Because that's not the way it works—not even close.
Correct. The notion that a president says “go get x, y, z” is preposterous.
Did you know that NO member of the executive except the president is even allowed to SPEAK to anyone from DOJ without a lawyer present? And that the President shouldn’t ever speak to anyone from DOJ with out a White House Counsel present?
The purpose of the DOJ is not to be the “enforcement” wing of the president but to serve as the source of justice for the nation. For a president to call up the Atty Gen and say “I want you to indict x” would likely be a crime, and certainly he would be told by the White House Counsel never to say that.
Collectively, the Justice Department and the President come to big-picture goals-—”war on drugs,” or “tightening enforcement of illegal immigration,” or the “war on terror.” Then the AG has the discretion to carry out that broad mandate.
Even Bannon said that “going after political losers in an election is not something that the American people want to see.” I smacks too much of a Banana Republic where, when you lose an election, you’re arrested.
Then, on top of all that, there is the likely fact that DOJ saw not nearly enough evidence to convict Lerner, let alone convict in a Virginia/DC court. All a smart lawyer would have to do is pull up the 2-3 liberal groups that the IRS also denied tax free status to. There goes intent.
All of this has to be done while DOJ is trying to oversee the arrest of every illegal in America, continue the normal enforcement of rules vs. the mob, enforce trade agreements/patent laws/etc. It all comes down to structure and resources, neither of which work in favor of “going after” someone like Lerner or likely even Lynch.
That’s why the best chance of getting Lynch & Cankles is still Mueller.