Trump tries to build another shield to protect himself

Do you trust Trump or not?

Some sources have reported (link 1, link 2) that Trump wants to expand the scope of presidential privilege for communications that would allow him to keep secret a broader swath of his activities while in office. One report frames the new effort as Trump building a shield to protect himself from congressional investigations ahead of the 2026 mid-term elections. He obviously doesn’t want Dems investigating him if they get control of the House or Senate.

Trump claims that executive privilege (1) should be expanded to include communications with private, nongovernment advisers, and (2) limits imposed by the Presidential Records Act on what can be kept secret should be loosened or eliminated. The inherent importance of this is high. If a president can keep secret most or all of his dealings in office, Congress would have little to no ability to investigate presidential misconduct and crimes. The public record available after an administration ends would be pretty all that is flattering and little to nothing that isn’t.

Trump says expanded executive privilege is needed so presidents can receive candid, expert advice on decision-making from trusted private advisers without those conversations or the advisers’ identities being exposed through subpoenas or investigations. That raises the question of why now pursue sweeping formal opinion immediately before anticipated oversight fights with Dems? Trump’s timing here strongly supports the inference that the administration is preparing defenses against anticipated scrutiny.

Of course, if everything is kept secret, there is no way for the public, researchers, congress, law enforcement or the courts to determine if a meeting to get “expert advice on decision-making” is for the purpose of decision-making or how much the “expert” needs to pay Trump to get what they or their employers want. Secrecy hides criminality and treason just as well as it hides honest, good faith governance.

A fair and reasonable analysis

Given his track record, it is rational to believe that Trump wants to build a legal shield to (1) hide his corruption, (2) hide his betrayals of public trust and America’s interests, (3) protect his cronies, enablers, and donors, and (4) keep the public from seeing who and what is really influencing government policy and its goal of service to rich and powerful elites and their special interests before service to the public interest.

What Trump is trying to get is not normal executive privilege. It is an intentional strategy to erase records, hide private advisers, hide major donors, and make corruption harder or impossible to find and expose. When a president tries to destroy the paper trail and cloak private operators in secrecy, the point is not “candor.” The point is impunity.

So, we see the continuing Trump effort to build and protect his dictatorship and kleptocracy. Fewer records, means more secrecy, more corruption and loyalist power over federal institutions, and less to no accountability for the people who profit from power gained by corruption, In essence, Trump is trying to turn the presidency into a private protection racket for his benefit and the benefit of allied elites, corporations and major donors. Here, Trump is openly trying to use his power to corruptly enrich elites at the expense of the public interest using secrecy to hide and protect it what he is doing.

Q1: Is the main reason Trump wants expanded executive privilege now due mostly to (1) the prospect of the Dems taking control of the House after the 2026 midterm elections and investigating him for what he has done, or (2) since confidentiality for outside advisers has always been so indispensable for presidents, what the heck, why not expand privilege right, with the 2026 elections being just an innocent coincidence?

Q2: Do you mostly Trust Trump or not, and if so, on what evidence do you base your trust, e.g., he is going to make America great again, we won the war against Iran, or he tamed inflation and America is great again!?

Info sources:

Trump executive privilege memo could hamper Democrats if they win Congress

Trump Administration Claims Executive Privilege Over White House Conversations With Private Advisers

Applicability of Executive Privilege to Presidential Communications with Private Advisers — Executive privilege can apply to presidential communications with private advisers so long as the communications relate to official presidential decision-making, involve or reflect communications with the President or his direct advisers, and are confidential. (The DOJ, Trump’s personal legal defense team , definitely supports lots more secrecy)

Comparing Trump to Hitler

 

Propaganda is a truly terrible weapon in the hands of an expert. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, 1924

Hitler knew exactly what he was talking about regarding propaganda. Germaine, 2026

The idiots at the DoE

The loyalty of people working for Trump is truly blinding. In an attempt to kiss Trump’s ass, sycophants running his corrupted, incompetent Department of Education (DoE) posted a video the dim bulbs thought would please Trump. It backfired and the DoE boobs took the video down after they realized the gargantuan nature of their mistake.

Their mistake? The boobs compared Trump favorably to Hitler. An article by The New Republic, Education Department Seriously Posts Video Comparing Trump to Hitler, describes the mess. The DoE posted a propaganda video on X that favorably compared Trump to the brutal ferocity of Adolf Hitler. The post drew rapid backlash because it used a Darkest Hour clip where Winston Churchill warns that “You cannot reason with a tiger when your head is in its mouth”. In the video, that line referred to Hitler. A montage of man-stud Trump images followed the heat in tiger’s mouth comment.

The majestic man-stud Trump — he calls some people slobs

The DoE idiots paired the film clip with techno music, a montage of manly images of Trump, the caption “No one does it like us”, with a cute little tiger emoji. DoE staff intended the tiger imagery to portray Trump as muscular, powerful, intimidating stud-muffin. But those idiots failed to recognize the scene’s obvious Hitler context. Talk about gross incompetence, geez.

Well, at least the DoE idiots were right to say “No one does it like us”. That’s a serious understatement.

What about actual, serious, expert Trump-Hitler comparisons?

Obviously, some of us still have open minds. Some or most of us in the open-minded crew have some natural curiosity about the ongoing American catastrophe called Trump/MAGA. Welp, it turns out that over time expert comparisons of Trump to Hitler have made increasingly clear that Trump is a lot like Hitler in his brutal authoritarian mindset, cruelty, arrogance, corruption, and deep moral rot. Given the totality of the evidence in the public record, one can now confidently argue that in terms of mindset, arrogance, bigotry (including racism), cruelty, and moral rot, Trump is much more like Hitler than not.

We have a mini-Hitler on our hands. As one Peanut Gallery commenter observed, Compared him to Hitler, but with the understanding that it’s a compliment? Wow, that is fucking wild.

Trump called her a slob, she noticed hypocrisy

That is not to say or imply that Trump is operating concentration camps and carrying out mass murder of tens of thousands of people. But he clearly would like to if he could get away with it. Dead innocent people as collateral damage doesn’t faze him one iota. He’s just not yet in full dictator-murderer power like Hitler. Dog help us if he ever gets that kind of power.

Trump is clearly sensitive to how close he actually is to being another Hitler. He gets very pissed off when comparisons are made, even when the comparisons aren’t actually made. Trump just makes stuff up and goes to court with his moral rot and lies. For example, in a current defamation lawsuit against CNN, he whines to the USSC: Here, CNN made false factual accusations about President Donald J. Trump’s challenges to the 2020 election process, and embedded them in pernicious comparisons to Hitler’s and Goebbels’s use of the “Big Lie” in antisemitic Nazi propaganda.

Clearly, Trump is aware of Hitler comparisons and he doesn’t like it.

In short, Trump’s mindset and public conduct clearly shows his aggressive authoritarianism and personalist mindset much like Hitler’s. He demands personal loyalty, dehumanizes opponents and targets, employs nativist, bigoted and racist rhetoric, habitually lies, and delegitimizes elections and pro-democracy institutions. Like Hitler, he retaliates against real and perceived enemies. He uses his public power and trust for corrupt, personal and family advantage. That usually comes with detriment to the public interest, rule of law, or civil liberties. Those are not superficial similarities with Hitler. They constitute serious warning signs of anti-democratic rule and aggressive authoritarianism that drives Trump and MAGA politics and policy.

Q: If comparisons between Trump and Hitler are invalid or irrelevant, and the two are little to nothing alike, what evidence supports that?

Info sources:

The Weapons of Dictatorship: Terror and Propaganda

Holocaust Encyclopedia: Nazi Rule

The Nazi Party and Hitler’s rise to power

State of Deception: the Power of Nazi Propaganda — During a span of two decades, Nazi leaders showed the world bold new ways to use the weapon of propaganda. The Nazi Party’s advanced techniques influenced millions of Germans and other Europeans. Party members presented appealing visions of a New Order: a prosperous Europe led by Germany. At the same time, they demonized enemies, presenting them as threats to German society or western civilization.

The Symbolic Politics of Status in the MAGA Movement

Just another day in MAGAlandia

 

It's MAGA's fault

Nowadays, the news from MAGAlandia is overwhelmingly bad. A few routine reports exemplify the state of collapse the US is in now that we’ve attained the Golden Days of MAGA, or whatever the mess we’re in can be called.

False hopes about Meta

An ABC News report, Major changes coming to Meta after massive settlement, discusses an agreement by Meta (Facebook, Instagram, etc.) to pay up to $18 billion after multiple states sued, claiming the company’s social media platforms harm children. In New Mexico, a federal court ordered Meta to pay $567m for its failure to warn the public about dangers its social media platforms to children. The various reporting indicates that big, pro-public interest changes are coming to Meta.

The various reporting is very likely wrong. The fines might sound like a lot, but they’re not. For context, Meta’s latest financial results reported $61bn in revenue from April to June. That’s up 28% on the same period a year ago. What Meta will do is what any reasonable person in our deregulated capitalist system would expect them to do. The company will appeal decisions against it and make inconsequential cosmetic changes that the company can tout as huge improvements in the company’s toxic business operations.

Why make only cosmetic changes? Revenue and profit. Lots and lots of revenue and profit. Meta’s engagement-and-advertising model behind Instagram and Facebook is worth tens of billions annually. Meta won’t materially change that unless courts force it to change. Unfortunately, our federal courts have been corrupted by Trump and elite MAGA anti-regulation judges and dogma. All of that MAGA-stuff is vehemently anti-public interest and pro-allied special interest. We can therefore expect mostly meaningless hand-waving, crackpottery, and smoke and mirrors from the courts.

Public-interest changes that Meta might make will be structured to look substantial while minimizing damage to the company’s highly profitable business model and profits. For lots of huge, powerful companies like Meta, profits are far more important than public safety or damage to the public interest, including damage to democracy. In these Golden Days of MAGA, money talks, while damaged children and everything else that gets in the way walk. Some new protections for children, if any arise, will minimize damage to profits.

Hackers tinkering with critical water infrastructure

Consider, if you would, how your life might change if fresh water supplies and wastewater treatments were cut off for at least ~4 weeks. A news article, More than 100 water systems were hit in July cyberattacks, reports that Iranian hackers are playing with the controls of our fresh water and waste water treatment and supply systems. Toying with our water systems are just playful little test runs for a larger-scale attack. The hackers targeted water and wastewater facilities across at least a dozen states in July, including internet-exposed programmable logic controllers (PLCs).

Internet-exposed water systems in America’s Water and Wastewater Systems (WWS) Sector, commonly operate by PLCs connected directly to a cellular modem. Connecting PLCs directly to the internet obviously creates significant security risks. The fact that more than 100 internet-exposed water systems were hit in a single month points to a systemic vulnerability across the entire WWS sector. This is not just a series of isolated, unlucky targets.

FWIW, hackers can both change physical water treatment processes, and they can mislead facility operators into believing that water treatment processes are operating normally. Until it becomes clear that there has been an attack, hackers can deceive WWS operators.

MAGA does not take cybersecurity or public safety seriously

Trump and MAGA politics and policy are in power. They are therefore responsible for what happens on their watch.

We all know why state-supported Iranian hackers might be interested in toying with our WWS. Dealing a knockout blow to WWS in major urban areas is hard but not impossible. If our water systems go down for a month, or maybe even just 2 or 3 weeks, that could lead to major economic damage and tens of thousands of deaths. Bottled water might last a couple of days, or possibly a week. But failure of wastewater treatments will collapse sewage handling and treatment within a few days. Increasing numbers of toilets will stop working over time. For some people, it will probably feel like civilization collapse.

Oops, things got a bit out of hand!

Q1: Under MAGA politics and policy, cybersecurity is left voluntary and up to the private sector, but is that sufficient to protect our WWS and our personal safety?

Q2: Is the hack of 100 water systems evidence of the private sector doing a good job of cybersecurity and thus protection of public health and welfare, or is it evidence of capitalist private sector failure?

Q3: Should the burden should be on government and utilities to demonstrate adequate cybersecurity by independent testing, mandatory remediation, and adequately funded redundancy, or should the public just assume that a plan, an advisory, or a manual-operations are adequate to protect us?

Is most of Trump’s damage intentional?

Beginning at the end of Feb. 2025, Trump’s actions in office started to look personally significantly intentionally destructive. It didn’t feel like just incompetence causing unintended damage. If so, one could argue that there is nothing incompetent in destruction if what he is trying to do. Since then, the feeling of intentional destruction has grown continuously. But so far, I’ve found little reporting, analysis, or commentary focused on intentional destruction. In view of how important this would be if it were true, what I found so far is scattered and isolated, e.g., a politician, a commentator, a historian expert on fascism and authoritarianism, a liberal think tank, and a prominent business school.

A Raw Story article, Tanking economy spurs stunning conclusion from analyst: Trump’s doing it ‘deliberately’, again raises this point. The analyst, James Downie (a opinion journalist/commentator) discussed in that article argues that unlike ordinary presidential economic failures, many of the bad outcomes under Trump are the predictable results of his or his administration’s actions.

So far, Trump appears willing to impose large, foreseeable harms to institutions, targeted groups, international cooperation, and selected parts of the economy in pursuit of personal objectives such as personal power, political dominance, fomented symbolic conflict (culture war), or rewarding favored constituencies/donors.

In view of the circumstances, it is reasonable to infer a destructive intent. Trump was repeatedly warned about foreseeable, avoidable damages, but went ahead anyway. He repeatedly ignored warnings, rejected less destructive alternatives, and continued bad behavior even after the damage was real and obvious. That does not amount to mind-reading. It is just a normal evidence-based way drawing conclusions about purpose from Trump’s sustained pattern of destructive behavior.

Relevant evidence of Trump’s destructive intent includes (1) Trump’s statements of contempt for the targeted individuals or institutions, indifference to its beneficiaries, and sometimes open approval of the harm, (2) a repeated pattern of damaging choices that produce the same destructive effects, (3) clear warnings of damage beforehand from knowledgeable officials, affected institutions, courts, markets, or experts, (4) feasible alternatives that would achieve the stated goal with significantly less collateral damage, and (5) persistence or escalation after harmful effects become undeniable.

Why would he do this?

Trump’s lust for vengeance is well-known. He tries to get even for real and imagined wrongs. He believes in asymmetric retaliation, “hit back 100 times harder than you’ve been hit”. Vengeance could explain some of his damage but not all.

Also, Trump’s character has a prominent kleptocratic/grifter component. His scams and grifts are well-documented. Greed could be another motive for some of his damage. By limiting or destroying democratic restraints on his power, his capacity to reach for wealth and power increases. Dismantling anti-corruption safeguards is a transactional model where self-interest and well-connected insiders and interests push aside public-service functions and norms. And since the USSC immunized Trump against liability for crimes he commits in office, the chances of him facing jail time or even prosecution are quite low, essentially almost zero.

Finally, all of those sources of destructive motive, personal grievance, authoritarian-kleptocratic power-seeking, and self-enrichment, could be mutually reinforcing. In other words, he could have multiple motives for causing so much damage to any given target.

Q: How likely is it that most of Trump’s damage to democracy, and rights and protections for citizens and the public interest is intentional and not mostly due to incompetence?