I’m sorry for missing an entirely inconsequential exemption. Why are you acting like this is some kind of significant thing? What is significant about it?
And, just like US Attorneys, neither must consult with the AG on their conduct, duties, and responsibilities. US Attorneys have independent authority too. The decision to charge and what to charge rests with the US Attorney. Unless the offense requires approval by the AG by federal statute; of which there are a few of those. And the SC would not be exempt from complying with those statutes by consulting with the AG. A DOJ regulation in the CFR does not void a statute. About the only thing the AG can do to a US Attorney is direct them to make specific reports.
The President is the one who can fire US Attorneys. The AG cannot.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/541
This is literally the most frivolous discussion. You are basically saying “But! But! But! The Special counsel can have green radio buttons in his car instead of white and gets a Shell gas card instead of Exxon. This PROVES he has extra special super hero powers!”
His authority is NOT unique. It is the same level of authority as a US Attorney. Except that since he isn’t a US Attorney, there are some duties he doesn’t have to perform - like writing reports requested by the AG. But he also doesn’t have carte Blanche to pursue whatever cases he wants - because his prosecutorial powers are limited to the scope defined by the AG - something that NO US Attorney is subject to. The US Attorney has plenary prosecutorial powers in the district they were appointed. The SC has limited prosecutorial powers in any district that might have had a crime within the scope of the SC. A US Attorney can only be appointed and removed by the President. The SC is appointed and removed by the AG.
So why you are so hellbent on finding super powers in the SC office based off of a completely irrelevant and inconsequential exemption from a public records act is beyond me.
I’m sorry for missing an entirely inconsequential exemption. Why are you acting like this is some kind of significant thing? What is significant about it?
And, just like US Attorneys, neither must consult with the AG on their conduct, duties, and responsibilities. US Attorneys have independent authority too. The decision to charge and what to charge rests with the US Attorney. Unless the offense requires approval by the AG by federal statute; of which there are a few of those. And the SC would not be exempt from complying with those statutes by consulting with the AG. A DOJ regulation in the CFR does not void a statute. About the only thing the AG can do to a US Attorney is direct them to make specific reports.
The President is the one who can fire US Attorneys. The AG cannot.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/541
This is literally the most frivolous discussion. You are basically saying “But! But! But! The Special counsel can have green radio buttons in his car instead of white and gets a Shell gas card instead of Exxon. This PROVES he has extra special super hero powers!”
His authority is NOT unique. It is the same level of authority as a US Attorney. Except that since he isn’t a US Attorney, there are some duties he doesn’t have to perform - like writing reports requested by the AG. But he also doesn’t have carte Blanche to pursue whatever cases he wants - because his prosecutorial powers are limited to the scope defined by the AG - something that NO US Attorney is subject to. The US Attorney has plenary prosecutorial powers in the district they were appointed. The SC has limited prosecutorial powers in any district that might have had a crime within the scope of the SC committed. A US Attorney can only be appointed and removed by the President. The SC is appointed and removed by the AG.
So why you are so hellbent on finding super powers in the SC office based off of a completely irrelevant and inconsequential exemption from a public records act is beyond me.