You could say this about the era preceding nearly every authoritarian government.
And Trump has explicitly vowed to remove people who won’t follow his orders and replace them with people who will. Heritage and Claremont are lining up candidates ready and eager to do what he asks.
On that note, I am unsure what "illegal" would mean in this context. SCOTUS said that within in theoretically-narrow boundaries that might not be remotely narrow in practice, it is by definition not illegal.
I think carrying out the orders would still be committing crimes, but that's a thin reed.
Yes. The President could do that now, but implicitly this was always kept in check because the President him- (or her-) self would still be responsible. But that's no longer the case.
