[BP2]

> The State’s Attorneys office defends a governor.
> Why wouldn’t a U.S. attorney defend a president?

Well, not all cases are created equal. For example, one would raise an eyebrow if the Illinois AG was asked by Blago to defend him.

Therein lies the political aspect — the appearance of abuse of power and obstruction of justice.

Which brings up yet another element — is the DOJ being neutral and defending the office of POTUS, or the man occupying the position — of course, at the bequest of the POTUS?

Again, such a move to involve the DOJ has political consequences — which a POTUS with a highly ambitious agenda and falling approval numbers can ill afford. Which, of course, ups the ante for Mr Soetoro.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Since it is the duty of the DOJ to defend the interests of the United States according to the law and to represent the U.S. in all legal matters, including matters before the SCOTUS, then why would there necessarily be the appearance of the abuse of power by Obama? The DOJ has a duty to act.

We have no idea if Obama specifically instructed the DOJ to take action in this case. Certainly, if Obama instructed them to take specific action, such as taking a particular position on the law, then there might be reason to investigate.

But there is nothing unusual about the DOJ defending the POTUS in a lawsuit as far as I can see.

[hoosiermama]

It is my understanding that the DOJ is the attorney to defend and protect the government not to be used for the president's personal use (We went through this with WJC). For the president to use the department for his personal use is an abuse of power and can eventually be an impeachable offense.