Why did Biden fail to prosecute Trump for insurrection?

Hume said:
I read a lot of history and never saw evidence for that claim.
Click to expand...
you need to read other than Magat history.


Question : Is there a recent history of independence between the AG and Potus when it comes to operational and prosecutorial decisions and how to run the office? Please elaborate if that is not the case with the proper way to view the relationship.

AI Summary :

Yes — there is both a historical norm of DOJ independence and a legally ambiguous relationship between the Attorney General (and Department of Justice) and the President. But it’s important to understand how that independence actually works in practice, historically, and legally.


Below is a factual breakdown of how the relationship has evolved and what precedent exists.

🧱 1. 1. Legally, the DOJ Is Part of the Executive Branch​


  • The Attorney General and U.S. attorneys are executive branch officials appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and they serve at the pleasure of the President. That means the President can remove them at any time. Center for American Progress+1
  • There is no statute that creates constitutional, iron-clad prosecutorial independence of the Attorney General from the President; by statute and constitution the AG’s job is to execute the laws under Article II. Center for American Progress

What that means legally:
👉 The President can direct, hire, and fire the AG and U.S. attorneys.
👉 The Supreme Court has recognized that executive removal power exists broadly. Wikipedia



🕊️ 2. Independent Norm (Hallmark of 20th Century Practice)​


While not legally required, for decades there has been a powerful professional and political norm that the DOJ should operate with independence from political pressure when making prosecutorial decisions.


This norm gained particular strength after the Watergate scandal, when Nixon infamously ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardson (and others) to fire the special prosecutor investigating him (“Saturday Night Massacre”), triggering resignations and massive political backlash. Wikipedia


Since Watergate:


  • Presidents of both parties have generally adhered to a practice of avoiding political interference in individual criminal prosecutions.
  • DOJ established internal policies (e.g., a “contacts policy”) to channel communication and prevent White House interference in specific cases. Protect Democracy+1

The American Bar Association and others emphasize that prosecutorial decisions should be free from partisan influence as a matter of professional and democratic norm. American Bar Association


3. Distinction: Formal Independence vs. Operational Norms​


Important legal reality:


  • The DOJ’s “independence” is almost entirely a norm and custom, not a statutory or constitutional guarantee. The Washington Post

So you have two overlapping systems:


A.​


  • DOJ is part of the executive
  • AG serves at pleasure of President
  • President can direct policy and remove officials

B.​


  • Professional norms discourage presidential interference in individual prosecutions
  • DOJ sets internal policies to maintain ethical walls between political offices and career prosecutors

These norms are meant to preserve public trust in impartial justice and the rule of law. American Bar Association



🧾 4. Historical Examples of Tension​


✔ Historic push for independence​


  • After Watergate, Congress enacted the Independent Counsel statute, which temporarily created a role believed to have greater prosecutorial independence from the executive — though it has since lapsed. GovInfo

✔ Instances where norms held​


  • Merrick Garland, for example, publicly pledged to uphold DOJ independence from political influence during his confirmation, emphasizing that the AG serves the United States, not the President’s personal interests. TIME

❌ Instances where norms were disrupted​


  • There have been controversial mass firings of U.S. attorneys in 2006 and 2017, where critics argued political motives played a role. Wikipedia+1
  • Recent reporting shows some administrations pushing deeper involvement in DOJ staffing and case decisions, troubling observers who see this as undermining longstanding norms. AP News+1


🧠 5. What Norms Do and Don’t Do​


Norms do:


  • Encourage the DOJ to resist petty political pressure
  • Encourage official policies that limit direct White House clout over prosecutions
  • Foster public expectations of impartiality and equal application of law

Norms do not:


  • Legally bar the President from communicating with the AG
  • Statutorily enshrine prosecutorial independence
  • Prevent removal or direction by the executive

This distinction explains why the DOJ can be “independent in operation” in ordinary times, but still subject to political influence legally.



📊 Summary​


📌 Structural facts​



📌 Independence in practice​


  • There is a powerful practice and professional norm — rooted in modern history, especially after Watergate — that civilian prosecutors should not be influenced by political directions in specific cases. Default

📌 Historical tension​


  • Norms have sometimes been upheld and sometimes violated; problems arise when politics appears to drive personnel or prosecutorial decisions. American Bar Association+1


In short:
Yes — there is a long history of independence in how prosecutors and the DOJ operate, widely recognized and protected as a norm. But that independence is not ironclad legal insulation from the President’s influence; it exists primarily by tradition, policy, and professional expectation, not constitutional mandate.*


If you’d like, I can explain the landmark legal cases and statutes that shaped DOJ independence or how special counsel appointments fit into this framework.
 
evince said:
Click to expand...
A well-known concept derived from the text and structure of the Constitution is the doctrine of what is commonly called separation of powers. The Framers’ experience with the British monarchy informed their belief that concentrating distinct governmental powers in a single entity would subject the nation’s people to arbitrary and oppressive government action.<a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/intro.7-2/ALDE_00000031/#ALDF_00014748">1</a>Thus, in order to preserve individual liberty, the Framers sought to ensure that a separate and independent branch of the Federal Government would exercise each of government’s three basic functions: legislative, executive, and judicial.<a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/intro.7-2/ALDE_00000031/#ALDF_00014749">2</a>While the text of the Constitution does not expressly refer to the doctrine of separation of powers, the Nation’s Founding document divides governmental power among three branches by vesting the Legislative Power of the Federal Government in Congress;<a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/intro.7-2/ALDE_00000031/#ALDF_00014750">3</a> the Executive Power in the President;<a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/intro.7-2/ALDE_00000031/#ALDF_00014751">4</a> and the Judicial Power in the Supreme Court and any lower courts created by Congress.<a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/intro.7-2/ALDE_00000031/#ALDF_00014752">5</a>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top