From the human condition files: Fused minds and the slow-rising tide of American awareness

Democracy isn't edible, but food is

Some wonder why it has taken Americans so long to see the threats of both authoritarianism and profound corruption in Trump and allied Republican Party leadership. Some of those who do see the threats wonder why far more people and most of the mainstream media still do not see it. Early on, researchers dissecting the 2024 election of Trump found three main sources of votes for him. They were immigration, inflation and woke/DEI, all three of which were expertly exaggerated and weaponized against Democrats and liberalism. If nothing else, MAGA demagoguery is superb. By contrast, Democratic messaging isn't.

More recent research indicates a different major source of support for Trump, namely identity fusion with attendant cult/social loyalty. Apparently most researchers now see identity fusion—a powerful, visceral sense of oneness with their leader—as among the top reasons people voted for Trump, with some arguing it is the single most important reason. People fused with Trump tend to be more likely to take extreme positions, which includes a tendency to abandon past values, e.g., support for democracy, when doing so supports the identity-fused leader. 

When a voter fuses their identity with that of a politician like Trump, inexplicable reasoning and behavior become understandable. People will knowingly vote against their interests if doing so aligns with the needs of the fused identity. Attacks on and criticisms of Trump become personal attacks on and criticisms of the fused identity. For voters who exhibited strong identity fusion traits, Trump's policy positions were essentially irrelevant to their support for him.

So, when Trump is criticized for attacking democracy and the rule of law, and for demagoguing inflation as being 100% the fault of Biden and Democrats, voters supported Trump in defense of their own attacked and criticized identity. Inflation makes food too expensive, and you can't eat democracy. So in a sense, it was rational for fused minds to vote for Trump despite him (1) openly advancing authoritarianism and corruption at the expense of democracy, and (2) openly not caring about voters everyday concerns or their democracy. Fused minds simply did not, and could not, see their leader that way. Many or most of those minds still cannot see it.

The slow awakening continues

Early on, a few observers saw major threats of autocracy and kleptocracy in Trump. The warnings were dismissed out of hand as crackpottery, lies, idiocy, brainwashed Democrat stupidity, etc. A Russian reporter who chronicled the fall of Russian democracy to Putin's kleptocratic dictatorship, Masha Gessen, wrote this in Nov. of 2016:

“Thank you, my friends. Thank you. Thank you. We have lost. We have lost, and this is the last day of my political career, so I will say what must be said. We are standing at the edge of the abyss. Our political system, our society, our country itself are in greater danger than at any time in the last century and a half. The president-elect has made his intentions clear, and it would be immoral to pretend otherwise. We must band together right now to defend the laws, the institutions, and the ideals on which our country is based.” 

That, or something like that, is what Hillary Clinton should have said on Wednesday [in her concession speech to Trump].

These days, people like Gessen aren't criticized so harshly by so many people. There has been and continues to be a slow awakening to the authoritarian, kleptocratic MAGA threat to our inedible democracy, rule of law and civil liberties. Regarding Trump and his threats, unfused minds, just like enquiring minds, want to know about what's going on. Fused minds, not so much.

Over at the r/law subreddit, more evidence of the awakening has bubbled up in the cauldron of public opinion. The title reflects both the concern and the frustrating, irrational restraints that still poisons so many minds to unvarnished truth:

Early in Trump's term we asked, “Is it a constitutional crisis?” Yeah, it was. But it’s over. We lost. Trial Courts fought valiantly, but the Supreme Court keeps abdicating & giving Trump more power. They won’t save us. And for reasons I can’t fathom, they seem to want authoritarianism - LegalEagle

Yes, those minds see the constitutional crisis. No, those minds still cannot see the pure authoritarianism and corruption that drives Trump and MAGA elites. Specifically, USSC judges do not merely seem to want authoritarianism, they openly show they are authoritarian by deciding lawsuits as authoritarians. Project 2025, an American manifesto of authoritarianism is explicit about supporting a form of authoritarianism called the unitary executive.

At pages 19-20, Project 2025, MAGA elites explain why they believe, and the USSC has acted in accordance with, an all powerful unitary executive who is and must be above the law and all meaningful restraints:

Highlighting this need, former director of the Office of Management and Budget Russ Vought writes in Chapter 2, “The modern conservative President’s task is to limit, control, and direct the executive branch on behalf of the American people.” At the core of this goal is the work of the White House and the central personnel agencies. Article II of the Constitution vests all federal executive power in a President, made accountable to the citizenry through regular elections. Our Founders wrote, “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Accordingly, Vought writes, “it is the President’s agenda that should matter to the departments and agencies,” not their own.

Therein lies the legal basis and reasoning that supports a president that now has almost unlimited power to subvert and weaponize federal agencies in support of the president's own agenda. The agenda and needs of the American people and the US Constitution are subordinate to what the unitary executive personally wants.

Discussion

Despite being explicit, core MAGA legal dogma, many or most fused minds cannot see significant authoritarianism in a corrupt dictator called the unitary executive or anything else. That is understandable in human psychology and social behavior. People simply do not or cannot see themselves as supporting corrupt dictator. So to them Trump is not a corrupt dictator, whether he is called a unitary executive or something else.

But why can't nearly all unfused minds clearly see the threat? Presumably most people working in the mainstream news media see the threat. But they rarely call it out in direct terms. The MSM almost always uses softening euphemisms like "conservative" and "libertarian" that normalize, justify and frame MAGA as being something it clearly is not.

Is that harsh assessment of the MSM's failure to inform fair and reasonable or not? Is the MSM engaged in a large-scale disinformation campaign, presumably driven mostly by corporate ownership and Trump's explicit threats (his personal agenda) to profits and revenues?

Thoughts about presidential immunity

SUMMARY

In 2024, the USSC decision in Trump v. US granted American presidents two kinds of immunity for crimes they commit while in office. One was absolute immunity for crimes committed in connection with a president's exercise of core duties, the scope of which is moderately well defined. The other is presumptive immunity for other official duties, the scope of which is intentionally highly ambiguous. There is no immunity for acts that are purely unofficial, the scope of which is moderately ambiguous. 

The evidence prosecutors need to overcome the presumption of immunity is so high and difficult to meet that it can reasonably be seen as very close to absolute immunity. Presumptive immunity bars prosecutors from proving criminal intent for crimes under presumptive immunity. Since proof of criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt is necessary for proof of criminal culpability, presumptive immunity is very close to absolute immunity.

TRUMP V US

The USSC granted Trump (and all other presidents) a broad shield of immunity in its 2024 decision in Trump v US.  

Presumptive immunity applies to official acts within "the outer perimeter of the President's official responsibilities" where authority is shared with Congress. Here, the government bears the burden of rebutting the presumption by showing that prosecution "would pose no 'dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.'" That's not clear.

The burden placed on prosecutors to overcome presumptive immunity is extraordinarily high, and worse yet it is deliberately ambiguous. The government must establish that there is "no" danger "of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch," with no other factors to consider or balance. Legal scholars note that this test is "a bastardization" of the balancing test from Nixon v. Fitzgerald (the civil immunity precedent), which originally required weighing "broad public interests," including "vindication of the public interest in an ongoing criminal prosecution."

Under presumptive immunity, courts cannot (1) inquire into the president's motives when determining whether conduct was official or unofficial, (2)​ deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law., and (3) cannot use evidence of official acts to prove criminal intent even for unofficial conduct.

The presumption is that the criminal law does not apply to Presidents, no matter how obviously illegal, harmful, or unacceptable a President's official behavior might be. In other words, presumptive immunity is so close to absolute immunity that there isn't a significant distinction between the two kinds of immunity.

The grant of immunity is vast: The Court granted absolute immunity for Trump's attempts to weaponize the DOJ to overturn the 2020 election—declaring that "Trump's threat to remove the Acting Attorney General also enjoyed absolute immunity." Even his pressure campaign on Vice President Pence to reject electoral votes received "at least" presumptive immunity.

In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor wrote:

 

Today's decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.

Thus, as is generally the case with dictators, Trump is above the law at least as long as he is in office. 

Q: If a Democrat is again elected president of the US, currently an uncertain prospect, would the threat to democracy and rule of law likely be as great as it now is in Trump's hands? In other words, how likely is the Democratic Party shift from its current nominally pro-democracy and pro-rule of law stance to the more authoritarian and anti-rule of law stance that dominates the current MAGA Republican Party?

Nostalgia: A blast from my academic past

One in a while, I see echoes of what sprouted and grew from where I did my academic research (not my research per se). A NYT article (not paywalled) discusses a successful gene therapy treatment for ADA-SCID. That is a genetic  disease that leaves babies without a functioning immune system. Most of those babies die within a year of birth. 

The lab I did my dissertation research in was at the NIH, in the institute we called Giblets, the National Heart, Lung & Blood Institute. That lab worked a couple of other NIH labs that were developing gene therapy treatments for human genetic disease. The targeted disease was ADA-SCID. The first treatment procedure with human patients was done in 1990. 

I was in one of the key labs, but not directly involved in developing and administering the first human gene therapy protocol. I worked on peripheral research developing improved means to transfer genes into sick people. 

Cora Oakley, had ADA-SCID, 

but now she's cured

Here we are 35 years later and an apparently practical ADA-SCID gene therapy has finally arrived on the scene. 

Discussion about the first treatment protocol:

it was extremely complex, extremely expensive 

and not practical for widespread use

Progress is being made and gene therapy is becoming increasingly practical. Other targeted diseases include (1) sickle cell disease and β‑thalassemia, which is treated by stem‑cell gene addition and gene editing using CRISPR technology, and (2) hemophilia A and B, which is treated using virus (AAV)-based liver-directed gene therapy to increase blood clotting factor activity reduce or nearly eliminate spontaneous bleeding and the need for regular clotting factor infusions. 

There's still a long way to go, but gene therapy has gone a heck of a long way since 1990.

Regarding the end of the criminal prosecution of Trump

Prosecutors in Georgia dropped a criminal lawsuit against Trump claiming that it would be inconvenient. Specifically, prosecutors dropped the case because it allegedly would take years to litigate. The RICO criminal case against Trump was strong:

• Trump's team had fake electors forge and submit fraudulent documents to Congress and the National Archives dishonestly claiming to be the official Georgia results. This was straight up fraud.

• Kenneth Chesebro, a Trump lawyer, pleaded guilty to felony fraud for the fake elector scheme.

• Jenna Ellis, another Trump lawyer, pleaded guilty to felony perjury for making false statements about election fraud at a Georgia legislative hearing

• Sidney Powell and Scott Graham Hall, more Trump lawyers, pleaded guilty to tampering with voting machines in Georgia

• Trump didn't just tell Raffensperger to find 11,780 votes. He threatened to have Raffensperger prosecuted if he didn't find the votes. Raffensperger, who is a Republican and was a Trump supporter, has maintained that Trump was demanding that he illegally manufacture votes for Trump.

This lawsuit clearly was a viable RICO prosecution. The evidence of Trump crime is solid. If convicted, Trump probably could have easily gone to prison for a number of years.

Now Trump supporters are claiming that the prosecution was weaponized and bogus. That further erodes faith in both the rule of law and trust in government generally. For example, Fox News reports that Trump and allies describe the Georgia election case as a “witch hunt” and part of broader “lawfare” against him.

Once the statute of limitations for those crimes ends, apparently by January 2029, no further prosecution will be possible.

The core reason for the dismissal boils down to a purely subjective judgment by prosecutors. Did Trump, without explicitly stating it, instruct Georgia's Secretary of State to fictitiously or fraudulently produce enough votes to secure a victory in Georgia,” Or, did Trump genuinely believe that fraud had occurred, and was asking the Secretary of State to investigate to determine whether sufficient irregularities exist to change the election outcome. When multiple interpretations are equally plausible, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt and should not be presumed to have acted criminally.

The ultimate question for whether the criminal prosecution against Trump should have been filed in the first place is simple: Are both interpretations equally plausible, or was Trump's track record sufficient to given him the benefit of a doubt about his own clearly false stolen election claims?

In his 2021 book, Integrity Counts, Georgia's Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, was unequivocal about his interpretation of Trump's phone call asking him to "find" 11,080 votes. Raffensperger wrote: "the president was asking me to do something that I knew was wrong, and I was not going to do that.”

Given Trump’s documented pattern of anti‑democratic conduct and the one‑sided benefits of this dismissal, it is reasonable to treat dismissing the prosecution as a partisan accommodation unless and until the people involved can clearly and convincingly show a nonpolitical justification that truly matches the gravity of the case. Whatever self‑described motives drove the decision to drop the prosecution here, the effect is indistinguishable from a partisan decision to shield a president from accountability for attempting to subvert a free and fair election.

Discussion

By the time the Georgia RICO indictment was filed in August 2023, the public evidentiary record that the 2020 election was not stolen was already massive, multi‑layered, and years old. In view of Trump's solid track record of chronic lying, coupled with the evidence of a free and fair 2020 election, did all the evidence warrant giving Trump the benefit of a doubt that he really believed the 2020 election was stolen?

Was dismissal of this criminal prosecution unwarranted, unjustifiable and completely partisan, or were there legitimate concerns that dictated dismissing a criminal case of such enormous gravity?

Has the rule of law been vindicated here, or subverted?