[ad_1]
Trump reacted to the next Democratic majority in the House by intensifying the assault on the Washington system that he had been elected to reverse the situation, but in a way that could make the nation a perilous political territory.
In the days following the break-up of the ruling Republican majority in Washington, Trump challenged the political order on a broad front.
The president installed Matthew Whitaker, a sidekick who shares his skepticism about the Mueller probe as acting Attorney General. In addition, he instilled conspiracy theories about the stolen elections following Florida's latest vote counting controversy and threatened to use the government's mechanisms to investigate the Democrats they were investigating. him.
And he stepped up his attacks on the press, including confiscating the White House pass from Jim Acosta, CNN correspondent at the White House, who had asked Trump many tough questions at a conference of press.
All of this happened a few days after Trump had used his power as commander-in-chief to send troops to the border in order to deal with what he said was an imminent criminal invasion of a caravan of migrants that has not yet materialized.
The steps taken by the president, in light of other future prospects, precipitated a surrealist political moment, Washington veterans wondering if a constitutional crisis is looming – or if it is already there.
Is the incumbent Attorney General threatening the rule of law?
The current epicenter of the debate concerns Whitaker, the former chief of staff who fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who had taken the post of his boss.
"He should never have been appointed and … it undermines the Constitution and the vision of our founders to appoint such a person to be the highest official of the legal services of our country", said Nancy, probably the next Speaker of the House. Pelosi, said Sunday on CBS "Face the Nation".
Increasing questions about Whitaker's position will put more pressure on the president to quickly appoint a permanent attorney general. But this candidate will face an inquisition of the Republican-led Senate over their positions in the investigation of Russia.
Whitaker's critics fear that he refuses to endorse the subpoenas that Mueller could ask for, restrict the mandate of his investigation or remove the final report of the special council.
His appointment made him fear that the president will not use it to derail the investigation conducted by Russia. This is a realistic possibility since Trump has already admitted in an interview with NBC last year that he fired FBI director James Comey because of the investigation.
Whitaker seems unlikely to follow the calls to recuse himself, following a decision by Sessions to do so, which triggered Trump's fury and poisoned his tenure.
Therefore, the new majority in the Democratic House could defeat Trump's attempts to use Whitaker to interfere with Mueller, despite the president's challenge to the legal standards represented by his appointment.
Florida, Florida, Florida
In the United States, the president has often reported massive fraud on voters, while all available evidence suggests that this is not a major problem.
It is not surprising then that he took action to proclaim that the latest controversy over the Florida vote is a flagrant example of democratic larceny at the polls.
"We are trying to WIN two big elections in Florida! We are watching closely!" he tweeted on Saturday during a trip to France.
Nobody disputes the unfortunate tendency of the Sunshine State to trigger an electoral controversy. And answers are expected on election management in Broward and Palm Beach counties, for example.
Lawyers for Democratic and Republican candidates are currently launching dueling campaigns. Each party has every right to assert its point of view after the State Secretary of State has ordered the start of recounts, given the lean margins.
"Every vote must be counted, but do not be fooled by fraudulent or anti-constitutional behavior," said Colorado senator Cory Gardner, who led the Republican Senate's middle-of-the-road campaign on "statehood". CNN's "Union".
But Trump seems to react not to the evidence of fraud, but to the votes that narrow the gap between the Democratic Senate and the candidates for governorship, Bill Nelson, Andrew Gillum and the alleged Republican winners.
Thus, the controversy in Florida marks the last time he puts his personal interests ahead of the president's duty to protect the country's democracy.
But by personally intervening in the race, the president questions the integrity of the election and risks causing long-term damage to the American political system itself, which relies on public consent.
His furious intervention contrasts with President Bill Clinton's reaction to a confrontation with even more important issues in Florida, a bitterly disputed story in the 2000 presidential election, which was ultimately entrusted to George W. Bush at the expense of Democrat Al Gore by the Supreme Court.
Clinton took steps to avoid politicizing the process, believing that the American system depended on him to stay out of it.
"I do not think I should be involved in that," Clinton said shortly after the disputed election.
Trump's intervention, 18 years later, is one of the reasons his detractors fear he is unconscious or contemptuous of the traditional norms governing presidential behavior.
Whipping on the exam
The takeover of the House by the Democrats guarantees an uncomfortable period of investigation and surveillance for the White House, which the Republican majority deemed useless during its first two years in office.
"They can play this game, but we can do it better because we have a system called the US Senate," Trump said at a Wednesday press conference.
"It could very well be an impenetrable offense," Nadler said.
Trump denied the alleged cases.
The president has already reacted furiously to the idea of a new era of Democrat control, promising a "warrior" stance if it unfolded, and hinted that he could use the mechanisms of the government to investigate them at a press conference last week.
The President has also acted in a manner that, in the opinion of observers, raises issues regarding the First Amendment by taking the unprecedented step of confiscating Acosta's permanent press card at the same time. White House after questioning the President on the migrant caravan.
How deep is the crisis?
The events of recent days clearly suggest that the White House is increasingly challenging political conventions and security barriers, which could be compounded if Trump's reshuffle of senior officials prevented him from remaining under his influence. .
It is more difficult to determine whether the actions of the president have already plunged the country into a constitutional crisis or whether the checks and balances system has kept it on the right side.
After all, two years after his election, voters decided to establish a new accountability in Washington with a Democratic House, after the Republicans showed no sign of their willingness to curb the president's excesses.
Courts have tempered some of Trump's most radical ideas, easing a travel ban for Muslims that he wrote at the start of his presidency. The new use of executive power by Trump to limit asylum claims, in apparent violation of international law, will soon enter the court.
But political systems must be constantly maintained to stay healthy. And the president's rhetoric about the Florida controversy seems to particularly graze the danger zone.
A former observer, Leon Panetta, former White House chief of staff for Clinton and secretary of defense under President Barack Obama, believes that the country's institutions are solid.
"I think that in the end, the institutions put in place by our ancestors are strong enough to survive in any administration," Panetta said Thursday in "The Situation Room."
But the fact that the question is even relevant reflects the darkness that prevails in Washington.
Source link
