Category: Authoritarian

Trump Calls On FCC To Revoke CBS’ Broadcast License, From The Authoritarian Playbook

Donald Trump is calling on the FCC to revoke the license of CBS after 60 Minutes was found to have (dun dun dun) edited down one of Kamala Harris’ answers for time, something that happens quite regularly when Trump runs to his safe space Fox News.

The FCC obviously pushed back, but the people leading the FCC now pointing out Trump’s wishes obviously is anti-constitutional, will not be there once Donald Trump retakes power.

As I’ve said before, the First Amendment is a cornerstone of our democracy. The FCC does not and will not revoke licenses for broadcast stations simply because a political candidate disagrees with or dislikes content or coverage. – FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel

In the authoritarian playbook, clamping down on independent media will happen quick and we’ll never get it back. Recall when Hugo Chavez in Venezuela sent forces to take over independent private news agencies and brought them back online as propaganda outlets.

It wasn’t that long ago that the last independent news agency in Hungry was kicked off the air when Viktor Orban revoked all broadcast licenses of a free and open press, and now all Hungry has is pro-Orban propaganda outlets. Orban was recently a featured speaker at CPAC, the largest gathering of conservatives, on how to successfully import authoritarianism in a Western democracy.

So far Trump has previously threatened the broadcast licenses of ABC, NBC, PBS, NPR and simply for reporting on the things he says and does. And now Trump is threatening CBS because he ducked out of 60 Minutes like the pussybitch he is because they wouldn’t agree to not fact check him.

It will happen here. If not with Trump, then the next Republican because the authoritarian model has been fully adopted by the GOP.

Trump’s Rally Remarks Draw Parallels to ‘The Purge’, Spark Outrage

 

Donald Trump proposed a controversial policy during a rally in Pennsylvania, which many critics have likened to legalizing “The Purge.” This remark drew significant backlash on social media, with commentators and journalists drawing parallels to the dystopian film series that portrays a government-sanctioned free-for-all of crime for a 12-hour period.

At the rally, Trump expressed dissatisfaction with current policing practices, claiming that police are not permitted to effectively perform their duties. He suggested that to curb crime, a singular day of extreme violence would be necessary, stating, “one really violent day” would send a message to deter criminal activity.

Responses to Trump’s comments were swift and critical. Political analysts and media figures noted the alarming nature of his suggestion, with some questioning whether he had been inspired by the film series itself or independently arrived at such an idea.

Among the critics was University of Texas law professor Lee Kovarsky, who highlighted the distinction between asserting hard truths and making reckless statements. The overall sentiment on social media reflected deep concern about Trump’s call for what many interpreted as an endorsement of police brutality.

Former presidential speechwriter Dan Cluchey remarked on the gravity of the situation, suggesting that a presidential candidate calling for a violent day of police action should warrant significant media attention. The implications of Trump’s rhetoric sparked discussions about law enforcement practices and the potential consequences of such extreme proposals.

The rally further illustrated the challenges Trump faces in maintaining audience engagement, as reports indicated that some attendees were leaving during his speech, suggesting a disconnect between his messaging and public interest. Overall, the incident raised serious questions about the direction of political discourse in the United States.

 

Trump Calls for Investigation of Pelosi Amid Stock Sale Controversy

 

Former President Donald Trump has urged attorneys general in Republican-controlled states to investigate Nancy Pelosi following a stock sale by her husband, Paul Pelosi. The request stems from a report that Paul Pelosi sold 2,000 shares of Visa just before the federal government announced an antitrust lawsuit against the credit company. Trump inaccurately claimed during a rally that the sale occurred the day before the lawsuit was made public, asserting a need for investigation.

Paul Pelosi sold the Visa shares on July 1 for approximately $500,000. However, there is no clarity on whether he profited from this transaction, as the details surrounding the sale remain ambiguous. The Justice Department’s lawsuit against Visa was made public shortly after the sale.

Trump’s call for investigation highlights a growing trend among his supporters and Republican leaders to scrutinize and challenge the actions of Democratic figures, often without substantial evidence. This demand for investigations appears to be part of a broader effort to politically undermine opponents, particularly as Trump seeks to galvanize his base ahead of the upcoming elections.

The former president’s comments reflect a pattern of behavior where he leverages misinformation to create political narratives that serve his interests, a tactic he has employed throughout his career. His rhetoric often relies on unfounded accusations, which can further polarize political discourse and incite his followers.

Critics argue that such demands for investigations are not only unfounded but also serve to distract from Trump’s own controversies and legal challenges. By shifting the focus onto Pelosi, Trump aims to divert attention from his record and ongoing issues within his political sphere, including previous investigations into his conduct during his presidency.

 

Trump Lays the Groundwork for More Bogus Stolen Election Claims: ‘They Cheat’

 

Former President Donald Trump has begun laying the groundwork for future claims of a rigged election ahead of the upcoming November elections. Speaking at a rally in Walker, Michigan, Trump expressed doubts about a potential loss, asserting that any defeat would be due to widespread cheating, a claim he has made numerous times since the 2020 elections. He stated, “If we lose, the next time we’re gonna have the same group of people in Caracas, Venezuela because it’s much safer than any place in our country if she wins. Much safer,” referencing Vice President Kamala Harris and continuing his pattern of baseless allegations against immigrants and crime rates.

Trump’s assertion that he could only lose due to cheating resonates with his supporters, who have previously engaged in violent acts, such as the storming of the Capitol on January 6, 2021. His rhetoric at the rally reflects a longstanding narrative that he has pushed since 2016, where he claimed that illegal voting had deprived him of the popular vote victory. This pattern of rhetoric is critical to understanding Trump’s ongoing influence within the Republican Party and among his voter base.

As he continues to propagate these unfounded claims, Trump has also been encouraging law enforcement to be vigilant against alleged voter fraud. At another event, he urged police officers to monitor polling places, suggesting that their presence could intimidate potential fraud. This approach raises significant concerns about the implications for voter intimidation and the integrity of the electoral process.

Critics argue that Trump’s rhetoric not only undermines trust in democratic institutions but also poses a threat to public safety. The Attorney General of Michigan has initiated legal proceedings against individuals involved in a fake elector scheme stemming from the 2020 election, highlighting the ongoing repercussions of Trump’s claims and the organized efforts to challenge legitimate electoral outcomes.

In summary, Trump’s continued allegations about election fraud are not only a repeat of his past rhetoric but also serve to mobilize his base ahead of the upcoming elections. This strategy has far-reaching implications for the political landscape, as it fosters an environment of distrust and potential violence, reminiscent of the events that transpired on January 6, 2021. The responsibility lies not only with Trump but also with Republican leaders and media outlets, such as Fox News, that amplify these narratives without scrutiny.

 

Trump Advocates for Criminalizing Criticism of Judges, Threatening Free Speech

 

Donald Trump has recently made statements suggesting that criticizing judges should be illegal, which raises concerns about free speech and authoritarianism. At a rally in Pennsylvania, he claimed for the fourth time that people who criticize judges ought to face jail time. This stance contradicts his own history of attacking judges and attempting to sway judicial decisions to align with his interests.

Trump’s remarks signify a dangerous precedent in which he implies that dissent against the judiciary should be criminalized. He has previously referred to the notion of fines for such criticisms but has escalated his rhetoric to include potential jail sentences. This shift in language from vague threats to explicit calls for incarceration suggests a troubling evolution of his views on dissent.

Critics have noted that Trump’s attacks on the judiciary have been extensive and personal, often targeting judges who rule against him. His comments about judges influencing their decisions as akin to “playing the ref” not only undermine the independence of the judiciary but also create an environment of intimidation. This is particularly concerning given that attempts to influence judges and justices have been historically condemned in a democratic society.

Throughout his presidency, Trump has launched numerous personal attacks against judges, including those who ruled against his policies, and has even implied that tragic events could occur as a result of unfavorable rulings. Such rhetoric is unprecedented for a sitting president and poses a risk to the integrity of the judicial system.

In summary, Trump’s recent calls to criminalize the criticism of judges reflect a broader pattern of authoritarian behavior and an attempt to stifle dissent. This poses serious implications for democracy and the rule of law, as it not only threatens free speech but also discourages judicial independence.

(h\t: Washington Post)

Trump’s Authoritarian Threats of Jail Time for Election ‘Cheaters’ Expose Dangerous Intentions

In a recent rally in Mosinee, Wisconsin, former President Donald Trump threatened severe legal repercussions for those he claims would ‘cheat’ in the upcoming election, promising long prison sentences for any perceived electoral misconduct. This alarming declaration reflects Trump’s persistent narrative of widespread voter fraud, a baseless assertion he has clung to since losing the 2020 election. Despite numerous court rulings and bipartisan affirmations of the election’s legitimacy, Trump continues to fuel doubts about electoral integrity, creating an atmosphere of fear and intimidation ahead of the November elections.

Trump’s warnings extend to various groups, including lawyers, political operatives, and election officials, indicating a willingness to wield his presidential power as a means of retribution against opponents. This strategy suggests an authoritarian approach to governance, where dissent is not tolerated, and political enemies are threatened with prosecution. Such tactics are reminiscent of despotic regimes, where the legal system is weaponized to suppress opposition.

At the same rally, Trump reiterated his claims of being targeted by the Biden administration, alleging that the Department of Justice is conspiring to imprison him for exposing their corruption. However, these claims lack any substantiation, with independent investigations and court rulings consistently refuting his narrative of victimization. Trump’s refusal to accept the outcome of the 2020 election and his ongoing legal troubles only serve to highlight his desperate attempts to maintain influence and evade accountability.

In a bid to distract from his legal issues and the impending debate with Vice President Kamala Harris, Trump has resorted to incendiary rhetoric and nostalgic appeals to his 2016 campaign themes, such as ‘draining the swamp.’ Despite having occupied the presidency for four years, he continues to portray himself as an outsider fighting against a corrupt political establishment, which is disingenuous at best.

As the election approaches, Trump’s threats of retribution raise significant concerns about the integrity of American democracy. His willingness to use the power of the presidency to pursue vendettas against perceived enemies undermines the rule of law and sets a dangerous precedent for future administrations. Harris campaign representatives have warned that a second Trump presidency would likely involve the politicization of the justice system, further eroding trust in democratic institutions.

(h/t: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/trump-threatens-long-prison-sentences-for-those-who-cheat-in-the-election-if-he-wins)

Alina Habba suggests Trump will give her government job to hit Democrats ‘deep and hard’

 

Alina Habba, a lawyer for Trump, suggested at a Turning Point Action conference that if Trump wins another term, he might give her a government position to target his enemies. She emphasized going after Democrats and being relentless in Washington. The remarks hint at Habba possibly being tasked with attacking Trump’s foes from within the government.

She insinuated that Trump’s opponents hide their actions by focusing on him, diverting attention from their own deeds. Habba asserted that after one year, the spotlight will turn on them, promising a thorough investigation. The video of her speech at the conference captures these implications.

 

Trump Endorses Call for Capitol Police Who ‘Beat the Hell Out of Innocent J6 Protesters’ to Be Prosecuted

 

Former President Donald Trump endorsed a call for Capitol Police officers who confronted rioters on January 6, 2021, to be prosecuted for their actions. The call came after videos surfaced showing officers using force against protesters. The riot, incited by Trump’s false election claims, led to the assault of around 140 police officers. Nearly 300 defendants have been charged in connection with the riot, which occurred while Congress was certifying the election results.

During the riot, Trump criticized Vice President Mike Pence for not overturning the election results, further escalating the situation. The violence forced Pence and Congress to evacuate the Capitol. Trump’s tweet endorsing the prosecution of Capitol Police officers follows ongoing investigations and charges related to the events of January 6.

The Department of Justice has identified numerous individuals charged with assaulting or impeding officers during the riot. Trump’s involvement and rhetoric during the event have faced scrutiny and criticism for potentially inciting the violence that unfolded on that day.

This development adds to the ongoing controversy surrounding the events of January 6 and the repercussions faced by those involved. Trump’s recent endorsement of prosecuting Capitol Police officers highlights the continued division and legal proceedings stemming from the riot.

 

Trump warns of losing presidential immunity consequences for himself and Biden

 

Former President Trump warned of the consequences of losing his presidential immunity, stating that if he loses it, so will ‘crooked’ President Joe Biden. Trump argues that without immunity, the presidency’s power and prestige would diminish, leaving it vulnerable to extortion and blackmail. He believes that immunity is crucial for a president to function properly and prevent the opposing party from indicting former presidents. Trump’s criminal trial on charges related to hush money payments awaits the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity, expected by mid-June.

Trump pleaded not guilty to charges brought against him by Special Counsel Jack Smith, claiming immunity. He expressed concerns that the presidency would be consumed by other branches of government without immunity. Trump highlighted the risk of former presidents being indicted immediately by the opposing party if immunity is not granted, jeopardizing the functioning of the presidency. The Supreme Court is fast-tracking Trump’s appeal on presidential immunity, delaying his criminal trial.

Meanwhile, Trump is required to attend his New York City criminal trial daily, with the trial expected to last through early June. His attorneys’ request to delay the trial until after the Supreme Court’s ruling on immunity was denied. Trump sought permission to attend the Supreme Court arguments on immunity, but the judge overseeing the trial declined. The Supreme Court is set to rule on the issue by mid-June, impacting Trump’s criminal trial charges brought by Smith.

The Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity will determine the course of Trump’s criminal trial, which is on hold pending the decision. Trump faces charges related to conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstructing official proceedings. This marks the second time this term that the Supreme Court is hearing a case involving Trump, following a recent ruling in his favor regarding ballot access challenges in Colorado.

 

One question both Republican job applicants and potential Trump jurors must answer

There is a prevalent question in both job interviews for Republican positions and potential jurors in Trump’s upcoming trials: ‘Do you believe the 2020 election was stolen?’ Job applicants in key states are being tested for loyalty to Trump, while prosecutors aim to assess juror impartiality. Trump’s first criminal trial, involving ‘hush money’ payments to Stormy Daniels, is set for April. The prosecution sees questioning jurors on the election as a way to gauge impartiality. Trump’s attorney disputes the need for the question, calling it irrelevant to the case. The former president faces 34 felony counts related to covering up an alleged affair with Daniels.

1 2 3 4 … 104