do, it's, you know, it's just part of prosecutorial dna to make sure that righteous cases move forward, then you have to believe that the good cases here will continue to progress whether mueller is in place or not. >> and joyce, just as a practical matter, am i right in thinking that just in terms of the logistics and a president's ability to hire and fire people, it's actually kind of hard for a president to fire career justice department officials, right? when it comes to a presidential appointee, sure, the president's decision holds, but with career folks, it's harder, isn't it? >> it's hard for anybody to fire career folks in government. you know, you have to go through all sorts of progressive disciplinary processes. the president can't just say, let's fire a career employee tomorrow. it doesn't work that way. those people aren't going any place. >> joyce, one last question for you about jeff sessions, the attorney general reported today by bloomberg news to be not
mueller or rod rosenstein, the deputy attorney general who is overseeing robert mueller -- to separate the two. getting rid of rod rosenstein -- it is not disputed that the president can do that? >> absolutely. he is an appointed official. the president can remove him if he wants. >> the question of course comes down to robert mueller, if that's legal, whether it will be caught up in the courts if he wants to do so. and what role congress would have to play if the president tried to remove mueller? >> there would have to be some additional mechanism that the president would go through in order to fire robert mueller. he could not just pick up the phone or more likely -- >> tweet. >> his twitter account and say robert mueller is fired. because mueller is not an appointed official like rod rosenstein. he was named by the department of justice, pursuant to department of justice regulations. and he is effectively a career employee. he can by d.o.j. regulations
more about the underlying conduct before i go with the rest of the crew in completely decrying this. i am concerned by it. i don't like to see somebody's who's worked for the government his entire life stripped of his pension. and there's this magnificent shakespearean quality to all of this, right? because if andrew mccabe is fired, as he is fired and loses his pension as a result it'll be because he leaked something that was harmful to hillary clinton, the guy who the president kept describing as a pro-clinton shell. so there's an ironic magnificence to it. >> i want to go to harry litman on this as a former justice department employee. the inspector general who made this recommendation is a career employee. he's not a trump appointee. he served in the obama administration and bush administration before that. he has served both democrat and republican administrations. so this is not someone who had
to get rid of people who are causing the fbi to be kind of stirred up about the controversy they don't want to be part of it. >> joyce, given what we know with the firing of mccabe, as you understand the facts to be, would the firing be justified? >> julia is exactly right, there's a process here that has to be respected. and so these facts could potentially, if they're accurate, be a good basis for firing an employee but he has appeal rights, he has due process rights, he has the opportunity to tell his side of the story. and that usually takes some time. we understand that today he's meeting with folks in the deputy attorney general's office. there's an employee there, the career, the senior career employee in the justice department who will handle aspects of that appeal process. and the real question here is one of timing. you can't come in and fire him
before that process has run its course. he has to be treated like every other employee would be treated in a situation like this. the firing can't be political in nature. while he can't be fired, the question is whether the timing would permit it to happen today or before his retirement over the weekend. >> is there a problem of optics at all? you would have optics for the president firing mccabe who could very well be a witness in the mueller probe? >> so there is a political dimension here. whether or not this is retaliatory. decisions like that i would trust to the competent capable people in the deputy attorney general's office who understand the rules here, who know how due process works and who will ensure that advice they give to the attorney general who just at the beginning of this month reiterated his commitment to running the department with integrity. they will give him advice about
staffs most particularly. to my foreign service officers and civil service colleagues, we all took the same oath of office whether you are career employee or political appointee, we are all bound by that common commitment. >> laura: that was nice. well, back in november, i asked the president about the secretary of state's job security. >> i want my -- my vision is my vision anyway. it's called cost-saving. there is nothing wrong with cost-saving. rex is in there working hard. he is doing his best. >> laura: is he going to be with you for the duration? >> we'll see. i don't know who is going to be. >> laura: well, not exactly a ringing endorsement of the duration. well, the of course, the lemmings in the press spent the entire day painting the tillerson firing as evidence of more white house dysfunction. >> this almost feels like a vacation from the reality tv style turmoil that is turning back in washington. the president may be
staffs most particularly. to my foreign service officers and civil service colleagues, we all took the same oath of office whether you are career employee or political appointee, we are all bound by that common commitment. >> laura: that was nice. well, back in november, i asked the president about the secretary of state's job security. >> i want my -- my vision is my vision anyway. it's called cost-saving. there is nothing wrong with cost-saving. rex is in there working hard. he is doing his best. >> laura: is he going to be with you for the duration? >> we'll see. i don't know who is going to be. >> laura: well, not exactly a ringing endorsement of the duration. well, the of course, the lemmings in the press spent the entire day painting the tillerson firing as evidence of more white house dysfunction. >> this almost feels like a vacation from the reality tv style turmoil that is turning back in washington. the president may be wondering why he didn't come
includes promoting values i view as very important, state department personnel, accountability, treating each other with honesty and integrity and respect for one another. most recently, in particular, to address challenges of sexual harassment within the department. i want to speak to our interagency colleagues. we all took the same oath of office, whether you're a career employee or political appointee, we are all bound by that common commitment. to support and defend the constitution, to bear true faith and allegiance to the same and to faithfully discharge the duties of our office. as a state department we're
state department personnel, accountability, which means treating each other with honesty and integrity, and respect for one another. most recently in particular, to address challenges of sexual harassment within the department. i want to speak now to my state department colleagues and to our interagency partners and colleagues at dod and the joint chief of staffs, most particularly. to my foreign service officers and civil service colleagues, we all took the same oath of office, whether you're a career employee or a political appointee, we are all bound by that common commitment. to support and defend the constitution, to bear true faith and allegiance to the same, and to faithfully discharge the duties of our office. as a state department, we are bound together by that oath. we remain steadfast here in
he says he doesn't think so, but if he did, he doesn't think it's a big deal. two questions here. first, do you believe him? do you think that he asked mccabe that question? >> well, unfortunately, no i don't believe him because i think this kind of fits a pattern pattern. i think the timing of this exchange with andy, i think came right after the firing of jim comey. as i understand it, this was a get-to-know-you kind of engagement, meeting, with, between the two of them. and in my mind it is completely inappropriate to ask a federal employee, a career employee, any employee, who'd you vote for? that's just completely inappropriate. and the other thing is, just -- this is kind of typical, rather ambiguous tap dance answer that he gave. and so and again, i'm pretty