There was some hoopla about Trump wanting to instruct the justice department to go after Hillary Clinton.
So apparently the president can’t tell the justice department who to investigate. Which is good, because as Trump is trying to do, it’d be used to harass and intimidate the president’s political and personal enemies.
But in 1977, Jimmy Carter saw an article about a drug kingpin named Nicky Barnes and was so disgusted he instructed the justice department to prosecute him.
So can the president tell the justice department who to investigate or prosecute? It seems like Carter did, but Trump says he cannot.
Well Trump has “told” them to do so. I guess the question is does the President have the authority to insist or is it just a suggestion which they’ve chosen not to follow in this case but might have in the past.
He could fire the AG and appoint one who might be more amenable to his suggestion. The real question is, prosecute her for what crime? What crime has she committed?
Changing the subject somewhat why doesn’t she sue him for slander for continually referring to her as "Crooked Hillary’ despite there being no evidence of her being crooked. I know the barrier for a public figure to sue for libel or slander is very high, but you gotta have some evidence before you slander them or it is malicious slander.
What is the definition of “malicious slander” wrt it being a crime or civil offense? That is, as opposed to plain ol’ slander or libel?
Also, what is the legal definition of “crooked” that you would need evidence for? I was not aware that is a term of art in the legal world as opposed to a vague, colloquial term.
IANAL but as I understand it, actual malice is the requirement to prove libel against a public figure. If actual malice exists, then the statement is in violation of libel laws. I assume the same applies to slander.
supposedly Herbert hoover told the other hoover to go after Al Capone because he owned the mansion next to his in Florida and threw non stop debauched parties and disturbed his sleep
The President is the head of the Executive Branch and the Constitution gives him authority to execute the laws of the United States the way he sees fit. So of course he can tell the Justice Department to prosecute, or not prosecute, anyone he pleases, for any reason or none at all. There are three checks on this otherwise awesome power:
The law itself. Obviously, there has to already exist a law under which someone can be prosecuted. The President can’t make up a crime, it has to already have been invented by Congress. Of course, some of the laws Congress writes are so ridiculously vague that it’s quite possible to prosecute almost anyone for something. That is, of course, the fault of Congress for being lazy.
The judicial system. While the President can order someone prosecuted, he has no Constitutional power to order him convicted, since the judicial system is its own branch, responsible ultimately to the Supreme Court. A Federal court could always throw out a case brought by the Attorney General, or rule in favor of the defendant, and even order the government to pay the defendant’s costs, and this could be backed up by the Supreme Court and there’s nothing the President can do about it, save to appoint different Supreme Court justices in the future.
Most importantly, politics. If the President were to order a particularly unpopular prosecution, he might well lose popularity among the voters. Not only would he risk his re-election (if he’s in his first term), he also runs the risk of empowering his opponents in Congress to defy him, and his friends to desert him (lest they lose* their* re-elections) which means anything else he wants to get done may be stymied. It’s possible if he sufficiently alienates Congress that they could impeach him and remove him from office.
Incidentally, one might wonder whether it is possible for Congress to pass a law restricting the ability of the President to command the Department of Justice. Nope. In this area the President is indeed “above the law” because his powers come directly from the Constitution, which by definition supersedes any law passed by Congress. The only way to change the Constitutional powers of the President is to amend the Constitution, which Congress cannot do on its own.
And the Clinton campaign, while its party controlled the executive branch and was favored to win the election, sought to have the FBI pursue its political opponent (using information from a foreign government). She wasn’t president then, but just about everyone at the FBI would have expected that she soon would be. Troubling as this sort of conduct may be, it seems somewhat common and bipartisan nowadays.
I am sorry, but can you identify the part of the Constitution that says this? Because I am failing to see it. No cabinet-level departments are specified or enumerated in its text, that I can see. Congress could, in theory, acquire joint control of DoJ by mere statute, though they would probably have to have a super-majority in order to override the inevitable veto.
Cite that Hillary or anyone in her campaign asked the FBI to go after Trump during the campaign? In fact there was an FBI faction actively working against Clinton:
This is controversial, and I don’t pretend to be a constitutional expert, but I have done some research and reading on this, so I’ll put it out for discussion. I’m sure I will get some details wrong so I welcome correction, but there was a long-standing practice (dating to the New Deal?) of Congressional committees exercising their oversight powers to a degree that they had a hand in the management of some cabinet departments, and in establishing and partially running some “independent” agencies such as the EPA. This practice accelerated in the wake of Watergate and through the Carter presidency.
The pushback began I believe under Reagan, who pushed (or his admin pushed) the doctrine of the “unitary executive.” This is a notion floated in the Federalist Papers and what it meant then is still the subject of discussion, but the contemporary interpretation was that any federal operation not part of Congress or the judiciary was per the constitution part of the executive branch. The EPA (to continue the example) could not be “independent” from the president, nor could Congress dictate its actions except by statute.
This “unitary executive” doctrine proved to be convenient for presidents of both parties as they exercised increasingly tight control over agencies such as the EPA; Republican presidents use their authority to loosen restrictions on pollution, Democrats tighten them.
What the President can do regarding the Justice Department is an interesting question. If one accepts the unitary executive theory, the president can order any agency to do anything that isn’t illegal. Is it illegal to investigate Hillary Clinton’s (fill in the blank)? No, probably not. Does Hillary Clinton’s (fill in the blank) rise to the level of something that would otherwise merit legal scrutiny? Maybe, maybe, not, but does that matter if the boss asks you to look into it vigorously? Would such an investigation at some point violate Clinton’s 4th amendment rights? These are both legal and political questions.
It is worth remembering another moment involving James Comey, who in 2004 was acting Attorney General while AG James Ashcroft was gravely ill. The W Bush admin was implementing a far-reaching surveillance program known as “Stellar Wind.” The details are still not fully revealed I don’t believe, but in essence the government was monitoring all electronic communications, both between the US and other countries and between purely domestic correspondents. By statute, you can’t monitor domestic communications without a warrant.
Comey became aware when he became acting AG that the US was spying on its citizens and became embroiled in a political battle over the practice with VP Cheney and his office, who had thought up and protected the program without much input from W Bush. Comey decided that he would resign rather than continue doing something he thought was illegal. W Bush discovered at the very last moment that Comey and other Justice Department officials were going to leave en masse, and after being fully briefed on what the objections were, agreed to modify the surveillance program.
A key exchange between Comey and Bush (or so it’s reported) was that Bush said “I say what the law is for the executive branch.” Meaning, unless Congress specifically legislates against what a president wants to do, or a court rules it illegal, the President’s interpretation of the law is binding on the actions of executive branch employees who ultimately report to him.
Comey agreed with Bush on this point, but told him that he still couldn’t in conscience do what was asked, and so would resign. The result was that Bush agreed to modify “Stellar Wind” such that it conformed with Justice’s interpretation of the law.
Whether anything like this would occur under the current president or attorney general, under whatever circumstance, is something we have no way of knowing.
The Attorney General sometimes has a personal agenda. Robert Kennedy went after the mob with all the resources available to the Justice Dept. It seems likely brother Jack fully supported that effort.
A president shouldn’t need to publicly declare he wants something investigated or prosecuted. A meeting with his AG should set that in motion without exposing the president to any political repercussions. It’s the AG’s job to pursue the President’s agenda, if the action ordered is appropriate and Constitutional.
As I recall it John Ashcroft - and if this is true, my estimation of him jumps significantly - objected to the program of domestic spying and refused to sign off on it. The justice department had determined the program was illegal. Bush’s (or Cheney’s?) cronies Gonzalez (AG) and Andrew Card, the president’s chief of staff, decided to try to get Ashcroft to sign on while he was in the hospital and seriously incapacitated; Comey, deputy minister of Justice, rushed there to be a witness and to support Ashcroft to not be harassed in the middle of medical treatment. He brought along the head of the FBI, a guy named Mueller. This was just the start. Ashcroft also was among those who threatened to resign rather than agree to the program, as things progressed later, until Bush backed down.
As Comey said:
The distinction is that that the president should not be seen as interfering in the system to use it as a weapon against his (perceived) enemies. Obviously, they can decide, for example, that they want to institute a war on drugs, and direct processes to that end. But, too strong a direction or demand to prosecute opponents would be seen as twisting the law to use it as a political weapon, not a tool for justice - just as when officials interfere to stop prosecution of people they want to protect. Same thing - people stop having respect for the law and start to consider the system as the enemy if they don’t see justice being fair.