"It was as if the virus and the president were working in concert. Not only did the pandemic cripple the existing political system, it demanded that Trump govern in precisely the manner to which he aspired: unilaterally, decisively, with few checks on his power– and with the eyes of the nation riveted to him. And though he had little interest in understanding the problem; he was reluctant to use his executive power actually to fight the pandemic; though he was inconsistent and apparently incapable of staying on point, showing empathy, or comprehending the gravity of the situation– he still got to be the center of attention, he still got to show that he was in charge, and he got to watch his approval ratings climb. In The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt identified a key precondition: ‘Only where great masses are superfluous or can be spared without disastrous results of depopulation is totalitarian rule, as distinguished from a totalitarian movement, at all possible.’ She was writing about state terror, which is possible only when a regime is willing to sacrifice millions of its own people. A pandemic also exerts terror. Effective terror is random; terror has been achieved when every person in the population has a credible fear of suffering and dying. COVID-19 was not unleashed by the state under the cover of ideology, but it has functioned like terror. Trump did not deploy the virus, but he was positioned to reap its reward: a population gripped by terror created extraordinary opportunities for him as he continued to grope his way to autocratic rule."

Surviving Autocracy by Masha Gessen 2021

"How could one really say that it was impossible to know what problem Trump’s one hundred new fighter planes would address? What if the problem was just very, very elusive? It seemed more prudent to say that it was difficult to locate the problem. And– this was a corollary of the problems with saying that Trump was a liar or a racist– what if members of the administration really did know what they wanted to do but were for some reason terrible at explaining it? How could a journalist claim to have observed the vacuums in their minds? The pedantic insistence on only ever reporting empirically proven facts, and staying away from facts for which only logical, intellectual evidence can be summoned, creates the blurry style of American journalism. By using noncommittal statements, the blurry style in effect aids the Trumpian project of neutralizing the most important of media rights– the public’s right to know."

"Trump’s hyperreactionary neoliberalism does not constitute a new hegemonic bloc, however. It is, on the contrary, chaotic, unstable, and fragile. That is partly due to the peculiar personal psychology of its standard-bearer and partly due to his dysfunctional codependency with the Republican Party establishment, which has tried and failed to reassert its control and is now biding its time while searching for an exit strategy. We cannot now know exactly how this will play out, but it would be foolish to rule out the possibility that the Republican Party will split. Either way, hyperreactionary neoliberalism offers no prospect of secure hegemony. But there is a deeper problem. By shutting down the economic-populist face of his campaign, Trump’s hyperreactionary neoliberalism effectively seeks to reinstate the hegemonic gap he helped to explode in 2016– except that it cannot now suture that gap. Now that the populist cat is out of the bag, it is doubtful that the working-class portion of Trump’s base will be satisfied to dine for long on (mis)recognition alone."

The Old Is Dying and the New Cannot be Born by Nancy Fraser -

Trump, the Shell Game by Paul K. Schwartz - 2020

“Case in point, the June 13 Senate Intelligence Committee hearing and the testimony of Attorney Jeff Sessions. Sessions, like the testimony given by both Director of the National Intelligence Dan Coates and NSA Director Mike Rogers before the committee at an earlier date, was under the misguided impression that he only had to answer those questions he chose to and disregard any questions he considered objectionable, especially any questions that related directly with Donald J. Trump. The absurdity of offering this kind of testimony was made abundantly clear by the committee member from New Mexico, Senator Martin Henrich, who pointed out that the options are limited. Either the attorney general must answer the question or give some legal grounds for not, such as executive privilege, which he has not yet done, so what is the legal basis for refusing to answer committee questions? It is not the ongoing Russia investigation since, as Sessions noted, he has recused himself from that investigation. Then what is it? You wonder. Well, according to Sessions, while he is not himself invoking executive privilege, he feels obligated to not answer these questions relating to his discussions with the president just in case the president chooses to invoke executive privilege at a later date. This, of course, is absurd on its face, but especially absurd coming from the number one law enforcement official in the nation, the attorney general. I don’t claim to be a constitutional lawyer, although I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express, but Session’s excuse somehow smells like an ex post facto law, which is prohibited in Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution. Ex post facto laws change the rules of evidence in a criminal case, alter the definition of a crime, increase the criminal punishment for a criminal act, or punish conduct that was legal when committed retroactively. Was Attorney General Sessions, by avoiding answering questions dealing with Trump, attempting to keep open the president’s window to invoke executive privilege retroactively even though he has not yet done so? Maybe Sessions was just trying to reap the benefit of executive privilege without the need for Trump to raise questions about his motive for invoking executive privilege. That sounds about right. The smell doesn’t stop here. Sessions, during his testimony, also went to great lengths to imply that former director of the FBI James Comey breached protocol by meeting alone with the president. Specifically, he was referring to the now infamous meeting mentioned by Comey during his testimony before the Senate committee a week earlier that, as Comey explained it, the president cleared the room after a meeting in which both Sessions and Jared Kushner were in attendance but which Trump asked Comey to stay behind for a one-on-one. In Session’s version, while the president can basically do whatever he wants, Comey breached protocol by staying behind to meet alone with the president. Well, now, if it was Comey who breached protocol, why did Sessions, Comey’s superior in the chain of command, not stay behind? The answer, quite clearly, is because Comey’s version was the only version that made any sense and Session’s version failed the smell test. Want more odors? Sessions was emphatic that he supported Comey’s firing because of Comey’s poor job performance, yet he also readily admitted that neither he nor Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein ever discussed the poor performance with James Comey. Anyone who has worked in the federal government knows that this is simply not how it is ever done even if the position of FBI director is not part of the bargaining unit, which it isn’t.”

Secrecy World by Jake Bernstein - 2017

"Trump SoHo was star-crossed from the start. The building site, it turned out, was on the grounds of a former African Methodist Episcopal church, and during construction, workers unearthed the bones of those buried in the churchyard, causing delays as those remains were disinterred and moved. A worker died on the job when he fell forty-two stories and was decapitated. Before completion, Trump lied about how quickly the nearly four hundred units were selling, claiming the project had received thirty-two hundred applications when in fact only about sixty apartments had found buyers by the time the building opened in April 2010. Ivanka also fabricated sales figures, publicly stating that 60 percent of the units had sold. Angry buyers filed lawsuits alleging that the sales figures had been inflated. In a settlement in 2011, a number of the buyers received 90 percent of their deposits back. The developers had sold fewer than a third of the units by 2014, forcing the building into foreclosure where it was sold at auction. Among the buyers for Trump SoHo condos were a family from Kazakhstan, the Khrapunovs, who in 2013 purchased three apartments for $3.1 million. The family is accused by the Kazakh city of Almaty of buying U.S. real estate through anonymous shell companies in order to launder hundreds of millions of dollars that Viktor Khrapunov allegedly stole while mayor of the city. The Khrapunovs deny the charges and claim they are dissidents, persecuted politically by the country's authoritarian ruler, President Nursultan Nazarbayev."

"A civil suit against Bayrock filed by a former employee, Jody Kriss, speculated that some of the money behind FL Group was Russian in origin. Kriss alleged that Bayrock operated for years through 'a pattern of continuous, related crimes, including mail, wire, and bank fraud; tax evasion; money laundering; conspiracy; bribery; extortion; and embezzlement.' He further alleged that the FL Group's investment in the Trump SoHo project was in fact a sale disguised as a loan, to avoid paying approximately $20 million in taxes. Bayrock denied the allegations. Trump insisted he had nothing to do with the financing, lending only his name. 'I don't know who owns Bayrock,' Trump said in a deposition in 2011, despite having signed a document that stated clearly that FL Group was helping to finance the project."