Trump and His National Emergency

What happens if Trump declares border crisis a national emergency? | Fox News [2019-01-05]

President Donald Trump: ‘I Could’ Declare National Emergency For Border Wall Funding | NBC News [2019-01-04]

With the U.S. government’s partial shutdown now in its third week, Donald Trump says he is considering declaring a national emergency in order to build the U.S.-Mexico border wall he campaigned on. Trump met on Friday, January 4, with senior Democrats, who continued to refuse his demand for federal funding for the wall, which, according to Trump, is a condition for Trump’s supporting funding to re-open the government. The government shutdown occurred as a result of the failure of lawmakers and Trump to reach an agreement in December on a budget bill.

When asked whether he had considered using his presidential authority to declare a state of national emergency in order to bypass Congress’ approval for funding a border wall, Trump said, “I may do it. We can call a national emergency and build it very quickly. That’s another way of doing it.”

Budget experts, however, say that Trump would still need for funds to be allocated by Congress, even if he could declare a national emergency.

Though a bill for funds to re-open the government passed the House on Thursday, January 3, it can’t take effect unless the GOP-controlled Senate also passes it. Senate leader Mitch McConnell has said that Republicans will not back a bill without Trump’s support.

Meanwhile, roughly 25 percent of federal government operations remain un-funded. The departments of Justice, Housing, Homeland Security, Commerce, Agriculture, the Interior, and the Treasury are heavily impacted, and national parks, left unstaffed, have begun to be hazardous to visitors. Approximately 800,000 federal employees are either furloughed, or continue to work without pay.

Many lawmakers and legal experts say that Trump does not have the authority to declare a state of national emergency in order to build a border wall.

Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif), said, “Look, if Harry Truman couldn’t nationalize the steel industry during wartime, this president doesn’t have the power to declare an emergency and build a multibillion-dollar wall on the border.”

Adam Smith, incoming House Armed Services Committee chair, said Trump may have the authority, but that it would be challenged. “In this case, I think the president would be wide open to a court challenge saying, ‘Where is the emergency?’ …You have to establish that in order to do this.”

On the other hand, Trump has said the partial government shutdown could go on “for a very long time,” perhaps even years.

“If we don’t find a solution,” said Trump, “It’s going to go on for a long time. There’s not going to be any bend right here.”

With that said, if Trump has the authority to declare a state of national emergency in order to fund and build his border wall, one might wonder why he doesn’t just go ahead and do it.

Is the Mueller Investigation Safe from Matt Whitaker?

The recent appointment of Matt Whitaker as acting Attorney General following the forced resignation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions has caused many to fear that it means the shutdown of Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. Since Matt Whitaker is not particularly qualified for the position of attorney general, acting or otherwise, some fear that Whitaker was appointed for the express purpose of not only ending the Russia probe, but firing Robert Mueller.

Fueling speculation is the fact that, in addition to Matt Whitaker’s lack of qualifications for his new role, Whitaker has openly criticized the Mueller investigation (which he will now oversee).

In an interview with CNN in 2017, when Whitaker was a CNN contributor, he talked of a scenario where the person who replaced Jeff Sessions could decrease Mueller’s budget “so low that his investigation grinds to almost a halt.”

Also on CNN, Matt Whitaker insisted that Mueller’s investigation would amount to nothing, and that Mueller was crossing a “red line” by investigating the financial ties between the Trump Organization and Russia. Further, he held that no wrongdoing had occurred when Donald Trump Junior met with a Russian attorney to discuss Hillary Clinton.

In early November 2018, in a CNN editorial, Whitaker said that Mueller’s probe might end up “a mere witch hunt.”

“Mueller has come up to a red line in the Russia 2016 election-meddling investigation that he is dangerously close to crossing,” wrote Whitaker.

Even if Matt Whitaker were the impartial overseer of the Mueller investigation that the law requires, the inappropriate partiality, as well as questionable ethics of some of his other activities would, under any other circumstances, be disqualifying.

In a recent example, the Office of Special Counsel was recently called on to investigate Whitaker for allegedly violating the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees’ political activity. While he was Chief of Staff and Senior Counselor under Jeff Sessions, Whitaker received several political donations. Whitaker’s 2014 U.S. Senate campaign committee was found to be currently active, and took in almost $9,000 in political contributions in early 2018.

As the top law enforcement official of the United States, Matt Whitaker should be an impartial overseer of federal investigations. As chief legal principal, he should be above reproach. Matt Whitaker is neither. Until a permanent Attorney General is appointed, it looks as if the fate of Robert Mueller’s Russia probe lies in Whitaker’s hands – and could be in peril.

Kellyanne Conway on Matt Whitaker, Russia probe | Fox News [2018-11-11]

Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker meeting with ethics officials |
CBS News [2018-11-13]