I never said any of Trump's actions broke a law. It's interesting, though, how he continues to lie, e.g he said in his tweet about barring transgender people from the military that he made the decision "after consultation with my generals" even though it is clear there was no such consultation.
The biggest story of the week was probably the health care debacle. For that the Republican party bears more responsibility than Trump. They had seven years to develop a policy but in the end couldn't come up with anything even Republicans alone could agree to--let alone something that would have broader appeal. Trump added to the mess by promising the moon during and even after the campaign, i.e pre-existing conditions covered, lower premiums, no cuts to Medicaid, etc. Of course, it turned out he had no grasp at all of the complexities of healthcare, as he himself acknowledged but only after leading some voters to think he had an actual plan. And now he says he's quiet happy to let Obamacare implode, which would mean that millions of American would suffer in serious ways in order for him to try to score political points. His responsibility as president is to make the existing law of the land, the ACA, work as well as it can in the interest of people's health. We all know it needs substantial improvement, but while necessary efforts are made to make those improvements (or to come up with something that can actually pass the Congress that would be better than the ACA) Trump has a moral duty to make the existing law work as well as it can.
I'm also very concerned about Trump's failure to recognize that the Justice Department has to apply the law in a non-partisan way and has to be seen to be doing so. No legal expert I've heard or read has suggested Sessions made the wrong choice in recusing himself from the investigation of Russian interference in the election.. Trump thinks differently. And then Trump suggests Sessions should be pursuing the prosecution of Hilary Clinton. This, of course, contradicts what Trump said soon after the election. More important, it is precisely the kind of thing that we complain about in more authoritarian countries, i.e. the political leader of the government ordering the head law enforcer to go after a political opponent. If the DOJ, including the FBI, wants to investigate Clinton again because it has new evidence, fine. But it can't do so because the President thinks it should. (And, yes, I agree that Lynch was wrong to tell Comey to call the Clinton investigation a "matter." What we're talking about here is the equivalent of Obama telling Lynch to open an investigation of candidate Trump--something we have no evidence of ever happening.)
