As Chris Cilizza put it today, Donald Trump is many things. One thing he is not is deceptive. He says pretty much everything he thinks. Out loud. All you have to do is a) listen and b) believe him.
Time magazine’s Eric Cortelessa has done the work one wishes other journalists would do when he did an interview with Trump in which he askd the Important Questions and got Trump’s answers. Then he published a transcript of the interview, with fact checking. This has flown under the radar, pushed out of the headlines by the unrest at the colleges and universities across the country since it was first published.
This is Cortelessa’s summary of what Trump told him he would do in a second term:
“To carry out a deportation operation designed to remove more than 11 million people from the country, Trump told me, he would be willing to build migrant detention camps and deploy the U.S. military, both at the border and inland. He would let red states monitor women’s pregnancies and prosecute those who violate abortion bans. He would, at his personal discretion, withhold funds appropriated by Congress, according to top advisers. He would be willing to fire a U.S. Attorney who doesn’t carry out his order to prosecute someone, breaking with a tradition of independent law enforcement that dates from America’s founding. He is weighing pardons for every one of his supporters accused of attacking the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, more than 800 of whom have pleaded guilty or been convicted by a jury. He might not come to the aid of an attacked ally in Europe or Asia if he felt that country wasn’t paying enough for its own defense.
Trump would gut the civil service, the career ranks of federal employees who, despite being much maligned, carry out the day-to-day work of government, in many cases with decades of expertise. Their frequently unnoticed presence will be deeply felt if they are removed.
“Scientists say climate change means the likelihood of more frequent pandemics. Trump’s response? He would close the White House pandemic-preparedness office.He would gut the U.S. civil service, deploy the National Guard to American cities as he sees fit, close the White House pandemic-preparedness office, and staff his Administration with acolytes who back his false assertion that the 2020 election was stolen.”
Understand, these aren’t the hysterical predictions of Never Trumpers or we socialist antifa cucks. This is Trump’s own presentation of his plans and desires.
The most important takeaway from the interview is that Trump hasn’t let go of the possibility of utilizing mob violence if he loses the next election. Trump clearly hinted that leveraging political violence to achieve his end goals was still on the table.
“If we don’t win, you know, it depends,” he told Time. “It always depends on the fairness of the election.”
You should read that this way: 1) If I win, the election is fair. 2) If I lose it is because the election was unfair and stolen by the Democrats. 3) My supporters have a right to go after those who stole this election from me.
From Trump’s perspective, that’s winning rhetoric. His incendiary comments supporting a mob mentality, his early warnings of forthcoming abuses of power, and his threats to be a dictator on “day one” are only inching him closer to the White House. “I think a lot of people like it,” he said in the interview.
Sadly, recent poll numbers suggest he’s correct, or that - at the very least - a significant part of the potential electorate don’t seem to mind his aggressive, democracy-defying verbiage.
In a Harvard CAPS/HarrisX poll published April 25, Trump led President Joe Biden by seven percentage points when the two were matched up alongside independent presidential candidates Robert F. Kennedy, Jill Stein, and Cornel West.
And in a batch of state-based polls published on Monday by Emerson College, Trump took every battleground state.
This past March, Democratic pollster Geoff Garin concluded that only 31% of a modeled sample of voters (which excluded those who had previously voted for Trump or believed the 2020 election was stolen) were aware of Trump’s most outrageous statements.
The survey sample was unaware Trump had said he wanted to be a dictator on day one of a new presidency or that he ranted about immigrants, who he said are “poisoning the blood of our country.” The people in the sample were unaware Trump intends to pardon January 6 rioters and also unaware of his threats to prosecute Biden and other Democrats he has called “vermin” after he takes office next January.
Too many voters don’t remember what he said and did when he was president, and aren’t paying attention to what he is saying he will do in a second administraton. Now that he has become the official nominee of the Republican Party, it’s critical that Americans have accurate information about who he is.
Garin’s poll concluded with some good news: When the people he polled were presented with accurate information about Trump, they understood he was out for revenge and was dangerous, even dictatorial. The gains in understanding were statistically significant.
Neither the article in Time or the information about Project 2025 - where the plans for a dictatorship are clearly lined out - are Democratic spin. It’s not a witch hunt. The words came from Trump’s mouth.
During an event in Connecticut last March, Liz Cheney said, “I will do everything I can to make sure [Trump] is never anywhere near the Oval Office again.” She recognizes that doing that means reelecting Joe Biden, who she disagrees with on policy issues. But Cheney said a Biden win was essential to save the country. She’s right and whatever disagreements I have had with her over the years are as nothing compared with the importance of her saying what she has. Her message is what we need to share with people we know.
There are many voters and potential voters around us who aren’t firmly wedded to voting for Trump; they still need facts for them to accept that he must not be reelected. We have the information about Trump’s intentions. It bears repetition and emphasis, and that can happen with each of us talking to those we know who are not “in the bag” for him.
We have all been warned.
We ignore Trump's threats at our peril and the peril of our democracy.
Whether Trump achieves his stated objectives is not the point. We know he will attempt to do so. His attempts will tear at the fabric of our democracy and in the process destroy the legal norms that have served as the bedrock of the republic since its founding.
You have been warned. There is no one who can say after this election that they didn’t know what the stakes were.
I have said this before and I will say it again: the courts aren’t going to save us. Only we can save the republic we have grown up in and want to keep. Take Trump’s words and make sure you tell them everyone you know what he has told us he wants to do to us. People need to vote this November as if their lives depend on it. Because they do!
Thanks to all the new paid subscribers who continue to sign up every day here. Your support makes it possible for That’s Another Fine Mess to continue. It’s only $7/month or $70/year, saving $14.
I have said this before and will say it again.
First, we would not be facing these issues if Merrick Garland were alive.
Second, we would not be facing these issues if there were more than five reporters in Washington, DC, and elsewhere who actually cover politics. Instead, we have a bunch of stenographers for whom the L word is not liberal, but lazy.
A few journalist friends have pointed to investigative reporters. First, they do not cover politics. They cover corruption and do it well. That's their job. Compare them with, say, Carl Hulse, the chief Washington correspondent for The New York Times, who is always hawking bipartisanship as he did recently with a celebration of MAGA Moses Mike deciding after six months of bleeding in Ukraine that maybe the intelligence estimates were correct and he ought to fulfill his constitutional oath.
Second, Dan Rather once said it: Investigative reporting should be a redundancy. All reporting should be investigative. The Habes and her buddies couldn't investigate a one-horse race.
If this is flying under the radar, I guess I am too, because I've heard it reported plenty of times. What I haven't heard much reality-based discussion of is how Trump plans to accomplish all this. The short answer is that Trump is demonstrably, monumentally bad at long-term planning, or even short-term planning beyond "Be there. Will be wild!"
The cabal behind Project 2025, OTOH, is pretty damn good at long-term planning -- for instance, packing the Supreme Court with Catholic reactionaries didn't happen overnight, although three of them did get confirmed during the Trump administration. (Does anyone think that Trump hand-picked Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett?) Project 2025 isn't going anywhere if Trump doesn't get elected, but it can still provide valuable clues to how the anti-democratic right thinks -- and has been thinking for quite a while now.