The Threat to the Rule of Law

It is useful to look back more than four years to see how Donald Trump was seen before he was nominated.  

In Donald Trump Could Threaten U.S. Rule of Law, Scholars Say (6/3/2016) Adam Liptak wrote: 

Donald J. Trump’s blustery attacks on the press, complaints about the judicial system and bold claims of presidential power collectively sketch out a constitutional worldview that shows contempt for the First Amendment, the separation of powers and the rule of law, legal experts across the political spectrum say.

He went on to list the views of several major players at that time, before Trump's formal nomination.  Some thought that institutional norms would limit Trump:

Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who has become a reluctant supporter of Mr. Trump, said he did not believe that the nation would be in danger under his presidency. 'I still believe we have the institutions of government that would restrain someone who seeks to exceed their constitutional obligations,' Mr. McCain said. "We have a Congress. We have the Supreme Court. We’re not Romania. Our institutions, including the press, are still strong enough to prevent' unconstitutional acts," he said.

I hear that it is beautiful in Bucharest this time of year.  Obviously, Senator McCain was quickly disabused of the idea that somehow President Trump would be limited by any of these institutions or norms.

The risk that Donald Trump could damage the rule of law was recognized from the beginning, but his willingness to act with the assumption of impunity was not expected.  A brief (and incomplete) summary of the threat could be arranged by what characteristic of the rule of law is damaged by his actions;

• Equality: Refused to submit tax returns, rejected valid Congressional subpoenas, asserted powers not in the Constitution.
• Effectiveness: Interfered with the work of inspector generals of agencies including removing or replacing five just this last spring.  Apparently Trump considered them disloyal for doing their jobs when they investigated him, or his appointees.  Only one had ever been fired before, by Obama, during eight years in office.
• Independence: Sought to directly interfere with decisions of career prosecutors in criminal cases that affected his or his allies interests, abetted by the Attorney General.  
• Justice: Instituted an intentionally cruel policy of separating children from parents when detained by immigration authorities.  Then Attorney General Jeff Sessions openly said the purpose was to create a deterrent. 

There is a lot more than that to consider.