[Meet the New Boss]

It would be interesting to get Andy McCarthy’s take on the issue raised in this thread

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3560542/posts

being that if the DOJ claims in its regulations to have vested Mueller with all the power of a US Attorney, then why isn’t the Special Counsel required to be approved by the Senate as the law requires for all US Attorneys?

After all, the Special Counsel in substance is a US Attorney and one would think the DOJ cannot evade the requirement for Senate approval simply by giving him a different title.

Isn’t the appointment of a de facto US Attorney invalid without that Senate approval?

[Cboldt]

The answer to your question lies in the distinction between "officer" and "inferior officer."

Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

US Const. Art. II, Sec. 2

The source of the requirement for Senate approval of US Attorneys is 28 USC 541. The source of authority citied for appointing the Special Counsel includes 28 USC 509, 510 and 515; which are general grants of power from Congress to the Attorney General.

There is a bit of litigation on the subject, including Supreme Court cases. I would have to read all of it and more to see if the issue you raise ever surfaced, that is, if Congress felt its toes were being stepped on, but to the best of my knowledge, the argument you raise represents a non-issue.