if you disagree, say so. the say goes into the decision of morrison v. olson, the case where antonin scalia made his wonderful life, this wolf comes to us in wolf s clothing, talking about how bad the statute is. i think what this shows is how bad that decision was because a superior officer, principal officer has authority to set policy and broad discretion and inferior officer does not. but mueller doesn t really report to anybody. he reports to rod rosenstein, but in fact as you point out, he s got a roving brief that seems unlimited to go in almost any direction he wants, and so i don t know if i want to say that this is directly different from morrison v. olson, it may show morrison v. olson, a, is a bad decision, and b, that the and want you to get a constitutional claim out of
president to do something, to testify about obstruction. to testify and perhaps create a perjury situation. couple of questions. if, in fact, as you suggest, mr. mueller is an inferior employee, does an inferior employee of the department of justice have the power constitutionally to force his boss, the president of the united states, to appear before a grand jury or to appear in person for an interview? what do you think? i would say no. an inferior officer does not have the legal right or the constitutional right to question a president over exercising his constitutional authority. in, for example, firing james comey, the fbi director, and moreover as to the issue of
the oval office where the president says to them, now a lot of pressure is off me now that i got rid of comey with this whole russia deal. well, look, if it wasn t on his mind, if it wasn t a motivation for him legal or illegal, right or wrong, it was clearly in his mind about why he wanted to get rid of comey. again, you re acting as if that s not a constitutional right if that was, in fact, what was in his mind. again, that s speculation. but i think that that s what we have to be clear here. i have to look at what the law is as the evidence exists and what the law is. and when you get to the article 2 issue, it s a very serious moment. right. constitutionally for our country if a president s decision making on what s called inferior office that s not in a pejorative way. it s what the constitution and rules and regulations actually say. it does. to say you can then cross-examine, so to speak, the president any president on that decision, very dangerous and exactly
have to be clear here. i have to look at what the law is as the evidence exists and what the law is. and when you get to the article 2 issue, it s a very serious moment. right. constitutionally for our country if a president s decision making on what s called inferior office that s not in a pejorative way. it s what the constitution and rules and regulations actually say. it does. to say you can then cross-examine, so to speak, the president any president on that decision, very dangerous and exactly the reason we have separation of power. you suggest you should never do it, would you? never do what? would you suggest that you should never question a president s actions with respect to an inferior officer ever? i think it raises i think the constitutional hurdle that you have to cross over to get into that which doesn t exist here, you try to put that into a perspective. what would be the standard when you believe there is corrupt intent, illegal intent.
president to do something, to testify about obstruction. to testify and perhaps create a perjury situation. couple of questions. if, in fact, as you suggest, mr. mueller is an inferior employee, does an inferior employee of the department of justice have the power constitutionally to force his boss, the president of the united states, to appear before a grand jury or to appear in person for an interview? what do you think? i would say no. an inferior officer does not have the legal right or the constitutional right to question a president over exercising his constitutional authority. in, for example, firing james comey, the fbi director, and moreover as to the issue of