[Jim W N]

You’ve got more problems with this than Carter has pills.

Where does the Constitution authorize

1) the President (via the DOJ) to appoint a special prosecutor WITHOUT Congressional approval or

2) the President (via the DOJ) to appoint a special prosecutor for the purpose of investigating the President and his affairs including his campaign, when the Constitution expressly states that Congress has the SOLE power to impeach. (cf. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-mueller-does-what-special-prosecutors-do/article/2639509 “Mueller was authorized to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.”)

The sole issue in this debate is the constitutionality of federal action here. You have so far failed to show such constitutionality. Get back to me if and when you do.

[Alberta's Child]

Are you suggesting that under the Constitution, every Federal prosecutor appointed by the U.S. Justice Department must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate?

If so, then please cite the provision in the U.S. Constitution where it says this confirmation is required.

If not, then what exactly is the basis of your constitutional objection to the appointment of a special counsel?

You're the one with the bigger problem here. You have taken an appointment of a Justice Department official and extended this appointment to an assumption on your part that Mueller's appointment is the equivalent of the impeachment of the President of the United States. Your logic doesn't follow, and they don't reflect the facts on the ground.

Like I said before ... your input on this thread would be applicable if Mueller actually indicted Trump, but until then it is all just wild speculation on your part about what may or may not happen in the future.