You can’t take a court decision interpreting the language of a statute that provided for independent prosecutors and claim that it controls the interpretation of completely different language adopted by the DOJ in its own regulation creating a different government official entirely.
“the Special Counsel shall exercise, within the scope of his or her jurisdiction, the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States Attorney”
Here, by this language, the DOJ has unilaterally attempted to create a de facto US Attorney.
Yet 28 U.S.C.§ 541 adopted by Congress requires US Attorneys to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate.
This question simply wasn’t present in Morrison v. Olson because there was no question there that congress had authorized the legal office in question by statute.
The question here is entirely different, has the DOJ gone beyond what it can do by unilaterally creating a de facto US Attorney, which Congress did not give it the power to do?
Ok, i have explained why the courts holding in morrisson is the law on this issue.
You are certainly free to disagree with this view but please dont mistake your google search for my law degree.