Chris Christie among candidates Trump has lined up to replace sacked attorney general
is investigating extensively for communications with WikiLeaks and the Russians during the 2016 campaign.
Ken Gude, a legal scholar at the Centre for American Progress, told The National the only reason to force out Mr Sessions and pass over Mr Rosenstein “is to obstruct the investigation”.
“Mr Whitaker is publicly on the record saying Bob Mueller has gone too far and urging Rosenstein to hamper the investigation,” Mr Gude said.
Paul Rosenzweig, a legal expert and a former deputy assistant secretary for policy at the Department of Homeland Security, agreed.
He told The National that Mr Trump fired his attorney general only so that he could replace him with Mr Whitaker.
He argued that while Mr Trump would not be inclined to take an incendiary route and fire Mr Mueller, neither the House nor the Senate can currently protect the special counsel if that were to happen.
There is a bill in the Senate to prevent such an action, but the Republican leadership has not called for a vote on its passage.
Meanwhile, the White House has already started looking at replacements for Mr Sessions.
CBS reported on Thursday that the former New Jersey governor Chris Christie, a friend of Mr Trump, is one of the names being considered. Mr Christie was reported to be at the White House on Thursday.
While Mr Christie was an attorney for the district of New Jersey for six years and is known for his loyal defence of Mr Trump, his own history in the Trump campaign and possible knowledge about contacts with Russia have raised questions about whether he would also recuse himself if he were he to be nominated.
Kris Kobach, who lost on Tuesday in his attempt to become governor of Kansas, is another name on the list.
His campaign manager told Politico it was “definitely a possibility”.
Mr Kobach is a staunch supporter of Mr Trump and would carry out a conservative agenda at the Department of Justice, unlike Mr Christie, who is viewed as more of a moderate Republican.
Other names floated for the position included Bill Barr, attorney general under President George H Bush, and Lindsey Graham, a senator and new ally of Mr Trump.
But when asked by NBC if he wanted the position, Mr Graham said “no, no, no”, and that he was expecting a replacement to be confirmed by the new Senate next year.
Another loyal friend of Mr Trump, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, is also being discussed as a candidate.
The Wall Street Journal mentioned Mr Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar as being on the list. Mr Azar, who is of Lebanese descent, told the paper he was not interested, and Mr Giuliani could face confirmation hurdles. Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan is another name on the list, according to Politico, and would have an easier confirmation process.
It is unlikely that a replacement will be confirmed before January, when the next Senate is installed.
Mr Mueller, however, is expected to issue indictments before then.
Anyone hoping that the outcome of this week’s midterm elections might lead to profound changes in the Trump administration’s approach to its foreign policy goals is likely to be sorely disappointed.
This will be particularly true in Tehran where, following the imposition of the latest US sanctions earlier this week, the regime will be looking for any potential chink in Donald Trump’s political armour that might suggest a weakening in the president’s standing.
The Iranians, together with some nations in the Middle East and elsewhere who also are not enamoured of Mr Trump’s unique leadership style, will certainly have taken some initial comfort from the result, with the Democrats winning a majority in the House of Representatives.
The anti-Trump lobby in parts of the media has seized on this modest achievement to claim that this is the beginning of the end for the Trump presidency and that the Democrats have taken an important first step towards ejecting the maverick Republican leader from the White House.
But this attitude has more to do wishful thinking than having any relevance to how the results of the midterms will impact the way the president conducts business.
On the contrary, as demonstrated by Mr Trump’s peremptory dismissal of Jeff Sessions, his troublesome attorney general, immediately after the results had been declared, the president appears reinvigorated by the result and seems even more determined to press ahead with his radical policy agenda.
For the unpalatable truth the Democrats and their supporters must accept is that their socalled “blue wave” of support failed to materialise and that, apart from picking up a few seats in the House of Representatives, the junior chamber in Congress, they lost badly to the Republicans in the Senate, who have increased their majority, consolidating Mr Trump’s authority as president.
It is the Senate, not the House, that has the greater ability to thwart the president’s will, particularly with regard to scrutinising cabinet and other appointments, such as the Supreme Court, as well as major policy issues, including foreign policy.
It was for this reason that Mr Trump concentrated all his formidable campaigning attributes on supporting candidates for the Senate rather than the House, a tactic that was handsomely rewarded and now makes Mr Trump the odds-on favourite to win the 2020 presidential election contest.
The Democrats will – or so it is widely anticipated – use their platform in the House to wage guerrilla war against the Trump presidency, hitting the White House with affidavits on issues ranging from his colourful private life to allegations concerning his alleged links to Russia.
But such attacks are nothing new for Mr Trump. He has been under attack from his critics on the left since the day he took office and the president has been remarkably impervious to their accusations, whether they concern his alleged dalliance with porn star Stormy Daniels or his dealings with Russia.
To pursue such an agenda is not without risk for the Democrats. The midterm results show that the majority of Americans are more concerned with the state of the economy than hand-wringing over Mr Trump’s alleged misdemeanours, and launching a muck-raking campaign against the White House could badly backfire on their own future electoral prospects.
Furthermore, while the House might be able to initiate proceedings with affidavits – including the ultimate sanction of impeachment – the final say on whether they are upheld rests with the Senate, which, now that is has a proper working Republican majority, is unlikely to sanction the public pillorying of a Republican occupant of the White House.
Mr Trump, therefore, far from being inconvenienced by the midterm results, now finds himself in a position to consolidate his legacy, both in terms of his domestic agenda and his key foreign policy goals. So far as the Middle East is concerned, these will be maintaining the pressure on Iran, containing the threat posed by Islamist groups such as ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood, and pressing ahead with his ambitious plan to achieve a breakthrough in the dispute over Palestinian occupied territories.
The ability of the Democrats to mount a significant challenge to Mr Trump’s approach to any of these issues from their lowly position in the House is limited, to say the least.
For a start, under the constitution, the president has executive authority to conduct foreign policy without constant recourse to Congress.
It is only when legislation is required, as in the case of the Iranian sanctions, that the White House looks for congressional support. And if that is not forthcoming, the president can always fall back on executive orders, an effective device that his predecessor Barack Obama used frequently and effectively to circumvent congressional opposition.
Moreover, on a practical level, most of the administration’s key policies with regard to the Middle East have already been implemented. The new sanctions regime against Iran, including the provision to take punitive action against any foreign company that continues to do business with Tehran, is already in place, as is the controversial decision to move the American embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
The military campaign against ISIS is all but complete. Key issues that still require the president’s attention in the region concern the future of a post-conflict Syria and attempts to negotiate a ceasefire in Yemen, but neither of those requireS any input from Congress.
Thus, rather than seeking to antagonise the White House, the smart approach for countries like Iran which find themselves in Mr Trump’s line of fire would be to try to repair relations with a president who, in all probability, now looks set to occupy the Oval Office until the end of 2024.
Far from being hindered by the midterm results, the US president appears even more determined to pursue his radical agenda