Meet the surging ‘double haters’ who could decide whether Biden or Trump wins the election
Joey Garrison, USA TODAY – March 25, 2024
WASHINGTON ― Jana Pender is no fan of Donald Trump. “All his lies. He’s despicable,” said the 67-year-old retired casino housekeeper from Detroit.
Yet despite voting for President Joe Biden in the 2020 election, Pender is not backing him in 2024. She said Biden has “blood on his hands” for supporting Israel’s war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
“If nothing changes, I know I won’t vote for Trump and I know I won’t vote for Biden,” Pender said. “I just know I can’t vote for either of these people.”
Pender falls squarely within a group of voters known as the “double haters”− those who dislike Biden, the incumbent Democratic president, and Trump, the former president and presumptive Republican nominee.
This year, this group of skeptics is large and powerful. Double haters make up about 15% of the electorate, according to a poll this month by USA TODAY/Suffolk University, giving them significant sway in deciding the outcome of the November election. Other polls have found double haters make up as much as one-fifth of likely voters.
President Joe Biden walks across the South Lawn upon return to the White House in Washington, DC on March 21, 2023. Biden returned from a three-day campaign trip in Nevada, Arizona and Texas.
They pose a challenge for Biden as his campaign looks to keep the Democratic coalition united − amid signs of splintering − and not jump ship to one of the third-party candidates or sit the election out altogether. But double haters are also a wild card for Trump, whose divisiveness turns many of them off.
The USA TODAY/Suffolk University poll, taken March 8-11, found Trump leading Biden 40%-38% among registered voters, followed by independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy, 9%.
Twenty-five percent of the double haters supported Trump in the survey, compared to 18% for Biden. About 44% of the double haters currently back various third-party candidates. Kennedy drew more of these voters, 21%, than Biden did. Green Party candidate Jill Stein had the backing of 7% of double haters, while independent Cornel West was supported by 6%.
“He would be top on my list of people to vote for,” Sally Power, 73, of Pittsburgh, Pa., said of Kennedy. Power, who runs a nonprofit women’s retail shop, doesn’t approve of Trump’s “statements and interactions with others,” but has concerns about Biden’s age and capacity to effectively serve another term until he’s 86 years old.
“I don’t want to vote for either one of them, honestly. That’s the problem. And I think I’m not alone in saying that,” said Power, who voted for Trump in 2016 but Biden in 2020. “I find both of them not representative of my views. And I don’t see them as being representative of the country.”
VANDALIA, OHIO – MARCH 16: Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump speaks to supporters during a rally at the Dayton International Airport on March 16, 2024 in Vandalia, Ohio. The rally was hosted by the Buckeye Values PAC. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images) ORG XMIT: 776119694 ORIG FILE ID: 2089688852More
In 2020, Biden enjoyed higher favorability marks than Trump − 49% to Trump’s 45% in October of that year, according to Gallup − producing fewer double haters. They accounted for only 3% of voters in 2020. But this year, 55% of registered voters have an unfavorable opinion of Biden, according to the USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll, while 55% also have an unfavorable opinion of Trump.
“I think they will end up being the key swing vote because they’re the ones that could go third-party,” said Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster who conducted polling for Biden’s 2020 campaign. “They are the ones that could decide to stay home. They are the ones that swing back and forth because they’re not anchored by affection, they’re anchored by disaffection. These are the voters who decided 2016.”
Double haters are composed of an equal number of Democrats and Republicans. Many consider themselves independents. They skew younger. Most are white but Latino voters also make up a sizable share. Double haters are among those voters who have lingering concerns about the state of the economy despite a robust jobs market, low unemployment and a booming stock market.
Forty-percent of double haters in the USA TODAY/Suffolk University poll said the economy is the most important issue that will determine their vote, followed by immigration, 21%.
Many double hates are wary of Biden’s age − even though Trump, 78, isn’t significantly younger − and convinced Biden has been weak and ineffective in office. But they have a fear factor with Trump − what they perceive as self-centeredness, the constant drama with his court cases, his controversial statements that echo dictators, and his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
“I think Biden’s been an abject failure,” said Robert Brown, a 35-year-old from Minneapolis, who works in marketing and advertising. “Trump’s a piece of s—, too. Just to be real.” Brown said he’s leaning toward voting for Kennedy. “He’s a third option. How many times do we have to pick the lesser of two evils, right?”
Peter O’Connor, a 26-year-old student studying strategic communications at The Ohio State University, voted for Biden in 2020 and doesn’t like Trump. He is considering a vote for Kennedy this year. “I’ve heard a little bit about this Robert Kennedy guy. He sounds interesting to me,” O’Connor said.
Jim Meikle, 80, from Albrightsville, Pa., called Trump “an egotistical maniac” who cares about himself, not the country. Still, he said he will likely vote for Trump again, like he did in 2016 and 2020, over Biden, who he criticized over migration at the southern border, pushing the expansion of electric vehicles and his administration’s rocky military withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021.
“You know, it’s really a shame. We’ve got a population of over 300 million people in this country, and this is the best that we can offer to be our president?” said Meikle, an 80-year-old retired manager at a sheet metal plant.
President Joe Biden speaks at the Washoe Democratic Party Office in Reno, Nev., Tuesday March 19, 2024. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin) ORG XMIT: NVJM326
Can Biden win the double haters back?
In a troubling sign for Biden, 87% of the double-hater voters in the USA TODAY/Suffolk University poll said they believe the country is on the wrong track. Only 11% said they approve of Biden’s job performance, compared to 41% who said they approved of the job Trump did as president from 2017 to 2021.
“If you’re Biden, you have to say, ‘Hey, your memory is wrong, his presidency was awful compared to mine,'” said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center. “Or if you’re Trump, you have to say, ‘All of this boogeyman stuff against me, is unfounded. I was president for four years, the world didn’t fall apart and people have pretty good impressions of what I did.'”
This week, Biden started to embrace an age-old election question that Trump has posed: “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”
“I hope everyone in the country takes a moment to think back what it was like in March of 2020 – COVID had come to America and Trump was president,” Biden told supporters Wednesday at a fundraiser in Dallas. He described a period in which hospitals were overcrowded, nurses wore garbage bags for protection, unemployment soared to 14% and the stock market crashed.
Independent Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. speaks during a campaign rally at Legends Event Center on December 20, 2023 in Phoenix, Arizona.
Paleologos said double-haters’ fixation on the economy presents an opportunity for Biden, pointing to growing optimism among Americans that the economy has recovered from the pandemic. Thirty-three percent of registered voters now believe an economic recovery is underway, compared to a low of 9% in July 2022.
“To me, there’s an opportunity for Biden to do something that Hillary Clinton was not able to do in 2016, which is to either make Trump more unfavorable,” Paleologos said, or make inroads among double haters over the economy. “The fact of the matter is if the economy continues to rebound, that’s Joe Biden’s economy.”
Lake, who regularly conducts focus groups with likely voters, said the Biden campaign must first crystalize the choice before voters when it comes to Biden and Trump.
“Do you want someone who you think may be a little old or do you want someone who you think may be a little crazy? And God knows where he would take the country,” Lake said of Trump.
Yet that contrast alone might not be enough. “Right now, they’re headed to third party,” she said, arguing it puts the onus on Democrats for voters to understand that the third-party candidates “are not viable, and they may not be who you think they are.”
Data suggests the popularity of third-party candidates is often inflated when voters are given their names in a poll. It’s also unclear how many states they will make it on the ballot.
Yet even if Kennedy, Stein and West don’t match their current polling in November, they could be major factors in battleground states potentially decided by a few thousand votes or less.
Ultimately, whether Biden can win over double haters mulling a third-party vote could come down to their perceptions of the economy. Lake said they must connect how the president’s policies have improved their outlook.
“These are downscale voters who need steady progress,” Lake said. “They need six months of good news. So the most important thing for them is going to be what’s the economy in May and June. You tell me what their perceptions of the economy are in May and June, and I’ll tell you where they’re headed.”
Reach Joey Garrison on X, formerly Twitter, @joeygarrison.
Millions of Americans could soon lose home internet access if lawmakers don’t act
Brian Fung – March 23, 2024
Every week, Cynthia George connects with her granddaughter and great-grandson on video calls. The 71-year-old retiree reads the news on her MSN homepage and googles how to fight the bugs coming from her drain in Florida’s summer heat. She hunts for grocery deals on her Publix app so that her food stamps stretch just a little further.
But the great-grandmother worries her critical lifeline to the outside world could soon be severed. In fact, she fears she might soon have to make a difficult choice: Buy enough food to feed herself — or pay her home internet bill.
George is one of millions of Americans facing a little-known but fast-approaching financial cliff, a catastrophe that policy experts say is preventable but only if Congress acts, and quickly.
By as soon as May, more than 23 million US households risk being kicked off their internet plans or facing skyrocketing bills that force them to pay hundreds more per year to get online, according to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
The looming disaster could affect nearly 1 in 5 households nationwide, or nearly 60 million Americans, going by Census Bureau population estimates.
Such broad disruptions to internet access would affect people’s ability to do schoolwork, to seek and do jobs, to visit their doctors virtually or refill prescriptions online, or to connect to public services, widening the digital divide between have and have-nots and potentially leading to economic instability on a massive scale.
‘I have to account for every penny’
The crisis is linked to a critical government program expected to run out of funding at the end of April. Known as the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), the benefit provides discounts on internet service valued at up to $30 per month to qualifying low-income households, or up to $75 per month for eligible recipients on tribal lands.
Lawmakers have known for months about the approaching deadline. Yet Congress is nowhere close to approving the $6 billion that President Joe Biden says would renew the ACP and avert calamity for tens of millions of Americans.
This past week, congressional leaders missed what advocates say was the last, best legislative opportunity for funding the ACP: The 11th-hour budget deal designed to avert a government shutdown. The bill text released this week includes no money for the program, heightening the odds of an emergency that will plunge millions into financial distress just months before the pivotal 2024 election.
Now, with time running out for the ACP, the FCC has been forced to begin shutting down the program — halting new signups and warning users their benefits are about to be suspended.
The US Capitol in Washington, DC, on March 22. – Pedro Ugarte/AFP/Getty Images
“Because of political gameplay, about 60 million Americans will have to make hard choices between paying for the internet or paying for food, rent, and other utilities, widening the digital divide in this country,” said Gigi Sohn, a former top FCC official. “It’s embarrassing that a popular, bipartisan program with support from nearly half of Congress will end because of politics, not policy.”
Without the aid, low-income Americans like George would be priced out of home internet service. The prospect of losing a critical lifeline to the modern economy has put ACP subscribers on edge. Many tell CNN they are irate at Congress for letting them down and, through inaction, taking away a basic, essential utility.
“My grandkids, they make fun of me,” George said with a chuckle. “They say I’m cheap. I go, ‘No, Grandma’s thrifty.’ I don’t have any choice; I have to account for every penny. And this would mean that that food bill would have to be cut down. There’s no place else I would be able to take it from.”
Military families, older Americans and rural residents most at risk
The ACP has quickly gained adoption since Congress created the program in the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law. It is overwhelmingly popular with both political parties, surveys show.
Military families account for almost half of the ACP’s subscriber base, according to the White House and an outside survey backed by Comcast.
More than a quarter of ACP users live in rural areas, the same survey said, with roughly 4 in 10 enrolled households located in the southern United States alone. As many as 65% of respondents said they feared losing their job without the ACP; 3 out of 4 said they worry about losing online health care services, and more than 80% said they believe their kids would fall behind in school.
Large swaths of the ACP’s user base trend older; Americans over 65 account for almost 20% of the program. And as many as 10 million Americans who use the program are at least age 50.
Michelle McDonough, 49, works part time at a tobacco shop in Maine and lives off Social Security disability payments. She is one statistics class away from earning an associate degree in behavioral health. Not only does she go to class virtually, but she also sees a psychiatrist who only meets patients through telehealth visits.
Michelle McDonough says she would have to cut back on groceries if the ACP goes away. – Courtesy Michelle McDonough
Like George, McDonough also expects she’ll have to cut back on groceries if the ACP goes away. There’s a library roughly five miles from her home with internet access, but having to go out of her way would cost her even more time and money she doesn’t have, she said. Besides, McDonough added, her car is dying and the library is rarely open in snowy weather.
If politicians allow the ACP to collapse, it will be a sign of how out of touch they are with their voters, McDonough said.
“I’m trying to become a productive member of society, something that they say people on low income are not,” McDonough said. “I’m trying. And, you know, one of the programs that’s helping me, they’re talking about taking it away — when there are definitely a lot of other things that they probably could take the funding from.”
How the ACP works to bring American communities online
Congress authorized the ACP with an initial $14 billion in funding in 2021. That money has now spread to virtually every congressional district in the country. It is the largest internet affordability program in US history, the government has said, describing it as working hand-in-glove with billions of dollars in new infrastructure spending.
Building out high-speed internet cables is costly; even more so to places that internet providers have traditionally overlooked as unprofitable or hard to reach. Historically, that has left millions of people with no or spotty service or facing sky-high prices just to get a basic internet plan.
Ethernet cables are seen running from the back of a wireless router in Washington, DC on March 21, 2019. – Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images
Investing in infrastructure is a first step, but it means nothing if Americans cannot afford the connectivity it provides. So the ACP helps bridge that price gap for consumers while also benefiting internet providers, many of whom say the program ensures a base of demand to support building in otherwise money-losing markets.
“I can think of lots of examples where we’re boring under a river to get to two customers, and that was extremely costly,” said Gary Johnson, CEO and general manager of Paul Bunyan Communications, a Minnesota-based telecom cooperative serving some of the furthest reaches of the state. “To get fiber in the most rocky areas, we’re literally using a rock saw and we’re cutting, slicing a path through that rock so we can put our fiber cable in. The fact you’re dividing that [cost] over a very small number of customers? That’s ultimately challenging.”
In a recent FCC survey, more than half of rural respondents — and 47% of respondents overall — said the ACP was their first-ever experience with having home internet.
Extra shifts, grocery cuts: What an ACP collapse would mean
If the ACP collapses, some, like George and McDonough, will make cuts to their budget to stay online.
Kamesha Scott, a 29-year-old mother in St. Louis who works two jobs delivering Amazon packages and handling restaurant takeout orders, told CNN she would have to pick up extra shifts to make ends meet. And that would mean seeing her two kids even less, she said.
Kamesha Scott, 29, says she would have to work extra shifts to make ends meet if her internet bills go up. – Courtesy Kamesha Scott
Expect others to resort to a mishmash of ad hoc solutions, policy experts say.
That could include using the free Wi-Fi at fast-food restaurants, school parking lots, and other public spaces. Or it could mean falling back on cellphone data service, at least where it’s available and plans are still affordable.
Roughly a third of the country’s 123,000 public libraries offer mobile hotspot lending, allowing visitors to borrow palm-sized devices that pump out a cellular signal that can substitute for home internet service in a pinch, said Megan Janicki, a policy expert at the American Library Association. But they aren’t a perfect solution: The cell signal may be weak, or users could have to wait to check one out.
“Depending on how long the waitlist is, they’re waiting at least three weeks, if not longer,” Janicki said.
ACP subscribers could turn to other government aid. The FCC’s Lifeline program, which dates to the Reagan administration, similarly gives low-income households a monthly discount on phone or internet service. But the benefit pales in comparison: It’s worth only $9.25 a month, or $34.25 for tribal subscribers — a fraction of what ACP subscribers are currently eligible for.
Turning low-income Americans into political pawns
Despite the ACP’s popularity, routine congressional gridlock and the politics of an election year have turned low-income Americans into unwitting — and in many cases unwilling — pawns in a much larger battle.
Earlier this year, a bipartisan group of Senate and House lawmakers unveiled legislation to authorize $7 billion to save the ACP — that’s $1 billion more than the Biden administration asked for.
The bill has not moved.
“The House Republicans attempting to demonstrate that they are cutting back on government spending makes re-funding the ACP very difficult,” Blair Levin, a telecom industry analyst at New Street Research, wrote in a research note in January. “It is unlikely the House Republican leadership will allow the bill to go to the floor.”
A crew works on a cell tower in Lake Havasu City, Ariz., on Tuesday, August 24, 2021. – Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc/Getty Images
But there is growing evidence that money spent through the ACP ends up saving taxpayers in the long run. In a recent study, Levin said, researchers estimated that every $1 of ACP spending increases US GDP by $3.89, while other research has outlined how telemedicine can lead to substantial savings in health care.
Even though extending ACP benefits could help lawmakers from both parties as they head home to campaign, perhaps the biggest political beneficiary may be Biden as his campaign touts the administration’s economic record ahead of the election.
Jonathan Blaine, a freelance software engineer in Vermont and an ACP subscriber, pins the blame on certain Republicans that he says would rather hurt working-class people than give Biden a political victory.
“You guys seem to promote that you’re for the working-class people, but realistically, the working-class people are the ones that you’re screwing over most of the time,” Blaine said, speaking directly to GOP lawmakers. “You’re taking ACP away from the farmers that can check the local produce prices and be able to reasonably negotiate their prices with retailers. You’re removing disabled people’s ability to fill their prescriptions online.”
Lawmakers are likely to feel voters’ wrath in November if the ACP falls apart, Blaine added.
He called it “sickening” that lawmakers keep removing these benefits for poorer Americans from legislation “left and right.”
“But the fact that you sit there and smile to our faces trying to say you’re for the working class? You’re for the poor? You’re for the less fortunate? It’s absolute bulls**t,” he added. “And most of us see right through your bulls**t, and that is why you’re losing seats.”
NBC News in revolt over Ronna McDaniel hiring. Will the network reverse course?
Stephen Battaglio – March 25, 2024
Then-Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel speaks before a GOP presidential primary debate hosted by NBC News. (Rebecca Blackwell / Associated Press)
The hosts at NBC News’ cable outlet MSNBC continued to pound away at their parent organization’s decision to hire former Republican National Committee chair Ronna McDaniel as an on-air analyst.
The blowback unfolded throughout the day on the progressive cable news network, presenting a highly unusual situation in which well-known TV personalities went directly to viewers to challenge a decision made by their top managers.
The open rebellion could make it difficult for Comcast-owned NBC News to move forward with any plans to use McDaniel, who resigned from the RNC last month. A representative for NBC News said Monday there was no change in her status. But people familiar with the situation who are not authorized to comment publicly said McDaniel will probably be out before she even begins.
Chuck Todd, the ex-“Meet the Press” moderator, opened the door to the criticism when he appeared on his former program Sunday and blasted the network’s decision to make McDaniel a paid contributor, citing her record of supporting former President Trump’s false claims that the 2020 election was stolen.
MSNBC hosts weighed in on Monday, starting with “Morning Joe” co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski saying McDaniel will not be welcome on their daily program, a favorite of politicians and opinion leaders in Washington, D.C., and New York.
“We weren’t asked our opinion of the hiring, but, if we were, we would have strongly objected to it for several reasons.” Scarborough said.
Brzezinski said she hoped NBC News management will reconsider its decision to bring McDaniel aboard.
“Deadline: Washington” anchor Nicolle Wallace praised Todd for his Sunday remarks. “He did something really brave,” Wallace told her viewers. “I talked to him yesterday. I said I’m knitting you a cape.”
Wallace, a former George W. Bush White House communications director who has long been anti-Trump, and Joy Reid both devoted lengthy segments critical of the McDaniel hiring. Reid described McDaniel as “a major peddler of the big lie,” referring to the Trump’s election falsehoods. Reid cited how McDaniel was on Trump’s phone calls to GOP officials in Michigan, urging them not to certify the state’s 2020 election results.
MSNBC host Jen Psaki cited a Liz Cheney tweet that noted how McDaniel once described the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol as “legitimate political discourse.”
“This is about truth versus lies,” Psaki, formerly the Biden White House press secretary, said.
Rachel Maddow, MSNBC’s biggest star, also asked NBC News management to reverse the decision.
“The fact that McDaniel is on the payroll at NBC News — to me that is inexplicable,” Maddow said on her program. “You wouldn’t hire a wise guy, you wouldn’t hire a made man, like a mobster to work in a D.A.’s office.”
Former NBC News executives took to social media to chastise the move as well. Cheryl Gould, a producer and executive at the division for 37 years, wrote an open letter on her Facebook page to Carrie Budoff Brown, the senior vice president of politics for NBC News who was involved in McDaniel’s hiring.
“We all make mistakes,” Gould wrote. “This happens to be a colossal one that unfortunately makes the network, your bosses and yourself look misguided at best, craven at worst.”
NBC has a long history of hiring former government and political officials as contributors to its news operation. Such deals are done to get exclusive access to insider knowledge — and to keep prominent talking heads from appearing on the competition.
In 1977, the network gave Gerald Ford a $1-million deal — brokered by William Morris Agency — to be a commentator and contributor to a series of specials about his presidency.
In the same year the network signed a similar deal to former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger. The move prompted a top news executive at the network, Richard Wald, to leave the company in protest, as he believed the deal siphoned resources from journalism projects. Wald also believed Kissinger owed it to the country to appear on NBC for free.
Political figures have segued into TV news commentary and lucrative TV anchor roles ever since.
NBC already has another former RNC chair on its payroll in Michael Steele, a co-host on the MSNBC program “The Weekend.” Psaki headed to MSNBC immediately after her departure from the Biden White House. Wallace worked on John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign after her time in the George W. Bush administration.
All TV news organizations stock up on paid contributors during election season.
But the internal hostility toward McDaniel is linked to her support of Trump’s denial of the 2020 voting results, disqualifying her as a credible source to many inside the news organization. Before her appearance Sunday on “Meet the Press,” she had never acknowledged that President Biden won the election fairly.
McDaniel attributed her previous defense of Trump’s claims to her role in the RNC and said she can be “a little bit more of myself” now that she is no longer a party official. But she continues to say there were problems with the 2020 vote due to the dependence on mail-in ballots.
In a memo sent Friday to NBC News staff that was provided to the Times, Brown said McDaniel would provide a valuable perspective to the division’s coverage of the 2024 election with Trump as the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.
“It couldn’t be a more important moment to have a voice like Ronna’s on the team,” Brown said. “As we gear up for the longest general election season in recent memory, she will support our leading coverage by providing an insider’s perspective on national politics and on the future of the Republican Party — which she led through some of the most turbulent and challenging moments in political history.”
Rachel Maddow Calls on NBC News to ‘Reverse’ Ronna McDaniel Hire: ‘Acknowledge When You Are Wrong’ | Video
Benjamin Lindsay – March 25, 2024
Rachel Maddow weighed in on NBC News’ hiring of Ronna McDaniel Monday night, calling on the network to “acknowledge when you are wrong” and “reverse” the decision to add the former Republican National Committee chair and Donald Trump ally to their payroll.
“This is a difficult time for us as a country, and I think that means we need to be clear-eyed about the implications of it,” the MSNBC host said.
Maddow’s lengthy segment, as shared to her personal X account, began by reflecting on the longstanding pertinence of the “strongman” in American politics who tells “us that we need a new system of government where everything’s under their control and politics is over.” And that prior to former President and 2024 Republican nominee Donald Trump, none have gained the political traction necessary to infiltrate the democratic system.
Without naming her explicitly at first, the MSNBC host in part blamed McDaniel for paving the way for Trump’s rise to power.
“We’ve had a lot of these guys. But our generation’s version of this guy has gotten a lot farther than all the rest of them. And why is that? He would’ve been as forgotten as all the rest of them had he not been able to attach himself to an institution like the Republican Party,” Maddow explained. “And had the leader of that party in his time not decided that she wouldn’t just abide him, she would help. She would help with the worst of it.”
In the next video, Maddow clarified that despite media reports to the contrary, MSNBC leadership has about-faced its initial support of McDaniel’s hiring and assured staffers since Saturday, following “outrage” from many network colleagues, that the Republican figure would not have a place on the network.
“Our leadership at MSNBC heard us, understood and adjusted course. We were told this weekend in clear terms Ronna McDaniel will not be on our air,” Maddow said. “Ronna McDaniel will not be on MSNBC. And I say that and give you that level of detail because there has been an effort since by other parts of the company to muddy that up in the press and make it seem like that’s not what happened at MSNBC. I can assure you, that is what happened at MSNBC. Ronna McDaniel will not appear on MSNBC, so says our boss since Saturday, and it has never been anything other than clear.”
She added that NBC News’ decision to add McDaniel as commentator was “inexplicable” — like hiring a “mobster” to work for the D.A.’s office or a pickpocket to work as a TSA screener.
“I hope they will reverse their decision,” she said, adding that “it’s not about Democratic Party-Republican Party. It’s not about partisanship. It’s not about right vs. left. It’s not about being a political professional vs. some other kind of person. It’s not about being mean or nice to journalists. It’s not about just being associated with Donald Trump and his time in the Republican Party. It’s not even about lying or not lying. It’s about our system of government and undermining elections and going after democracy as an ongoing project.”
Maddow concluded that “this is a difficult time for us as a country,” and that inevitably “mistakes will be made” in how various powers that be conduct themselves in the face of that hardship.
“But part of our resilience as a democracy is going to be us recognizing when decisions are bad ones and reversing those bad decisions,” she emphasized. “Hearing legitimate criticism, responding to it and correcting course. Not digging in, not blaming others. Take a minute, acknowledge that maybe it wasn’t the right call. It is a sign of strength, not weakness, to acknowledge when you are wrong. It is a sign of strength — and our country needs us to be strong right now.”
Watch clips from the “Rachel Maddow Show” segment in the video above
Our criminal justice system is broken. But Donald Trump isn’t a victim.
Bill Proctor – March 23, 2024
No one is above the rule of law.
That’s the promise of the American justice system – a promise that is tested by former President Donald Trump.
Trump is facing dozens of criminal charges related to election interference and business dealings.
Like clockwork, what follows Trump news is Trump noise. He hurls insults at judges, prosecutors, investigators and their agencies as he pushes back in an ugly, unprecedented fashion to pump up his already angry-at-America base of supporters.
If we faced criminal charges, we know it would not help our defense if we insulted or threatened that very same criminal justice system.
Former President Donald Trump arrives at the criminal court in New York City on Feb. 15, 2024.
Trump isn’t entirely wrong
Yet Trump says that he is the victim of a witch hunt by Democrats and his enemies, that he is suffering like Alexei Navalny, just like Jesus, just like Black people.
It’s a ludicrous assertion.
But he’s not entirely wrong. The legal system is sometimes unfair, but not in the ways Trump suggests – and not to Trump and people like him.
Consider that Trump has bought and will continue to buy the best available defense – with $50 million in legal fees – and what that says about the stark contrast between Trump and those who are struggling and must accept whatever the justice system throws at them.
With money and influence, the usual lawful process can be delayed, compromised or crushed along the way.
Without money and influence, Americans facing criminal charges crimes often lose the game they are forced to play. They’re walking into a meat grinder, almost always represented by struggling, inexperienced court-appointed lawyers without the finances to support a good defense.
There is plenty of evidence that more often than we’d like to think, the truly innocent have gone to prison for crimes they didn’t commit, and not because of politics.
Since 1989, nearly 3,500 Americans have been exonerated, according to the National Registry of Exonerations, after serving more than 31,000 years for crimes they did not commit. Those numbers clearly indicate, and I think most of us would agree, that we have a broken criminal justice system in need of reform.
To understand true legal persecution, look no further than less-privileged Michigan citizens like Temujin Kensu, formerly known as Fredrick Freeman, and Detroit native Ray Gray.
Estimated 25,000 to 30,000 people wrongfully imprisoned
Kensu and Gray are among the estimated 25,000 to 30,000 people condemned to lengthy U.S. prison sentences for crimes there is ample reason to believe they did not commit. The Innocence Project says at least 4% to 6% of the nation’s prison population is factually innocent.
Kensu was convicted in 1987 of murder in Port Huron for the broad-daylight shotgun slaying of 20-year-old Scott Macklem, cut down as he walked away from a classroom building on the campus of St. Clair County Community College.
In this Oct. 14, 2018, photo provided by the Michigan Department of Corrections is Temujin Kensu, also known as Fred Freeman.
Several witnesses testified that on the morning of the murder, Kensu was hundreds of miles away. But he was convicted by a jury when the prosecutor, Robert Cleland, presented without any proof a theory that the man with no money, a pregnant girlfriend, no job and living on food stamps chartered a plane to travel 450 miles to commit the murder and return undetected.
When Kensu convinced the federal court that mistakes and harmful acts by the prosecutor, his drug-addicted lawyer and corrupt cops meant he should be released or be granted a new trial, an appeals court decided federal Judge Denise Page Hood’s ruling didn’t count. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 time-limited his innocence claim.
At age 60, Kensu remains in prison, very ill and unable to get the governor to commute his sentence.
Raymond Gray spent more than 48 years in state prison in the robbery and murder of a drug dealer, convicted in a bench trial of the 1973 crime based on witness testimony – even though his family and one of the robbery suspects testified that Gray was at home when the crime was committed, styling the hair of one of his barber customers.
Despite police reports of two male perpetrators, one armed with a pistol at the time of the robbery, only Gray was charged and convicted when a judge chose not to believe the testimony of Gray’s relatives.
The Wayne County prosecutor’s office agreed to release Gray only if he pleaded to some element of the crime.
In this photo provided by Bill Proctor, Ray Gray and his wife Barb Gray pose for a photo after he was released from a state prison in Muskegon, Mich., on Tuesday, May 25, 2021. Gray was in prison for 48 years for the fatal shooting of a man in Detroit in 1973. He has long maintained his innocence and provided new evidence in March, 2021. Gray was not exonerated, but prosecutors agreed to drop the conviction in exchange for a no-contest plea to second-degree murder. He was sentenced to time served.More
Wrongfully convicted deserve protection and help
The wrongfully convicted and their families have been awarded billions in compensation for their suffering through judgments or state-mandated payouts. Imagine what the cost to communities would be if the nation recognized and paid damages to all the known victims of the justice system’s shortcomings.
Unjust actions in the criminal justice system have left many wondering why the Constitution didn’t fulfill its promise to them.
Last year, the right-wing majority of Trump’s Supreme Court, led by Justice Clarence Thomas, stacked with a right-wing majority, again slammed the door on innocence claims. Trump is counting on this same Supreme Court to save him from criminal prosecution.
The rule of law claims to grant equal rights and protections to everyone. It’s up to us to make that promise a reality.
Maybe now, as we face the madness of Trump’s bogus claim of unfair treatment, we should consider the real unfairness in our criminal justice system – and enact long-needed reforms and improvements to better protect those of us who aren’t rich and famous from punishment we truly don’t deserve.
Bill Proctor is a private investigator specializing in investigating wrongful convictions with his own firm, which he started after a four-decade career in broadcasting including 33 years as a reporter, producer and anchor in metro Detroit. This column first published in the Detroit Free Press.
Trump’s legal fees are sky high. An elaborate PAC scheme is helping pay them — for now
Erin Mansfield and Zac Anderson – March 24, 2024
A pro-Trump super PAC has been transferring millions of dollars every month to the former president’s fund for paying his ballooning legal bills. The transfers have kept the fund, Save America, afloat as it bled tens of millions of dollars on legal bills in the year since a New York grand jury indicted former President Donald Trump, the first in a wave of criminal indictments and civil judgments against him.
Save America, started days after Trump lost the 2020 election, is a type of fund called a “leadership PAC” that can only accept $5,000 per election cycle from each donor, but has few restrictions on how it spends money. It is being funded by Make America Great Again Inc., or MAGA Inc., a super PAC that started in 2022 and can raise unlimited amounts of money.
In the past, Save America’s highest spending involved audio-visual expenses for Trump’s public appearances, and donations to other groups, including MAGA Inc. But the money Save America spent on legal bills, including to firms that represent him in civil and criminal cases, has skyrocketed in the past two years.
So MAGA Inc. has stepped in to bail out Save America by paying it back. It sent $5 million at the beginning of every month from last July through February to Save America, totaling $40 million, in addition to $12.3 million that MAGA Inc. transferred in May and June, according to records from the Federal Election Commission.
It’s more money than MAGA Inc. has spent on independent expenditures, such as advertisements for Trump and against opponents like South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, since it started in 2022. That totaled $50.5 million since the beginning of 2023, compared to $52.3 million in transfers to Save America since May.
“It’s hard for me to think of another example where this has happened,” said Daniel Weiner, the director of elections and government at the Brennan Center for Justice, an advocacy group on democracy law based at New York University.
MAGA Inc. is sending the money to Save America to refund the $60 million it donated to MAGA Inc. in 2022 while it was on a spending spree. It would be illegal for the super PAC to simply donate its unlimited contributions to Save America, which has to follow federal contribution limits.
“This is certainly out of the ordinary,” Weiner said. “It was out of the ordinary for the leadership PAC to make a giant contribution to a super PAC, and now to do this kind of strange refund system, that is also something you would not normally see.”
Legal spending is tied to Trump’s civil, criminal cases
The transfer scheme has not provided a windfall for Save America, even though it raised more than $200 million since its creation. The PAC spent more than $64 million on legal bills through the end of report year 2023. Other money went to candidates during the 2022 election, outside organizations tied to former White House aides, and paying staff, even the former first lady’s fashion designer.
While public records can’t say what, specifically, law firms are being paid to do, records show Save America has paid more than 70 different lawyers and law firms, and many are listed on court paperwork representing Trump in his civil and criminal cases. And one lawyer who represented a Trump aide during the Jan. 6 Committee has said that Save America had an agreement with him. Most recently, three of the four firms that submitted a court document saying he couldn’t pay a $454 million judgment in a fraud case against the Trump Organization — Habba Madaio & Associates LLP, Robert and Robert PLLC, and Continental PLLC — are some of Save America’s highest-paid firms.
“He appears to be spending an incredible amount of campaign finance money on legal expenses that range well beyond what would be considered campaign related,” said Michael Kang, a law professor at Northwestern University. “I doubt, however, that we’ll get to the bottom of all this until much later on.”
Leadership PACs like Save America were designed to help leaders in the House and Senate fund the campaigns of their allies. But there is gray area in the law that the Federal Election Commission has declined to close, making them virtual slush funds that have helped support public officials’ lavish lifestyles.
“I don’t think they were ever intended to be these kinds slush funds that could be used for, essentially the personal benefit of the officeholder sponsoring them,” Weiner said. “I’m not saying that any law has been broken. I think this is sort of a legal gray area.”
PACs hire lawyers regularly, but generally for other purposes. Lawyers often file paperwork with the Federal Election Commission, help candidates get on the ballot in various states, or even help get through a recount.
The Jan. 6 Committee dinged Trump for fundraising for an “Official Election Defense Fund” in the days after the 2020 election, when the fund didn’t exist and instead went to Save America. But Trump has more recently used his legal issues to ask his supporters for money, with the money going to a fundraising vehicle that currently pours into his 2024 campaign and Save America. (Campaign money cannot be used for personal expenses.)
After his March indictment, Trump’s fundraising arm sent out a photoshopped fake mugshot in an email seeking donations. Since Wednesday, Trump’s main fundraising arm has sent messages to supporters saying, “Democrats want to seize my properties,” referring to New York Attorney General Letitia James’ ability to seize his personal assets if he fails to pay the $454 million judgment in the Trump Organization case.
Meanwhile, much of Save America’s money is coming from ordinary people. The fundraising arm brought in $50.5 million in donations smaller than $200 in 2023 alone, the latest information that is available from the Federal Election Commission.
Former President Donald Trump is seen March 16 in Ohio.
Trump’s ‘drain on resources’ keeps him behind Biden
The enormous legal bills have caused Trump to fall behind in 2024 campaign fundraising, both in his own funds and the funds of the Republican National Committee, which is now under pressure to help Trump out of his legal jeopardy.
But the election likely will be decided by a small number of votes, so a significant spending advantage could make a difference and Trump’s legal issues are a “distraction and a drain on resources,” he added.
President Joe Biden’s campaign raised $21.3 million in February and spent $6.3 million, increasing its cash from $56 million at the end of January to $71 million at the end of February. In the same time period, Trump’s campaign collected $10.9 million and spent $7.8 million, increasing its cash from $30.5 million in January to $33.5 million.
The numbers show that Biden’s campaign is sitting on $37.5 million more cash than Trump’s, meaning that if the former president hadn’t spent more than $64 million on legal bills, and had instead put the money in his campaign account, he would have more money in the bank than the current president.
“I think both sides are going to have a lot of money, but if Trump has to divert a lot of his resources to his legal problems that’s money that’s not going to be spent on getting out the vote,” said Conant, who worked on U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio’s presidential campaign in 2016.
The Democratic National Committee, which is helping re-elect Biden, also continues to outpace the Republican National Committee, where Trump loyalists have taken hold. The DNC had $26.5 million in cash at the end of February, compared with $11.3 million for the RNC.
The campaign accounts and party committees provide an incomplete picture of the financial resources available to help the candidates. The fundraising arms both candidates use, who also called joint fundraising committees, are not required to provide an update on their finances until April 15.
Biden’s campaign announced this week that it raised $53 million through its various committees and the Democratic National Committee in February and had $155 million in available cash. Trump’s campaign did not announce joint fundraising committee numbers.
Trump will need a new way to pay legal bills going forward
Going forward, Trump will need a new fundraising scheme to pay his legal bills. That’s because MAGA Inc. can only refund up to $60 million back to Save America. It’s refunded $52.3 million through the end of February. At the current rate, the remaining $7.7 million would run out in mid-April.
MAGA Inc. may have that money. The super PAC saw a fundraising boost in February, when it raised $12.8 million last month, up from $7.4 million in January, and has $25.5 million in available cash. That increase was thanks in part to a $5 million donation from Robert Bigelow, a Las Vegas tycoon who believes aliens can be found on earth.
“You could wonder, ‘Why aren’t they just paying the legal bills from the super PAC?'” said Weiner, from the Brennan Center in New York. “But they must feel for whatever reason that it’s more legally advantageous to pay the bills from the leadership PAC.”
A new fundraising vehicle could come to the rescue. His allies have set up a new joint fundraising committee, called the Trump 47 Committee. It will divvy what it raises it among the Trump campaign, Save America, the Republican National Committee, a PAC called the Presidential Republican Nominee Fund 2024 and Republican committees in 37 states, Guam and the District of Columbia.
Poland demands explanation from Russia after a missile enters its airspace during attack on Ukraine
Vanessa Gera and Tony Hicks – March 24, 2024
KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — Poland demanded an explanation from Russia on Sunday after one of its missiles strayed briefly into Polish airspace during a major missile attack on Ukraine, prompting the NATO member to activate F-16 fighter jets.
It was Russia’s third big missile attack on Ukraine in the past four days, and the second to target the capital, Kyiv.
The governor of the Lviv region, Maksym Kozytskyi, said on the Telegram platform that critical infrastructure was hit, but he didn’t specify what precisely was struck. No deaths or injuries were reported.
Later, authorities said that rescuers had just put out a fire at a critical infrastructure facility in the Lviv region, which had been attacked with missiles and drones at night and in the morning.
The head of Kyiv’s military administration, Serhiy Popko, said Russia used cruise missiles launched from Tu-95MS strategic bombers. An air alert in the capital lasted for more than two hours as rockets entered Kyiv in groups from the north.
He said the attacks were launched from the Engels district in the Saratov region of Russia.
According to preliminary data, there were no casualties or damage in the capital, he said.
Armed Forces Operational Command of Poland, a member of NATO, said in a statement that there was a violation of Polish airspace at 4:23 a.m. (0323 GMT) by one of the cruise missiles launched by Russia against towns in western Ukraine.
The object entered near Oserdow, a village in an agricultural region near the border with Ukraine, and stayed in Polish airspace for 39 seconds, the statement said. It wasn’t immediately clear if Russia intended for the missile to enter Poland’s airspace. Cruise missiles are able to change their trajectory to evade air defense systems.
Polish Defense Minister Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz later told reporters in a televised news conference that the Russian missile would have been shot down had there been any indication that it was heading towards a target in Poland.
He said that Polish authorities monitored the attack on Ukraine and were in contact with Ukrainian counterparts. Polish and NATO F-16s were activated as part of the strategic response.
He said the missile penetrated Polish airspace about a kilometer or two (a half-mile to around a mile) as Russia was targeting the region around Lviv in western Ukraine.
“As last night’s rocket attack on Ukraine was one of the most intense since the beginning of the Russian aggression, all the strategic procedures were launched on time and the object was monitored until it left the Polish airspace,” he said.
On the diplomatic front, the Polish foreign ministry said that it would “demand explanations from the Russian Federation in connection with another violation of the country’s airspace.”
“Above all, we call on the Russian Federation to stop the terrorist air attacks on the inhabitants and territory of Ukraine, end the war, and address the country’s internal problems,” the statement read.
Andrzej Szejna, a deputy foreign minister, told the TVN24 broadcaster that the foreign ministry intended to summon the Russian ambassador to Poland and hand him a protest note.
Henryk Zdyb, the head of the village of Oserdow, said in an interview with the daily Gazeta Wyborcza that he saw the missile, saying it produced a whistling sound.
“I saw a rapidly moving object in the sky. It was illuminated and flying quite low over the border with Ukraine,” he told the paper.
Since Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine more than two years ago, there have been a number of intrusions into Polish airspace, triggering worry in the European Union and NATO member state and reminding people of how close the war is.
“We have to come to terms with the fact that the war is taking place right next to us, and we are part of the confrontation between the West and Russia,” commentator Artur Bartkiewicz wrote in the Rzeczpospolita newspaper Sunday.
In 2022, two Poles were killed in a missile blast. Western officials blamed those deaths on a Ukrainian air defense missile that went astray, but also accused Russia of culpability because it started the war, with the Ukrainian missiles launched in self-defense.
On Saturday night, one person was killed and four others were wounded in a Ukrainian missile attack on Sevastopol on the Russia-occupied Crimean Peninsula, city Gov. Mikhail Razvozhaev said on his Telegram channel.
Lisa Murkowski, done with Donald Trump, won’t rule out leaving GOP
Manu Raju, CNN – March 24, 2024
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, aghast at Donald Trump’s candidacy and the direction of her party, won’t rule out bolting from the GOP.
The veteran Alaska Republican, one of seven Republicans who voted to convict Trump in his second impeachment trial amid the aftermath of January 6, 2021, is done with the former president and said she “absolutely” would not vote for him.
“I wish that as Republicans, we had … a nominee that I could get behind,” Murkowski told CNN. “I certainly can’t get behind Donald Trump.”
The party’s shift toward Trump has caused Murkowski to consider her future within the GOP. In the interview, she would not say if she would remain a Republican.
Asked if she would become an independent, Murkowski said: “Oh, I think I’m very independent minded.” And she added: “I just regret that our party is seemingly becoming a party of Donald Trump.”
Pressed on if that meant she might become an independent, Murkowski said: “I am navigating my way through some very interesting political times. Let’s just leave it at that.”
Murkowski hasn’t always been on the outs within her party. Appointed in 2002 by her father, Gov. Frank Murkowski, the senator’s politics were in line with the president at the time – George W. Bush – as she maintained a tight relationship with the senior GOP senator from her state, Ted Stevens, who helped build Alaska through federal dollars he funneled back home.
She later found herself at odds with Sen. John McCain’s running mate, the then-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who had been sharply critical of her father. As the tea party rose in 2010, Murkowski was at sharp odds with the insurgent right-wing of her party. She lost a primary in 2010 to Republican Joe Miller, only to later hold on to her seat after she became the second candidate ever to win a write-in campaign for Senate in the general election.
Murkowski skated to reelection in her next two elections, even after voting to convict Trump in 2021, voting against Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court in 2018 and supporting Ketanji Brown Jackson in 2022. She had been targeted by Trump and his allies in 2022 but was backed by Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell and his high-spending outside group.
In the 2024 cycle, Murkowski – along with Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine – offered a late endorsement of former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, just days before she dropped out of the race.
Now, Murkowski is clear she’s ready to move past Trump. Asked about Trump’s recent comments that Jewish people who vote for Democrats must “hate” their religion, Murkowski said it was an “incredibly wrong and an awful statement.”
And Murkowski pushed back when asked last week about Trump’s other controversial rhetoric, namely that he views January 6 prisoners as “hostages” and “patriots” who should be pardoned.
“I don’t think that it can be defended,” Murkowski said. “What happened on January 6 was … an effort by people who stormed the building in an effort to stop an election certification of an election. It can’t be defended.”
“He’ll never leave”: Why Trump’s dynasty, built on corruption and violence, won’t end with him
Dean Obeidallah – March 22, 2024
Donald Trump Win McNamee/Getty Images
No, you’re not being hyperbolic if you say MAGA is a fascist movement. You’re just being accurate. That was one of the biggest points made by NYU historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat, author of the book “Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present,” during our recent “Salon Talks” conversation.
Ben-Ghiat explained that Donald Trump is leading a “right-wing counterrevolution against the loss of white male privilege,” aimed at taking America back to the time when women, nonwhite people and non-Christians “knew their place.”
But what truly defines MAGA as fascist, Ben-Ghiat said — rather than just right-wing — is its use of violence. “Fascists believe that violence is the way to change history,” she told me. We saw that clearly enough on Jan. 6, 2021, with the attack on the Capitol mean to keep Trump in power despite his loss in the 2020 election.
What is most worrisome going forward, Ben-Ghiat suggested, is Trump’s defense of the Jan. 6 attackers as “hostages” and his promises to pardon them, which seek to change “the perception of violence.” Trump’s message to his loyal followers, she said, is that “violence is sometimes morally necessary and even righteous, and even patriotic.” That, she added, is “what we call sacralizing violence, giving violence a kind of ritual, religious tone.”
Ben-Ghiat sees Trump’s promise to pardon the Jan. 6 insurrectionists as intended to inspire his supporters to commit future acts of violence if that can help him win. The implied promise is that if they commit violent acts and Trump regains the White House, he’ll pardon them too. That’s straight out of the autocrat’s playbook, Ben-Ghiat says: “All authoritarians use pardons” and manipulate the justice system to maintain power.
Ben-Ghiat says she’s not trying to scare us, only to prepare us for what we’re likely to see between now and November — and for a good while after that if Trump wins. Too many Americans still don’t believe, Ben-Ghiat warns, that “it can happen here” — “it” being a fascist takeover. History tells us those people are wrong.
Watch my full conversation with Ruth Ben-Ghiat here or read a transcript of our conversation below, edited for length and clarity.
You’ve been discussing and studying this issue for years, but it seems even more important than ever to talk about authoritarianism.
It’s incredible that it could be upon us. Here’s Trump saying he’s going to be a “dictator for day one,” but we know that they’re never dictators for day one. They never relinquish their powers, so it’s extremely important to understand what we’re up against.
Despite Trump saying he wants to be a dictator and facing 91 felony counts for his attempted coup, the GOP base and millions of Americans still love him. What do you take from that?
Sadly, in history, when these charismatic demagogues come to power, they use emotions to manipulate people. Trump says, “I love you” to his people. He told them he loved them on Jan. 6. He builds a personality cult so he poses as the victim, which is really important because not only are all his crimes presented as persecutions by the “deep state,” but saying he’s being persecuted makes his followers feel protective of him.
You have quotes from MAGA people saying, “Oh, it’s so distressing. We have to be there for him.” That’s what Jan. 6 was. It was many things. It was a violent coup attempt. But he was a leader in distress and he called on people, he brought them to the rally and they responded. They were trying to rescue him. This happens in history. I have quotes in “Strongmen” with people, actual fascists sitting in jail in 1945, where they’re like, “Oh, I was completely magnetized by Mussolini. I didn’t realize what was going on.” So that’s how I see it.
Is history warning us about the fact that Trump has not been held accountable by the system? There was such a long delay in investigating him. He’s finally charged and now he’s using his lawyers to manipulate the system to keep him on the ballot, and maybe not have any of the serious criminal trials before Election Day.
It’s very disheartening, and no one is going to save the American people. My mantra has always been, “Never underestimate the American people.” We had the Women’s March, we had Black Lives Matter. These were the largest protests in history, and they led to electoral [change] in the midterms in 2018 and 2022.
We’ve got to do it. We can’t depend on our institutions, which is very sad in a democracy. But our democracy has been so damaged, including the Supreme Court with Justice Thomas who wouldn’t recuse himself. There’s a whole attempt to delegitimize democracy, and not just Joe Biden, but the whole system. So we have to do this from the ground up.
From an academic point of view, is MAGA an authoritarian movement? Is it a fascist movement? Where does it fall?
It’s pretty fascist.
Why?
The reason I wrote “Strongmen” was to have this 100-year history of authoritarianism, almost all right-wing, because that’s my specialty. Obviously communists had a higher body count than fascism, so I could have put them in there, but for narrative and other reasons, I focus on the right wing. Fascism was the first stage of authoritarianism, but it continued in different forms, like the Cold War military dictatorships.
Trump is very similar to Mussolini in many ways. It checks all the boxes, where it’s this huge right-wing counterrevolution against the loss of white male privilege, and it’s to save civilization, and the whole “great replacement” theory, which is big in the MAGA base, the idea that nonwhites and non-Christians are having too many babies: We’re going to be extinguished. Mussolini talked about this too. You can track a whole series of checkpoints and talking points, and they’re pretty much the same.
What’s the core of fascism? And why do you, as an academic, look at MAGA and say, “Yep, it’s now fascist”?
Mussolini actually was a great sloganeer. He created fascism and had one very simple definition. He called it “a revolution of reaction.” Both those things are true because it upends everything. It disrupts everything. It uses violence. Fascists believe that violence is the way to change history. Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, he came to the Iowa State Fair to help Trump in the summer. People are eating their corn dogs, there’s kids there, and he says, “Only through force will we bring change to corrupt D.C.” This is after the coup that tried to do that. So that’s the revolution part. People are given permission to be their most violent selves, their worst selves. It’s a collapse of morals.
The reaction is what I was saying before, where you want to turn the clock back to “the good old days.” MAGA wants to make the nation “great again” by going back to times when women knew their place, as did nonwhites and non-Christians, so things were as they should be. This is part of authoritarianism, which is also a set of attitudes about child-rearing, about traditions, about male authority. All of that, Trump says, is threatened, and so the MAGA base is responding to that.
As an expert in authoritarianism, when you hear Donald Trump defending the people who attacked the Capitol, calling them “hostages” and saying they’ve been treated unfairly, pledging to pardon them, does that raise red flags for you? And if it does, what does it mean?
Totally. One of the major things that fascists did, and that Trump is doing — he’s been doing this through his rallies with frightening relentlessness — is to change the perception of violence. To get people to see that violence is not negative, including violence against your neighbors, or that you’re going to look the other way when your neighbor’s deported. Violence is sometimes morally necessary and even righteous, and even patriotic. He has used his rallies since 2015, and I wrote about this in my report for the Jan. 6 committee, where he’d say, “Oh, in the old days we used to be able to beat people up and nothing happened.” This is thug talk. This is part of fascism.
So Jan. 6 becomes this righteous “Stop the Steal.” The people who have been arrested become patriots. He almost is doing what we call sacralizing violence, giving violence a kind of ritual, religious tone. In his rallies, he has the Jan. 6 prisoners choir sing. This is totally fascist. Trump has these fascist spectacles.
I wrote an essay for Lucid when he kicked off his campaign at Waco, Texas. What a choice! He had the choir and the spectacle of it reminded me of Hitler’s Nuremberg rally. I think I entitled my essay, for my Substack newsletter, “Triumph of the Will, Waco Version.” He knows exactly what he’s doing because he’s a showman, he’s a man of TV, he’s a man of the camera. It’s really scary and it really works. That’s what all of that is about. The pardons are about encouraging people to do more violence, thinking that they’re not going to pay any consequences. That’s actually the essence of authoritarianism and fascism: You arrange government so that you can be violent and corrupt, and get away with it.
When Trump says “I’m going to pardon you for committing these crimes,” then the message becomes “If you commit crimes for me as we get closer to the election, I will do the same for you.”
That’s right. We also want to talk about not just Trump, but the enablers. So Rep. Paul Gosar, who should not be anywhere near government, in my opinion, who hangs out with Nazis, he was promising people pardons to get all the thugs he knew, all the right-wingers who were violent, to come on Jan. 6 — promising them pardons because Trump had just pardoned all these violent people like Roger Stone and Michael Flynn and Steve Bannon. That’s the environment.
All authoritarians use pardons because why do you want people sitting in jail, the worst people in the world, who are for you the best people, when they could be serving you? So Mussolini, Pinochet, they all use pardons to free up the people they need. It’s really awful, but this is where we are.
The fact that you know all this, does it scare you more?
I do. It’s a little eerie that things are unfolding exactly as they have — well, not exactly as they have in the past because it always looks different, which is why some people don’t see it coming. Because no, we’re not 1930s Germany, even though Trump’s saying, “I hope the economy crashes,” which is the Hitler playbook. But it redoubles my mission to speak out and to warn people. The challenge is to reach more people now, reach the people who usually don’t vote, who have no idea.
There was a poll that was very disturbing that said, I forgot what percent, a lot of Americans have never heard Trump’s authoritarian declarations. They’d never heard any of that, and some of them don’t know about his crimes because they don’t follow the news at all.
As a historian, are you concerned that there are Americans who sincerely believe it can’t happen here? “It” being fascism, authoritarianism and the end to self-determination as a people.
Oh, absolutely. Even when I’m speaking to people, and these are people who have come to hear me, so they know what I’m about, when I say things like, “The GOP is an autocratic entity, or it’s become autocratic” — I don’t use the word fascist often — you can see that they’re kind of, “Well, this is a little exaggerated.” It’s like a mental divide between what we hear about abroad and what we are. In the meantime, they’re going to pick their kid up from school, they’re going to the gym, and they don’t have any conception of how their lives would be affected. So it just seems like some blathering by a professor, and that is frustrating.
Sticking to Trump and what he says, at a rally recently, he mocked President Biden’s stutter. At another rally last year, he made fun of Paul Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi’s husband, a man in his 80s who was hit in the head with a hammer. Trump doing that is one thing, but what is more bone-chilling to me is when he did that, the crowd cheered and laughed. With Biden’s stutter, the crowd cheered and laughed. What does that indicate to you?
This is part of his re-marketing of violence as positive. That’s the Pelosi part. There’s a reason that threats to members of Congress and their families are up like 400%.
Mocking the speech impediment is about cruelty. To have an autocracy, you need people to be cruel. You need them to think that solidarity and empathy and kindness are for weak people. That’s totally fascist. That’s what fascism is. In fact, Mussolini, who, like Hitler, read Nietzsche, the philosopher of the Übermensch and all that, and took away from it that if somebody is weak and they’re on a cliff, you should just push them because they’re useless to society. That’s the philosophy. Trump also made fun, years ago, of a New York Times reporter with a disability. And the disabled, just to take that theme for a second, have always been persecuted by fascists and others.
When Biden gave the State of the Unionaddress,he raised the alarm about Trump. What more should he be doing, in talking about Trump, to alert our fellow Americans?
I was glad that he was doing that. You have to respond forcefully. This whole thing partly includes Putin’s maneuvers in Ukraine. Biden came to office and in his first press conference said, “We’ve got to prove democracy works.” So from the very beginning, he was going to not only save democracy in our country, but prove it works abroad and stop these people.
He had a summit with Putin in the summer of 2021. They sat there and Putin was placed as an equal visually, and they had the globe between them. It was in Geneva. I looked at Putin — because I live in these people’s heads, unfortunately — and I got a really bad feeling. He was also being grilled by the U.S. press, including by female journalists, and he didn’t like that at all. He was put on the spot by a female American journalist. I thought, “This is bad,” because there was something about him. So that night I wrote for my Lucid newsletter that Putin could become very reckless over the next months because he felt extremely threatened that Biden was there instead of Trump. It was a nightmare for him that Trump didn’t win. He was risking a lot.
Then we know what happened. He went into Ukraine and before that, he and China made a formal alliance. And so all of this, one way to read it is it’s because of Biden’s commitment to democracy. Now, after Jan. 6, he’s there. He almost didn’t make it into office, but now he’s there and we’re at the showdown. I think he needs to be even more forceful, but at least he’s stepped up.
Trump recently invited Viktor Orban, the prime minister of Hungary, to Mar-a-Lago. He said, “There’s no one that’s a better or smarter leader than Viktor Orbán. He’s fantastic.” What alarm bells go off when you hear that?
Trump has actually been conditioning Americans to see authoritarian leaders like Orbán as positive role models, as well as saying, “I’m going to be a dictator.” One of the interesting things he said after that was that Orbán is a “non-controversial leader because he says, ‘This is the way it’s going to be,’ and everybody accepts it, end of discussion.” So what Trump is saying is that literally being a dictator, dictating what you’re going to do and everybody just submits, shouldn’t be controversial. It’s how it’s going to be.
He’s using these visits not just to curry favor with these autocrats and whatever dirty deals they’re going to have — and it’s all about Putin, because Orbán is a client of Putin — but he’s using these occasions to keep indoctrinating Americans that this is the leadership they’re going to have.
It resonates with some folks in the base. I see interviews where people are like, “Yes, he’ll be a dictator just in the beginning to get everything right.” And you’re like, “You are not upset that he’ll be a dictator because he’ll be your dictator.” That’s the way it is. If Biden said, “I want to be a dictator,” the right would go ballistic, as they should.
They already say he’s a dictator. That’s what I call the upside-down world of authoritarianism. Marjorie Taylor Greene and others talk about the “Biden regime.” Mussolini did this: Liberal democracy is tyranny, fascism is freedom. Then we get all the way to Auschwitz, where the gates of said, “Work will set you free.” That’s the upside-down world of authoritarianism.
We’re seven or eight months out from the election right now. As we get closer, do you have concerns about violence by the MAGA movement?
I do, because they’re being egged on. There was a news item out of Kansas, where there was a Republican fundraiser and they were using an effigy of Biden and encouraging people to attack it. This kind of violence against anybody who is trying to hold Trump accountable or protect democracy could easily, because of our lax gun laws, happen as the election nears.
If Trump loses in 2024, do you expect a similar scenario as we saw after 2020? Even a call for another Jan. 6-style attack?
I do. Sometimes I’ll have these thoughts and then they come to me and I’m like, “Oh, that’s not good.” It’s very interesting, when a president loses and a new one’s going to come in, there’s a transition team. That transition team is activated after the election is known. Project 2025, which has tens of thousands of people, 70 organizations, it builds itself as a transition team. Probably millions of dollars are being spent with giant staffs to plan a transition as though they think that whatever happens, they’re coming into power. So that is disturbing, and that’s a part of Project 2025 we haven’t thought about. Why are they doing all this if it’s going to be a free and a fair election, and they could lose?
It’s important for President Biden, as a defender of democracy, to adhere to democratic norms. Right now, there’s a debate about whether Biden should give him the standard national intelligence briefing. Do you think that is it in the nation’s best interests for Biden to adhere to this tradition that goes back to the time of Truman or, given the threat that Trump presents — and that he’s actually charged with felonies for mishandling classified documents — should Biden not give him the briefing?
Somebody who has instigated a violent coup to overthrow the government and kept classified documents in the bathroom of his private residence is not exactly trustworthy. It’s not just Trump, it’s also Jared Kushner. We need to be investigating how he came out of the Trump administration immediately into the hands of the Saudis. It’s a whole flow of illicit money and networks. Absolutely he cannot be briefed. If that happens, that’s actually very naive.
If Trump wins in 2024, do you think he would leave office peacefully in 2028?
No. He’ll never leave, and if he falls ill or something, there’s other Trumpers waiting in the wings. It’s a dynasty. You could even see they’re talking about Jared Kushner as secretary of state, which would be perfect for crime, for corruption. You don’t know what will happen, but they build dynasties, and Trump has always had a family business. His two sons are not exactly equipped to take on high public office, but there are other people around. Lara Trump was just put in charge of the Republican National Committee so that every penny will go to [the Trump campaign]. This is classic corruption. So it could be anyone. It could be Lara Trump, who knows? As long as they keep control.
How’s this going to end if Trump ends up being convicted, he loses the election, he’s convicted and put in prison? With authoritarian movements from the past, do you have any guide? Does that weaken the movement, or no?
Yeah, there are polls showing that if he’s actually convicted and sent to jail, he may become irrelevant. We can contrast what has happened after Jan. 6 here with Brazil, where they had a military coup in 1964. They had over 20 years of horrible dictatorship, with torture and all kinds of things, that only ended in 1985. The political class, the judges, they all know. They were there, or their parents were there.
Brazil had its own insurrection, on Jan. 8 [in 2023], but the former president Jair Bolsonaro has been banned from politics until 2030, so his popularity is going down. Same thing happened in Italy without an insurrection: Silvio Berlusconi had over 20 indictments and 14 major corruption trials. He was finally convicted two years after he left office and banned from politics for five years. That’s when his amazing, formidable personality cult shriveled. Because personality cults, they’re like plants. You’ve got to water them, you got to tend to them, and they need the person to be viable and active. If they’re in jail or they’re banned from politics, that’s what you need to end them. So I hope to goodness that happens.
Trump’s dark ‘retribution’ pledge at center of 2024 bid, but can he make it reality?
Alexandra Hutzler – March 23, 2024
Donald Trump, in his third run for the White House, has made “retribution” central to his agenda if elected.
“For hard-working Americans, Nov. 5 will be our new Liberation Day,” Trump said as he headlined this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference. “But for the liars, and cheaters, and fraudsters, and censors and imposters who have commandeered our government, it will be their Judgment Day.”
Potential targets include former Rep. Liz Cheney and other individuals critical of his efforts to overturn his 2020 defeat. He recently said Cheney and fellow members of the House committee that investigated him “should go to jail” despite the fact they’ve not been accused of any crimes.
Last year, as he complained of “weaponization” of the Justice Department after being indicted, Trump said he would appoint a special prosecutor to go after President Joe Biden and his family.
“Donald Trump’s campaign strategy has been to say that everything is chaotic, that the world is a dangerous place and the nation is falling apart, that Joe Biden is an incompetent leader and the only way to save the nation is to vote for Trump,” said Jennifer Mercieca, a historian of political rhetoric at Texas A&M University. “That’s not unusual for him. He has been saying that since 2016. But the strategy has been darker this time around.”
“He really wants to avenge his loss in 2020,” she added, “and he is very good at using language as a weapon.”
PHOTO: Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump arrives at a campaign rally, Mar. 9, 2024, in Rome Ga. (Mike Stewart/AP)
But how far could Trump go, if elected, in carrying out such a vision? Or how much is it just designed to rile up his supporters, many of whom appear eager to embrace his message.
“The answer is, it depends,” said Bruce Green, a Fordham Law ethics expert who examined this exact issue back in 2018.
At the very least, a retribution campaign as Trump has described would require a significant reshaping of the modern-day Justice Department, which has a tradition of independence dating back to the post-Watergate era.
Internal policies enacted at the department after the Richard Nixon Watergate scandal sought to separate politics from law enforcement, and presidents of both parties have since abided by that construct — until Trump, according to Green.
But those policies aren’t codified by law, Green noted, and if Trump were to appoint an attorney general who embraced his theory of sweeping presidential power and discretion, investigations could be launched into perceived enemies.
PHOTO: Supporters of former President Donald Trump stand outside of the Alto Lee Adams Sr. U.S. Courthouse as they await his arrival on Mar. 1, 2024, in Fort Pierce, Fla. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
Even then, there are still backstops in place to deter Trump’s more pointed threats. DOJ officials and prosecutors who are not politically appointed could threaten revolt, as has happened in the past. Evidence of wrongdoing would still need to be presented, and courts could reject politically-motivated cases that lack sufficient proof of a crime.
“So, you’d have whatever the traditional limitations are created by our judicial process, including the Constitution and statutes, but you wouldn’t have the gatekeeping function that we’ve counted on the Justice Department to exercise,” Green said.
It’s also worth noting Trump tried to target his political foes during his last administration and faced resistance.
He fumed at Jeff Sessions, his first attorney general, when Sessions recused himself from the DOJ’s investigation into Russian meddling into the 2016 election. In various social media posts, he named people Sessions should go after, including then-FBI Director James Comey, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
After firing Sessions, Trump found what many believed to be a friendlier ally in Bill Barr. Barr framed special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia report in what many said were more favorable terms for Trump than the findings warranted. He also drew scrutiny for intervening in the government’s case against Trump’s first national security adviser Michael Flynn and for suggesting a lighter sentence for longtime Trump ally Roger Stone. The actions led many Democrats and former DOJ officials to decry the politicization of the department under Barr’s leadership.
PHOTO: President Donald Trump and Attorney General William Barr step off Air Force One upon arrival at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, Sept. 1, 2020. (Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images)
But when Trump urged Barr and the Department of Justice to push a narrative of election fraud after his loss to Biden in November 2020, the attorney general and others declined to fall in line. Then-Vice President Mike Pence, a loyalist to Trump, also resisted his demands to unilaterally reject the election results during the certification on Jan. 6, 2021.
Elaine Kamarck, a senior fellow of governance studies at the Brookings Institution, said she believed Trump would be stopped again if he tried to use his office to go after enemies or other acts of retribution.
“The Founding Fathers anticipated a Donald Trump,” Kamarck said. “They built a system of checks and balances, and it’s working so far. If Donald Trump won, what would it take to dismantle that checks and balances? It would take a clean sweep of the Congress — 60 senators in the Senate and an overwhelming majority in the House of Representatives — and the courts to start the dismantling. And I don’t see that happening at this time and I don’t see it happening within the four years that he has to do it.”
“In other words,” Kamarck said, “we’re not a banana republic yet even if he’d like to make us one.”
Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung, in response to expert comments that retribution would require never-before-seen politicization of the DOJ, told ABC News, “As President Trump has repeatedly said, the best retribution is the overall success of the American people.”