Sorry, RummyChick, you’re wrong. The Attorney General has no existence in the Constitution, none. The United States Attorney General (AG) is the head of the United States Department of Justice, the chief lawyer of the federal government of the United States, and a member of the Cabinet of the United States. He only serves at the pleasure of the President and the POWER the AG has derives from the powers of the President which were granted by the people to the President through the Constitution.
The Constitution of The United States of America
Article. II.
Section. 1.The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
The power of the entire executive branch of our government derives from one, unitary person, the occupant of the Office of the President. He delegates his power, shares it with his deputies in order to do his job better. . . one of whom is the Attorney General to whom the President has delegated some of his Presidential law enforcement powers. The only power the AG has, and any his deputies have, derives from that which the President has innately via the Constitution and does not lose by sharing it with them.
Harry Truman grasped this concept well.
"THE BUCK STOPS HERE!"
He knew who was boss! Who had the authority! But most importantly, who had the ultimate responsibility. It’s on the President’s shoulders, not his subordinates.
You mistake the control of the case. The Prosecution can withdraw prosecution of a case at anytime in the interests of justice. The judge cannot continue if prosecutors say we have erred, our case was mistaken, our evidence flawed, or our witnesses lied. Just because a jury convicted on falsely presented prosecution, the judge cannot take over the case and proceed on her own. It still requires the cooperation of the executive, the prosecution, law enforcement, to proceed.
You may disagree with these facts, but the Constitution disagrees with you.
The District Attorney might refuse to obey the President’s order; and if he did refuse, the prosecution, while he remained in office, would still go on; because the President himself could give no order to the court or to the clerk to make any particular entry.
Assuming we’re discussing a Federal Court, the President could order the removal and arrest of your hypothetical DA who refused the lawful direction of his superior, the President, because that DA is a subordinate of the President, and Federal Attorneys, or their Direct decision making superior who has control of every case on the district serves at the pleasure of the President, and is not an employee of the Court. Obama when he took office, fired all federal district attorneys and replaced them with his leftist sycophants. Trump, to his regret did not, but should have. They are all political appointees.
It is stunning how many so-called lawyers don’t grasp these concepts.