Are His Media Allies Part Of The Deal— Or Just Dummies?
Greg Sargent sounded exasperated after watching Trump’s interview with Hannity and with Dr. Phil. “Earth to media: The criminal prosecutions of Trump are legitimate. The ‘revenge’ he’s promising would be wholly illegitimate. Time to make that a whole lot clearer.” Last week each of the Trump allies “handed him big prime-time opportunities to unequivocally renounce any intention to retaliate against Democrats for his criminal conviction by a jury of his peers in Manhattan. Both times, Trump demurred. ‘Sometimes revenge can be justified,’ Trump told Dr. Phil, after he suggested that seeking retribution for Trump’s criminal charges would harm the country. Though Trump graciously said he was ‘open’ to showing forbearance toward Democrats, he suggested revenge would be tempting, given ‘what I’ve been through.’ Trump voiced similar sentiments to Sean Hannity after the Fox News host practically begged him to deny he’d pursue his opponents. ‘I would have every right to go after them,’ Trump said.”
Sargent warned that “These moments have been widely mocked as a sign that even Trump’s media pals can’t help him disguise his true second-term intentions. That’s true, but there’s another point to be made here: The exchanges should awaken us to what a monstrous scam it is when Trump and his allies talk about unleashing prosecutions of foes as ‘revenge’ and ‘retribution.’ We have to stop letting Trump get away with this. It’s actually spin, and we should all say so. The idea that Trump should pursue ‘revenge’ and ‘retribution’ for prosecutions is everywhere on the right. After a federal judge ordered Steve Bannon to surrender to prison, numerous MAGA influencers, including the MAGA God King himself, angrily vowed such payback. Republicans have said Trump should ‘fight fire with fire’ (Senator Marco Rubio) and that GOP district attorneys should declare open season on Democrats (Stephen Miller). Trump, of course, has offered many versions of this, including to Dr. Phil and Hannity.”
Sargent points out why this is complete bunk that the media falls for: “It implies that he is vowing to do to Democrats what was done to him. But that’s not what Trump is actually threatening. Whereas Trump is being prosecuted on the basis of evidence that law enforcement gathered before asking grand juries to indict him, he is expressly declaring that he will prosecute President Biden and Democrats solely because this is what he endured, meaning explicitly that evidence will not be the initiating impulse.”
Trump's rhetoric of revenge and his manipulation of media narratives to obscure the differences between legitimate prosecution and politically motivated retribution are reminiscent of the pre-1932/pre-power Nazi Party's strategies. Like the Nazis did then, Trump and the MAGA movement use threats of retaliation, charismatic leadership, scapegoating, and the erosion of democratic norms to galvanize support and pursue their political objectives. Sargent is trying to tell his readers that recognizing these parallels is crucial for understanding the glaring dangers posed by such rhetoric and the importance of maintaining the integrity of democratic institutions.
The Nazis, much to the delight of their extremist base, frequently used rhetoric about seeking revenge against the Treaty of Versailles, communists, Jews, unionists, and other groups they deemed responsible for Germany's decline. It was an effect tool to mobilize support by exploiting feelings of injustice and victimization among Germans and it created a sense of unity and purpose among supporters who felt wronged and sought retribution. The Nazis framed their actions and future plans as justified retribution against those who had “betrayed” Germany, thereby legitimizing their aggressive— and illegal— actions. Trump’s statements about seeking “revenge” against Democrats for his legal troubles echo this approach. He frames his potential actions as justified retribution for perceived wrongs done to him and his supporters.
And just as the Nazi propaganda machine blurred the lines between legitimate actions and retribution, Trump’s media allies (plus moron talking heads who don’t know any better) help obscure the distinction between lawful prosecution and politically motivated retaliation.
The early Nazi Party worked to erode trust in Weimar Republic institutions, portraying them as weak and corrupt as a way to undermine democratic norms— a prelude to their authoritarian takeover. They had a robust propaganda machine run by Goebbels that worked to delegitimize opponents and frame any legal action against Nazis as politically motivated persecution. Sound familiar? Trump’s narrative of being a victim of a "witch hunt" seeks to erode trust in legal and democratic institutions, painting them as tools of his political adversaries. By suggesting that any prosecution against him is politically motivated, Trump blurs the lines between legitimate law enforcement and partisan attacks, undermining the rule of law. His open threats of retaliatory prosecutions if he regains power serve to normalize the idea that the justice system can and should be used as a tool of political revenge, which is dangerous for democratic norms.
Let’s keep in mind that the Nazis scapegoated Jews, communists and other minorities, blaming them for Germany’s problems, creating a clear enemy for their followers to rally against while cultivating a sense of victimhood and grievance among ethnic Germans, claiming they had been betrayed and humiliated by both internal and external enemies. Trump’s rhetoric constantly scapegoats various groups, including immigrants, political opponents, particularly RINOs and Democrats plus “the media,” blaming them for the country’s issues. His narrative of being unfairly targeted by legal processes taps into a sense of victimhood among his supporters, who feel that the political and legal systems are stacked against them.
Sargent pointed out that people might think these distinctions are obvious, ones most voters will grasp instinctually. “But why would they grasp this? It’s not uncommon to encounter news stories about Trump’s threats— see here, here, or here— that don’t explain those basic contours of the situation. Such stories often don’t take the elementary step of explaining the fundamental difference between bringing prosecutions in keeping with what evidence and the rule of law dictate and bringing them as purported ‘retaliation.’ Why would casual readers simply infer that prosecutions against Trump are legally predicated while those he is threatening are not?
Normal people with some degree of critical thinking, something lacking in MAGAts, view the rule of law as a cornerstone of democracy. Trump's threats to prosecute Democrats without evidence signify a move toward authoritarianism, where the legal system is weaponized against political opponents. This undermines the legal principle that everyone is subject to the same laws, a key tenet of a democratic society. “To appreciate the challenge this poses to the discourse,” wrote Sargent, “imagine an ordinary voter watching Trump’s exchanges with Dr. Phil and Hannity. Both interviewers treated it as self-evident that the prosecutions of Trump are illegitimate. Amusingly, they cast Trump’s dilemma as a profoundly weighty cross for him to bear, suggesting that if his foes are granted forbearance, it might be deeply unfair to Trump— given what they put him through— but would showcase his boundless magnanimity in sparing the country from tit-for-tat escalation.”
It’s crucially important for the media to contextualize Trump within the broader historical pattern of right-wing authoritarian figures who undermine democratic norms. Trump's rhetoric of revenge is reminiscent of fascist tactics, where leaders manipulate legal systems to suppress dissent and consolidate power. Imagine if the media saw it as their function to emphasize the need for vigilance against such authoritarian tendencies.
John Ganz, in a piece adapted from his new book, suggests that Trump is functioning as a “mob boss,” which isn’t meant just polemically: He is offering his followers the spoils of his corruption and the thrill of feeling viscerally bonded to the MAGA clan— both as deliberate alternatives lying outside the liberal democratic order. And Jamelle Bouie explains that for Trump, the charismatic bond between him and his supporters trumps democracy and the law as the true wellspring of political legitimacy: Any outcome produced by our institutions is inherently illegitimate if it fails to maintain MAGA’s supremacy over non-MAGA America.
Democrats, then, can argue: You can’t be president if you treat the law as presumptively invalid when it is applied to you and your supporters (as Trump’s pledge to pardon January 6 rioters makes explicit). You can’t be president if you openly vow to extend the fruits of our political order only to your supporters while arbitrarily designating countless other Americans a traitorous class within, one that deserves to live in fear of lawless persecution and organized political thuggery. You can’t be president if you treat the rule of law as secondary to, in the words of David French, “the destruction of your enemies.”
Trump’s exchanges with Dr. Phil and Hannity are alarming in no small part because they show how thoroughly committed he is to proving all those assertions wrong.
"... it created a sense of unity and purpose among supporters who felt wronged and sought retribution." So the problem is not that Trump is lying or that the media isn't pushing back against his spin enough, the problem is that we've come to a point where a significant portion of the population in the land of opportunity feel wronged enough to seek vengeance on their fellow Americans. So who is going to tell them their real enemies are wealthy people and corporations that have been shamelessly tipping the economic playing field in their own favor since the 70's? Do you think its going to be the handful of wealthy media companies that have swallowed up independent journalism? The politicians who depend on…