Authoritarianism Flashcards
Is Trump a fascist? 8 experts weigh in - Vox, 2020
The Vox article explores whether Donald Trump qualifies as a fascist, consulting multiple scholars and experts in authoritarianism and fascism. In 2015, most experts concluded Trump was not a fascist because he did not advocate for violent government overthrow or reject democracy outright, critical elements of fascist ideology. In 2020, the scholars reassessed, noting Trump’s authoritarian tendencies, divisive rhetoric, and flirtation with violent political groups but still stopped short of labeling him a fascist. Some, like Yale’s Jason Stanley, argue Trumpism employs fascist tactics—mobilizing followers, promoting ethnonationalism, and targeting minorities—while others caution against diluting the term. The consensus among experts is that Trump’s approach is better described as authoritarian or illiberal populism, with fascist-like strategies but lacking the systematic control and revolutionary goals of historical fascist regimes.
The experts and scholars in the Vox article include:
Roger Griffin - Emeritus Professor of Modern History, Oxford Brookes University, known for his work on fascism, especially The Nature of Fascism.
Sheri Berman - Professor of Political Science, Barnard College, focusing on European history and democratic theory.
Jason Stanley - Professor of Philosophy, Yale University, and author of How Fascism Works, who argues that Trumpism can be seen as a fascist social and political movement.
Matthew Feldman - Director at the Centre for Analysis of the Radical Right, a specialist in far-right extremism and fascism.
Robert Paxton - Mellon Professor Emeritus of Social Sciences at Columbia University, a leading historian of fascism.
Stanley Payne - Emeritus Professor of History at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, with expertise in fascism and authoritarianism.
Ruth Ben-Ghiat - Professor of Italian and History at New York University, who studies authoritarian leaders and their use of power, propaganda, and masculinity.
Jason Brownlee - Professor of Government at the University of Texas at Austin, who has studied authoritarianism and comparisons between Trump’s politics and historical figures like Marcos and Milošević.
Trump and Republicans Exemplify These Five Elements of Fascism - The Guardian, 2023
Here are the five elements of fascism, according to Robert Reich, that he argues are exemplified by Donald Trump and some parts of the Republican party:
Rejection of Democracy in Favor of a Strongman: Fascism promotes the idea of a leader who embodies the will of the people and disregards democratic norms. Trump’s claims about a “stolen election” and statements like “I am your retribution” reflect this approach, where the leader, not the rule of law, is seen as the true voice of the people.
Galvanizing Rage Against Cultural Elites: Rather than co-opting elites, fascists stir public anger against cultural elites, blaming them for societal grievances. Trump’s attacks on the media, academic elites, and other perceived cultural enemies are cited as examples of this element.
Nationalism Based on Racial and Cultural Superiority: Fascist nationalism emphasizes the superiority of a dominant race or cultural group. Trump’s remarks on immigration and critical race theory illustrate a belief in protecting a “superior” culture or heritage, often by scapegoating and excluding others.
Heroic Warrior and Brute Strength Ideals: Fascism extols strength and violence as virtues, celebrating “heroic warriors” who fight for the nation. Trump’s call to “show strength” and his self-description as a “warrior” reinforce this notion of strength as the core of national identity.
Disdain for Women and Fear of Non-Standard Gender Identities: Fascism often enforces male dominance and promotes traditional gender roles, rejecting anything that challenges them. Trump’s derogatory remarks about women and his support for “traditional” family values reflect this idea of male superiority and hostility toward gender diversity.
Reich argues that these elements, when combined, form the basis of fascism, distinct from mere authoritarianism, and that Trump and his movement exhibit these exact traits.
Trump’s Two Forms of Fascism - Mother Jones, 2022
In this piece, David Corn examines Trump and the GOP’s “snowflake fascism”—a contradictory phenomenon where Trump and his allies, known for their aggressive, often defamatory rhetoric, now portray themselves as victims of Democratic hostility. Trump’s complaints about “mean” people, despite his own notorious attacks on opponents, capture the irony, while Biden’s comments on “semi-fascism” in the MAGA movement have incited outrage among Republicans. They characterize Biden’s remarks as extreme, while paradoxically dismissing the GOP’s own history of divisive accusations, from depicting Democrats as radical subversives to questioning the legitimacy of American institutions.
Corn argues that this GOP strategy is part of a broader tactic of “gaslight fascism,” where MAGA Republicans deny or distort their own actions. By refusing to acknowledge the violence of January 6 and Trump’s efforts to overturn the election, they invert reality, casting themselves as defenders of democracy rather than as threats to it. This approach forces Republicans to deny Trump’s attacks on democracy, allowing them to criticize Biden’s warnings as partisan hatred while avoiding any reckoning with Trump’s actions. Corn concludes that this denialism has become essential for the GOP’s survival, echoing Orwellian themes of controlling truth to serve authoritarian ends.
Trump is not a fascist. But that didn’t make him any less dangerous to our democracy - CNN, 2021
The article argues that equating Donald Trump with Adolf Hitler or labeling Trumpism as fascism is historically misguided and oversimplifies the unique nature of Trump’s political influence. While both Trump and Hitler used demagoguery and promoted nationalistic rhetoric, their views on power and governance fundamentally differ: Hitler believed in a totalitarian state where individual interests were subordinate to the collective, whereas Trump champions individual self-interest, treating relationships and governance as transactional. This difference, the author contends, means that calling Trump a fascist risks obscuring the specific threats his ideology poses to democracy.
(Demagoguery is a political strategy that appeals to people’s emotions, fears, and prejudices rather than to rational arguments or facts. A demagogue—someone who uses demagoguery—often seeks to gain power by creating a sense of “us versus them” and positioning themselves as the champion of the “common people” against an elite or corrupt establishment. They may use rhetoric that oversimplifies complex issues, spreads misinformation, and scapegoats certain groups to unite supporters and discredit opponents. Historically, demagoguery has been used to stir up public passion and gain political support, sometimes at the expense of truth and democratic principles).
To rebuild democratic trust, the article suggests it’s crucial not to conflate Trumpism with fascism, as it may alienate Trump’s supporters and prevent meaningful dialogue. Instead, identifying Trumpism’s actual dangers with accuracy could foster a clearer path to national healing. Misusing historical comparisons, the author warns, could make society numb to genuinely authoritarian threats. The article concludes by emphasizing the need to learn from history about rebuilding democracy, arguing that addressing America’s democratic fragility with precision and empathy is essential to restoring trust and bridging political divides.
What is Fascism? - Live Science, 2021
Key Points on Fascism:
Origins and Key Leaders: Fascism rose in 1920s-30s Europe, led by figures like Mussolini in Italy and Hitler in Germany, with regimes characterized by authoritarianism and extreme nationalism.
Defining Characteristics: While definitions vary, common features include authoritarian rule, ethno-nationalism, anti-liberalism, anti-socialism, belief in inherent human inequality, and national glorification.
Core Beliefs: Strong national identity and power as moral principles. Group loyalty over individual rights.
Leaders who position themselves as national saviors, often using violent or extreme measures.
Propaganda and Scapegoating: Fascists use sophisticated propaganda to exclude groups based on ethnicity, religion, or political ideology, fostering a sense of victimization among “in-group” members.
Economic System: Fascism mixes elements of state-controlled capitalism, with business monopolies operating under government oversight to support state goals, while retaining private property.
Evolution Over Time: Post-WWII, overt fascism declined, but elements persist in some modern populist and nationalist movements, which use subtler, coded language and borrow leftist rhetoric.
Conditions for Rise: Historically, fascism gains traction in times of national crisis, when people feel the existing government is ineffective.
Who Was Mussolini? - Chat GPT
Benito Mussolini was an Italian political leader who founded and led the National Fascist Party, becoming the country’s dictator from 1922 until his fall from power in 1943. Known as “Il Duce” (The Leader), Mussolini is infamous for establishing one of the first fascist regimes, characterized by authoritarianism, nationalism, and aggressive militarism.
Key Points of Mussolini’s Infamy:
Creation of Fascism: Mussolini pioneered the fascist ideology, which emphasized extreme nationalism, suppression of political opposition, and the unification of society under a single, powerful leader. His rule provided a model for other fascist regimes, including Hitler’s Nazi Party in Germany.
Authoritarian Rule: Mussolini dismantled democratic institutions in Italy, abolished political parties, and established a totalitarian regime. He used propaganda and a secret police force to suppress opposition and maintain control.
Militarization and Imperial Ambitions: Mussolini aimed to create a “New Roman Empire.” He invaded Ethiopia in 1935, using brutal tactics to subjugate the population. This campaign, marked by widespread atrocities, solidified his reputation as a ruthless imperialist.
Alliance with Nazi Germany: Mussolini formed a military alliance with Adolf Hitler, leading Italy into World War II alongside Nazi Germany. His alignment with Hitler and participation in the Axis Powers eventually led Italy to disaster, as the country faced heavy losses and invasions.
War Crimes and Anti-Semitic Laws: Under Mussolini’s rule, Italy enacted racial laws that discriminated against Jewish Italians, aligning with Nazi Germany’s antisemitic policies. His regime was responsible for numerous human rights abuses and war crimes in occupied territories.
Fall and Execution: As Italy’s losses in WWII mounted, Mussolini lost support. In 1943, he was arrested, and after a brief return to power as head of a puppet state under German control, he was captured and executed by Italian partisans in 1945. His death symbolized the collapse of fascist rule in Italy.
Mussolini’s legacy remains controversial; he is remembered as a dictator whose ambitions for power and national glory led to Italy’s ruin and who contributed to the rise of fascism globally.
Authoritarianism - Oxford Reference
A style of government in which the rulers demand unquestioning obedience from the ruled. Traditionally, ‘authoritarians’ have argued for a high degree of determination by governments of belief and behaviour and a correspondingly smaller significance for individual choice. But it is possible to be authoritarian in some spheres while being more liberal in others. Frederick the Great is alleged to have said, ‘I have an agreement with my people: they can say what they like and I can do what I like’.
Authoritarianism has become simply a ‘boo’ word, referring to overweening and intolerant government irrespective of the justification, or lack of it, of such practices. Thus it often means exactly the same as despotism, an older word. A number of American political scientists in the Cold War period distinguished between ‘authoritarian’ and ‘totalitarian’ governments. The former (mainly military regimes) had two advantages over the latter: they did not last as long and, though they could repress their political opponents as brutally as any known regimes, they left a larger sphere for private life. (Totalitarian regimes were, in this context, invariably communist.) Thus, where conditions were not yet ripe for democracy, there were relative advantages to authoritarianism.
Trump’s Worse Pardons (1st Term) - Chat GPT
Donald Trump granted a significant number of pardons and commutations during his presidency, many of which were controversial. Here are five of the most criticized individuals he pardoned:
1. Joe Arpaio
• Who: Former sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona.
• Why controversial: Known for harsh immigration enforcement and numerous allegations of racial profiling, Arpaio was convicted of criminal contempt of court for defying a judge’s order to stop detaining people based solely on suspicions of their immigration status. Critics saw the pardon as an endorsement of discriminatory practices.
2. Roger Stone
• Who: Longtime Trump ally and political consultant.
• Why controversial: Convicted of obstructing a congressional investigation, making false statements, and witness tampering in connection with the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. His pardon was criticized as an act of cronyism, protecting someone who had lied to shield Trump.
3. Paul Manafort
• Who: Trump’s 2016 campaign chairman.
• Why controversial: Convicted of tax fraud, bank fraud, and failing to disclose foreign lobbying. Manafort’s crimes were tied to his work in Ukraine and his financial dealings, and the pardon was viewed as a reward for his loyalty and refusal to cooperate with investigations into Trump.
4. Charles Kushner
• Who: Father of Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law.
• Why controversial: Convicted of tax evasion, witness tampering, and illegal campaign contributions. His case drew notoriety when it was revealed he had orchestrated a scheme to blackmail his brother-in-law using a secretly recorded encounter with a sex worker. The pardon was widely criticized as nepotistic.
5. Michael Flynn
• Who: Trump’s former national security adviser.
• Why controversial: Pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian ambassador during the transition period after the 2016 election. Flynn’s pardon was seen as undermining accountability in the investigation into Russian interference and as a political favor to a loyal supporter.
These pardons were controversial because they often involved individuals closely tied to Trump or those accused of undermining the rule of law, raising concerns about self-interest and favoritism in the clemency process.
Trump’s Former Staff Speaking Out Against Him - Chat GPT
At least 24 former Trump administration officials or allies have publicly criticized him, citing concerns about his leadership, temperament, and adherence to democratic norms. This includes high-profile figures such as former Vice President Mike Pence, Attorney General Bill Barr, Defense Secretaries James Mattis and Mark Esper, and Chief of Staff John Kelly. Some have described him as unfit for office, prioritizing personal interests over the country, and undermining the Constitution. Their critiques span a wide range of issues from January 6 to national security】.
Why Trump’s FBI and DOJ picks scare civil liberties experts - The Guardian, 2024
Donald Trump’s nominations of Kash Patel to lead the FBI and Pam Bondi to head the Department of Justice have raised alarms over a potential “revenge” agenda targeting Trump’s political foes. Both nominees are ardent loyalists who have echoed Trump’s false claims of election fraud. Patel has called for prosecuting “deep state” critics, publishing an enemies list in his book and pledging retribution “criminally or civilly.” Bondi has similarly called for “cleaning house” in the justice department, vowing to investigate those she claims conspired against Trump. Critics argue such rhetoric undermines public trust in the justice system and could incite violence, with former DOJ prosecutors warning these moves could erode the rule of law and endanger public servants.
Patel’s lack of experience and incendiary remarks may complicate Senate confirmation, while Bondi’s past ties to Trump, including a controversial donation while she served as Florida’s attorney general, have raised ethical concerns. Former officials have labeled the nominees unfit for leadership, with one comparing their dependence on Trump’s favor to his reliance on Roy Cohn. Legal experts warn that pursuing baseless investigations could backfire professionally, but the greater fear is that these appointments could embolden individuals to act violently on conspiracy theories. Critics stress the importance of maintaining institutional integrity, arguing that Trump’s picks threaten the independence of the FBI and DOJ.
Kash Patel said on Steve Bannon’s show:
“We’re going to go out and find the conspirators, not just in government but in the media … who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections. We’re going to come after you … Whether it’s criminally or civilly, we’ll figure that out. But yeah, we’re putting you all on notice.”
Latest charges against Trump evoke pattern used by authoritarian leaders, experts say - NPR, 2023
In this article, Sacha Pfeiffer is the host of the segment, likely an NPR journalist who is guiding the discussion. She introduces the topic and engages with the other participants in the conversation.
Odette Yousef is NPR’s domestic extremism correspondent. She is reporting on the topic and providing insights into the charges against Donald Trump, the historical context of his actions, and the broader implications of the case, particularly regarding extremism and the use of lies in politics.
The latest indictment against former President Donald Trump alleges that he knowingly lied about the 2020 election being stolen and worked to use government power to overturn the election results. Prosecutors charge him with three criminal conspiracies: defrauding the U.S. by spreading false claims, obstructing the certification of votes, and undermining the right to vote. Scholars of political history note that Trump’s tactics resemble those used in authoritarian regimes, where lies are employed to destabilize trust in democratic institutions, discredit the press, and create a single source of truth controlled by the leader. This pattern of behavior, which led to widespread mistrust in elections, mirrors historical authoritarian strategies. The case also highlights the rise of extremist ideologies within the GOP, with many now embracing conspiracy theories and political violence, signaling a shift in American society that extends far beyond Trump’s influence.
Here are the specific parts in the article where the concepts of lies, authoritarian tactics, and the normalization of extremist ideologies are mentioned, with quotes:
Lies used to subvert democracy:
“The indictment alleges that there were three criminal conspiracies. One was to defraud the U.S. by using lies to subvert or overturn the election results.”
“The document says each of those conspiracies, quote, ‘built on the widespread mistrust the defendant was creating through pervasive and destabilizing lies about election fraud.’”
“YOUSEF: …lies are used by political leaders to turn the public against alternate sources of authority.”
Historical parallels with authoritarian tactics:
“What jumped out to me is that we finally have a structural understanding of the way lies can undermine democracy, of the way trust is central for our democracy.” — Jason Stanley, Yale professor.
“Lies are used by political leaders to turn the public against alternate sources of authority. So historically, Sacha, we’ve seen political leaders use lies to fan deep state conspiracy theories, to denigrate the press, to discredit independent bodies of government like courts or the legislative arm.”
“When you debase the notion of truth so people don’t know what to believe, then many people will check out. When you assert yourself as the only holder of truth and then if you declare an election was false or corrupt, that has a ready-made audience.” — Ruth Ben-Ghiat, NYU history professor.
Normalization of extremist ideologies:
“Trump welcomed far-right extremists into his base, and now we’ve seen a normalization of some tenets of extremist ideology within the GOP and the general populace on some issues.”
“You know, think about the great replacement theory, for example. And so this goes well beyond what happened on January 6, and it goes beyond Trump himself.”
“You know, we now see a large portion of the right has embraced the idea of political violence. They’ve embraced conspiracy theories. They reject the authority and credibility of government institutions.”
Donald Trump Isn’t Even Trying to Hide His Authoritarian Plans for a Second Term - Vanity Fair, 2023
The article outlines concerns about a potential second term for Donald Trump, which could be marked by authoritarian policies. If re-elected, Trump and his allies plan to centralize presidential power, reducing the independence of federal agencies like the FCC and intelligence agencies. They aim to replace career civil servants with loyalists and revive controversial practices like “impounding” funds, a tactic banned under Nixon. Trump’s advisors, such as John McEntee and Russell Vought, openly discuss overhauling the government structure to align with conservative goals, even targeting independent bodies like the Justice Department. While Trump’s campaign insists these plans are transparent, critics warn of chaotic governance and potential constitutional crises, as Trump’s actions may face little resistance from Congress or the courts, which may be inclined to allow him greater power.
Donald Trump has directly discussed some of these plans, particularly on his campaign website and in statements from his advisers. Here are the key instances where he or his allies have outlined these ideas:
Campaign Website: Trump’s website includes plans for a second term, including proposals to revive the practice of “impounding” funds appropriated by Congress for programs he doesn’t support. This was banned under Richard Nixon but appears in Trump’s stated agenda for his potential second term.
John McEntee’s Statements: John McEntee, a former Trump administration official overseeing the second-term plans, stated, “Our current executive branch… was conceived of by liberals for the purpose of promulgating liberal policies… What’s necessary is a complete system overhaul.” This reflects Trump’s intent to centralize authority in the executive branch and reorganize it to advance conservative policies.
Russell Vought’s Remarks: Russell Vought, former head of the Office of Management and Budget under Trump, said, “What we’re trying to do is identify the pockets of independence and seize them.” This statement reveals Trump’s strategy to eliminate independent agencies and consolidate power in the executive branch.
Trump’s General Advocacy for Strong Executive Power: Throughout his presidency, Trump repeatedly emphasized the need for a strong executive, often asserting that the president should have more authority to bypass traditional checks on power. For example, in response to challenges from Congress or the courts, Trump would often argue that his decisions as president should not be hindered by other branches of government. He frequently framed this as an effort to “drain the swamp” and eliminate government bureaucracy that he considered obstructive.
While Donald Trump has frequently emphasized the importance of executive power and often criticized other branches of government for limiting his authority, he has not made a direct quote saying, “his decisions should not be hindered by other branches of government.” However, there are several instances where he expressed similar sentiments, such as:
Trump on Executive Authority (2019):
In an interview with The New York Times, Trump said, “I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.” He was referencing his belief in broad executive power, particularly with respect to actions that Congress or the courts might oppose. This statement was widely interpreted as him claiming near-unlimited authority in executing his presidential duties.
Trump’s Defiance of Judicial Oversight:
On multiple occasions, Trump openly criticized judicial rulings against his policies, such as his travel ban or immigration executive orders. He frequently stated that the judiciary was overstepping its bounds. For example, in response to a ruling against his travel ban, Trump tweeted: “The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!”
Trump on the Role of the Presidency (2018):
During a meeting with lawmakers, Trump was reported to have said, “The president’s authority is very powerful, and I have a right to do whatever I want.”
While these quotes don’t explicitly state that his decisions should not be hindered by other branches, they reflect his view that the president should have broad authority and that judicial and legislative limitations on executive actions are sometimes improper or overreaching.
Trump impeachment evidence overwhelming - House report - BBC, 2019
Impeachment Evidence: The impeachment inquiry panel finds overwhelming evidence that Trump placed personal political interests above national interests, attempting to solicit foreign interference from Ukraine for his 2020 re-election bid.
Trump’s Denial: Trump denies any wrongdoing, calling the inquiry a witch-hunt, while the White House decries the report as unsubstantiated.
Report Overview: The impeachment report details Trump’s months-long effort to pressure Ukraine into launching investigations that would benefit his campaign, including discrediting Joe Biden and a debunked theory about Ukraine interfering in the 2016 election.
New Evidence: Phone records show Rudy Giuliani’s communication with the White House, undermining claims he acted independently and confirming he was acting on Trump’s behalf in pressuring Ukraine.
Next Steps: The Intelligence Committee approved the report, which will now be reviewed by the House Judiciary Committee to consider formal impeachment charges, with a House vote expected before year-end.
Republican Response: Republicans argue the inquiry is politically motivated and lacks evidence for impeachment, dismissing Democratic witnesses and defending Trump’s actions.
Trump’s Accusations: Trump allegedly pressured Ukraine with military aid and a White House meeting to obtain investigations into Biden and a false election interference theory.
Impeachment Process: Impeachment is a two-step process where the House votes on charges, and if passed, the Senate holds a trial, where a two-thirds majority is needed for conviction and removal, though Senate control by Republicans makes conviction unlikely.
The principle of prioritizing national interests above political interests for a president is not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution but is widely considered a fundamental aspect of ethical leadership and the role of the president. In the context of the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, this idea is implied in the accusations of misconduct.
The impeachment report claims that Trump placed “personal political interests above the national interests of the United States” by soliciting foreign interference from Ukraine in order to secure his re-election. This statement highlights a violation of the expected duty to act in the best interests of the country rather than for personal or political gain.
While not legally codified in a specific rule, this expectation is rooted in the general understanding that public officials, especially the president, are required to uphold the Constitution and act in a way that benefits the public good rather than personal or partisan interests. Additionally, the “emoluments clause” and the “abuse of power” charge both suggest that actions that undermine national interests for personal gain are unconstitutional and grounds for impeachment.
Emoluments Clause:
The Emoluments Clause is a provision in the U.S. Constitution designed to prevent corruption by limiting the ways in which public officials can receive gifts or compensation from foreign governments. The relevant clause can be found in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 (for Congress) and Article II, Section 1, Clause 7 (for the President), and reads:
Article I, Section 9, Clause 8: “No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign state.”
Article II, Section 1, Clause 7: “The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.”
The Emoluments Clause is designed to prevent the president and other federal officers from being unduly influenced or corrupted by foreign governments, and it has been a subject of legal controversy, particularly during Trump’s presidency. For example, critics claimed Trump violated the Emoluments Clause by continuing to profit from his hotels and businesses while in office, receiving payments from foreign governments for services, events, and bookings at his properties.
Abuse of Power:
Abuse of Power refers to the illegal or improper use of presidential powers for personal or political gain rather than for the public good. It is one of the primary charges in an impeachment inquiry, as it is a violation of the president’s oath of office to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States” and preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.
In the case of Donald Trump’s impeachment inquiry, the abuse of power charge arose from his alleged efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden, his political rival, by withholding military aid unless they complied. This was seen as an improper use of presidential authority for personal political gain—violating the public trust and using the office for partisan advantage.
Abuse of Power is considered an impeachable offense under the Constitution, specifically tied to “high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” a term that is not defined but generally understood to encompass serious violations of public trust or misconduct by a public official. Trump’s actions in pressuring Ukraine were central to the abuse of power charge in the impeachment proceedings.
Evidence of Donald Trump’s months-long effort to pressure Ukraine into launching investigations for his political benefit came from several key pieces of testimony and documentation revealed during the impeachment inquiry:
Testimonies from Key Witnesses:
Ambassador William Taylor and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent testified that Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and other officials in the administration were directing efforts to get Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. These efforts were seen as politically motivated, aimed at helping Trump’s 2020 re-election bid.
Gordon Sondland, the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, testified that there was a clear “quid pro quo” arrangement where military aid and a White House meeting for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky were conditioned on Ukraine announcing investigations into Biden and the debunked theory that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 U.S. election.
The July 25 Phone Call:
The most pivotal piece of evidence was the July 25, 2019, phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky. During the call, Trump repeatedly urged Zelensky to launch investigations into Joe Biden and his son, as well as a conspiracy theory regarding Ukraine’s involvement in the 2016 election. Trump specifically asked Zelensky to “do us a favor” and publicly announce these investigations, which would benefit Trump’s re-election campaign.
The phone call was released as a transcript by the White House, providing direct evidence of Trump’s request for foreign interference in the 2020 election.
Holds on Military Aid:
Testimony and evidence from multiple officials confirmed that Trump placed a hold on $400 million in congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine, which was critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russian aggression. The hold on this aid was linked to Ukraine launching investigations into Biden and the 2016 election interference theory.
This hold was not officially communicated to Ukraine at first, but testimonies revealed that it was tied to Trump’s personal political interests and demands, rather than any national security concerns.
Rudy Giuliani’s Role:
Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, was heavily involved in pressuring Ukraine to conduct the investigations. Giuliani made multiple trips to Ukraine and worked with Ukrainian officials to advance the investigations into Biden. Testimonies from diplomats and others in the administration revealed that Giuliani was acting at the behest of Trump and directly coordinating with the White House.
Text Messages:
Text messages from U.S. diplomats, including Gordon Sondland, William Taylor, and others, showed clear evidence of efforts to leverage military aid and a White House meeting in exchange for Ukraine announcing the investigations. These messages confirmed that the diplomatic staff recognized the political nature of the request and the potential danger to U.S. interests.
Phone Records of Giuliani:
Phone records from Rudy Giuliani showed extensive communication between him and the White House, particularly with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which was responsible for implementing the hold on military aid. These records helped establish that Giuliani was not acting independently but was in contact with senior administration officials as part of a coordinated effort to pressure Ukraine.
This series of evidence—including direct testimonies, documents, and communications—provided the foundation for the impeachment charge of abuse of power, as it demonstrated a prolonged campaign by Trump to use the powers of his office to secure political gain by soliciting foreign interference in the 2020 election.
The Intelligence Committee and the House Judiciary Committee are two distinct committees in the U.S. House of Representatives, each with specific roles and responsibilities, particularly in overseeing the executive branch and handling matters related to impeachment.
- Intelligence Committee (House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence):
Role: This committee is primarily responsible for overseeing the nation’s intelligence agencies and their activities, ensuring they operate effectively and in line with the law. It covers areas such as national security, intelligence gathering, and the defense of the United States against foreign threats.
Key Responsibilities:
Oversee the CIA, FBI, NSA, and other intelligence agencies.
Monitor issues related to cybersecurity, foreign espionage, and global intelligence operations.
Review classified information and conduct investigations related to U.S. intelligence activities.
In Impeachment: The House Intelligence Committee plays a key role in investigations that might lead to impeachment, such as the Trump-Ukraine scandal. The committee is often tasked with gathering evidence, holding hearings, and releasing reports that detail findings that could form the basis of impeachment charges.
For example, the Intelligence Committee led the investigation into Trump’s interactions with Ukraine and released the impeachment inquiry report that laid out the case for abuse of power.
- House Judiciary Committee:
Role: The Judiciary Committee is one of the oldest and most powerful committees in the House. Its jurisdiction includes a wide range of legal and constitutional matters, including the administration of justice, civil rights, and the impeachment of federal officials.
Key Responsibilities:
Oversee the Department of Justice (DOJ), FBI, and U.S. courts.
Handle issues related to civil liberties, criminal justice, and constitutional law.
Review proposed changes to federal law, including amendments to the Constitution.
Manage impeachment proceedings, which involve drawing up and voting on formal impeachment charges (articles of impeachment) against a president or other high-ranking officials.
In Impeachment: If the Intelligence Committee uncovers evidence that could lead to impeachment, the Judiciary Committee typically takes over the process of drafting the formal charges (articles of impeachment) and considering whether to bring those charges to the full House of Representatives for a vote.
In Trump’s impeachment inquiry, after the Intelligence Committee’s investigation, the Judiciary Committee considered the formal charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
Trump Threatening to Prosecute his Opponents
NPR, October 2024:
With just two weeks until the presidential election, former President Donald Trump has intensified his rhetoric, frequently targeting political opponents and perceived enemies with threats of investigations, prosecutions, and punishments. In recent interviews, Trump suggested using the military or National Guard to address disruptions by “radical left lunatics” and has vowed to exact “retribution” through federal law enforcement. He has publicly called for Vice President Kamala Harris to be impeached and prosecuted, labeled Liz Cheney guilty of “treason,” and reposted calls for military tribunals on his Truth Social platform. Legal experts warn that such actions, if pursued, could erode civil liberties and establish authoritarian control. “This is how autocrats cement their permanent grip on power,” said Ian Bassin, executive director of Protect Democracy.
Trump’s threats have extended to judges, journalists, and former officials, including Gen. Mark Milley, whom he suggested could face execution for alleged “treason.” His rhetoric is often tied to his baseless claims of election fraud, such as reposting a call to “START ARRESTING THE POLL WORKERS.” Critics argue these statements echo his first term, where he pressured the Department of Justice to investigate rivals and praised actions that harmed opponents, such as the firing of FBI official Andrew McCabe just before his retirement. Trump has also promised to weaken Justice Department independence if reelected, stating he will appoint “the most ferocious legal warriors” to pursue his goals. His allies have downplayed concerns, framing his actions as a response to what they claim is a “weaponized” justice system under President Biden.
Donald Trump made the statement about appointing “the 100 most ferocious legal warriors against crime and Communist corruption that this country has ever seen” in a video released on April 13, 2023, as part of his “Agenda47” policy platform. In the same video, he discussed plans to overhaul the Department of Justice, launch civil rights investigations into certain local district attorneys, and address what he sees as systemic corruption and political weaponization within the justice system.
NBC News, June 2024:
Trump’s Warning on Imprisoning Opponents: In a Newsmax interview, Trump hinted at the possibility of imprisoning political opponents if re-elected. “Does that mean the next president does it to them? That’s really the question,” he said regarding his recent guilty verdict.
Pledge to Prosecute Biden: After his Miami arraignment in June, Trump vowed to appoint a special prosecutor to target Joe Biden and his family, calling Biden “the most corrupt president in the history of America.”
Reflection on Hillary Clinton: Trump said he refrained from prosecuting Clinton in 2016, calling it a “terrible precedent,” but lamented the current situation: “This is a bad, bad road that they’re leading us down to as a country.”
Trump criticized the jury in his trial, saying he “never saw a glimmer of a smile” and alleged the trial was unfair. He was fined $10,000 for violating a gag order by Judge Juan Merchan.
In a Fox News interview, Trump said, “My revenge is my success,” but noted the challenge of dealing with “evil” adversaries.
AP News, 2024:
With just days to go before his first and likely only debate against Vice President Kamala Harris, former President Donald Trump posted a warning on his social media site threatening to jail those “involved in unscrupulous behavior” this election, which he said would be under intense scrutiny.
“WHEN I WIN, those people that CHEATED will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Law, which will include long term prison sentences so that this Depravity of Justice does not happen again,” Trump wrote late Saturday, sowing doubt once more about the integrity of the election, even though cheating is incredibly rare.
“Please beware,” he went on, “that this legal exposure extends to Lawyers, Political Operatives, Donors, Illegal Voters, & Corrupt Election Officials. Those involved in unscrupulous behavior will be sought out, caught, and prosecuted at levels, unfortunately, never seen before in our Country.”
Trump’s message represents his latest threat to use the office of the presidency to exact retribution if he wins a second term. There is no evidence of the kind of fraud he continues to insist marred the 2020 election; in fact, dozens of courts, Republican state officials and his own administration have said he lost fairly.
