Accused of Dictatorial Ambitions, Trump Doubles Down on Authoritarianism

His understanding of effective leadership and policing should repel anyone who cares about civil liberties and the rule of law.

Donald Trump, a longtime admirer of foreign autocrats, recently has been inveighing against the dangers of holding politicians and police officers accountable for breaking the law. If the all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee wants to convince general election voters that there is nothing to charges that he harbors dictatorial ambitions, this is probably not the best way to go about it.

To some extent, Trump's argument that "A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES MUST HAVE FULL IMMUNITY," as he put it in an all-caps Truth Social post last week, mirrors the position his lawyers have taken in seeking dismissal of federal charges stemming from his attempts to remain in office after losing reelection in 2020. Although a former president can be prosecuted for "purely private conduct," they say, he can be prosecuted for "official acts" only if they resulted in impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate.

As one judge noted when a skeptical D.C. Circuit panel probed the implications of that position earlier this month, it could literally give presidents a license to kill by ordering the assassination of their political opponents. Trump's understanding of presidential immunity is, if anything, even broader.

"ALL PRESIDENTS MUST HAVE COMPLETE & TOTAL PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY," Trump says, even when their actions "CROSS THE LINE" between legitimate exercises of presidential power and criminality. Otherwise, he warns, presidential "AUTHORITY & DECISIVENESS" will be "STRIPPED & GONE FOREVER."

Tellingly, Trump draws an analogy between a former president's criminal liability and safeguards aimed at preventing police officers from violating people's constitutional rights. "YOU CAN'T STOP POLICE FROM DOING THE JOB OF STRONG & EFFECTIVE CRIME PREVENTION BECAUSE YOU WANT TO GUARD AGAINST THE OCCASIONAL 'ROGUE COP' OR 'BAD APPLE,'" he says. "SOMETIMES YOU JUST HAVE TO LIVE WITH 'GREAT BUT SLIGHTLY IMPERFECT.'"

In Trump's view, remedies for police abuse, such as insisting that officers obey the Constitution or authorizing criminal charges and civil rights lawsuits when they don't, are dangerous to public order. Just as presidents should not have to worry about criminal prosecution when they "CROSS THE LINE," he thinks, police officers should not have to worry that they could face charges or litigation simply because they broke the law, and maybe a few heads, while doing their jobs.

Trump has promised to "restore law and order" by indemnifying police officers "against any and all liability." Without such protection, he says, cops are "forced to let a lot of bad people do what they want to do."

That claim is doubly mistaken. Thanks to "qualified immunity," which allows federal civil rights claims against police officers only when their alleged misconduct violated "clearly established" law, suing cops is much harder than Trump implies. And even when victims of police abuse manage to overcome that barrier, officers already are routinely indemnified by their employers.

As Trump sees it, however, accountability is the enemy of effectiveness for cops as well as presidents. That view is consistent with Trump's praise of brutal rulers who take decisive action, unencumbered by statutory or constitutional constraints.

China's leaders "almost blew it" during the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, Trump told Playboy in 1990, before they realized that maintaining order required a "vicious" and "horrible" response, which "shows you the power of strength." Trump also admires the strength of Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom he described in 2016 as "very much of a leader" with "very strong control over a country."

The following year, Trump bragged about his "great relationship" with Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, who likened himself to Adolf Hitler while urging the murder of drug users. Trump thought Duterte had done an "unbelievable job on the drug problem."

Trump's notion of strong leadership, like his understanding of what it takes to be an effective cop or president, reflects authoritarian impulses that should repel anyone who values civil liberties and the rule of law. This election is a test of how much voters care about those things.

© Copyright 2024 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

Comments

[Minadin]

Fucking Christ.

We've had 4 years of Donald Trump, who is FAR from perfect from a libertarian standpoint. I'll grant that.

And we've had 3 years of Sundown Joe Biden, who is basically the comatose Hitler-villain from Star Trek: TOS - Patterns of Force.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterns_of_Force_(Star_Trek:_The_Original_Series)

I'll take a guy who bloviates a lot over a guy that allows his minions to make good on that.

[TaylaMarianna]

I'm making over $7k a month working component time. I saved hearing other people inform me how lots cash they could make online so Qf I decided to look at it. Well, it turned into all proper and has definitely modified my life. Get this today by follow...
Instructions Here —>>> https://Www.Smartcareer1.com

[MrMxyzptlk]

Did the author forget the rules of primaries? Run hard to the right in the primary and run to the center in the general.

[In Canis Credimus]

Trump is running hard to get immunity from his crimes and set up a Trumpian dictatorship so he never has to go to jail, it’s obvious as hell. Only mindless MAGAs can’t see it’s all about himself and his woes, and that he doesn’t give a single fk about them. Smooth brains just can’t accept that they’re the clowns that are getting got lmfao.

[B G]

Even if he gets re-elected in 2024, what are the odds that he'll have another crisis on the magnitude of the Covid Pandemic to take advantage of?

It really amazed me in the 2020 campaign that the same people who swore from 2016 through 2019 that trump had some plan in place to seize on absolute power and make himself "dictator for life" also pointed to his refusal to lock down the whole country (an obvious first step toward seizing power to that extent) in reaction to the virus was his "single greatest failure as a leader", as well as his attempts to convince the public not to panic (as opposed to sowing as much fear as possible like the governors of most "deep blue" states, which is one of the hallmarks of by-the-book authoritarianism). Many even lamented that he should have done something more in alignment with what the President of NZ (who actually did postpone a national election at one point). Although comparisons to Hitler are pretty played out with trump, his response to the pandemic would be analogous to Hitler declaring the Reichstag fire to have been accidental and refused to accept the "emergency powers" that he was given in the aftermath.

[JimCherry]

Amen, and ^^^^^^^^

[MrMxyzptlk]

This intentional idiocy at Reason makes no damn sense. Look, Trump is an asshole. I wouldn't socialize with him if offered. He has his steak well done, with fucking ketchup. That's the action of a barbarian. He doesn't drink or do drugs. What fun could hanging with him be?

But I'm not looking for a buddy in the White House. I'm looking for someone who pisses of the left and the right. I'm looking for someone who the media hates. I'm looking for someone who might just dry up some swamp land in DC.

[In Canis Credimus]

Yeah I'm not looking for someone who swore he would become a dictator on day 1 and wants to suspend the constitution and thinks that presidents are immune from all crimes lol. What fkn planet do you guys come from?

[B G]

Just because Biden hasn't "said the quiet part out loud" doesn't mean he's (or maybe it's the people making policy in his name?) any less interested in shredding the Constitution.

How hard has the DNC been working behind the scenes to to clear the path of Joe facing a live debate or a scenario where there's more than one name on any ballot? Why are the Federal Prosecutors persuing trump (ultimately answerable to the DoJ/Executive Branch/POTUS) still holding back more indictments at this point?

Could it possibly be that they think that if they wait to hit trump with the "sedition" indictment which could really trigger 15A until after he's technically "wrapped up" the GOP nomination? Any chance the plan is to try to prevent Biden from facing an opponent from a "viable" party by DQ-ing the Republican nominee after it's "too late" for the opposition to nominate someone else instead?

After all the whinging about how trump was an "existential threat" to the republic, the Dems sure seem dead set on destroying it themselves on the rationale that "the ends justify the means" when it comes to trump because of the "singular threat" he represents (although I've got little doubt they'll come up with some excuse for why whoever else is equally dangerous). Who needs fraud or voter suppression when they can simply restrict the field of options down to one? It works in Tehran, Havanna, Caracas, Beijing, and Moscow after all...

[BigT]

WORD

[Dudley Doesright]

Reality check: both Congress and the Courts have immunity. Every other POTUS can probably assume that they would be found to have it, just not the guy who won't play ball with the 4th branch of government. I challenge you to name a single position Trump took in his 1st term that is even measurable in comparison to the reign of terror of Obiden. You need to get out more. Biden is the most lawless regime in US history. Defying SCOTUS, Aiding and abbetting the Invasion amounts to Sedition. Is there justification to threaten nearly half the country telling them he's got F-16s to defeat them. Nevermind the level of censorship that Little Rocketman would be jealous of! Harassing every business interest of Elon Musk because he won't let Biden’s agencies take over the operation of Twitter like the old days is Impeachable on its own. Trump is the most law abiding POTUS in decades. Back off on the intake of fake news!

[TJJ2000]

You've got one problem with your sticks and stones.

The Trump Administration initiated a De-Regulation committee and withdrew from hundreds of "dictatorial" objectives.

It's quite obvious this picture you're trying to paint, even if it's backed by constant repetition of cherry-picked things Trump said, has little to ZERO meaning concerning the actions of his past administration.

And frankly. Even if it is repelling it's not as repelling as what the Biden Administration has already done with lock-downs, growing ESG mandates, EO Loan-Forgiveness (entirely in violation of the Supreme Court), identity politics and inviting invasion.

[Terry Anne Lieber (Don't Feed Tony)]

Sullum has long-TDS so he can't think clearly... rather, he can't think at all.

[retiredfire]

"...accused of dictatorial ambitions..."
It would be more of a news story if some TDS addled lefty could come up with something Trump hasn't been accused of.
It wouldn't be surprising if he was next accused of causing original sin.

[MoreFreedom]

I agree. Sullum hates Trump, and misrepresented the Playboy article which you can read for yourself. Trump said Russia was a disaster and he couldn't do business there because the Russians would only lease land to him, and their compromise was a committed of 7 Russians and 3 Trump people to sort things out if there was some dispute. Regarding China, Playboy wrote:

"When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak ..."

Note Sullum left out Trump's criticism, that the Chinese were vicious and horrible at Tiananmen Square.

The way I see it, Trump believes a good government is strong, because the people want a good government.

As for immunity, Obama already killed a US citizen without an indictment, trial or conviction of either the dead guy or Obama. Further, AFAIK, no one has discussed police abuse and the problems of police immunity with Trump, so we really don't know what his position is regarding reforms to police immunity when the police behave badly. Frankly, I feel confident that the SCOTUS will eventually rule that Trump truly believed the Democrats cheated (and there's a lot of smoke, and a lot of coverup and obstruction of any investigations into it - you'd think Biden believing he won fair and square would want audits to heal the country but no - so I personally agree with him) and it was not only within his rights as President, but it was his duty, to investigate and ensure the law wasn't broken. They're prosecuting him in GA for trying to change the outcome of the election, while the election workers didn't have to prove anything about the ballots brought in a suitcase and hidden under the table, because the state Sec. of State said Biden won (and Trump wasn't allowed access to any evidence to check).

[Terry Anne Lieber (Don't Feed Tony)]

The prospect of another “Biden” “presidency” should repel anyone who values civil liberties and the rule of law, who cares about the economy and the avoidance of WW3, who believes that states should have functioning borders and common sense immigration policies.

Alas, we have no other choice than to vote for President Trump once again.

[SQRLSY One]

Voting libertarian is a choice. So is not voting at all. So is voting for Biden. Yet you say...

"Alas, we have no other choice than to vote for President Trump once again."

Did Trump put a gun to your so-called "brains", or what?

[InsaneTrollLogic]

Well, NaziSqrlsy, you can vote for a vegetable who is controlled by authoritarians, a libertarian who is unlikely to get into office, or the blowhard who has probably been the most libertarian president we've had since Calvin Coolidge. Your choice.

[ace_m82]

Here I am defending sqrlsy...
Can you claim to be "most libertarian" at that level of spending, the best indication of size of government?

[Sevo]

Here you are making an ass of yourself. Spending is but one criteria, and the bulk of that was the WuFlu relief.
Yes, a mistake, but among the few.
Stuff your TDS up your ass, shit-pile.

[ace_m82]

"Spending is but one criteria"
Spending is the biggest criteria, and the best one to determine the size and power of the State, the biggest danger to liberty.
"the bulk of that was the WuFlu relief"
Spending is spending!
I defend Trump, a lot! Pay attention!
I'd never vote for him though.

[TJJ2000]

Anyone who takes the time to see where almost all of that spending came from (hut hum: Democrats in the House) doesn't lay the entirety of blame on Trump short of not vetoing it. It would be really nice if he did but since your standards are beyond any seen short of Gary Johnson I'm not sure why you find Trump so distasteful.

[ace_m82]

Yes, it's your fault if you sign bills. Duh!
Because he's a statist!

[MrMxyzptlk]

And it was all Donald Trump who spent that money. He had the army hold guns on the congress to force them to send him spending bills that he wanted. He forced agencies to take funding they didn't want, "oh please President Trump, we just don't need that much money here at the Department of the Interior."

[markm23]

Probably half of the commenters don't even suspect that's sarcasm.

[ace_m82]

He assented to it, therefore he's (somewhat) at fault.
A President Ron Paul wouldn't have.

[defaultdotxbe]

It's actually not hard to be the most libertarian with the bar set as low as it is.

[TJJ2000]

[phone]... Ain't that the glaring truth.

[MrMxyzptlk]

In the 70s the goal for the LP was to draw votes from the Republicans so they would reverse the course Nixon had set them on. Instead the Republicans doubled down and made Nixon look like a rube. I think the party is wasting its efforts on trying for any federal offices. Their energy should be on city, county and state offices. It's the barrel of wine principle. If you add a teaspoon of wine to a barrel of sewage you still have sewage. If you add a teaspoon of sewage to a barrel of wine you still have sewage. One libertarian in congress gets nothing done. We've wasted our wine on a barrel of sewage.

[GroundTruth]

Given the electoral college system, if you live in any one of about 40 states, you can vote Libertarian all you want and it's not going to change anything. "Living" (if you can call it that in this hellhole of a state) in Massachusetts, I vote my conscience in the general presidential election every time but have yet to see my vote for the L change the electoral count. Even if I voted early and often for the R candidate, it wouldn't change the outcome.

So go ahead, vote L for president. But use your vote wisely in the primary; it might help move the ball a bit closer to the goal of a sane candidate.

[ace_m82]

Now this is sage advice!

[SQRLSY One]

Agreed! With both GroundTruth and ace_m82!

When enough people vote "L" to throw an election one way or another (even though "L" doesn't win), the major parties are FORCED to start paying attention to the "L" platform! WHAT elements of "L" party platform does "Team D" and-or "Team R" need to steal from "Team L", becomes a pressing question!

[Jefferson Paul]

Unless I'm misunderstanding, GroundTruth is saying he votes his conscience (Libertarian) in MA because it DOESN'T throw the election, but gives a modicum of support to a party that more closely matches his values. His vote is not going to cost Trump the state, which will go for Biden (or Biden's replacement) no matter what.

It would be much more risky to vote Libertarian if you are in a very close swing state, but you would otherwise settle for or vote for the R or D, if you weren't voting your conscience.

I voted for Gary Johnson in 2016, because I hated Hillary and almost everything she stood for, and because I feared the worst about Trump. I was in a swing state, and thought both would be terrible (with Hillary being worse).

[Gaear Grimsrud]

I live in Illinois where any vote in a federal election is a throw away. I voted Libertarian in every election from Harry Browne to Gary Johnson not because I thought they could win but to keep the party on the ballot. Watching Johnson piss away a golden opportunity to drag the party out of obscurity in 2016 and watching Bill Weld endorse one of the most anti liberty candidates in history, HRC, was the end for me. I voted Trump in 2020, yet another throw away, and I'll do it again this year.

[Jefferson Paul]

Yeah, as I said, I didn't vote for Trump in 2016, largely because I wasn't as informed at that time and believed many of the horror stories about what he would do if he gained power. I did, however, vote for Trump in 2020. I became much more educated in politics by 2020 and saw that those horrific predictions about Trump were BS. Also, Jo Jorgensen was a terrible candidate. Her tweet about us all needing to be anti-racist, and not just against racism, really pissed me off. Either she doesn't know what is meant by "anti-racist" (which is the opposite of being color-blind), or she does, and was intentionally promoting it (odd thing for a libertarian to propose as it is making race the most important factor, rather than meritocracy and the individual).

My state still went for Biden.

[JFree]

Your vote doesn't matter one whit. It won't change any outcome. It is delusional to believe otherwise

[Ron]

As conservative in California whose vote is worthless i agree with groundtruth except the L candidate is useless as well and if it is Kennedy i can't vote for him and even if my vote counted i think both Biden and Trump are delusional and to old for the job. I may not vote at all.

[Jefferson Paul]

If Dave Smith had decided to run for the LP nomination, I'd have had a very tough decision on whether to vote for him or Trump (still probably would have gone for Trump, as the weaponization of the justice department and intrusion on our civil rights and liberties cannot be allowed to continue). But Dave would have been a great "evangelist" for the liberty movement, with the stature of being the nominee boosting things. He is great at making often complicated subjects seem simple, and that is needed to move ordinary American toward libertarianism.

[JimCherry]

And yet, any vote other than for Trump is in fact a vote in favor of Biden/Dem to-be-named.

[MrMxyzptlk]

Votes need to be earned by the candidates. If they aren't going to do what you want why vote for them. I've seen a lot of election cycles and my life hasn't changed drastically under either a Tweedle-DEM regime or a Tweedle-REP. I always voted Libertarian and cast a balnk if no Libertarian was available because neither party earned my vote. My only change was voting for Trump in 2016 and 2020. But I don't vote for the other Republicans because they are backstabbing assholes.

[MrMxyzptlk]

Something like 400 million Americans and these two are the best choices we have?

[In Canis Credimus]

Trump literally wants to suspend the constitution and make the president immune from all crimes on day one lol. He's a fkn disaster and y'all still think sleepy joe is the bad candidate here. It's depressing that my fellow Americans could be so smooth brained.

[DesigNate]

lol, okay Jake.

[MasterThief]

How many times can Sullum write the same damn article based on blatantly obtuse misinterpretations?
I might have some respect for these screeds if he similarly attacked the more egregious violations of those in power

[Reshufflex]

This writer has issues. He regurgitated the same Trump-as-dictator noise like <than a week ago. It’s becoming inveterate and creepy.

I’ll throw the poor boy a bone. Trump’s absolute immunity claim is ultimately going nowhere. At best, any presidential immunity will attach to civil or state proceedings, and the old reliable state secrets ruse.

On a related note, the idea of using seal-team-six to take out some political opponents does have a certain, growing appeal….

[Quicktown Brix]

On a related note, the idea of using seal-team-six to take out some political opponents does have a certain, growing appeal….

Yeah, but if Trump got the presidential immunity he proffers today, he'd be the 1st one taken out with this new TOTAL IMMUNITY, probably in early November.

[JesseAz]

This trope. It would be the same immunity presidents have enjoyed for over 200 years.

Think about what you are asking to destroy executive immunity over: petitioning courts, free speech, retention of presidential records.

Those are what he is being charged against. And you and Sullum have to switch the argument to some hypothetical kill squad in order to end presidential immunity.

The norm breaking is on the side of the democrats. Stop cheering it on.

[Quicktown Brix]

It would be the same immunity presidents have enjoyed for over 200 years.

I disagree. Although never clarified, presidents served under the assumption or at least possibility of criminal prosecution. This is the obvious reason Nixon resigned.

And you and Sullum have to switch the argument to some hypothetical kill squad in order to end presidential immunity.

I am addressing Trump's words. It's just an academic debate based on Trump's tweet, separate from the actual case being adjudicated which has the more limited reach you stated. He said "TOTAL IMMUNITY." It is just an interesting insight into Trump's view of presidential power and a fun topic to consider/debate.

The norm breaking is on the side of the democrats. Stop cheering it on.

Indeed it is and I'm not cheering it on. I'm opposing fighting fire with fire, the same battle the 2 parties have engaged in that eroded our rights since at least Woodrow Wilson. If Trump got this immunity, so would Biden. Who is more likely to use it?

[Gold Hoarder]

That isn’t even his lawyers argument. The coverage of the case is appaling as usual. They are arguing congress has to impeach him before he can be prosecuted. It is a separation of powers argument and is actually quite valid.

[Jefferson Paul]

Nixon resigned because he knew he was going to be impeached and likely convicted. This bolsters the view that Presidential Immunity would have applied without being impeached/convicted first.

Then again, Ford pardoned Nixon, which wouldn't have been necessary if Nixon had immunity without having been impeach/convicted by the Senate. This bolsters the view that Presidential Immunity would not have applied.

[Quicktown Brix]

Yes, thank you. After reading your comment, I think I was wrong on my Nixon argument and you are correct on both points.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

No one, to my knowledge, has laid out exactly what a Nixon indictment would look like. And frankly what he was accused of looks like a parking ticket compared to what the Biden regime has been doing for three years. Kinda quaint when you think about it. In any case any theoretical prosecution would have to have been brought by Jerry Ford's DOJ. And again it's kinda quaint in retrospect but in those days politicians didn't want to piss off half of the fucking country. Don't forget Nixon won the the election in a landslide.

[Jefferson Paul]

I tentatively believe Nixon was set up by the deep state with Watergate. I don't have enough info to conclude that, but it looks that way from what I've read and heard. Nixon had the biggest EC victory of by any president since Washington's unanimous victory. (Reagan's 1984 EC victory was even greater than Nixon's.)

Biden is far more deserving of prosecution than Trump. I just don't know what the correct answer is regarding Presidential Immunity. I can see it both ways. The charges against Trump are "trumped-up" BS and a political persecution, IMO. I just don't know if the immunity defense is legit or not (though he shouldn't have to even defend against politically motivated charges, as they shouldn't have been brought in the first place).

[Gaear Grimsrud]

I also have not reached a conclusion on the immunity issue. I'm obviously not a constitutional scholar and I've yet to see an in depth analysis. I haven't bothered to read Sullum's because, well, it's Sullum.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

And to your theory that Nixon was set up, that's always been lurking in the deep corners of my brain. We didn't have readily accessible alternative media in those days and the MSM all had full blown NDS. Reality is we will never know.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

If only there was some kind of recorded evidence of what Nixon had said in private about the Watergate scandal...

[JimCherry]

Absolute presidential immunity is an essential; without it, every two-bit hack lawyer in the country could bring suit over every breath a president took. We watched that unrestricted lawfare bring down a Senator in Alaska, Ted Stevens. For actual presidential misconduct or lawbreaking, there is impeachment.

[Quicktown Brix]

What about crimes discovered after the president's term has ended?

[DesigNate]

You don’t have to be serving to be impeached by the house and convicted by the senate.

[Michael Ejercito]

Think about what you are asking to destroy executive immunity over: petitioning courts, free speech, retention of presidential records.

The only circumstance I can think of in which petitioning a court could constitute a crime is if the petitioner was enjoined by a court from doing so.

[Reshufflex]

Keep writing he’s-a-dictator propaganda, and it won’t take until November. As my grandma used to say, there’s more out than in.

[In Canis Credimus]

They thought Hitler was mostly harmless too lol

[DesigNate]

Never go full Godwin.

God damn son.

[GroundTruth]

Issues like using Trumps own words?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"This election is a test of how much voters care about those things."

We already know the answer to that question.

[SRG2]

Trump is an (incompetent) authoritarian, so arguing that he's an authoritarian isn't going to deter authoritarian types like most of the right-whingers here from voting for him, obviously.

[TJJ2000]

Because it doesn't take much of a brain to realize a De-Regulation committee and pulling out of ESG U.N. mandates is NOT authoritarianism.

What you sell is leftard self-projection. Trying to blame Trump for everything the left stands for.

[HorseConch]

Since the Orange Monster had such dictatorial ambitions and served 4 years, we should have an idea what the next term would look like. Can someone fill me in on all the illegal authoritarian shit he did? I would also like to see a list of all the pardons Biden had to issue to free all the political adversaries that were imprisoned during that term.

[Moderation4ever]

We could start with executive orders. While Trump had less than other presidents, he also had less time in office. On a per year in office Trump had higher number than his predecessors back to Jimmy Carter. We could end with his attempt to subvert the 2020 election to stay in power.

[HorseConch]

And what was the effect of those executive orders? Did he violate a bunch of laws and have them overturned, or were they primarily administrative tasks that only look big by th enumber of them. Can you remind me of which executive order subverted the 2020 election?

[Michael Ejercito]

And what was wrong wioth subverting the 2020 election?

[Longtobefree]

https://babylonbee.com/news/democrats-warn-that-american-people-may-tamper-with-next-election

[Kungpowderfinger]

… and the Bee wins the Pulitzer (ha)

[Kungpowderfinger]

OMFG, just saw that article is from 2020, we’ve officially moved beyond parody.

[NOYB2]

On a per year in office Trump had higher number than his predecessors back to Jimmy Carter.

Yes: legitimate presidential orders.

We could end with his attempt to subvert the 2020 election to stay in power.

I don't see anything authoritarian about trying to get investigations into clear violations of law by Democrats.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Which Trump statements from before 2021 would you characterize as revealing his "dictatorial ambitions"?

[Set Us Up The Chipper]

Expect to see more of these now that RDS is gone.

[SusanM]

"Am I raving or is this the cold reality of two continents already? Watch the pincer movement. If you're sick of one version, we push you into the other. We get you coming and going. We've closed the doors. We've fixed the coin. Heads--collectivism, and tails--collectivism. Fight the doctrine which slaughters the individual with a doctrine which slaughters the individual. Give up your soul to a council--or give it up to a Leader. But give it up, give it up, give it up."

Ayn Rand

[Vernon Depner]

Just fuck off, Jacob. You're not contributing anything interesting or informative.

[DaveM]

The great benefit of Trump is that he cannot keep himself from running his mouth day and night, broadcasting his goals and strategies far in advance. This gives us all ample time to strengthen our guardrails and fill in any gaps. In the end, he doesn't get what he said he wants.

But -- and this is important! -- he does get some of what he wants. He gets what he is allowed to get by the constraints of our balance of powers.

And, by the way, that is precisely the same thing that has been happening to the Left. How many "pen and a phone" orders by Obama and Biden have been overturned? What's their win/loss ratio? Not high. But some.

The fact is, our system of government actually is pretty resilient. It's not all-powerful, but it can definitely hold its own against provocateurs such as we've had in the Oval Office recently.

[In Canis Credimus]

there is no balance of powers. The president controls the army completely, Trump plans on gutting the military immediately and putting in Trump yes men. He has said as much. Once he has the military "balance of power" doesn't mean shit.

[Vernon Depner]

You'd better put on your foil hat and get back in your bunker. I hear black helicopters coming.

[Ajsloss]

Show us on the doll where Trump hurt you.

[middlefinger]

O/T: wonder if jihadi/leftist immigrants(who are always natural libertarians -Cato- ) have cornered the market on airline maintenance jobs? Every day another plane fails maintenance. Democrats “but the 1970s meant everyone was equal” Yeah, equally poor and desperate.

[ace_m82]

No, the left abandoned meritocracy. The results aren't surprising.

[willful knowledge]

Barack Obama claimed the authority to kill, in secret, anyone, including American citizens, who is plotting against Americans or American interests, and he gets to be the arbiter of what interests are being threatened and who is plotting.

[Michael Ejercito]

A criminal defense attorney would point out the example of Abraham Lincoln.

[Kungpowderfinger]

Mean tweets against fucking Democrats > Drone strikes on American citizens

[Take The Cannoli]

Yes, Trump is a narcissistic, blow-hard, carpet-bagging, asshole from New York City and I'd never want him to be elected president of the United States...except...his oponent is an even more authoritarian, collectivist, anti-liberty puppet of a pervasive movement of cultural marxism that is the single greatest threat that the American experiment has ever faced.

So...since we are stuck with a two party system...I will simply be voting for the guy who didn't systematically weaponize every administrative agency against the citizens while he was in the White House.

[middlefinger]

I’ll take the administration that keeps leftist and Jihadi terrorists designated as terrorist groups. I believe over 200k people dead in Columbia alone. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Armed_Forces_of_Colombia

First order of business for Blinken removed FARC and Houthis from terrorist designations, with an open border. Blinken is a fucking moron.

[darkersouls]

Blinken is a trilateral. The moves he makes are well-considered and with ill intent.

[Bill Falcon]

Hold on there..the US made billions providing bombs to the KSA who bombed the shit out of Yemen for years killing at least 300K civilians (and couldn't beat them..hear that Corn Pop...you can beat F-15s with AKs). Now the Houthis hate the US..really surprise. Blow back sucks...

[skunkman]

I am a never Trumper and a former liberal. What a load of crap article. This is just the typical liberal argument and it is shallow thinking. Is Trump an ass? Does he say things that should worry those that are concerned about authoritarianism? Hell yes.

But, authoritarian control is what democrats are about. They are far worse than Trump on his worse day. That doesn't mean that I support the guy or will vote for him. But, my problem with the result of crap articles like this is that it is complaining about authoritarianism but making it look like more authoritarianism is a better choice. There are many examples of this, but the clearest is probably the numerous frivolous legal actions against him. Throw your opponents in jail. And that starts to explain the immunity issue. Yeah, Trump sounds crazy. But if, God help us, he wins again do you think that the Democrats will try to throw a sitting President in jail? Of course they will.

In the US, both extremes trend towards authoritarianism. But the left's version should frighten everyone much more. The current American democrat party is far worse than the alternative. Libertarians should realize this.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Yeah pretty much all of that. You have been cursed with rational thinking. Sullum does not share your affliction.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Why do you think "Democrats" would try to throw Trump in jail if he wins re-election in November? Surely, you don't mean on a federal level? Trump would almost entirely legally (certainly plausibly deniably legally) be able to quash any extant federal prosecution from January 21, 2025. That's a given.

The state criminal prosecutions could continue, but if they did, why would they stop? By which legal principle are criminal prosecutions dropped simply because the defendant has been elected to federal office? That would make him literally "above the law". I doubt Trump will ever see the inside of a prison cell, regardless of whether he is re-elected or convicted.

[Vernon Depner]

What if state courts do convict President Trump? Do you suppose the Georgia State Patrol will walk into the White House and arrest him? He'll just ignore the convictions.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I don't know what the "procedure" would be in that situation. I'm certain Trump would try to ignore the convictions, but there are numerous laws in place which address the status of fugitives from justice--none of which can be arguably characterised as having been proposed with Trump in mind.

Things would definitely get weird with a convicted felon in the White House who refused to surrender to the lawful authorities.

[Moderation4ever]

Authoritative leader generally speaking are bad leaders. They can have periods of success but overall, their leadership usually lead to a decline for their nation and its people. Nothing in Trump previous four period suggests that would not be the case. I would think there would be little more than chaos for most or all of a second Trump Presidency. Much of that prediction is based on the first term.

[HorseConch]

I'm glad we don't have any of that chaos with the current guy. If I recall, pretty much all of the chaos from the last term was made-up bullshit slung by the other side and parroted endlessly by morons like Sullum and the rest of the MSM.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Er, the BLM riots were mainly under Trump. You may remember Trump threatening to send in the US military, or him fondling a Bible (upside down) in D.C. for some reason...

[DesigNate]

You may remember they burned down multiple police stations, attempted to burn down federal courthouses and literally tried to secede from the union in a couple cities.

I’m pretty sure Lincoln sent in the military the last time Democrats pulled that shit.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yes, as I said, the BLM riots mainly took place during the summer of 2020, when Trump was firmly in charge. Which means the "chaos" was either because of or despite him. It was chaos either way.

[Moderation4ever]

Glad to see we can agree that there is no chaos with President Biden. The MSM did not have to make up chaos they had only to listen when Trump spoke.

[Bill Falcon]

Yes, the attack on parents, Catholics, blowing $100B to support an irrelevant war between two corrupt eastern european countries because the foreign policy elites have personal grudges due to Trotsky losing to Stalin and the Czar or something like that. Pumping trillions to corrupt grifters to fight "climate change", the MIC, and all sorts of useless "DIE" programs. Rigid group quotas except for folks who are considered "white." Funny how Italian Americas are so underrepresented at Harvard or Hollywood, or the Media or the Biden Administration. Some tribes are more equal than others, right?

[Agammamon]

1. Trump's previous 4 years were pretty darn good overall.

2. What suggests Biden next 4 years won't be worse than his previous 50?

[JimCherry]

Much of the chaos in Trump's first term was a direct result of efforts by Democrats to destroy his Presidency. Russiagate, the Hunter laptop non-investigation, the Lois Lerner mess, and on and on.
As an aside, I believe you meant "authoritarian" rather than "authoritative" leaders. One is undesirable; the other is necessary.

[Moderation4ever]

Lois Lerner resigned in 2014, two years before Trump was elected. Much of the chaos in the Trump administration was his own and was not caused by anyone else. His own attorney general requested the Mueller investigation of Russian interference. Trump gave a press conference everyday during the pandemic until his talks made so little sense he was a laughingstock. Is your memory so short?

[In Canis Credimus]

how much does trump pay you guys to pucker up and kiss the ring?

[JohnTheRevelator]

You know, in any other election, with any other candidate, Trump’s suggestion that the office he is seeking should enjoy broad immunity from prosecution would be the huge red flag a lot of people are taking it as. But given the longstanding, blatantly bad-faith lawfare against him and people around him I’m willing to entertain it. Democrats talking about democracy and the rule of law is getting to the point of being comparable to the man who murders his parents and then pleads for mercy because he’s an orphan.

[n00bdragon]

Set aside any notions you might have and consider for a moment, if Donald Trump really were truly guilty of all the things he's accused of... what would be the correct response to that? If he really did rape and defame a woman, fraudulently inflate his net worth, and then incited a mob to take over the country by force after failing to rig the election in his favor. If all that were true, would it be a bad thing? Should someone prosecute him for it? Should right thinking people being doing everything possible to keep him from attaining the levers of power again?

If the answer to the above is "yes", then it can be simultaneously true that Biden and his notably-more-alive handlers are trying to win the election by putting their opponent in jail and also doing exactly what they should be doing. In that case, it wouldn't be for "purely political reasons" but because Trump did, in fact, commit a shitload of crimes.

The only question is whether it is true. That is what the courts are for. That is what is being decided.

[DRM]

The actual only question is whether fucking fascist assholes like you should be publicly kicked to death in the street, or should disappear forever in the middle of the night.

Because the question is never simply if the accused is guilty, but also whether the courts can be trusted to judge guilt. Only a lickspittle totalitarian goon, an obsequious willing servant of any tyrant, would refuse to even entertain that second question.

So, either you're a spineless accomplice-in-advance of tyranny, or you're a calculating sophist trying to trick people into enabling totalitarianism. Either way, n00bdragon, your death would improve the world. Please arrange it immediately.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

This why they call this place "Reason".

[JohnTheRevelator]

Which is why I am waiting on the courts, however dubiously. But it’s been years now and he’s been charged with next to nothing and convicted of nothing. At some point it’s fair to wonder if this is process-as-punishment.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Are you unaware of which party is unwaveringly trying to delay all Trump's numerous trials?

[JohnTheRevelator]

Nixon’s people started to be arrested within two years of Watergate. Nixon resigned in the same timeframe. It’s been four years since January 6, 2020, and seven since 2016. Show me the money.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

January 6, 2020, was three years into Trump's presidency...

As I recall, the long-time DoJ policy (not law) was that sitting presidents could not be charged, so it would not be surprising that the investigation into Trump's 2020 election-stealing efforts would not have begun until after he had left office. Is 2.5 years an unusually long time to develop a case? I don't know, but if you know, please cite examples.

And the documents-retention/obstruction of justice charges could only have been developed after he had left office, following Trump's refusal of various requests to return government property.

Trump is not being investigated for anything relating to 2016, is he?

[JohnTheRevelator]

It’s hard to keep up with all the charges and investigations, so I’m not sure if any of them go back to the 2016 election. Or at least if any investigation relating to that election is focused on Trump, rather than on the bogus documents behind the “Russia Collusion” fake-out. Remember, that’s the thing that Hillary Clinton used to justify her public claims that the 2016 election was “hacked” or stolen. I have to admit that “hacked” was a brilliant word choice. The only thing ever alleged with any evidence was that Russians manipulated US media to create chaos before the election, but I still run into people today who believe that Russian agents hacked the votes and changed them to make Trump the winner.

Anyway, okay subtract the final year of Trump’s presidency from Jan. 6, and it’s still three years since he was out of office and fair game even by the professional courtesy you cited regarding prosecuting presidents. In that time, Trump was impeached twice, but not convicted, and dozens of protestors/rioters/insurrectionists/pick-your-word have been charged, convicted and sent to prison, or just sent to prison without the formalities. Trump remains un-charged, let alone un-convicted of any crime. Another norm that’s been violated, though I rarely hear it mentioned, is the norm of conducting investigations outside of the timeframe of upcoming elections. Now, at least for Trump, the norm is the other way around, where the investigation always seems to come up when there’s an election soon, and nobody questions it.

In the fullness of time, say the next 2-4 years, I agree with you that investigations dating back to events of 2020 and later may come to fruition. Building a case does take months and sometimes years. But do you see why I’m skeptical, even suspicious?

[JimCherry]

"If" is carrying a hell of a lot of weight, there.

[DesigNate]

Let’s take those three things as unequivocally true. The first two are state crimes that he would have committed before becoming president and not an “official presidential act” (which, from what I can tell, is what he’s actually agitating immunity for). The third one was swiftly litigated through the impeachment process where the senate failed to convict.

Now, you could argue that he could still be criminally charged, but the time for charging him was three fucking years ago, not months before the primary season starts, if for no other reason then it creates a sense of corruption and political foul play.

In the real world, the first two were so obviously partisan and political, due in no small part to the fact that the DA literally said he would find some way to nail Trump when he was running for office. And even then, wasn’t he found not guilty of the rape? Not sure how you can defame someone by denying raping them, even if you do it in a super crass way. And How exactly was the State of New York harmed by him paying more taxes? And there is obviously a huge gulf between people who think any of that could be incitement and people who are fucking sane not quite so certain.

Side note: Nixon was obviously guilty of multiple crimes (is there a single President who wasn’t? Besides my boy Cal.) but apparently political leaders all the way up to Trump knew it would drive the country fucking bananas to go after previous administrations. Mark my words, neither side is going to be happy with the fallout from this.

[Dillinger]

fucking awesome. now do Brandon and compare.

[Liberty_Belle]

When someone tells you who they are ... believe them.

[Michael Ejercito]

Part of his appeal is seeking revenge against the Leftist leadership.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Indeed.

[Truthteller1]

Sullum is a fucking idiot. The most authoritarian president in history is in office right now you mentally ill regime cuck.

[NOYB2]

^ This.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

+

[Bill Falcon]

Cuties...

[CLM1227]

I really need to know… is it now the common position that the US president (an elected officer of our government) should have no authority over the Executive Office? Because I’m getting that vibe from every one claiming Trump is authoritarian. Trump actually acted within the confines of his office far better than Biden did. What seems to be the common whine it that Trump actually attempted to exercise constitutional authority over his office - which seems to be the point over which everyone complains over him being a dictator.

So who has authority over the executive office? The elected president? Or the head of the DOJ? Counterintelligence? Head of the FBI? I know… John Bolton, right? Or the top military officer? They all get to run the government with no checks and the president just exists to make speeches and sign things. That’s what makes Biden such a great president. He knows where his authority is - in extra constitutional EOs that can’t get through the legislature.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I know what you're saying: He literally got a special counsel sicced on him for firing an insubordinate employee. (Comey) They treat him like the office is a figurehead.

[Michael Ejercito]

That whole investigation was a travesty!

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Er, it's probably more related to the things he's said about vengeance and retribution, and the fact that he's already tried to steal an election he lost.

[Agammamon]

>His understanding of effective leadership and policing should repel anyone who cares about civil liberties and the rule of law.

Sullum. **SULLUM!**

You saw Trump as President for 4 years. You saw Biden for 50. You saw Biden as President for the last 4. You're seriously here telling us Trump is worse?

[NOYB2]

You don't even need to look into Biden's half century of corruption, his repeated plagiarism and lies, his pattern of sexual impropriety, his blatant disregard for political and constitutional norms, what really sums up Biden is his orchestration of the "high tech lynching of an uppity n--a": when Biden went after Clarence Thomas with allegations that he knew to be false. That is the kind of a--hole Sullum is hitching himself to.

[Agammamon]

Hey, Sullum, how come you never criticize Biden when he let’s his inner dictator show?

President Joe Biden is once again threatening to use violence against American citizens who refuse to obey government rule. Over the weekend, while speaking to reporters, Biden mocked a quote from Thomas Jefferson: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

The quote suggests that Jefferson believes the American people should have the right to rebel against a tyrannical government. Biden said that if U.S. citizens really wanted to fight the government, they would need F-16 fighter jets.

“And I love people who say, the ‘blood of liberty,’ or excuse me, ‘the tree of liberty is watered with the blood of patriots.’ Well, guess what, man, I didn’t see a whole lot of patriots that are out there walking around making sure that we have these weapons,” Biden said. “And if you really want to worry about the government, you need an F-16.”

This is not the first time Biden has threatened Americans with violence who refuse to follow a dictatorship. In June 2023, the president berated Second Amendment supporters, saying once again that they would need F-16 fighter jets in order to take on the American government.

[NOYB2]

The quote suggests that Jefferson believes the American people should have the right to rebel against a tyrannical government. Biden said that if U.S. citizens really wanted to fight the government, they would need F-16 fighter jets.

I think Afghanistan proved beyond any reasonable doubt that a bunch of goat herders with semi-automatic weapons can kick Biden's ass.

[Pear Satirical]

Biden's ass is kicked by sandbags.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Biden is no friend of the 2nd Amendment, but you have misunderstood what he meant. His position has long been that the 2nd Amendment is useless in the 21st Century because it doesn't allow citizens to possess the same advanced weaponry as the US military.

It's a silly argument, but it is not a Biden "threat" to use such advanced weaponry against US citizens. That's a deranged argument.

[Bill Falcon]

or his teams attacking Catholics.

[Lester75]

Trump has promised to "restore law and order" by indemnifying police officers "against any and all liability." Without such protection, he says, cops are "forced to let a lot of bad people do what they want to do."

That is grossly anti-libertarian if it is true. Evidence of pro-authoritarian impulses.

I want to indemnify cops less, not more.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I think this is where Trump's sycophants insist that we cannot take the things Trump says literally.

He was joking! Owning the libs! Ha ha ha...

[DesigNate]

I feel like the problem isn’t indemnity in and of itself, but how it’s applied and how wide a berth the government gives their enforcers.

The only tepid defense I’ll give him on this is that it is partly in response to the ridiculousness the Democrats have been pushing in regards to policing and he sees an opportunity to peel off the Police Officers Union support.

But yeah, fuck giving them more immunity.

[BRonstott]

I urge everyone to listen to this podcast with Sam Harris and Jonathan Rauch. It's two hours long, but the time would be well spent. Do you disagree that Trump would act as Rauch describes? I can't.

https://samharris.org/episode/SE6DE0AC160

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Sorry, there is no way I'm going to spend 2 hours of my time listening to some guys talk at me. If it's important, they can write it down.

[Bill Falcon]

Harris lost his mind over Trump. The bigger threat isn't Trump but the cultural marxists ....

[Ladyhawk]

I’d pay more attention to Sullum if I believed he actually analyses Trump based on who Trump is, with Trump’s obvious bloviating about power he would never actually exercise and doesn’t really believe anyway. Trump could be more specific about his vocabulary, though because the idiot dems use every word he mis-uses to turn him into Attilla the Hun and Ivan the terrible combined. Yet they re-analyse every stupid mis-use of Biden's words, mispronunciations, and inadvertant revelation of secret truth he mumbles and try turning it into politcal gold. Sheesh. Pathetic.

[Bill Falcon]

So it starts. The TDS attacks...somehow cultural marxists (who I would surmise Jake shares quite a bit of common values) who target Catholics and Parents by Stasi like Federal Agencies is just fine. Open borders are great. Forever wars to protect Greater Israel and some weird old-world grievance with Eastern Europe (ok let's be honest about what this insane corporate media support for Ukraine is really about..Trotsky lost to Stalin and the Czar was a bad guy). Abortion until birth and the bizarre support of sexually mutilating mentally ill kids (supporters seem to be degenerates and pedos/groomers not sure you want to die on that hill). But Trump says things that make you feel uncomfortable. While I'd rather have a Ron Paul in his younger days or a Tom Massie to smash the bolshies..Trump will have to do.

[Twiz123]

I am not wholly familiar with Jacob Sullum, but this is easily one of the least balanced and informative Reason stories I have read. From once standpoint people like him "can't take a joke" based on Trump's typical off the cuff commentary, to the extreme stance is that he is unwilling to put on his readers glasses to see that what Democrats are doing daily is ACTUALLY FAR AND AWAY more authoritarian than anything Trump did while in office. I am sadly now having to join the growing group of conservatives that believe we need to begin using the same tactics to compete with Democrats. What tactics? Once in power using the government employees as agents of change against the other party. Thats not something I take lightly but its something the Democrats are doing that will only advance this kind of terrible culture into our country's politics. Its disgusting, but when the other party changes the rules of the game...you have to change with them.