. >> jon: joining me now, former justice department official robert driscoll. here any question if the president has the power to fire robert mueller he wants to? >> he can fire him through the chain of command just like any other employee of the department of justice. clearly he could do it, whether or not to do it would be much more debatable question. >> jon: it seems like the guy hasn't even really begun his investigation yet, there wouldn't be a good cause for it at this point, with there? >> theoretically he wouldn't need good cause. the political blowback from firing him would presumably be great. and at the end of the day, what serves the president most is to have an investigation that vindicates him. presuming he didn't do anything wrong, he would prefer to have an investigation of his conduct and someone conclude that he would do that violated the law. preventing that what happening by firing mueller and presumably congress would try to get another special prosecutor appointed would slow down that training. >> jon: you seem to be suggesting that the pr

little more analysis while watching london bring in robert driscoll, former deputy assistant attorney general. good to see if want to bring a petite from president that went out a couple of hours ago. we must stop being politically correct and get down to the business of security for our people if we don't get smart, it will only get worse. it brings up an important big picture questions. what more can be done under the headline of getting smart while still being for lack of a better question, constitutional? >> there's lots that can be done. certainly, there's lots to be done for existing laws and you lost can be passed. as long as they don't violate the constitution. leland: what new laws do we want to spark. >> ice expect what they want is the cyber area where they could use some better amendments to have better ability to go after terrorists. then you running up against privacy -- how many do you pick up on civilians. i suspect this gets into issues of religious and ethnic profiling and whether or not how far the government can go in terms of using those criteria as factors in ter

leland: analysis and insight now with robert driscoll former deputy assistant district attorney, a friendf the show. we start with this, lawyers don't like to lose, especially those who argue before the supreme court. which side would you rather have on this one. >> i'd frankly rather have the administration side. although trump's policy may be unpopular in some circles, the broader principles are on the administration's side in terms of immigration really being an executive order and talk, we have a government of laws not men. that works both ways. i mean, the plaintiffs in this case admitted that if it was another president, this very order would be constitutional. but it's what was running through trump's mind as they posit when it was signed that makes it unconstitutional. so we're really saying it's this man that's unconstitutional, not the law. leland: in what the plaintiffs cited throughout their course, when they challenged both of the executive orders, the first one rescinded and then the second one, they cited the campaign rhetoric, both from the president and from some of his s