That link is to US Attorneys - and doesn’t speak of “federal district” - I guess that’s up to interpretation by the individual. I was just curious when I read it as I’d never heard anything referred to that way before but it did reinforce my thinking that it’s all judicial related..-not anything the federal government regulates.
As to US Attorneys, in my book they are about as useless as Inspectors General in all the agencies in DC...They always remind me of the old TV commercials - don’t see them anymore - where a bank guard or pest control salesman says in effect “I don’t actually do anything. I’m just here to observe.”
That’s what US Attorneys are. They investigate, write reports and disappear from the scene until they’re needed the next time to investigate and write a report. NOTHING ever happens to correct what they were investigating. But they get a paycheck for investigating and writing that report...Horowitz was the IG for what agency (?) - and did we ever get any resolution after his work - I think it was regarding the FBI and the Russian flap? Nope - got the report tho’....
I remember the US Attorney who prosecuted Scooter Libby falsely; in that case something WAS done even if it was wrong, and the one in Sacramento (Walpin) who actually did do his job and got fired as it involved a friend of obozo and that flake with the funny sounding name in the Southern District of NY..the one Trump fired - rightly so...
That’s it - just curiosity that prompted my question.
That link is to US Attorneys - and doesn’t speak of “federal district” - I guess that’s up to interpretation by the individual. I was just curious when I read it as I’d never heard anything referred to that way before but it did reinforce my thinking that it’s all judicial related..-not anything the federal government regulates.
~~~~~~~~~~~
The link for “federal attorneys” does speak to districts so it’s not open to interpretation.
The first line of text on that page follows. “Below is a listing of current United States Attorneys for all 94 districts.”
The link itself is housed on the DOJ website and the attorney’s listed are appointed to office by the sitting president.
As to US Attorneys, in my book they are about as useless as Inspectors General in all the agencies in DC...They always remind me of the old TV commercials - don’t see them anymore - where a bank guard or pest control salesman says in effect “I don’t actually do anything. I’m just here to observe.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~
That’s still true for Bush, Obama and Clinton holdovers. President Trump has been making appointments since he took office and DC appears to be improving since May 2020 when he made an “Acting Attorney General” there. I’ve seen appointments to lawless areas and am seeing more reasonable arrests/indictments of criminals there. Still more to go though.
Horowitz was the IG for what agency (?) - and did we ever get any resolution after his work - I think it was regarding the FBI and the Russian flap? Nope - got the report tho’....
~~~~~~~~~~~~
PResident Trump’s strategy involves waiting while they expose themselves to the public and then winning election before handling the disruption planned for when Horowitz, Durham etc. surface their investigations/grand jury indictments.
I remember the US Attorney who prosecuted Scooter Libby falsely; in that case something WAS done even if it was wrong, and the one in Sacramento (Walpin) who actually did do his job and got fired as it involved a friend of obozo and that flake with the funny sounding name in the Southern District of NY..the one Trump fired - rightly so...
That’s it - just curiosity that prompted my question.
~~~~~~~~~~
And possibly Blagovitch. And certainly Flynn. There are corrupt hold overs and the public is witnessing their antics in real time. That way the MSM won’t succeed in convincing the public that Trump’s admin was just going after those traitors in the Justice department as a means of protecting himself from arrest (yes -t hey really talk that way in swamps like DU).
I got curious and comparisons links. Apparently there are such things as “federal enclaves”, with people residing in them, and they are not subject to the state they may be located in. For the most part they are things like military bases and such, but I came across one interesting case:
Evans v. Cornman
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/398/419/
It involved land purchased by the National Institutes of Health, where the NIH constructed housing for staff. While the staff is subject to state payroll tax, the housing is not subject to real estate or school taxes.
I’m thinking there may be a number of such enclaves.