Aug 27, 2009 · The president can fire the attorney general. O bama administration spokesmen are portraying the president as unable to overrule Attorney …
Jun 21, 2020 · It concluded that the president — but not the attorney general — could fire such an official. In a memorandum opinion, John M. Harmon, …
Jan 31, 2017 · The U.S. attorney general is appointed by the President of the United States and serves at the pleasure of the President. The President has the power to fire the attorney general. Who appoints the...
Mar 20, 2017 · As difficult as it is to find and hire a qualified U.S. attorney, it can seem deceptively easy to fire one. ... The attorney general at the time …
It concluded that the president — but not the attorney general — could fire such an official. In a memorandum opinion, John M. Harmon, the head of the office at the time, cited the law that says presidents may fire U.S. attorneys.
Barr invoked the president. Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, arrived at his office in New York on Saturday hours after defying the attorney general’s attempt to fire him.
attorneys following Senate confirmation, a law permits an attorney general to appoint a prosecutor to fill those vacancies for 120 days. If that temporary appointment expires, judges can fill it. A prosecutor appointed by the court will “serve until the vacancy is filled,” the statute says.
That is how Mr. Berman became U.S. attorney. He was initially appointed by the attorney general at the time, Jeff Sessions , and federal judges in Manhattan reappointed him after the 120-day period expired. In his statement Friday night, Mr. Berman indicated that Mr. Barr could not fire him because he had been appointed by the court, ...
Barr could not fire him because he had been appointed by the court, and declared he intended to remain in office until the Senate confirms a successor. However, another federal law says that U.S. attorneys may be removed by the president. On its face, it makes no exception ...
Office of Legal Counsel opinions are generally considered to be binding interpretations of the law for Justice Department officials, but they are not legal precedent s in the sense of judicial opinions by appeals courts or the Supreme Court.
The 1979 opinion pointed to one district court opinion from 1963 — also in Manhattan — which expressed the view that a president may remove a court-appointed prosecutor. In his letter, Mr. Barr also pointed to a 2000 opinion by the federal appeals court in Boston that took the same position in passing, saying that a “president may override ...
The attorney general at the time under President Clinton, Janet Reno, summoned Coffey to D.C., and Coffey announced his "resignation" the next day. Most would support such a decision and resignation.
That makes the U.S. attorney more than a mere gatekeeper. By issuing a grand jury subpoena, a U.S. attorney may destroy a hard-won reputation. In some instances, a U.S. attorney may use the power of the government to intentionally and methodically take another person's life.
By issuing a grand jury subpoena, a U.S. attorney may destroy a hard-won reputation. In some instances, a U.S. attorney may use the power of the government to intentionally and methodically take another person's life.
That designation, while found nowhere in the Constitution or in statute, has very real meaning: Any cop or federal agent who wants a case prosecuted in federal court must gain the permission and approval of a U.S. attorney.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson served as one of FDR's attorneys general, and was the lead prosecutor in the Nuremberg trials after World War II. He wrote what has become a legal maxim: The citizen's safety lies in the prosecutor who seeks truth and not factional purposes.
At the other end of that spectrum, consider a former U.S. attorney for New Mexico, David Iglesias. In 2005, a Republican senator from that state, Pete Domenici, wanted Iglesias to initiate prosecutions against certain Democrats. When Iglesias declined because the cases lacked merit, Domenici voiced his unhappiness with the decision. What followed had long-lasting impact at the Department of Justice: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales fired Iglesias and a number of other U.S. attorneys, I among them, for what many found to be politically motivated reasons.
A subsequent report by the Justice Department Inspector General in October 2008 found that the process used to fire the first seven attorneys and two others dismissed around the same time was "arbitrary", "fundamentally flawed" and "raised doubts about the integrity of Department prosecution decisions".
White House spokesman Scott Stanzel stated that some of the emails that had involved official correspondence relating to the firing of attorneys may have been lost because they were conducted on Republican party accounts and not stored properly. "Some official e-mails have potentially been lost and that is a mistake the White House is aggressively working to correct." said Stanzel, a White House spokesman. Stonzel said that they could not rule out the possibility that some of the lost emails dealt with the firing of U.S. attorneys. For example, J. Scott Jennings, an aide to Karl Rove communicated with Justice Department officials "concerning the appointment of Tim Griffin, a former Rove aide, as U.S. attorney in Little Rock, according to e-mails released in March, 2007. For that exchange, Jennings, although working at the White House, used an e-mail account registered to the Republican National Committee, where Griffin had worked as a political opposition researcher."
Allegations were that some of the attorneys were targeted for dismissal to impede investigations of Republican politicians or that some were targeted for their failure to initiate investigations that would damage Democratic politicians or hamper Democratic-leaning voters.
The change in the law undermined the confirmation authority of the Senate and gave the Attorney General greater appointment powers than the President, since the President's U.S. Attorney appointees are required to be confirmed by the Senate and those of the Attorney General did not require confirmation.
Attorney General Gonzales, in a confidential memorandum dated March 1, 2006, delegated authority to senior DOJ staff Monica Goodling and Kyle Sampson to hire and dismiss political appointees and some civil service positions.
On September 29, 2008 the Justice Department's Inspector General (IG) released a report on the matter that found most of the firings were politically motivated and improper.
The IG's report contained "substantial evidence" that party politics drove a number of the firings, and IG Glenn Fine said in a statement that Gonzales had "abdicated his responsibility to safeguard the integrity and independence of the department.".
In any event, if an officer (especially one who had been a three or four-star general) is relieved from his or her position and reverts to the lower rank of major general and still refuses to request retirement, the President may be able to dismiss the officer from the armed forces entirely.
A little history: up until the end of the Civil War, the President exercised virtually unconstrained power to dismiss military officers. However, in 1865 Congress passed legislation which purports to limit that power. That legislation was essentially the same as that found today codified in 10 USC § 1161 (a).
The substitution of an administrative discharge for a “dismissal” is significant because a dismissal is a punitive discharge for an officer (it’s the equivalent of a dishonorable discharge for an enlisted person). A dismissal would extinguish almost all veterans’ benefits, as well as rights to military retirement pay.
Although the phrase “time of war” is used in many U.S. statutes, there is no universally accepted definition of precisely what it means. Some court decisions indicate it means war when declared by Congress, and some statutes do use the phrase the “time of war declared by Congress .” (Italics added.)