There is an imminent constitutional crisis, but there is no report from the Mueller report

House tenant Nancy PelosiNancy Patricia D'Alesandro PelosiComey: The United States is not in a "constitutional crisis", but their system is being tested (D. Calf.) Said yesterday that the country was going through a "constitutional crisis". But she has President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump, president of CNN: "He has dropped the FBI," announced Wednesday at the White House trade negotiations between the two countries will continue Friday. Giuliani will visit Ukraine in search of "very useful" evidence for Trump PLUSThe assertion of the executive's privilege over the Mueller report removes the face of the crisis when it is far from a crisis.

The real constitutional crisis is Trump's wish to fight "all subpoenas" that have been administered to his administration by House Democrats, threatening the checks and balances that are essential to the constitution.

Assertions of executive privilege are a chronic but manageable feature of the US government. Every president since Eisenhower has claimed the privilege of the executive at least once. President Clinton has done it 14 times. Presidents George W. Bush and Barack ObamaBarack Hussein Obama: Democrats need a long game Bernhardt insists that authorities complete offshore drilling plans | Judges judge EPA must enforce pollution rules imposed by Obama dumps in landfills MORE affirmed the executive's privilege in response to Congressional subpoenas regarding the alleged dismissal of United States prosecutors for political motives and the scandal "Operation Fast and Furious", respectively. Neither one nor the other was considered a constitutional crisis and both were finally resolved without threat to the constitutional system.

But none of these presidents ever vowed to fight all subpoenas from a legislative chamber controlled by the opposing party. Our constitutional system is a delicate gyro that relies on balancing mechanisms, including the separation of powers, jurisdictional control and checks and balances, so as not to tip over. As James Madison explained in Federalist 51, you have to "show ambition to thwart ambition." Putting the executive and the legislature in power against each other was the means by which the pioneers prevented one or the other from getting lost.

The power of Congress to investigate the executive plays a central role in controlling the president and his administration. It's not a "norm" that Trump could change, it's at the heart of the constitution. Congress can not exercise its power set out in the Constitution to promulgate all "necessary and appropriate" laws, appropriate funds, raise and support armies and regulate trade, unless information from the executive power is obtained through subpoenas and forced testimony.

Let us take some of the scandals or failures of the executive power that have been the subject of Congressional scrutiny: the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001; the Iran-Contra case in 1987; abuse of intelligence agencies in 1975-1976; and, of course, Watergate in 1973-1974. How far would these investigations have come and where would our country be today if the presidents had successfully repressed them?

It is possible that colder heads in the White House (if there are any left) or among congressional Republicans talk about Trump. But if he fights "all subpoenas," Trump could make two bets. The first is that the public will be confused as to whether its fight with Congress is about the drafting of the Mueller Report and the privilege of executive power. And that does not really sound like a crisis because, after all, the report was produced although in its redacted form, almost all of the section on obstruction was not redacted, and the special advice Robert MuellerRobert (Bob) Swan MuellerSasse: US should applaud Mueller's choice to lead the investigation over Russia MORE seems likely to testify and supplement some of the missing information. For the public, lawyers argue for redactions.

Trump's second calculation is that he can leverage his support in the Republican-controlled Senate to force the Democrats in the House to make a terrible choice. If the Democrats support the trigger of the impeachment, the Republican senators will almost certainly acquit Trump and he could become even stronger. Or, the Democrats can give up the checks and balances.

Admittedly, House Democrats can organize a court challenge to assert their well-founded supervisory authority. But such a court challenge could take years. Nobody should rely on Senate Republicans, who are more guard dogs than watchdogs when it comes to Trump, to exercise effective control in the meantime.

An American government that does not have effective legislative control over Trump's conduct, programs and policies is now a crisis.

gRegory J. Wallance was federal prosecutor under the Carter and Reagan administrations. He is recently the author of "The Woman Who Fought an Empire: Sarah Aaronsohn and Her Ring of Nili Spying". Follow him on Twitter at @gregorywallance.