I am not sure if this is the current view of the DOJ on principle officers. The brief is from 2007. I suspect if someone contests Mueller’s appointment, they would use some of those arguments to try and justify his appointment. It is a long tough read so here is the conclusion.
“For all of these reasons, we conclude that an individual who will occupy a position to which has been delegated by legal authority a portion of the sovereign
powers of the federal government, and which is “continuing,” must be appointed pursuant to the Appointments clause. Conversely, a position that does not satisfy one of these two elements need not be filled pursuant to that Clause.”
https://www.justice.gov/file/451191/download
Eeeek! LOL, I am afraid to even go in and look at that...kudos to you! (sincerely)
Sigh...I don’t know about you, but I read that as
A.) Mueller’s job is continuing (Meets requirement 1)
B.) Mueller DOES occupy a position to which has been delegated by legal authority a portion of the sovereign powers of the federal government (He does have Subpoena power, right?) (Meets requirement 2)
Which means Mueller’s position WOULD have to be fulfilled by appointment AND by confirmation as is done with an Attorney General.
NOTE: I throw my hands up in surrender on this-all other things I say may be completely out in right field! I have already ventured too far beyond my understanding! I thank both of you for taking me beyond where I would have ventured!
God, I hate this stuff. Hate it. The skulduggery. The corruption. The intrigue. The blood sport. I hate it all. Doesn’t mean I won’t be happy when someone is called to account, but I wish it never came to this.