This morning, in a very helpful article, the New York Times summarizes the legal argument about whether Trump can fire Mueller without going through Rosenstein—as Sarah Sanders claims that Trump claims to believe—or whether, to fire Mueller, Trump would first have to do a Nixonian Saturday Night Massacre.
Turns out it’s a debatable issue.
But it turns out that by far the stronger case is that a Saturday Night Massacre would be legally required, and that a “direct” firing would not cut the mustard.
Feel free, if you have time on your hands, to read the leading case, In re Hennen, decided by the Supreme Court in 1839, back when the paragraph had apparently not yet been invented—and when Roger Taney—he of the Dred Scott decision—was the Chief Justice.
So, here’s my question:
If Trump purports to fire Mueller “directly,” there is going to be a big lawsuit. Where the hell is Trump going to find counsel to advocate his extreme, precedent-bending interpretation of presidential power?