There is no reason to doubt that in seeking reelection, President Trump will consider once more breaking or skirting laws or ethical limits to win. He has already proclaimed a willingness to accept campaign support from a foreign government, retreating only somewhat under public pressure.
Latest in Executive Branch
On Wednesday, the White House released a charter on the vulnerability equities policy outlining how the federal government will alert private companies to cybersecurity flaws or refrain for intelligence purposes. Here is the White House statement:
The Trump presidency’s legal and other difficulties have brought fresh attention to the uses and limits of the impeachment process. Jane Chong and Benjamin Wittes have argued that Congress ought at least to initiate a careful examination of the case for impeachment before potentially having to cobble it together on the fly. Now books are appearing with advice on just that question.
This morning, Benjamin Wittes wrote in strong terms about the extraordinary interview the President gave the New York Times and what it reveals about Trump’s understanding of legal institutions and the rule of law. The main theme playing through Trump’s comments is that, as President, he has a clear call on the loyalties and responsiveness of Department of Justice and the FBI.
I appreciate Robert Litt's response to my recent Lawfare piece, which raised the possibility of Congress giving the FBI independence from presidential control by means of statutory for-cause limits on removal of the director.
Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared on FixGov.
Suppose most Americans were to conclude that President Trump is unfit for office. How long would it take to remove him? If President Nixon’s example provides any guidance, the answer is: a long time—if ever.
A pernicious narrative persists today among fans and critics of executive power alike, which goes something like this: the real power in the U.S. government lies not with the elected President, not with his politically appointed cabinet officials, and not with members of Congress. That power rests instead in the hands of an organized network of nefarious, all-powerful, faceless bureaucrats. This stronghold of anonymous control, we are told, is the “Deep State,” the real power center in Washington.
Two weeks ago, CNN reported that “White House lawyers have begun researching impeachment procedures in an effort to prepare for what officials still believe is a distant possibility that President Donald Trump could have to fend off attempts to remove him from office.” More broadly, the conversation has shifted from implying the possibility of impeachment to overtly discussing it: Senator Angus King (I-ME) for example
Back in November, The Hill reported that the White House is looking into increasing the transparency of the drone program before President Obama’s imminent departure from office:
The White House wants to reduce the secrecy surrounding lethal drone strikes and other counterterrorism efforts, with an eye on President Obama's legacy when he leaves office in 14 months.
I have a paper coming out in a few weeks on Zivotofsky II but want to raise an issue in the case here that I excluded from that paper. The issue is the Vesting Clause as a residual source of presidential power.