During his presidency, Donald Trump discussed having the Internal Revenue Service conduct investigations into two FBI agents probing his 2016 campaign's alleged ties to Russia, according to a sworn statement by his former chief of staff, John Kelly.
Checks and balances are dependent on at least two of the three branches to be working in good faith and in the interest of the country as a whole. In that case, the third branch can theoretically be properly contained. I say theoretically because what the Right has been using, and came to full daylight under Trump, is that the entire system is no more than a gentlemen’s agreement with no actual enforceability. As you point out, “we trust you not to be awful” and if you are awful, it turns out there’s nothing we can actually do. Even with a supermajority opposing you, the process may be delayed or obfuscated sufficiently to make the available punishments (usu just removal from office) moot.
How is this legal?
The real “checks and balances” used by the US are “we trust you not to be awful”. Not working out so well for us.
Checks and balances are dependent on at least two of the three branches to be working in good faith and in the interest of the country as a whole. In that case, the third branch can theoretically be properly contained. I say theoretically because what the Right has been using, and came to full daylight under Trump, is that the entire system is no more than a gentlemen’s agreement with no actual enforceability. As you point out, “we trust you not to be awful” and if you are awful, it turns out there’s nothing we can actually do. Even with a supermajority opposing you, the process may be delayed or obfuscated sufficiently to make the available punishments (usu just removal from office) moot.