MAGA elites corrupt inconvenient intelligence analysis; Analyzing MAGA’s intelligence priorities

The NYT reports about corruption of competent US intelligence assessments by treasonous MAGA thugs to bring them into alignment with the false realities that djt falsely tells us is real reality: “Official Pushed to Rewrite Intelligence So It Could Not Be ‘Used Against’ Trump -- An assessment contradicted a presidential proclamation. A political appointee demanded a redo, then pushed for changes to the new analysis, too. New emails document how a top aide to Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, ordered analysts to edit an assessment with the hope of insulating President Trump and Ms. Gabbard from being attacked for the administration’s claim that Venezuela’s government controls a criminal gang. “We need to do some rewriting” and more analytic work “so this document is not used against the DNI or POTUS,” Joe Kent, the chief of staff to Ms. Gabbard, wrote in an email to a group of intelligence officials on April 3, using shorthand for Ms. Gabbard’s position and for [djt].”

Treasonous MAGA thug Joe Kent - subverting 

US intelligence, betraying US national security

and enabling Constitution and rule of law

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

Pxy in Deep Research mode:

Q3: Take a broader view of Gabbard and alleged intelligence community bias against Trump and anything else. Consider the goals and tactics of MAGA elites and Trump, including Project 2025, illegal actions since Trump took power in Jan. 2025, and the constant mendacity and bad faith rhetoric and actions of MAGA elites. You concluded that “Gabbard’s supporters base their claims on contested historical examples of alleged bias, which they argue justify her reforms. Whether these examples constitute “unreasonable” politicization depends on partisan interpretation.” Yes, contested historical examples are in play because there are no uncontested historical examples that MAGA elites can use to justify what they are doing.

A3: The debate over Tulsi Gabbard’s leadership of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and allegations of intelligence community (IC) bias against Donald Trump cannot be divorced from the broader ideological and operational framework of the MAGA movement. Central to this framework is Project 2025, a Heritage Foundation-led initiative to consolidate executive power, purge nonpartisan institutions of perceived liberal bias, and align federal agencies with Trump’s political agenda. Gabbard’s reforms—including personnel dismissals, restructuring of intelligence workflows, and the elimination of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs—reflect this agenda, which critics argue prioritizes loyalty over expertise and amplifies partisan narratives over objective analysis.

.... analysis ....

Project 2025’s Blueprint for Intelligence Politicization
Project 2025’s 920-page Mandate for Leadership explicitly calls for restructuring the IC to ensure loyalty to the president. Key proposals include:

Centralizing Control Under the DNI: The DNI should “implement the President’s intelligence priorities” by dismantling bureaucratic “guardrails” that ensure analytical independence 1 3 18.

.... more analysis .... 

Conclusion: The Erosion of Apolitical Intelligence
Gabbard’s tenure as DNI exemplifies the MAGA movement’s broader assault on institutional independence. By framing contested historical incidents as evidence of systemic bias, Project 2025’s architects justify reforms that subordinate intelligence analysis to political objectives. The consequences are already apparent: the dismissal of seasoned analysts, the marginalization of dissenting views, and the erosion of public trust.

As Stephen Marrin, a former CIA analyst, warned: “When policymakers punish messengers for inconvenient truths, they undermine the IC’s reason for existing” 8. The integrity of U.S. intelligence now hinges on resisting this ideological capture—a challenge that transcends partisan politics and strikes at the heart of democratic accountability.

This is more evidence of blatant MAGA authoritarian intent and a shocking disregard for American national security.

Q1: Are criticisms of authoritarianism and anti-Americanism by MAGA elites reasonably grounded in facts and sound reasoning, or is it mostly a matter of unreasonable partisanship grounded in lies and crackpottery? 

Q2: If criticisms of authoritarianism and anti-Americanism by MAGA elites is mostly a matter of unreasonable partisanship grounded in lies and crackpottery, then (1) exactly what is the partisan group or ideology, and (2) exactly what is crackpot about the criticisms?

(I really want to pin down and understand the bad partisanship and bad reasoning that is sometimes alleged about reasoning and evidence like this OP presents and my politics generally)

The Reckoning That Wasn’t

Anand Giridharadas, publisher of The.Ink, brought up an interesting subject on MSNBC’s Morning Joe today: What happened to “The Reckoning?”  Well, so far, against all odds, it hasn’t happened.

Link to article here. 

“But as I look back on this half year, I can’t escape the conclusion: there was no reckoning. In fact, as far as I could tell, quite the opposite.

So many of the people and organizations that should be grappling hard in this moment instead seem consumed by the feeling that they have been getting it absolutely right in a world that fails to appreciate their good sense. We were promised a [political] reckoning; instead, we got complexes of feeling misunderstood. Here we are — amazing political party or news organization or activist group — and people don’t get it. Everyone is crazy. But we’re [the] sane [ones]!”

I wonder about that all the time.  That is, am I one of the sane ones and it’s the rest of the world who is crazy?  They call that second-guessing oneself and it plagues me often.  The old “it’s me, not you.”

So what is it we (and people like me) don’t understand?  What is it that has caused so many, especially younger, White, non-college educated men, to abandon the democrats, the so-called “Party of the working man” and vote for Trump?  Why didn’t the Blacks come through for Kamala?  Why do so many find Trump appealing?  What don’t the confused democrats get?

But that’s what I’m seeing.  I’m seeing Trump getting stronger, not weaker.  Am I delusional?  Sure, Rachel Maddow and other lefties have flooded the airwaves with so-called “daily protest” from all over the country, against what the Trump administration is doing.  People are so-called “up in arms” against the elites’ shenanigans.  Are those protests just a false narrative; an attempt by the democrats to manipulate the masses via “the power of suggestion?”

From what I could tell, Anand Giridharadas chalks it up to our country turning into a bunch of out-of-control psychological misfits, and Trump’s mastery at pulling their emotional and psychological strings.  We’ve seen it many times; the way Trump can take an objective truth and reformat it into a total lie.  And people, many people, just continue to buy it.

No, I see Trump as getting stronger over the next few years.  I do not discard his ability to finagle his way into a Third Term, somehow, someway, and with SCOTUS help.  I'm tellin' ya, not impossible.

So what do you think?  Is Trump getting stronger with the electorate or weaker?  Make your case.

By PrimalSoup 

Legalized campaign bribery

The AP and other sources are reporting that corrupt MAGA thug, chronic liar and criminal Elon Musk says he is going to cut back on political spending, presumably campaign and other "contributions."

There are at least two apparent issues. One is that djt has promised Musk huge payoffs and no more cash is needed. That is possible. The DoJ has already stopped investigations into Musk criminality. The payoff may already be paid.

The other is, thanks to our corrupt, authoritarian USSC, the dense opacity that now shields and defends bribery of both state and federal politicians.

I asked Pxy, Deep Research mode:

Q: Is there any reliable way to verify if Musk actually reduces his political spending? I thought that unlimited funds can now be donated in anonymity.

A: Verifying this claim faces considerable challenges due to the complex landscape of campaign finance disclosure rules. While some donations remain transparent through mandatory reporting, significant pathways exist for anonymous political giving that could make it difficult impossible to fully track whether the world's wealthiest person or anyone else actually decreases his their political spending. (corrections added for accuracy)

Musk's political giving has seen a dramatic evolution. According to OpenSecrets data, prior to 2024, he had contributed over $1 million to political causes since 2002, splitting donations relatively evenly between Democrats and Republicans 18. However, in 2024, he redirected his financial influence dramatically toward Republican candidates, with his contributions exceeding $288 million according to a Washington Post analysis 2. This included funding America PAC, which raised $263 million to support Trump through voter outreach operations in key swing states 2.

.... long analysis ....

Shell Companies and Multiple Entities

Donations can be further obscured through shell companies or by passing through multiple entities. The Brennan Center notes that contributions to super PACs from shell companies and nonprofits that don't disclose their funding sources reached $1.3 billion during the 2024 election cycle—more than the previous two election cycles combined 1 2. 

Conclusion
While Musk's directly disclosed donations can be monitored through FEC filings and services like OpenSecrets, there's no comprehensive way to verify his total political spending if he utilizes donation channels that don't require disclosure. The current campaign finance system allows unlimited funds to flow through dark money channels, making complete verification of his pledge practically impossible.

I think that Musk is an insulting, cynical liar. He will donate as much in secret as he believes will get an acceptable ROI. This is about business and profit, nothing else. The American federal government and state governments are now open to full-blown MAGA-style kleptocracy. 

Learning how to use AI to get better analysis

This comment in a recent post thread sent me down a huge rabbit hole this morning. That comment linked to two ChatGPT search queries and the responses, which are at this link. The two queries were:

• Is the USA heading toward authoritarianism?

• Will the USA remain a healthy and functional democracy?

To me, the ChatGPT responses looked to be superficial and vague enough to support two mostly opposition beliefs. My belief is that our political situation is catastrophically bad and dangerous. The other belief is that, more or less, yeah it is bad, but not nearly as bad as you make it out to be.

To see if Pxy, running the R1 1776 AI platform would gave the same response, I asked for a similar analysis, but in my own complicated way, telling Pxy to take into account US supreme court decisions since Citizens United, the authoritarian and kleptocratic goals in Project 2025, the actions and tactics of Trump and MAGA elites in power and congress since 2017, including their heavy reliance on demagoguery, authoritarian propaganda, lies, slanders and crackpot reasoning, e.g., falsely calling Trump's 1/6 coup attempt a day of love and the 2020 election stolen.

The response I got was deeper and more nuanced, but it tended to see a more acute threat from djt and MAGA politics and tactics than ChatGPT reported. That got me to wonder why there were what appeared to me to be significant differences. What I found was that according to Pxy, short questions to AI tend to give more vague responses, explained in detail in this comment by me. Long story in this comment by me made short is this: At least for complex topics like politics, posing complex, focused questions with specified search topics to AI, will usually give a person more complete and more nuanced responses with less AI bias and hallucination.  

Then, I started a new query in Pxy's Pro-Search mode, instead of it's more thorough Deep Research mode using the exact, short questions that were given to ChatGPT. Again, the answers were closer to my belief in the seriousness of the MAGA authoritarian threat than those given by ChatGPT.

So, not all AI are alike. One has to learn how to use them. At least for politics, that means one has to learn how to ask focused, usually complicated questions to elicit nuanced and heavily fact-driven responses. 

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

For the wonks

Just for giggles, here's a direct comparison of ChatGPT with Pxy running R1 1776 in Pro-search mode. Both AIs got the exact same question. 

Q: Will the USA remain a healthy and functional democracy?

ChatGPT: Whether the United States will remain a healthy and functional democracy is ultimately uncertain—but it can, if key institutions hold and citizens actively support democratic norms. Here's a grounded look at the factors involved:

---

✅ Reasons for Optimism

1. Strong Institutional Foundations

   • The Constitution, independent judiciary, separation of powers, and federalism provide structural guardrails against authoritarian drift.

   • Civil society organizations and investigative journalism remain robust.

2. Active Citizen Engagement

   • Voter turnout has risen in recent major elections.

   • Grassroots movements on all sides of the spectrum show that many Americans care deeply about governance, rights, and representation.

3. Checks and Balances Still Functioning

   • Courts have overturned executive actions and upheld election integrity.

   • Peaceful transfers of power have occurred despite extreme tension (e.g., post-2020 election).

---

⚠️ Reasons for Concern

1. Democratic Backsliding

   • Some states are enacting laws that restrict voting or concentrate political power.

   • Norms like respecting election results or the peaceful rhetoric of dissent are being challenged.

2. Hyper-Partisan Polarization

   • Increasing tribalism threatens compromise and governance.

   • Large swaths of the population now view political opponents as existential threats, not just ideological rivals.

3. Disinformation and Distrust

   • Social media spreads falsehoods rapidly.

   • Trust in government, media, and even basic facts is eroding, which weakens the democratic process.

4. Violence and Extremism

   • The January 6th insurrection marked a historic breach of democratic norms.

   • Politically motivated violence, or tolerance of it, could destabilize democratic legitimacy.

---

🧭 What Will Make the Difference?

• Civic education: Teaching history, critical thinking, and the value of democratic institutions.

• Leadership: Leaders across parties respecting democratic norms and calling out extremism.

• Electoral integrity: Fair, transparent, accessible elections.

• Public will: If citizens continue to vote, protest peacefully, engage in politics, and uphold pluralism, democracy can endure.

---

Final Thought

The U.S. is at a crossroads. Its future as a healthy democracy is not guaranteed—but it's not doomed either. Democracy is not self-executing; it depends on the actions of its people. If Americans actively defend its principles, it can not only survive but become stronger.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Pxy: The United States faces significant challenges to its democratic stability, with expert analyses and recent developments pointing to both accelerating erosion and potential resilience. While democratic institutions have historically shown adaptability, current trends—particularly efforts to centralize power and undermine electoral integrity—raise serious concerns about the future of American democracy.

Threats to Democratic Health

1. Institutional Erosion

• Executive Overreach: The Trump administration has expanded presidential authority through aggressive use of executive orders (e.g., dismantling civil service protections) and proposed policies like Project 2025, which seeks to replace nonpartisan federal workers with loyalists and weaponize the Department of Justice16.

• Judicial and Legislative Weakening: Attacks on judicial independence (e.g., threats to defy court rulings) and congressional gridlock have weakened checks on executive power47.

2. Electoral Integrity Risks

• Voter Suppression and Gerrymandering: State-level laws restricting ballot access and extreme partisan redistricting have skewed representation, with 12 states scoring poorly on democratic metrics like fair election administration7.

• Rejection of Election Results: The persistence of election denialism and efforts to politicize election oversight (e.g., "Stop the Steal" rhetoric) threaten peaceful power transitions76.

3. Global Authoritarian Parallels
Scholars compare U.S. trends to autocratization in Hungary and Turkey, where leaders eroded democracy through legalistic maneuvers rather than overt coups16. Project 2025’s blueprint mirrors these strategies, advocating media control and centralized governance6.

---

Signs of Resilience

1. Public Awareness

• 73% of Americans recognize a serious threat to democracy, though partisan divides persist (86% of Democrats vs. 61% of Republicans)3.

• Grassroots movements and legal challenges have countered voter suppression and executive overreach14.

2. Institutional Guardrails

• Courts have occasionally blocked extreme policies (e.g., rulings against unilateral executive actions)4.

• Civil society groups and media remain vocal watchdogs, though under increased pressure16.

3. Expert Warnings as Catalysts
Initiatives like the Democracy Playbook 2025 outline actionable steps to reinforce transparency, rule of law, and civic engagement, emphasizing multi-stakeholder coalitions41.

---

Projected Trajectory

• Pessimistic Scenario: If Project 2025 is fully implemented, scholars warn the U.S. could resemble an "electoral autocracy" by 2026, retaining democratic facades while concentrating power26. The Heritage Foundation’s call for a "second American Revolution" underscores this risk6.

• Optimistic Scenario: Institutional inertia and public pushback could slow democratic decline. For example, bipartisan state-level reforms in some regions have expanded voter access7.

---

Conclusion

The U.S. democracy is at a critical juncture. While autocratic strategies are advancing rapidly, the system’s historical resilience and active defense efforts provide countervailing forces. The nation’s democratic future likely hinges on whether institutional safeguards and civic engagement can outpace centralized power grabs and norm erosion. Without sustained resistance to initiatives like Project 2025, the risk of transitioning to a competitive authoritarian system remains high167.