He is strained by the demanding hours of the job
What will happen if Trump runs out of Justice Department people to fire? Will the gears just freeze and everything stop and time come to an end?
Since taking office, the Trump administration has twice rewritten an executive order that outlines the order of succession at the Justice Department — once after President Donald Trump fired acting Attorney General Sally Yates for refusing to defend his travel ban, and then again two months later. The executive order outlines a list of who would be elevated to the position of acting attorney general if the person up the food chain recuses himself, resigns, gets fired or is no longer in a position to serve.
In the past, former Justice Department officials and legal experts said, the order of succession is no more than an academic exercise — a chain of command applicable only in the event of an attack or crisis when government officials are killed and it is not clear who should be in charge.
But Trump has been burning through DoJ people as a hungry man burns through two scoops of ice cream. Sessions is recused from all the things, and Trump has fixed his beady eye on Rosenstein. There aren’t a lot of people left.
“We know Rachel Brand is the next victim,” said Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and the editor-in-chief of Lawfare, referring to the former George W. Bush official who was recently confirmed as associate attorney general, the third-highest position in the Justice Department.
“For those of us who have high confidence in Rachel — the more confidence you have in someone in this role, the less long you think they’ll last,” said Wittes, who said he considers Brand a friend. “That does put a very high premium on the question of who is next.”
That question, however, has become more complicated because the Trump administration has been slow to fill government positions and get those officials confirmed. Typically, the solicitor general would be next in line after the associate attorney general, followed by the list of five assistant U.S. attorneys, the order of which would be determined by the attorney general. But none of those individuals have been confirmed by the Senate, and they would be unable to serve as acting attorney general without Senate confirmation.
Well you can’t blame them for that, they’ve been terribly busy tweeting.
Some former Justice Department officials said they would find it inconceivable for Trump to clean house, or to fire Mueller — even taking into account the sometimes erratic behavior of the commander in chief.
“This president is so unpredictable, it’s hard to say,” said Emily Pierce, a former Justice Department official in the Obama administration. “It would be the craziest thing he’s done to date if he were to start firing the special counsel or Rosenstein. I’m trying to give him the benefit of the doubt that he realizes how much trouble he may be in — and that with the firing of Comey, he wouldn’t do that.”
A reasonable person wouldn’t do that. You can provide the next sentence without my help.
“I think the Watergate scenario would make most self-respecting lawyers loath to put themselves in the role that Bork ended up playing,” said Brian Fallon, a former Obama Justice Department and Hillary Clinton spokesman. “Most career-minded independent lawyers that have high regard for the Justice Department as an institution would be loath to be the modern-day equivalent to Bork.”
But Trump, too, is cognizant of the comparison to Nixon, according to one adviser. The president, who friends said does not enjoy living in Washington and is strained by the demanding hours of the job, is motivated to carry on because he “doesn’t want to go down in history as a guy who tried and failed,” said the adviser. “He doesn’t want to be the second president in history to resign.”
Oh Don. You’re so stupid. That ship has sailed. Best case scenario you’re going down in history as a joke. Best case.
A bad joke. A very bad, unfunny, distasteful joke. At best.
Not a joke. Tragedy is not funny. The essence of tragedy is that you can see it coming a long way ahead and still cannot do anything to stop it.
Actually, Arnaud, comedy is tragic at its core. And the Trump administration makes me think of some of the worst stand up comics I’ve seen. They think they’re clever, smart, and funny; the audience knows better.
I dunno, I mean, technically Romeo and Juliet was a tragedy but it’s main purpose was to ridicule the very idea of courtly love, so… it’s funny, just not to the point of guffaws.
Sorry I was thinking more of classical tragedy.
( ‘La Guerre de Troie n’aura pas lieu’ has been on every baccalaureat reading lists in France for generations now. I cannot help but think it is a more fitting play for our times than ‘Julius Caesar’.}