Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Attorney General of the United States

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by johns624 View Post

    Don't have a link. It was on Shepard Smith's program when he was quoting some of the report and interviewing a former Federal prosecutor.
    Shepard Smith ??

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
      Massena just doesn't want it to be true, because he'd then be wrong, and the Democrats and TDSer's would have been shot down one more time.

      https://www.justice.gov/jmd/organiza...torney-general

      But, he is...

      So, because he gives "advice and opinion to the President..." when he's asked to testify on something he is in fact, acting as the executive branch's and President's lawyer on official matters of government.
      In point of fact, since the President is the Head of the Executive Branch, and the Attorney General is the Chief Officer of the Court in the Executive Branch, the Attorney General IS the President's Lawyer.

      Now to specify, the AG is NOT (insert name of President here)'s lawyer. But he is the lawyer of the Office of the President as an official capacity and Head of State of the United States.
      Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post

        In point of fact, since the President is the Head of the Executive Branch, and the Attorney General is the Chief Officer of the Court in the Executive Branch, the Attorney General IS the President's Lawyer.

        Now to specify, the AG is NOT (insert name of President here)'s lawyer. But he is the lawyer of the Office of the President as an official capacity and Head of State of the United States.
        No, he is not. If you read what has been posted from the DOJ website you'll find that out.

        The lawyer for the office of the president is the White House Counsel, the office that McGann just resigned from.

        You have the right to your own opinions on anything; but you have no right to your own facts.

        This is the mission statement for the attorney general:


        'To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.'

        This quotation is from the DOJ website.

        Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
        We are not now that strength which in old days
        Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
        Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
        To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

        Comment


        • #34
          Why not? You post your own facts on a regular and continuous basis......
          Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
            Why not? You post your own facts on a regular and continuous basis......
            I beg to differ. Perhaps you can support your statement? I'd love to see that. I do make mistakes as anyone does, but I don't present my own 'facts' nor do I misrepresent what people say. Perhaps you could learn something from that practice?

            In short, you're posting horse manure.
            We are not now that strength which in old days
            Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
            Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
            To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Massena View Post

              I beg to differ. Perhaps you can support your statement? I'd love to see that. I do make mistakes as anyone does, but I don't present my own 'facts' nor do I misrepresent what people say. Perhaps you could learn something from that practice?

              In short, you're posting horse manure.
              I have watched you post fake news for the past 2 years, and continuously move goalposts as your facts were proven false. You have also posted the opinions of various pundits, politicians, and operatives as factual information in reference to criminal charges/proceedings.

              .......

              Furthermore, if you are indeed admitting that you do not present any facts, then by what basis do you ever make any arguments?
              ........

              And indeed, if my information was incorrect, why did you post a refutation that directly attacked me. You could have easily refuted my statement, and from over 10 years of past experience you should know that I have a reputation of retracting when I am incorrect. To be more specific, why did you post : "You have the right to your own opinions on anything; but you have no right to your own facts." Rather than refuting my statement, you instead maligned my integrity, which is a blatant insult to my honor, a term which of all of the persons on this forum, you and a couple of others should be well acquainted.
              Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post

                I have watched you post fake news for the past 2 years, and continuously move goalposts as your facts were proven false. You have also posted the opinions of various pundits, politicians, and operatives as factual information in reference to criminal charges/proceedings.

                .......

                Furthermore, if you are indeed admitting that you do not present any facts, then by what basis do you ever make any arguments?
                ........

                And indeed, if my information was incorrect, why did you post a refutation that directly attacked me. You could have easily refuted my statement, and from over 10 years of past experience you should know that I have a reputation of retracting when I am incorrect. To be more specific, why did you post : "You have the right to your own opinions on anything; but you have no right to your own facts." Rather than refuting my statement, you instead maligned my integrity, which is a blatant insult to my honor, a term which of all of the persons on this forum, you and a couple of others should be well acquainted.
                And your definition of 'fake news' is undoubtedly news that you don't agree with. Your entire argument here is false as well as a gross misrepresentation.

                So, if you have nothing of substance to add besides an ad hominem fallacy, then I would suggest you go elsewhere to peddle your nonsense.

                We are not now that strength which in old days
                Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Massena View Post

                  And your definition of 'fake news' is undoubtedly news that you don't agree with. Your entire argument here is false as well as a gross misrepresentation.

                  So, if you have nothing of substance to add besides an ad hominem fallacy, then I would suggest you go elsewhere to peddle your nonsense.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post

                    I have watched you post fake news for the past 2 years, and continuously move goalposts as your facts were proven false. You have also posted the opinions of various pundits, politicians, and operatives as factual information in reference to criminal charges/proceedings.

                    .......

                    Furthermore, if you are indeed admitting that you do not present any facts, then by what basis do you ever make any arguments?
                    ........

                    And indeed, if my information was incorrect, why did you post a refutation that directly attacked me. You could have easily refuted my statement, and from over 10 years of past experience you should know that I have a reputation of retracting when I am incorrect. To be more specific, why did you post : "You have the right to your own opinions on anything; but you have no right to your own facts." Rather than refuting my statement, you instead maligned my integrity, which is a blatant insult to my honor, a term which of all of the persons on this forum, you and a couple of others should be well acquainted.
                    Perhaps you can explain how misrepresenting what someone else writes or posts is 'honorable.'
                    We are not now that strength which in old days
                    Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                    Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                    To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Massena View Post
                      The attorney general is not the lawyer for the president.
                      The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the Office of the Attorney General which evolved over the years into the head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government. The Attorney General represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President and to the heads of the executive departments of the Government when so requested. In matters of exceptional gravity or importance the Attorney General appears in person before the Supreme Court. Since the 1870 Act that established the Department of Justice as an executive department of the government of the United States, the Attorney General has guided the world's largest law office and the central agency for enforcement of federal laws.



                      https://www.justice.gov/ag/about-office

                      The attorney general takes his oath of office to the US Constitution, not to the president.
                      Ahem!
                      Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        ou
                        Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
                        It's called a obsession. ob∑sess

                        /əbˈses/

                        verb
                        past tense: obsessed; past participle: obsessed
                        • preoccupy or fill the mind of (someone) continually, intrusively, and to a troubling extent.


                        Kindly remember that if and when when you follow me around the board again, posting about Mormon underwear..
                        The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Massena View Post

                          No, he is not. If you read what has been posted from the DOJ website you'll find that out.

                          The lawyer for the office of the president is the White House Counsel, the office that McGann just resigned from.

                          You have the right to your own opinions on anything; but you have no right to your own facts.

                          This is the mission statement for the attorney general:


                          'To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.'

                          This quotation is from the DOJ website.

                          Quod Erat Demonstrandum.



                          Why didn't you include the info right below the mission statement that specifically states...(my bold)



                          The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the Office of the Attorney General which evolved over the years into the head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government. The Attorney General represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President and to the heads of the executive departments of the Government when so requested. In matters of exceptional gravity or importance the Attorney General appears in person before the Supreme Court. Since the 1870 Act that established the Department of Justice as an executive department of the government of the United States, the Attorney General has guided the world's largest law office and the central agency for enforcement of federal laws.

                          https://www.justice.gov/ag/about-office

                          Within the AG organization, there's the Office of Legal Council...(my bold)

                          By delegation from the Attorney General, the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel provides legal advice to the President and all executive branch agencies. The Office drafts legal opinions of the Attorney General and provides its own written opinions and other advice in response to requests from the Counsel to the President, the various agencies of the Executive Branch, and other components of the Department of Justice. Such requests typically deal with legal issues of particular complexity and importance or those about which two or more agencies are in disagreement. The Office is also responsible for reviewing and commenting on the constitutionality of pending legislation.

                          All executive orders and substantive proclamations proposed to be issued by the President are reviewed by the Office of Legal Counsel for form and legality, as are various other matters that require the Presidentís formal approval.

                          In addition to serving as, in effect, outside counsel for the other agencies of the Executive Branch, the Office of Legal Counsel plays a special role within the Department itself. It reviews all proposed orders of the Attorney General and regulations requiring the Attorney Generalís approval. It also performs a variety of special assignments referred by the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General.

                          The Office of Legal Counsel is not authorized to give legal advice to private persons.

                          https://www.justice.gov/olc
                          "Stand for the flag ~ Kneel for the fallen"

                          "A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer." ~ Bruce Lee

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            He still isn't the president's lawyer. If the president wants or requires legal representation, he has to hire his own lawyer(s).

                            Haven't you been watching the news? Why do you think that Trump hired Giuliani and those other lawyers?

                            And if a court case against the government goes before a judge, a trial, or the Supreme Court, the government is represented by the solicitor general.

                            It's actually a pretty simple concept. I find it incredible that so many do not understand it.
                            We are not now that strength which in old days
                            Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                            Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                            To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Shouldn't it be the responsibility of the Attorney General to protect the country against conspiracy theories that impede the proper function of the presidency? At what point do politically motivated conspiracy theories that use supporting documents that are clearly fraudulent presented to a court to gain illegal surveillance become treason? If a congressperson lies during a hearing to gain false testimony from a witness isn't that criminal entrapment? Why shouldn't congresspersons be subject to defamation suits when they lie during a hearing?
                              We hunt the hunters

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                                Shouldn't it be the responsibility of the Attorney General to protect the country against conspiracy theories that impede the proper function of the presidency? At what point do politically motivated conspiracy theories that use supporting documents that are clearly fraudulent presented to a court to gain illegal surveillance become treason? If a congressperson lies during a hearing to gain false testimony from a witness isn't that criminal entrapment? Why shouldn't congresspersons be subject to defamation suits when they lie during a hearing?
                                Examples? Or are you just throwing out 'material' to confuse the issue, and/or defending wrong doing?
                                We are not now that strength which in old days
                                Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                                Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                                To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X