[davetufts]

The whole point of laws is that it doesn't matter what your take or my take or the President's take is. The statute for the FBI Director's tenure is clear:

   "...the term of service of the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall be ten years. A Director may not serve more than one ten-year term."

There's nothing about extending the term with Congressional approval. If the President wants to keep Mueller around, the only way to legal do it would be to change the law. It doesn't matter what the reason for term limits was. At this point, it's simply a public law regardless of intent.

[Zakharov]

Is there really that much difference between getting Congressional approval for Mueller to stay for two more years, and getting Congressional ratification of a law allowing Mueller to stay for two more years? This isn't a rhetorical question, I'm not familiar with the American system.

[davetufts]

One option relies on the rule of law; the other relies on the ad-hoc whim of whoever is in charge. While the result would be the same, there is a huge difference.

Nowhere in the law does Congress even have the authority to extend Mueller's stay for two years. If we're OK with that, we're essentially OK with Congress granting themselves powers outside the law. Congress certainly has the power to pass a new law removing or extending tenure. They do not have the authority to extend Mueller's tenure.

[AaronI]

They can pass an act designated as "private law" (aka slip laws), which can apply to specific individuals and afford relief from another law or grant benefits/powers that are not available under the general law. So Congress actually does have the authority to extend his tenure.

[davetufts]

Your example requires that Congress pass legislation, which is exactly what I'm making a case for. In practice, and after reading this article, I doubt that will be the way it goes down.