America is establishing new precedents
Walter Shaub points out that whatever the outcome of Trump’s attempts to obstruction of justice, he’s already done harm by setting bad precedents.
But whatever the outcome of Mueller’s investigation, America is establishing new precedents. One precedent is that President Trump fired the FBI director—and Congress did nothing. Another is that Trump admitted the FBI’s investigation of his campaign motivated the firing—and Congress did nothing. A third precedent is that Trump fired the attorney general after having railed against him publicly for refusing to intervene in the investigation—and Congress has done nothing. A fourth precedent is that Trump circumvented the Justice Department’s order of succession so he could replace the attorney general with an individual who has directed partisan attacks at the special counsel, has described publicly how a new attorney general could undermine the investigation, has had a personal and political relationship with an individual involved in the investigation, and has been associated with a company that is the focus of a separate FBI investigation.
If the precedents stand…
If members of Congress or the American people fail to act, these precedents will become the guideposts for future presidents who follow the path President Trump is blazing. A new tenet of American democracy will become that a president is permitted to evade investigation by firing the heads of agencies that investigate the president’s close associates, even when the investigation is the reason for the firings. This cannot stand. Putting a president above the rule of law is a threat to democracy.
We need another precedent: presidents can’t get away with obstruction of justice.
There’s always the possibility that post-Trump, we get a series of reforms much like post-Watergate. Either because the Democrats are able to control both Houses plus the White House, or because the Dems get the WH and Congressional Republicans are (1) willing to limit the president’s powers now that the president is a Democrat; and/or (2) eager to distance themselves from that guy, whatshisname, used to be president, forget which party he was in, certainly wasn’t a real conservative….
Of course, as we’re seeing now, passing statutes to constrain future presidents is of limited value if future Congresses will just stand by and let the president ignore them (and/or a stacked Supreme Court rules them “unconstitutional when applied to a Republican”).
My kind of presidential precedent.? I’m looking forward to Trump’s prison memoire, ghostwritten or not. I wouldn’t read it: fuck no. But just relishing the thought of Angry Cheeto in an orange jumpsuit is too relishable to resist. For good measure, while he’s cooling his bonespurs in the Big House, maybe someone could arrange a visit by the Central Park Five.
I know, I know, probably won’t happen, but a boy can dream…
He likes subverting everything, from justice to democracy itself. Here he is inventing more Democrat voter fraud, this time by masters of disguise!
Me, I’m all out of negative superlatives and my thesaurus has rolled over and died.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-us-canada-46202900
One reform that should at least be considered: make the AG an elected position. That would require a Constitutional Amendment, so it probably won’t happen, but there needs to be a way to protect the AG from the President.
@5: Another way is to make the AG a hired position, totally separate from political appointments. I would like that better, because you could have a bipartisan search committee, and have a rigid set of standards that the AG would have to meet…in other words, the voters couldn’t elect a person who has no background to fit them for the job, but they are folksy and the voters want to have a beer with them. In fact, I think most of the positions that are currently appointed should be selected in that way, and their terms set so that they do not end with the presidential term, but instead stagger between presidents so there is no fierce loyalty. Then they can do their jobs.
The only positions the president should be appointing are his personal staff, IMHO. Allowing the president to appoint such people as head of the EPA, head of the FBI, head of the Dept of Education, Interior, HHS, etc, leads to a politicization of those agencies that can end up kneecapping the agency.
Interesting thought. Seems like it would make the President mostly a figurehead. Not that that’s a bad thing.
I hope the future president ignores the established precedent of giving a blanket pardon to prior presidents.