction of justice?


.

Numbnuts, what is so hard to understand? The President appoints the AG to run the DoJ. The AG's job is to uphold the laws of the land... UNLESS the President tells the AG to NOT enforce a law that contradicts the law of a state, ie. legalized marijuana.

As much as the President may like, he CAN NOT go around telling Jeff Sessions every single person to investigate.

Well dipstick he appoints everyone in his cabinet, do you think he doesn't have the authority to tell Tillerson or Mattis what to do? Of course he does, they all work at the pleasure of the president. And no he doesn't have time to tell Sessions every person to investigate, he can lay out the priorities for the DOJ and if he disagrees on how they are handling a particular case, he has every authority to tell them.


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Oh boy, another regressive that believes in fairy tales. LMAO

See post #14.


.

So you have no counter argument, how regressive of you.

How about you show me where in the Constitution where federal law enforcement authority is derived. In fact show me where an AG is even mentioned in the Constitution.


.

No counter-argument? Do you understand how the justice system works? Congress makes laws, The Supreme Court interprets the laws, and the DoJ enforces it. The DoJ including the AG doesn't just do what the POTUS says... they enforce the LAWS set forth by Congress and the Constitution, and how they have been interpreted over the years by the Supreme Court. As much as everyone wants to believe the POTUS has supreme power, he doesn't.

Ok, show me one supreme court decision that says the president doesn't have the authority to tell the DOJ what to do. All constitutional federal law enforcement authority is derived from Article 2, Section 3, he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed. He, in that phrase, is the POTUS. You can pretend that the DOJ is part of the judicial branch all you want, that doesn't make it true. If you want that changed, see Article 5.

BTW, your dear leader instructed the DOJ not to defend a federal law called DOMA, was that obstruction of justice?


.

Numbnuts, what is so hard to understand? The President appoints the AG to run the DoJ. The AG's job is to uphold the laws of the land... UNLESS the President tells the AG to NOT enforce a law that contradicts the law of a state, ie. legalized marijuana.

As much as the President may like, he CAN NOT go around telling Jeff Sessions every single person to investigate.

The president can't legally tell the DOJ not to enforce federal law, federal law triumphs state law it was decided in the civil war.

 

[Reasonable]

Small children on the playground know that if you can’t win an argument any other way, you always play the faulty-research card, as in:

“Where did you get your information?”


The Bureau is 100 percent within the executive branch. If the president wants to get personally involved in any investigation, that’s his prerogative. If he wants to fire his director for failing to pursue a case, or pursuing a case too closely, or investigating a matter that he doesn’t want investigated, he’s well within his authority to do so. He can fire a director every day of the week until he gets one who enforces the law the way he wants it enforced. It was part of the genius of J. Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI under six presidents, that he was always able to position himself as the chief executive’s confidant and personal intelligence operative, altering his agenda according to whoever was in office. James Comey didn’t feel the need to do that, so Trump didn’t trust him.

Even more to the point: Every time the president signs an executive order, somebody files a suit against him, claiming the right to investigate why he’s doing what he’s doing and whether he’s doing it for the right reasons or because he has sinister intentions caused by demonic fake-news sources.

://takimag.com/article/your_honor_the_president_is_acting_like_hes_in_charge_joe_bob_briggs/print#ixzz53Ojchnj8

POTUS DOES NOT have the right to tell the Dept of Justice who to investigate nor interfere with any ongoing investigation.
There is no rule of law under this despot that he won't try to usurp.

 

[Reasonable]

Small children on the playground know that if you can’t win an argument any other way, you always play the faulty-research card, as in:

“Where did you get your information?”


The Bureau is 100 percent within the executive branch. If the president wants to get personally involved in any investigation, that’s his prerogative. If he wants to fire his director for failing to pursue a case, or pursuing a case too closely, or investigating a matter that he doesn’t want investigated, he’s well within his authority to do so. He can fire a director every day of the week until he gets one who enforces the law the way he wants it enforced. It was part of the genius of J. Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI under six presidents, that he was always able to position himself as the chief executive’s confidant and personal intelligence operative, altering his agenda according to whoever was in office. James Comey didn’t feel the need to do that, so Trump didn’t trust him.

Even more to the point: Every time the president signs an executive order, somebody files a suit against him, claiming the right to investigate why he’s doing what he’s doing and whether he’s doing it for the right reasons or because he has sinister intentions caused by demonic fake-news sources.

://takimag.com/article/your_honor_the_president_is_acting_like_hes_in_charge_joe_bob_briggs/print#ixzz53Ojchnj8

The emperor (Trumpchange) has no clothes.

I thought that was Obama.

You would because of your bias....It happens to all presidents so whining about how Trump is treated while extolling the same acts while another president serves is just plain old hypocrisy....You either support all the same or hate all the same...

 

[OKTexas]

Small children on the playground know that if you can’t win an argument any other way, you always play the faulty-research card, as in:

“Where did you get your information?”


The Bureau is 100 percent within the executive branch. If the president wants to get personally involved in any investigation, that’s his prerogative. If he wants to fire his director for failing to pursue a case, or pursuing a case too closely, or investigating a matter that he doesn’t want investigated, he’s well within his authority to do so. He can fire a director every day of the week until he gets one who enforces the law the way he wants it enforced. It was part of the genius of J. Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI under six presidents, that he was always able to position himself as the chief executive’s confidant and personal intelligence operative, altering his agenda according to whoever was in office. James Comey didn’t feel the need to do that, so Trump didn’t trust him.

Even more to the point: Every time the president signs an executive order, somebody files a suit against him, claiming the right to investigate why he’s doing what he’s doing and whether he’s doing it for the right reasons or because he has sinister intentions caused by demonic fake-news sources.

://takimag.com/article/your_honor_the_president_is_acting_like_hes_in_charge_joe_bob_briggs/print#ixzz53Ojchnj8

POTUS DOES NOT have the right to tell the Dept of Justice who to investigate nor interfere with any ongoing investigation.
There is no rule of law under this despot that he won't try to usurp.

Another child that didn't pay attention is civics class. LMAO


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Small children on the playground know that if you can’t win an argument any other way, you always play the faulty-research card, as in:

“Where did you get your information?”


The Bureau is 100 percent within the executive branch. If the president wants to get personally involved in any investigation, that’s his prerogative. If he wants to fire his director for failing to pursue a case, or pursuing a case too closely, or investigating a matter that he doesn’t want investigated, he’s well within his authority to do so. He can fire a director every day of the week until he gets one who enforces the law the way he wants it enforced. It was part of the genius of J. Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI under six presidents, that he was always able to position himself as the chief executive’s confidant and personal intelligence operative, altering his agenda according to whoever was in office. James Comey didn’t feel the need to do that, so Trump didn’t trust him.

Even more to the point: Every time the president signs an executive order, somebody files a suit against him, claiming the right to investigate why he’s doing what he’s doing and whether he’s doing it for the right reasons or because he has sinister intentions caused by demonic fake-news sources.

://takimag.com/article/your_honor_the_president_is_acting_like_hes_in_charge_joe_bob_briggs/print#ixzz53Ojchnj8

POTUS DOES NOT have the right to tell the Dept of Justice who to investigate nor interfere with any ongoing investigation.
There is no rule of law under this despot that he won't try to usurp.

So in your mind you thought by Trump having a legal right to fire Comey that the investigation was stopped?


Lol..

 

[Mindful]

Small children on the playground know that if you can’t win an argument any other way, you always play the faulty-research card, as in:

“Where did you get your information?”


The Bureau is 100 percent within the executive branch. If the president wants to get personally involved in any investigation, that’s his prerogative. If he wants to fire his director for failing to pursue a case, or pursuing a case too closely, or investigating a matter that he doesn’t want investigated, he’s well within his authority to do so. He can fire a director every day of the week until he gets one who enforces the law the way he wants it enforced. It was part of the genius of J. Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI under six presidents, that he was always able to position himself as the chief executive’s confidant and personal intelligence operative, altering his agenda according to whoever was in office. James Comey didn’t feel the need to do that, so Trump didn’t trust him.

Even more to the point: Every time the president signs an executive order, somebody files a suit against him, claiming the right to investigate why he’s doing what he’s doing and whether he’s doing it for the right reasons or because he has sinister intentions caused by demonic fake-news sources.

://takimag.com/article/your_honor_the_president_is_acting_like_hes_in_charge_joe_bob_briggs/print#ixzz53Ojchnj8

The emperor (Trumpchange) has no clothes.

I thought that was Obama.

You would because of your bias....It happens to all presidents so whining about how Trump is treated while extolling the same acts while another president serves is just plain old hypocrisy....You either support all the same or hate all the same...

Thanks for telling me how I think.

Most liberal of you.

Thanks for telling me how to think, most whatever you are at the moment you...

No problem.

 

[Reasonable]

Small children on the playground know that if you can’t win an argument any other way, you always play the faulty-research card, as in:

“Where did you get your information?”


The Bureau is 100 percent within the executive branch. If the president wants to get personally involved in any investigation, that’s his prerogative. If he wants to fire his director for failing to pursue a case, or pursuing a case too closely, or investigating a matter that he doesn’t want investigated, he’s well within his authority to do so. He can fire a director every day of the week until he gets one who enforces the law the way he wants it enforced. It was part of the genius of J. Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI under six presidents, that he was always able to position himself as the chief executive’s confidant and personal intelligence operative, altering his agenda according to whoever was in office. James Comey didn’t feel the need to do that, so Trump didn’t trust him.

Even more to the point: Every time the president signs an executive order, somebody files a suit against him, claiming the right to investigate why he’s doing what he’s doing and whether he’s doing it for the right reasons or because he has sinister intentions caused by demonic fake-news sources.

://takimag.com/article/your_honor_the_president_is_acting_like_hes_in_charge_joe_bob_briggs/print#ixzz53Ojchnj8

POTUS DOES NOT have the right to tell the Dept of Justice who to investigate nor interfere with any ongoing investigation.
There is no rule of law under this despot that he won't try to usurp.

Another child that didn't pay attention is civics class. LMAO


.

Where am I wrong asshole?

 

[Reasonable]

Small children on the playground know that if you can’t win an argument any other way, you always play the faulty-research card, as in:

“Where did you get your information?”


The Bureau is 100 percent within the executive branch. If the president wants to get personally involved in any investigation, that’s his prerogative. If he wants to fire his director for failing to pursue a case, or pursuing a case too closely, or investigating a matter that he doesn’t want investigated, he’s well within his authority to do so. He can fire a director every day of the week until he gets one who enforces the law the way he wants it enforced. It was part of the genius of J. Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI under six presidents, that he was always able to position himself as the chief executive’s confidant and personal intelligence operative, altering his agenda according to whoever was in office. James Comey didn’t feel the need to do that, so Trump didn’t trust him.

Even more to the point: Every time the president signs an executive order, somebody files a suit against him, claiming the right to investigate why he’s doing what he’s doing and whether he’s doing it for the right reasons or because he has sinister intentions caused by demonic fake-news sources.

://takimag.com/article/your_honor_the_president_is_acting_like_hes_in_charge_joe_bob_briggs/print#ixzz53Ojchnj8

POTUS DOES NOT have the right to tell the Dept of Justice who to investigate nor interfere with any ongoing investigation.
There is no rule of law under this despot that he won't try to usurp.

So in your mind you thought by Trump having a legal right to fire Comey that the investigation was stopped?


Lol..

In English this time, please.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Small children on the playground know that if you can’t win an argument any other way, you always play the faulty-research card, as in:

“Where did you get your information?”


The Bureau is 100 percent within the executive branch. If the president wants to get personally involved in any investigation, that’s his prerogative. If he wants to fire his director for failing to pursue a case, or pursuing a case too closely, or investigating a matter that he doesn’t want investigated, he’s well within his authority to do so. He can fire a director every day of the week until he gets one who enforces the law the way he wants it enforced. It was part of the genius of J. Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI under six presidents, that he was always able to position himself as the chief executive’s confidant and personal intelligence operative, altering his agenda according to whoever was in office. James Comey didn’t feel the need to do that, so Trump didn’t trust him.

Even more to the point: Every time the president signs an executive order, somebody files a suit against him, claiming the right to investigate why he’s doing what he’s doing and whether he’s doing it for the right reasons or because he has sinister intentions caused by demonic fake-news sources.

://takimag.com/article/your_honor_the_president_is_acting_like_hes_in_charge_joe_bob_briggs/print#ixzz53Ojchnj8

POTUS DOES NOT have the right to tell the Dept of Justice who to investigate nor interfere with any ongoing investigation.
There is no rule of law under this despot that he won't try to usurp.

So in your mind you thought by Trump having a legal right to fire Comey that the investigation was stopped?


Lol..

In English this time, please.

I don't know rap, you should teach us.

 

[OKTexas]

Small children on the playground know that if you can’t win an argument any other way, you always play the faulty-research card, as in:

“Where did you get your information?”


The Bureau is 100 percent within the executive branch. If the president wants to get personally involved in any investigation, that’s his prerogative. If he wants to fire his director for failing to pursue a case, or pursuing a case too closely, or investigating a matter that he doesn’t want investigated, he’s well within his authority to do so. He can fire a director every day of the week until he gets one who enforces the law the way he wants it enforced. It was part of the genius of J. Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI under six presidents, that he was always able to position himself as the chief executive’s confidant and personal intelligence operative, altering his agenda according to whoever was in office. James Comey didn’t feel the need to do that, so Trump didn’t trust him.

Even more to the point: Every time the president signs an executive order, somebody files a suit against him, claiming the right to investigate why he’s doing what he’s doing and whether he’s doing it for the right reasons or because he has sinister intentions caused by demonic fake-news sources.

://takimag.com/article/your_honor_the_president_is_acting_like_hes_in_charge_joe_bob_briggs/print#ixzz53Ojchnj8

POTUS DOES NOT have the right to tell the Dept of Justice who to investigate nor interfere with any ongoing investigation.
There is no rule of law under this despot that he won't try to usurp.

Another child that didn't pay attention is civics class. LMAO


.

Where am I wrong asshole?

See posts # 17 & # 22. I'm not going to retype them because you don't want to follow the thread.


.

 

[Mindful]

Ask yourselves: Has there has never been a day when you wished Hillary Clinton were president? Even one?

 

[Windparadox]

`
`
Can a sitting president be prosecuted?

"Of course, none of the preceding discussion means much unless a president can actually be prosecuted. And that’s a longshot. Officially, there has never been a binding judicial opinion on this question."It is unresolved," said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the law school at the University of California-Irvine. "The Watergate grand jury in 1974 named Richard Nixon an ‘unindicted co-conspirator’ because they did not know if they could indict a sitting president."

That said, there is a widespread assumption among legal experts that courts would rule against the idea of prosecuting a sitting president.Why? It’s primarily due to a pair of opinions by the Office of Legal Counsel, the closely watched office within the Justice Department that advises presidential administrations on the legality of taking certain positions or actions.

The office looked at this question in 1973 and 2000, concluded on both occasions that a president could not be criminally prosecuted. Criminal prosecution, the office determined, would undermine the executive branch’s ability to perform its functions. Ultimately, "only the House of Representatives has the authority to bring charges of criminal misconduct through the constitutionally sanctioned process of impeachment," the office wrote in 2000.

Legal scholars say that while the case for presidential immunity from prosecution isn’t a slam dunk, the Office of Legal Counsel opinions carry significant weight in predicting how a federal court would handle the question if asked."The president can be accused of anything, but he cannot be prosecuted while in office, on the grounds that it would be a distraction from leading the government," said Susan Rose-Ackerman, a Yale Law School professor.

In the 1997 case Clinton vs. Jones, the courts ruled that President Bill Clinton could face a civil suit while still in office. (It stemmed from Paula Jones’ allegations of sexual advances when Clinton was governor of Arkansas.) But the Office of Legal Counsel made clear that the Jones ruling did not mean that it was also proper to green-light a criminal prosecution against a sitting president." - Source
`

 

[OKTexas]

`
`
Can a sitting president be prosecuted?

"Of course, none of the preceding discussion means much unless a president can actually be prosecuted. And that’s a longshot. Officially, there has never been a binding judicial opinion on this question."It is unresolved," said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the law school at the University of California-Irvine. "The Watergate grand jury in 1974 named Richard Nixon an ‘unindicted co-conspirator’ because they did not know if they could indict a sitting president."

That said, there is a widespread assumption among legal experts that courts would rule against the idea of prosecuting a sitting president.Why? It’s primarily due to a pair of opinions by the Office of Legal Counsel, the closely watched office within the Justice Department that advises presidential administrations on the legality of taking certain positions or actions.

The office looked at this question in 1973 and 2000, concluded on both occasions that a president could not be criminally prosecuted. Criminal prosecution, the office determined, would undermine the executive branch’s ability to perform its functions. Ultimately, "only the House of Representatives has the authority to bring charges of criminal misconduct through the constitutionally sanctioned process of impeachment," the office wrote in 2000.

Legal scholars say that while the case for presidential immunity from prosecution isn’t a slam dunk, the Office of Legal Counsel opinions carry significant weight in predicting how a federal court would handle the question if asked."The president can be accused of anything, but he cannot be prosecuted while in office, on the grounds that it would be a distraction from leading the government," said Susan Rose-Ackerman, a Yale Law School professor.

In the 1997 case Clinton vs. Jones, the courts ruled that President Bill Clinton could face a civil suit while still in office. (It stemmed from Paula Jones’ allegations of sexual advances when Clinton was governor of Arkansas.) But the Office of Legal Counsel made clear that the Jones ruling did not mean that it was also proper to green-light a criminal prosecution against a sitting president." - Source
`

Actually it would be appropriate for criminal prosecution of a president after impeachment and removal by the senate. I don't see how one could be prosecuted while in office. That's why Nixon was pardoned, to prevent subsequent prosecution.


.

 

[Moonglow]

Ask yourselves: Has there has never been a day when you wished Hillary Clinton were president? Even one?

Just can't get her from under your skin?

 

[Mindful]

Ask yourselves: Has there has never been a day when you wished Hillary Clinton were president? Even one?

Just can't get her from under your skin?

You are really prolific just lately, aren't you?

All over the place, and sort of disjointed. The sum of many parts.

 

[Lewdog]

So you have no counter argument, how regressive of you.

How about you show me where in the Constitution where federal law enforcement authority is derived. In fact show me where an AG is even mentioned in the Constitution.


.

No counter-argument? Do you understand how the justice system works? Congress makes laws, The Supreme Court interprets the laws, and the DoJ enforces it. The DoJ including the AG doesn't just do what the POTUS says... they enforce the LAWS set forth by Congress and the Constitution, and how they have been interpreted over the years by the Supreme Court. As much as everyone wants to believe the POTUS has supreme power, he doesn't.

Ok, show me one supreme court decision that says the president doesn't have the authority to tell the DOJ what to do. All constitutional federal law enforcement authority is derived from Article 2, Section 3, he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed. He, in that phrase, is the POTUS. You can pretend that the DOJ is part of the judicial branch all you want, that doesn't make it true. If you want that changed, see Article 5.

BTW, your dear leader instructed the DOJ not to defend a federal law called DOMA, was that obstruction of justice?


.

Numbnuts, what is so hard to understand? The President appoints the AG to run the DoJ. The AG's job is to uphold the laws of the land... UNLESS the President tells the AG to NOT enforce a law that contradicts the law of a state, ie. legalized marijuana.

As much as the President may like, he CAN NOT go around telling Jeff Sessions every single person to investigate.

Well dipstick he appoints everyone in his cabinet, do you think he doesn't have the authority to tell Tillerson or Mattis what to do? Of course he does, they all work at the pleasure of the president. And no he doesn't have time to tell Sessions every person to investigate, he can lay out the priorities for the DOJ and if he disagrees on how they are handling a particular case, he has every authority to tell them.


.

Dumbass, Tillerson and Mattis aren't trying to enforce laws on citizens...

The President DOES NOT have the authority to tell the DoJ who they can or can not investigate.

 

[Lewdog]

So you have no counter argument, how regressive of you.

How about you show me where in the Constitution where federal law enforcement authority is derived. In fact show me where an AG is even mentioned in the Constitution.


.

No counter-argument? Do you understand how the justice system works? Congress makes laws, The Supreme Court interprets the laws, and the DoJ enforces it. The DoJ including the AG doesn't just do what the POTUS says... they enforce the LAWS set forth by Congress and the Constitution, and how they have been interpreted over the years by the Supreme Court. As much as everyone wants to believe the POTUS has supreme power, he doesn't.

Ok, show me one supreme court decision that says the president doesn't have the authority to tell the DOJ what to do. All constitutional federal law enforcement authority is derived from Article 2, Section 3, he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed. He, in that phrase, is the POTUS. You can pretend that the DOJ is part of the judicial branch all you want, that doesn't make it true. If you want that changed, see Article 5.

BTW, your dear leader instructed the DOJ not to defend a federal law called DOMA, was that obstruction of justice?


.

Numbnuts, what is so hard to understand? The President appoints the AG to run the DoJ. The AG's job is to uphold the laws of the land... UNLESS the President tells the AG to NOT enforce a law that contradicts the law of a state, ie. legalized marijuana.

As much as the President may like, he CAN NOT go around telling Jeff Sessions every single person to investigate.

The president can't legally tell the DOJ not to enforce federal law, federal law triumphs state law it was decided in the civil war.

 

[OKTexas]

So you have no counter argument, how regressive of you.

How about you show me where in the Constitution where federal law enforcement authority is derived. In fact show me where an AG is even mentioned in the Constitution.


.

No counter-argument? Do you understand how the justice system works? Congress makes laws, The Supreme Court interprets the laws, and the DoJ enforces it. The DoJ including the AG doesn't just do what the POTUS says... they enforce the LAWS set forth by Congress and the Constitution, and how they have been interpreted over the years by the Supreme Court. As much as everyone wants to believe the POTUS has supreme power, he doesn't.

Ok, show me one supreme court decision that says the president doesn't have the authority to tell the DOJ what to do. All constitutional federal law enforcement authority is derived from Article 2, Section 3, he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed. He, in that phrase, is the POTUS. You can pretend that the DOJ is part of the judicial branch all you want, that doesn't make it true. If you want that changed, see Article 5.

BTW, your dear leader instructed the DOJ not to defend a federal law called DOMA, was that obstruction of justice?


.

Numbnuts, what is so hard to understand? The President appoints the AG to run the DoJ. The AG's job is to uphold the laws of the land... UNLESS the President tells the AG to NOT enforce a law that contradicts the law of a state, ie. legalized marijuana.

As much as the President may like, he CAN NOT go around telling Jeff Sessions every single person to investigate.

Well dipstick he appoints everyone in his cabinet, do you think he doesn't have the authority to tell Tillerson or Mattis what to do? Of course he does, they all work at the pleasure of the president. And no he doesn't have time to tell Sessions every person to investigate, he can lay out the priorities for the DOJ and if he disagrees on how they are handling a particular case, he has every authority to tell them.


.

Dumbass, Tillerson and Mattis aren't trying to enforce laws on citizens...

The President DOES NOT have the authority to tell the DoJ who they can or can not investigate.

Still waiting on a court citation to that effect. Get back to me when you get one, I'm not going to keep pointing out obvious constitutional authorities of the president. What you need to do is put down the cup of kool aid and do your own research.


.