It is nothing more than a variation on the old "When did you stop beating
your wife" question...

The attorney general could give a personal opinion as to whether or not it
was against the law, but that would be meaningless.

He could give a legal opinion if it is cut and dried settled law, or if
his/her examination of the facts led him her/to believe it was against the
law in that particular case.

But in the end, if the attorney general believed some act was illegal, he
could bring charges against someone, but it would be the judicial system, in
the person of a judge or jury, who would decide if a crime was committed.
And again, that would depend upon the specific facts of the case.

There is a lot of Bush hate out there, with much of it coming from liberals
and/or Democrats who count on the fact that so many Americans are totally
clueless about the Constitution...




"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:29:36 -0600, "news.chi.sbcglobal.net"
wrote in
:

Perhaps if you got your head out of the liberal media and bothered to read
the Constitution you would know that it is the judiciary branch that
decides
what is and is not a crime, based on the laws passed by the legislative
branch.

If the Attorney General's opinion is meaningless, why is he being
asked?