Sometimes I get annoyed at all these articles that simply assume that Trump has the authority to fire Mueller. He doesn't. They should at least mention that.
And then other times, I think that maybe "fire Mueller" is just a shorthand for Trump ordering Rod Rosenstein to make up some bogus good cause to fire Mueller, and then if he doesn't, for Trump to fire Rosenstein and order his successor to make up a bogus good cause to fire Mueller, and so on, moving down the ranks of the Justice Department until he gets to someone who is willing to make up that bogus good cause to fire Mueller.
Are they just using a short-hand, or are reporters unaware that Mueller is not employed at the pleasure of the president? What concerns me is that after reading hundreds of articles that simply presume that Trump could fire Mueller if he wants to, if he tries it and Mueller challenges that dismissal in court, the public wouldn't take that challenge seriously, even though Mueller would have a really strong argument.
And then other times, I think that maybe "fire Mueller" is just a shorthand for Trump ordering Rod Rosenstein to make up some bogus good cause to fire Mueller, and then if he doesn't, for Trump to fire Rosenstein and order his successor to make up a bogus good cause to fire Mueller, and so on, moving down the ranks of the Justice Department until he gets to someone who is willing to make up that bogus good cause to fire Mueller.
Are they just using a short-hand, or are reporters unaware that Mueller is not employed at the pleasure of the president? What concerns me is that after reading hundreds of articles that simply presume that Trump could fire Mueller if he wants to, if he tries it and Mueller challenges that dismissal in court, the public wouldn't take that challenge seriously, even though Mueller would have a really strong argument.
