Quote:
Originally Posted by molson
Yes, but I think Trump did well to make the "trigger" for these protests as convoluted as possible. It's been planned for months for people to take to the streets as soon as the Mueller investigation was shut down. And I think that would have been a legitimately game-changing protest (and I'm someone who is skeptical of the benefit of protests).
But Trump managed to regain some control over the investigation by a means that technically triggered the protest, but did it by firing an unpopular AG. Which led to a bunch of confusion as to whether this was "the moment" for things to really get serious. And to do it the day after the culmination of a very emotional election cycle that resulted in semi-success for Trump's opponents, and....I think, sadly, he has played this perfectly
|
Fair assessment, but at the same time, he's tapped a guy who's been vocal about believing the investigation should be reined in or even shut down; who wasn't confirmed by the Senate to serve in a post that requires Senate confirmation; and without being able to fall back on "recess appointment" because the Senate isn't in recess.
So whether or not you think he's "played this perfectly," he's still set himself up for a court fight that there is a non-zero chance he loses. Not over whether or not firing Sessions (and let's be clear, requesting his resignation is tantamount to the same thing) constitutes obstruction of justice, but whether he's in violation of the Appointments Clause with the selection of Whitaker.
He can defuse all of that by nominating Whitaker to the role on a permanent basis and getting Senate confirmation, and maybe he even will. There'd still be discontent, but I don't know what else really results from that.
Trying to forge ahead as if nothing's wrong risks getting smacked down in court, and having the courts ALSO throw out any action Whitaker takes in the interim as being an invalid order deriving from an unconstitutional action.