united-states president prosecutorial-discretion
Does the President of the USA execute prosecutorial discretion?
<p>Is it legal for the President of the USA to direct an official of the DOJ (say, the Director of the FBI) to drop an investigation, <strong>as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion</strong>?</p>

<p>This is the case being made by Andrew McCarthy:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>[T]he president absolutely has the authority to exercise prosecutorial
  discretion. </p>
  
  <p>A legitimate exercise of executive power cannot be corrupt. A
  president does not corruptly impede an investigation by deciding that
  the equities weigh in favor of halting it. That is a decision the
  president gets to make. <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448427/comey-testimony-pressure-not-obstruction" rel="noreferrer">Source</a></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Clearly, there is some special pleading going on there. But I am wondering whether Mr. McCarthy is correct on a point of law.</p>

<p>Mr. Comey answered this in his testimony.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>LANKFORD: Okay. Fair enough. If the president wanted to stop an investigation, how would he do that? Knowing it is an ongoing criminal investigation or counterintelligence investigation, would that be a matter of going to you, you perceive, and say, you make it stop because he doesn't have the authority to stop it? How would the president make an ongoing investigation stop?</p>
<p>COMEY: I'm not a legal scholar, but as a legal matter, the president is the head of the executive branch and could direct, in theory, we have important norms against this, but could anyone be investigative or not. I think he has the legal authority. All of us ultimately report in the executive branch to the president.</p>
<p>LANKFORD: Would that be to you, or the attorney general or who?</p>
<p>COMEY: I suppose he could if he wanted to issue a direct order could do it anyway. Through the attorney general or issue it directly to me.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This issue also came up in <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-v-texas/" rel="noreferrer">United States v Texas</a>.</p>
<p>The obligation to refrain from interference with the FBI is a norm, not a legal requirement.</p>
<p>And, like many executive powers, an act that is sometimes legally permitted can become <em>illegal</em> given an improper motive. It is also possible for Congress to find legal acts to be untenably corrupt.</p>

<p>Harvard law professor Dershowitz supports the view that the President has the authority to direct the FBI to start or stop a certain investigation.  </p>

<p>Arguably, that's why the office of special prosecutor was created.  A President cannot direct lines of inquiry of a special prosecutor (yes, yes, he can find himself an AG who will fire the special prosecutor, as Nixon did, but the specific power which he doesn't have is directing his line of inquiry). </p>
