TGIF: May 19, 2017 – On the Constitutional Oddity of a “Special Counsel”

Despite what you may have heard, lawyers are, in fact, human beings with interests and hobbies all their own. They are not, I repeat not, robots sent from the future solely for the purpose of billing hours, drafting documents, and negotiating terms.  Not all of them anyway.  

In TGIF, I touch on some of my own interests primarily through the lens of the “Rules of the Game”, focusing on the rules and incentives that affect many aspects of our daily lives. I may even crack a joke or two. Hard to say.

TGIF will be published regularly on (surprisingly enough) Friday mornings. For more information, check out www.hoeglaw.com or drop Rick a line at rhoeg@hoeglaw.com.

***

On Wednesday May 17th, 2017 acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein (in place of recused Attorney General Jeff Sessions) appointed former Department of Justice official and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III to serve as “Special Counsel” to oversee an investigation of “Russian government efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election and related matters”.

(Mr. Mueller’s title of “Special Counsel” is not to be confused, of course, with the executive branch’s permanent and not at all independent, “Office of Special Counsel“. Because naming conventions in Washington have never been anything if not entirely and completely clear.)

Given the nature of the investigation as a response to cries of a “constitutional crisis” in the wake of the President’s firing of former FBI Director James Comey, what you may not know is how tumultuous a Constitutional history the concept of a “special counsel” or “independent prosecutor” has had in its own right.

Can an executive branch official like an Attorney General appoint an individual that cannot be fired by his or her own boss?  If not (or if there is some doubt), can Congress empower the Attorney General to do so?  If so, what does that mean for the separation of powers?  And what if that Congressional authority should expire?

Many of these questions have been asked and answered multiple times (and in multiple ways) throughout our nation’s history, but never in a fashion which one could deem “definitive”.  Such is the nature of an inherently political but simultaneously “independent” position.

Let’s take a deeper look.

TGIF: May 12, 2017 – Mortality and Analytical Release in the Sublime “What Remains of Edith Finch?”

Despite what you may have heard, lawyers are, in fact, human beings with interests and hobbies all their own. They are not, I repeat not, robots sent from the future solely for the purpose of billing hours, drafting documents, and negotiating terms.  Not all of them anyway.  

In TGIF, I touch on some of my own interests primarily through the lens of the “Rules of the Game”, focusing on the rules and incentives that affect many aspects of our daily lives. I may even crack a joke or two. Hard to say.

TGIF will be published regularly on (surprisingly enough) Friday mornings. For more information, check out www.hoeglaw.com or drop Rick a line at rhoeg@hoeglaw.com.

***

Believe it or not, “TGIF” did not start its life solely devoted to reviewing every dotted ‘i’ and crossed ‘t’ in the multinational airlines’ bag of tricks.  No, my intent with the series was to show that lawyers have interests both varied and wide…which of course means that I enjoy reviewing statutes, regulations, and contract terms of my own volition.  Of course.  Perhaps I doth protest too much.

But today, I turn to thoughts on one of my other loves, the oft-ridiculed “video game”. Though the term “game” seems too dismissive for the interactive experience I’d like to discuss today: Giant Sparrow’s “What Remains of Edith Finch“ (Edith Finch from here on out).

But first, a story.

TGIF: May 5, 2017 – The “Delta” Between Service and (Wind) Schear

Despite what you may have heard, lawyers are, in fact, human beings with interests and hobbies all their own. They are not, I repeat not, robots sent from the future solely for the purpose of billing hours, drafting documents, and negotiating terms.  Not all of them anyway.  

In TGIF, I touch on some of my own interests primarily through the lens of the “Rules of the Game”, focusing on the rules and incentives that affect many aspects of our daily lives. I may even crack a joke or two. Hard to say.

TGIF will be published regularly on (surprisingly enough) Friday mornings. For more information, check out www.hoeglaw.com or drop Rick a line at rhoeg@hoeglaw.com.

***

In the spirit of my last TGIF post, “On Being United“, comes the stirring sequel.

Flight 2222

Editor’s Note: Like most cases tried in the media and not in a court of law, there is a fair amount of dispute regarding the facts on the ground here.  In looking at the issues, I will attempt to keep an even view of the factual possibilities, but keep in mind that stories regularly change as each side gets its say.  The bulk of the facts presented here come from the investigative story posted at heavy.com here.

On April 23, 2017, Brian Schear, his wife, and his 2-year-old son, Grayson, boarded Flight 2222 from Maui to Los Angeles.  The family sat in three separate seats for which they had purchased tickets.

Sometime after boarding, the family was approached by Delta personnel requesting to have young Grayson removed from his seat.  The Delta attendants informed Mr. Schear that they were empowered to make this request because the seat in question was reserved under the name Mason Schear, the family’s 18-year-old son.

Mr. Schear explained to the Delta crew that he had paid for Mason to return to Los Angeles on an earlier flight expressly for the purpose of using the family’s third seat on young Grayson.

He taped the resulting confrontation.