Trump confirms he wants to be dictator.

December 7, 2023

          In a pair of interviews, Trump and his former aid, Kash Patel, have confirmed that Trump will be a dictator “on day one” of a second term and that Trump will use the CIA to “come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections.”

          In one sense, both statements require context and explanation. In another, they do not. A statement by a presidential candidate that he “will” be a dictator—even for a day—is the most virulently anti-democratic statement ever made by a presidential candidate. No context is needed. Nor is any context needed for a statement that the candidate will use the CIA to “come after” the media if he is elected.

          Although the statement was made by Kash Patel on Steve Bannon’s podcast, Trump has not condemned the statement or otherwise distanced himself from the sentiments expressed by Patel. Trump has, therefore, adopted Patel’s statement about using the CIA to exact retribution on media outlets in the US.

          My purpose is not to alarm readers; rather, it is to urge readers to hold the media accountable for their task of describing Trump as a self-proclaimed aspiring dictator in every story they write about him. A new poll? Describe it as a race between an aspiring dictator and the incumbent president. Inflation is a concern? Describe inflation as secondary to an economy ruled by a dictator. Concern about immigration at the border? Remind readers that the Constitution delegates control over immigration to Congress, not to the president—and certainly not to a self-appointed dictator.

          Trump has confessed that he desires to be a dictator and intends to use the CIA to harass American journalists and other citizens—violations of the statutes and regulations that govern the CIA. Those are the indispensable facts about Trump in every story written about him henceforth. If it is not, journalists need to be held to account for their dereliction of duty.

          Trump's admission that he will be a dictator “on day one” of his second term came in response to a soft-ball question by Sean Hannity asking (begging) Trump to deny reports that he seeks to be a dictator. Hannity asked (twice),

Do you in any way have any plans whatsoever if reelected president to abuse power, to break the law, to use the government to go after people?

In response to the first request, Trump answered in the affirmative (indirectly) by saying, “You mean like they’re using right now?”

          Hannity came back to the question a second time, and Trump said,

Except for day one. I want to close the border and I want to drill, drill, drill. . . I’m going to be, you know he keeps, we love this guy, he says, ‘You’re not going to be a dictator, are you?’ I said, ‘No, no, other than day one. We’re closing the border and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling.’ After that I’m not a dictator.”

See CNN Politics, Trump sidesteps question when asked if he plans to abuse power if reelected.

          Trump's word-salad answer is nearly incomprehensible, but he twice confirmed he would be a dictator “on day one” to close the border and authorize drilling—presumably unbounded any statutes and regulations.

          Here’s the problem: There is no such thing as a “dictator for a day.” Once a president overthrows the rule of law, he is a dictator. Period. Full stop. That is the indispensable fact in every story hereafter about Trump.

          Kash Patel served as a functionary and chief of staff in the Department of Defense near the end of Trump's first term. During an interview on Steve Bannon’s podcast, Bannon asked Patel if he could “deliver” if Trump appointed him as head of the CIA. Patel responded,

We will go out and find the conspirators — not just in government, but in the media. Yes, we’re going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections.

We’re going to come after you. Whether it’s criminally or civilly, we’ll figure that out. But yeah, we’re putting you all on notice, and Steve, this is why they hate us. This is why we’re tyrannical. This is why we’re dictators.

See The Hill, Bannon, Patel say Trump ‘dead serious’ about revenge on media: ‘We’re going to come after you”.

          As Trump did in his interview with Hannity, Patel admits that Trump and his minions aim to be “tyrannical” and “dictators.” Again, Trump has not condemned Patel’s statement or sought to distance himself from his ugly threats to violate the Constitution.

          The flurry of press coverage over Trump's dictatorial aspirations in the last two weeks is a good start. And so is the collective rejection of fatalism that has accompanied much of the coverage in the past. Charlie Sykes of The Bulwark has changed his pessimistic outlook of last week (apparently in response to reader pushback). See Charlie Sykes, The Bulwark, The Case Against Despair.

          Sykes writes,

Alarm can either motivate or it can debilitate. It can focus the mind for the fight or depress us to the point where we’d rather simply go off to tend our gardens. And that’s how democracies die.

          Sykes concludes, “Trump is not our destiny.”

We should be clear-eyed about the threat Trump presents. We should believe him when he says he wants to be a dictator. But we don’t have to believe he will win. Indeed, he is on a losing streak of historic proportions. He is the only presidential candidate to lose the popular vote twice. He is the only president to never have a favorability rating above 50%. During his tenure, he lost the House and the Senate. His endorsements are electoral kryptonite. He mounted a failed coup and insurrection; he has been indicted four times for his crimes. His businesses in New York are under the control of a receiver.

          We can beat Trump. Yes, we must act with the urgency that his threats demand, but we must also be disciplined and confident so that we do not cause despair or panic. Recognize that many people are anxious. If you can, be a leader. Model courage and confidence for others. And be realistic—which includes not exaggerating Trump's prospects or powers. The Republican Party is a mess, held together by greed and threats of mutually assured destruction. They are eating their own. Read on!

Kevin McCarthy will step down at the end of December.

          Disgraced former Speaker Kevin McCarthy announced that he will resign from Congress at the end of 2023. McCarthy is a miserable, universally loathed person who deserted America during its hour of need. He voted against the impeachments (plural) of Trump; he objected to the count of the electoral ballots on January 6; he led the rehabilitation of Trump after January 6 by making the first pilgrimage to Mar-a-Lago to visit the failed president.

          Kevin McCarthy was a well-known liar whose inability to speak the truth was too much for the likes of Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert. To the extent that he served as a mentor and left a legacy, he is responsible for bringing Marjorie Taylor Greene into the House GOP leadership. That legacy will haunt him forever.

          There is little else to say except that his absence will further complicate the ability of Speaker Mike Johnson to pass the “must-pass” legislation necessary to enact a budget. Or, as Marjorie Taylor Greene said about the GOP’s shrinking majority, “Hopefully, nobody dies.”

          McCarthy’s only accomplishments as Speaker came with majority support from Democrats and minority support from Republicans. In effect, Hakeem Jeffries was the “real” Speaker of the House during Kevin McCarthy’s tenure. That is how the history books should be written. A fitting epitaph for a man whose only goal was to obtain the Speakership to advance his personal glory, not because he had any plan or sense of duty to the American people. Good riddance.

Fake Electors held to account.

          There were two positive developments on Wednesday regarding accountability for “fake electors.” In Nevada, the state Attorney General announced the issuance of two felony charges each against six false Trump electors. The defendants include the Nevada GOP Chair, the state GOP vice chair, the Clark County Republican Party, and a GOP national committeeman. See Talking Points Memo, Six Fake Pro-Trump Electors Indicted In Nevada.

          In Wisconsin, a civil suit brought by two legitimate Biden electors against ten fake Trump electors was settled. The fake electors settled the suit by agreeing to withdraw their fake certifications, admitting that Joe Biden won the election, and admitting that they were not duly elected electors. See Talking Points Memo, Wisconsin Fake Electors Admit It Was All A Sham!

          Both actions will help discourage similar actions in the future. Importantly, the Wisconsin electors claim they were misled by Trump lawyer Ken Chesebro. The settlement agreement included text messages between the fake electors in which they refer to their effort as a “possible steal” of the election—by Trump!

The Senate rejects aid bill for Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan.

          The Senate voted 49-51 on the supplemental funding bill for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. All Republicans voted against the bill; Chuck Schumer voted “No” when it became clear the bill would not reach the 60-vote threshold, a procedural move that will allow Schumer to call for another vote on the bill. See The Guardian, Senate Republicans block funding bill that included aid for Ukraine and Israel.

          Senate Republicans are holding out for stricter immigration reforms before providing support for the bill. House Republicans are conditioning their support for a similar bill for aid to Israel on drastic cuts to the IRS budget.

          If we didn’t know better, it’s almost like Republicans want Putin to win his war on the Ukrainian people. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget told Congress that the US will run out of money to fund Ukraine’s defense sometime in December.

Taylor Swift, Liz Cheney, and Joe Biden.

          Time Magazine has named Taylor Swift as “Person of the Year” based on her cultural influence and economic impact from her Eras Tour. Former GOP Representative Liz Cheney would have been a reasonable choice for the honor in light of her integrity and courage in serving on the January 6th Committee—a decision that ended her career. Former Rep. Cheney appeared for a lengthy interview on Rachel Maddow’s show. The interview is well worth your time. Cheney speaks plain truths about the dangers presented by Donald Trump and the cowardice of her former colleagues. You can scroll through the interview segments here: Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC.

          Readers have rightly heaped praise on Cheney’s actions in trying to hold Trump to account after January 6. She deserves that praise—and more. But she could ruin it all by running as a third-party candidate in the general election—something she is reportedly considering. See Politico, Liz Cheney says she's considering a third-party presidential bid.

          On Wednesday, Dan Rather published an essay on his Substack platform, Steady, Can These Two Women Help Save America? Rather writes,

What do these three have in common, other than that they sound like the setup to a joke (Cheney, Swift, and Biden walk into a bar . . . .)? Maybe the rescue of American democracy.

It is surely a sign that we are in very strange and dangerous times that anyone would write a column putting these three people together. But here we are.

Cheney speaks to disaffected Republicans and moderates who might not like Biden or his policies but legitimately fear a second term for his likely opponent.

As for Swift, the effects could be even greater. She is extremely popular with young voters (although she has millions of older fans, as well). Standing alongside Biden could help assuage fears about his age. She could highlight the right’s potential harm on race, gender, abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, and more. She could also entice new voters to register and encourage them to show up on Election Day. 

          It’s a long shot, but if enough people start pushing the idea, maybe something good will happen. . . ??

Shooting at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

          A Gallup poll conducted last year found that 90% of Americans favor stricter background checks on gun sales. Today, the Senate blocked a bill that would increase background checks on gun sales—the same day that a shooter killed (at least) three students at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. As I write, there is little additional information about the shooting. I will update when more information is available.

          But we do not need more information to know that Republican lawmakers have blood on their hands for refusing to consider any regulations on guns. They wrap themselves in the Second Amendment as grieving parents wrap their children in funeral shrouds. At some point, we will experience a tragedy as a nation that will break the death grip of Republicans on the Second Amendment. We shouldn’t have to wait for that tragedy. Just ask the parents of three UNLV students tonight.

Concluding Thoughts.

          A reader sent an op-ed by Ruben Navarrette in the Lincoln-Journal Star, Don't ignore basic decency. The op-ed is a bit bizarre but ultimately affirming of Joe Biden’s decency—which I take as a good sign that Biden is making inroads into unlikely places.

          Navarrette begins his op-ed by saying

I'm giving Biden another look.

And it's not just because Trump is so terrible. I'm offended, in fact, that the Biden campaign's entire reelection strategy seems to be scaring voters into supporting the Democrat to prevent a second Trump-ageddon.

          Say what? Navarrette seems to be oblivious to Trump's self-proclaimed dictatorial desires. But in a circuitous essay, he works his way to a positive conclusion:

I refuse to fall for that ploy. Rather, what's pushing me to give Biden a second chance is that, even as a frequent Biden critic who was quick to proclaim his presidency a failure after its first year, I've started lately to see glimpses of the Biden I like. Suddenly, I see his good qualities.

Biden has more than his share of emotional intelligence . . . . Biden isn't afraid to show emotion.

In a president, these are not trivial attributes. Americans want to elect someone they respect, but also someone they admire because he or she is a decent person who will show the global community the best of what it means to be an American.

On that score, Biden offers America a positive example.

            Look, we should take a win any way we can get it. And Navarrette is focusing on an important distinction between Biden and Trump—one is a decent human being, and the other is a malignant narcissist. (Not a medical diagnosis; please don’t write me.) Navarrette is right; decency matters. It is a quality that people sense intuitively—and something that politicians cannot fake. Biden has it; Trump doesn’t. Voters know the difference.

          Talk to you tomorrow!