“The US Attorneys are directly vested with power in the Constitution.”
“The US Attorneys are not vested with independent power as a fourth branch of government”
They are not a fourth branch of Government, but they are vested with independent power.
The President does not personally have legal arrest powers, but he supervises and commands others who do. The President does not have the legal power to issue a subpoena, or convene Grand Juries to bring serious charges before a court. US Attorneys do - directly.
The President can nominate or fire US Attorneys. The Attorney General can issue all kinds of directives and guidance, and add or subtract budget and personnel positions. But nobody has legal authority to order a US Attorney not to prosecute a crime, if that US Attorney does not agree with the rationale.
Please cite this independent power in the Constitution.
But nobody has legal authority to order a US Attorney not to prosecute a crime, if that US Attorney does not agree with the rationale.
So if a US Attorney is corrupt and either prosecutes or doesn't prosecute a case for nefarious reasons, what is the check and balance??