Trump is already delivering on his threat to destroy democracy

You don’t need me to tell you that our current political environment is…horrendous. But, if you’re just following the day-to-day reporting of Trump’s latest outrageous assaults on democracy — you may not realize just how horrendous — and dangerous — the current situation is. For that, you need to step back from each day’s news-cycle and view the larger landscape — to survey the full scope of the damage done in just two weeks — and what it portends for the next four years.

During the 2024 campaign, it was commonplace to warn that a Trump victory could mean the end of democracy —  and the emergence of an autocracy/oligarchy in its place.

Trump won anyway. One reason is because too many people did not taking the warnings seriously — dismissing them as partisan hyperbole.

So now, here we are — paying the price for their mistake. Our democracy is in fact disintegrating as I write this. It is happening via the avalanche of executive orders, memos, proclamations, nominations, firings and threats that emanate from the White House on an almost hourly basis. The changes are happening so fast that it is hard to keep up. Blink and you’ve probably missed something important. But that’s MAGA goal: Flood the zone with so much stuff so as to overwhelm the opposition. Even if many things get stopped, the damage will already have been done. And many things will not get stopped — despite our best efforts. Heck, it’s hard just to be aware of it all.

As the AP put it: “Just a little over a week into his second term, President Donald Trump took steps to maximize his power, sparking chaos and what critics contend is a constitutional crisis as he challenges the separation of powers that have defined American government for more than 200 years.”

Robert Reich offers a similar perspective on Trump’s move to consolidate his power, replacing democracy with oligarchy, “substituting loyalists for experts, using retribution to intimidate others, and purging the government’s independent inspectors general…”

Or, as Tom Cruise explained in Mission Impossible:

What follows is my attempt to lay out the full scope of Trump’s actions since his return to the White Houses — so you can grasp the big picture and the inherent danger. I can’t hope to be comprehensive. But I believe even this recitation of the most egregious lowlights should be sufficient.

Project 2025 is happening! Now!

Project 2025 is a right-wing-authored document that offers a playbook for how a Trump administration could essentially take control of the entire government and enact a MAGA-inspired agenda. It has been labelled as “authoritarian” and “apocalyptic.” Because it came to be viewed so negatively by the general public, Trump repeatedly tried to distance himself from it during the 2024 campaign. Of course, he was lying.

Although you won’t see the term “Project 2025” mentioned in any White House statements, Project 2025 is the driving force behind many of Trump’s directives. The most striking example of this is the implementation of Schedule F. As I described in a prior post:

Schedule F would “reclassify tens of thousands of federal workers as political appointees. The workers would thus lose their employment protections and could be terminated at the whim of the President….The workers would then be replaced by partisans whose main qualification is loyalty to Trump rather than any technical skill — and whose primary goal is to please Trump.”

We’re especially seeing this in the Justice Department, where the new “administration has reassigned about 20 senior career Justice Department attorneys” in a move to swiftly “shake up an arm of government that has long drawn his ire.” The Atlantic adds: “These are career people. They are not political…They have developed a real expertise…But this is not merely an attack on expertise. This maneuver has a further effect: to disable opposition.”

To prevent any legal oversight or prohibition of these changes, Trump has moved to purge at least a dozen inspectors general — individuals who serve as “an internal check on waste, fraud, and abuse at federal agencies.”

The coup-de-grace here is Trump’s offer to “buyout all federal workers,” which Axios described as “the latest step in the White House’s unprecedented move to push career federal workers out of their jobs, and replace them with loyalists — a return to a patronage system that federal law sought to banish more than a century ago.” In other words: This is Project 2025 in action. There is serious question as to whether this is constitutional — but Trump is moving forward anyway.

Of course, we continue to watch the clown parade of Trump cabinet nominees — as they appear before Congress for their confirmations. These include (I still have trouble even contemplating what this will mean) Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for Health and Kash Patel for FBI Director. In essence, this is another Project 2025-inspired example of replacing qualified experts with partisan incompetent hacks — who, in some cases, are opposed to the goals of the agency for which they are nominated to head.

A second major goal of Project 2025, beyond Schedule F, aims for a “rolling back the rights of LGBTQ+ people, limiting reproductive health care, throwing up roadblocks to racial justice, eliminating the Department of Education and diverting public funds to private religious schools, and redefining religious freedom as a license to discriminate.” We are already seeing this in action as “Trump’s executive order aims to restrict education related to race, gender, politics.”

Trampling on the Constitution

Some of what Trump has proposed almost certainly violates the U.S. Constitution and/or existing federal laws. The administration does not view this as a reason for restraint — but rather as a challenge to overcome. To them, it’s all worth a try — even if it is later declared illegal.

Such is the case with Trump’s attempt to eliminate birthright citizenship— a move that “would overturn more than a century of {legal} precedent” and is clearly in violation of the 14th Amendment. If this order stands, it would mean that children born in the U.S. of immigrant mothers (even those here legally in some cases) would not be U.S. citizens and would thus not be eligible for critical educational and health benefits. Needless to say, this is being challenged in court and is temporarily blocked.

Another likely illegal action is Trump’s proposed “freeze” on federal grant spending — an action that caused so much chaos and confusion that the White House was forced to pause the freeze within days of announcing it. If the pause had gone through — it would have brought numerous federal programs, from Medicaid to scientific research, to a complete halt. The stated intent of the pause (echoes of Project 2025) was to allow the Trump administration to evaluate whether the current policies of the recipients were aligned with Trump’s goals. If not, presumably funding would not be restored. Joyce Vance explains how this refusal to spend money authorized by Congress — because Trump disapproves of the program — is clearly in violation of the Impoundment Control Act. Vox warns that “the memo asserts a degree of presidential authority so sweeping that it would wreck one of the core principles of separation of powers.” The program may have been halted for the moment, but don’t breathe too easy. Expect the administration to take another swing at this soon.

And then there’s this: A White House memo directed “the Defense Department and Department of Homeland Security to prepare a 30,000-person migrant facility at Guantánamo Bay” to hold immigrants that Trump deems too untrustworthy to even send back to their countries of origin. With little oversight as to exactly who be at risk to be sent here, this sounds dangerously close to a politically-motivated concentration camp.

Seeking revenge and intimidation

As he promised during the campaign, Trump is exacting revenge on his perceived enemies — while simultaneously threatening retaliation against anyone who might challenge him in the future.

For starters, he removed the security details and/or clearances for people who have been critical of Trump in the past — people such as Mark Milley, Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, and Anthony Fauci. By making the removals so public, there is no doubt that their main purpose was to put the individuals’ safety at risk — and intimidate others from voicing any similar criticisms — rather than attain any legitimate administrative objective.

Trump’s bullying extends to foreign countries: He imposed a 25% tariff on Colombia for all exports to the U.S. simply because Colombia objected to how poorly the U.S. was treating immigrants being deported back to Colombia. As with the grant freeze, Trump was forced to backtrack on this — at least for the moment — after warnings that the fallout would be too damaging to the U.S.

And then there are Trump’s attacks on the media and corporations:

President Trump’s new head of the Federal Communications Commission recently ordered an investigation of NPR and PBS, “with an eye toward unraveling federal funding for all public broadcasting.” The claim is that sponsorship announcements amount to advertising — and should be prohibited lest they lose their government funding, which is the ultimate retaliatory goal.

More generally, Trump’s threats of retaliation have stoked fear amongst mainstream media and corporate leaders, leading to the “big capitulation” — a level of subservience never seen or even imagined before. Recent examples include (1) Google agreeing to go along with Trump’s bizarre demand to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America and (2) Paramount/CBS likely settling with Trump over his suit against 60 Minutes for their interview with Kamala Harris — which Trump claimed had “deceptive editing.” If the settlement happens, it would be an “extraordinary concession by a major U.S. media company to a sitting president, especially in a case in which there is no evidence that the network got facts wrong or damaged the plaintiff’s reputation.”

As Dean Obeidallah concludes, Trump is “following a fascist playbook by targeting media outlets critical of him…and seeking to make himself a dictator for life.“

On an optimistic note (which is hard to find), there has been a mini-revolt of respected journalists — who have quit their jobs rather than continue to work for their cowardly bosses. These include Paul Krugman (from The New York Times), Jim Acosta (from CNN) and Jennifer Rubin (of The Washington Post). Rubin has since gone on to establish The Contrarian — an alternative news source that I highly recommend. Of course, the downside here is that it highlights just how compromised mainstream media has become.

Pardon?

Some things Trump has done are so egregious that they deserve their own category. This is one of them. In what I consider to be the most unpatriotic, unconscionable and unjust (yet legal) action a President has ever done: Trump cavalierly pardoned /or commuted every one convicted in relation to the January 6th insurrection. A blatant attempt at rewriting history, it also condones the violence that was committed, opens the door for these people to commit future violent acts and is a slap in the face to all those injured on that day and all those in the Justice Department who worked tirelessly to obtain the convictions. Just disgusting.

The fire hose

Are you finding the big picture still a bit hazy? If so, here’s a collection of headlines I gathered from just the past couple of days. It captures both the breadth and depth — as well as the terrifying pace — with which Trump is acting. Quoted without comment (as no comment is necessary):

Universities Close Offices, Halt Research in Response to Trump’s Ban on DEI

It’s Hard to Overstate the Brutal Impact of Trump’s Attack on Trans Americans

How the World Is Reeling From Trump’s Aid Freeze; President Trump’s order to halt most foreign aid has intensified humanitarian crises and raised questions about the United States’ reliability as a global leader.

Trump’s Tariffs Would Reverse Decades of Integration Between U.S. and Mexico

Trump’s tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China could mean higher inflation and economic disruption.

Trump Officials Fire Jan. 6 Prosecutors and Plan Possible F.B.I. Purge; The prosecutor firings and a move to scrutinize thousands of F.B.I. agents were a powerful indication that the president has few qualms deploying federal law enforcement to punish perceived enemies.

Trump Administration Fires Consumer Bureau Chief; Rohit Chopra, who led the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, was known for his aggressive enforcement and expansion of consumer protection laws.

Treasury Official Quits After Resisting Musk’s Requests on Payments; Elon Musk’s cost-cutting team sought access to the government’s vast payment system, part of its bid to choke off federal funding.

Donald Trump’s data purge has begun; Health and climate information is already disappearing from federal websites.

Trump Officials Release Water in California That Experts Say Will Serve Little Use; Local officials and experts said the water the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began sending downstream on Friday could have been helpful to farmers later this year. President Trump, in an apparent reference to the move, called it a “victory.”

Sounding the alarm; fighting back

Trump and his cronies are pushing the limits of what the executive branch has the power to do — shattering every imaginable norm — creating chaos and fear along the way. The goal is clear: To purge the executive branch of any opposition to Trump’s agenda; to fill emptied positions with Trump loyalists; to intimidate remaining foes into compliance; to silence critics in the media; to reverse decades of policies that protect the underprivileged; to destroy government agencies Trump views as contrary to his aims; and to consolidate power so that Trump can act as an unrestrained autocrat going forward. In other words, the end of democracy. And it’s working!

Where does this leave us? What can we do to counter this assault? One oft-stated strategy is to set our sights for the 2026 elections — working to make sure that we reverse the Congressional majorities and make clear how unpopular Trump has become. I hope we can do this.

But bear in mind, we are facing a political environment that is unlike anything we have seen in our lifetime — perhaps in the history of the country. Counting on Trump losing popularity is by no means a sure bet. But even if that happens — the problem with waiting for 2026 is that it’s entirely possible we will no longer have free and fair elections by then. Democracy may already be over. At a minimum, so many key positions in government will have been replaced by Trump sycophants, so many changes made to regulations, so many harmful acts carried out and so much power consolidated in the White House — that a midterm election will be unable to stem the tide.

Although it may sound like it at times, I didn’t mean this to be a declaration of despair and defeat. Rather, I wanted to present the big picture — in all its ugliness — so as to wake up and shake up those who may still be complacent about the threat we face. Those who are somehow still assuming that this will all be over in 4 years at most — and then things will return to normal — and all we have to do is wait out the storm. That won’t work. Not this time. The time to sound the alarm was yesterday. To prevent the worst from happening, we have to act — now, today, tomorrow, and every day for the next 4 years. Exactly what we need to do will vary with the circumstances. Right now, it may be as little as a phone call to your Congressperson — urging them to block a nomination or a piece of legislation. It might ultimately require actions aimed to disrupt the workings of the government itself. Hang on…because before things start to get better, they’re almost certain to get a lot worse.

Note: Several of the links in this post are behind paywalls.

=========

Update: February 2

Wow! In the 24 hours since I posted this blog, numerous articles have appeared (authored by people more informed than I am) that raise a similar level of alarm. A consensus is clearly emerging. Here is just a sampling:

Donald Trump is already president. His latest moves show he wants to be king: “Trump isn’t satisfied with being president in his second term. He wants to be king, surrounded by loyal subjects and unencumbered by oversight restricting what he wants to do.”

The Anti-President: “I don’t want to be an alarmist—I try to avoid that—but as I’m writing this, it looks like we are in the middle of a five-alarm fire.“

January 6 Was Nothing Compared to What We’re Going Through Now: “Unchecked, we are on the path not just to autocracy, but to the worst form of malevolent, abusive dictatorship. It’s not hysteria. It’s not exaggeration. It’s not premature. Where we are is a place we have never been in this country and threat we face is one that is by no means certain that we can survive.“

Meanwhile, as to fighting back, Indivisible offers “How Senate Democrats Can Shut Down Trump’s Agenda with Procedural Hardball.” It’s a great place to start. It recognizes that “Dems are still playing by the old rules, trying to demonstrate that they’re reasonable in the face of an unreasonable MAGA party.” The problem, as they point out, is that we are way past this as a workable strategy. Now is the time to, as much as possible, “Shut it all down.” Say no to everything!

Stop me if you’ve heard this…

“Democracy is doing just fine, thank you. We’re headed for a peaceful transfer of power. The government is still functioning. There are no riots in the streets.

What about all that talk before the election about Trump being a threat to democracy? Turns out, it was exactly that: just talk. Sure Trump made some wild claims during the campaign. But that’s just Trump being Trump. Don’t take it seriously. Nothing to see here…move along.”

Sound familiar? I’m sure you’ve read or heard something along these lines — certainly from Trump supporters but even from some on the left who desperately want to believe that things aren’t as serious as they are. 

Unfortunately, such statements are misguided at best — and a deliberate distortion at worst. To see just how distorted the rhetoric can get, here’s a quote from an obviously right-wing op-ed that recently appeared in The San Diego Union-Tribune. [I’m not going to cite the link to the article, or the author’s name, because I don’t want to provide undeserved publicity to such drivel].

“Democracy proved to be a terrible campaign concept in November. For ‘Save Democracy’ to work, there would have had to have been a real, obvious threat to democracy and, as much as Democrats tried to speak it into existence, voters did not believe that Trump was that threat. This is what Democrats are failing to see. Democracy is not at stake. And voters know that what Democrats want is not to preserve democracy for democracy’s sake, but as one of many means to justify their ends.”

So…what’s wrong with all of that? Just about everything. Here’s why…

Yes, it was a “free and fair election.” But that means very little about what is yet to come.

Was the election in November “free and fair”? For the most part, yes. But not because of efforts by Trump and the GOP. It was successful despite their efforts, We had to run a gauntlet of right-wing attempts at voter suppression and election manipulation to keep it fair. Thankfully, almost all the legal challenges against these anti-democratic actions were successful.

The other reason the election remains viewed as “free and fair,” ironically, is because Trump won. Had he lost, it is certain that Trump would have declared the election a fraud and proceeded down a road similar to what we saw in 2020 — which led to the January 6th insurrection. And his MAGA supporters would have followed him. So much for democracy being safe.

But in the end, as to whether or not Trump represented (and still represents) a threat to democracy, none of the above matters. The primary concern regarding democracy was never the election itself. The concern was always what would happen after the election — should Trump win and return to power. The concern was about Trump, once back in the White House, attempting to dismantle our democracy. And that is exactly where we now are.

There are already ominous signs about what is about to be unleashed. In Timothy Synder’s book On Tyranny, his first lesson in fighting tyranny is “Do not obey in advance.” Yet unforced capitulation is exactly what many corporate CEOs, government officials and (most especially) the supposed mainstream media are already doing — out of greed, a desire for power, and/or fear.

The post-election period, rather than dissipating fears about a looming autocracy, are confirming just how accurate those fears are.

Yes, Trump won. But that makes the threat to democracy that much more serious, not less so.

I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating: The number of people that voted for or against Trump has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not he remains a threat to democracy. The MAGA world wants you to believe this is not the case; but it is.

Such people (as evidenced by the op-ed I cited above) argue that Trump’s victory proves he is not a danger: “After all, if he was so dangerous, the voters would have recognized this and he would have lost.” That may have almost been true a couple of decades ago — when anyone with Trump’s baggage of scandals, lies and criminal behavior would have never even gotten the nomination. But it’s certainly not true anymore — mostly thanks to a silo consisting of right-wing social media, Fox News, and disinformation campaigns. 

In any case, history tells us that even the most heinous dictators can garner enough support to win a democratic election — and then proceed to dismantle the freedoms and protections that permitted that election. It happened with the rise of Hitler in Germany [*] and the ascent of Putin in Russia, to cite two prominent examples from the last hundred years. Make no mistake: The path from a democratic election to autocratic rule is well trod — and we are already traveling down it.

Finally, even if you were inclined to accept the fallacious notion that voting totals correspond to the degree of threat that Trump represents, the election results mean that, for a huge swath of this country, the threat is very real. Trump’s margin over Harris, on a percentage basis, was extremely narrow — only 1.62 percent.

Yes, the claims about Trump and autocracy were a campaign issue. But that doesn’t make them any less true. Far from it.

Did the Democrats hope to that their warnings about Trump’s fascist plans would lead to his defeat? Absolutely. But that doesn’t make the warnings any less true. Trump has openly promised to lead this country down the road to autocracy — dismantling government institutions and using his office for personal gain and revenge — without regard for norms or legal constraints. This is exactly what autocrat-wannabes do. In an obvious bit of projection, Republicans may try to persuade the public that they are the victims rather than the perpetrators here. Don’t be fooled.

In the end, the “proof will be in the pudding.” A year from now, we’ll have a much clearer sense of where our democracy is heading. If my view is accurate, much of what I have been saying here will have moved from a warning to a reality. That doesn’t necessarily mean Trump’s supporters will have abandoned him. We know from history that dictators can maintain their popular support — at least for a while — even after they assume autocratic rule. The critical question will be — will it be too late to change course? Or will Trump have amassed so much power that — as with the dictators of the past — he can suspend our freedoms with impunity? Will 2024 turn out to be the last “free and fair” presidential election in this country? Stay tuned.

______________________

* Synder quotes this incredible passage from a German Jewish newspaper in the 1930’s: “We do not subscribe to the view that Mr. Hitler and his friends, now finally in possession of the power they have so long desired, will implement the proposals circulating in [Nazi newspapers]; they will not suddenly deprive German Jews of their constitutional rights, nor enclose them in ghettos, nor subject them to the jealous and murderous impulses of the mob. They cannot do this because a number of crucial factors hold powers in check… and they clearly do not want to go down that road.”

To repeat (one last time): For Democrats, and for anyone else who hoped to keep Trump out of the White House, November 5 was a crushing blow — both in terms of what it portends for the future of the Democratic Party and more generally for democracy itself. As the BBC wrote:

“Donald Trump swept to victory by chipping away at groups of voters which Democrats once believed would help them win the White House for a generation…’Demography,’ these left-wing optimists liked to say, ‘is destiny.’ Sixteen years later, however, that destiny appears to have turned to dust.”

The resistance takes shape…

Now, it’s time to move beyond lamenting the past — and toward preparing for the dangers that lie ahead. Unfortunately, Democrats are far from certain as to how best to proceed. As CNN wrote:

“In CNN’s conversations with two dozen top Democratic operatives and elected officials since Election Day, the fear isn’t just that no one knows the answer to what’s next – it’s that they don’t even know what the question is at this point.”

On a more optimistic note, there is an emerging Democratic consensus, as described in The New York Times, on what an “Anti-Trump Battle Plan” will look like.

And, as noted in USA Today: “The Donald Trump resistance is ready for when Democrats are done grieving.” Exactly what form Trump resistance will take remains a work in progress. One thing is clear: the old rules for opposing Trump and MAGA will not apply. This is not 2017. Trump 2.0 will be far worse and much more difficult — and risky — to navigate successfully.

…and so does the capitulation

That’s why one of the most troubling signs, as we begin the fight against the Trump agenda, is that people and institutions who actively fought against Trump in 2017 are now deciding to capitulate instead. Nowhere is this more evident than in the media.

Ominous warning shots appeared in the days before the election, when the publishers of The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post blocked intended endorsements for Kamala Harris — just before they were about to be printed. This was generally viewed as a shameful move to avoid a Trump retaliation, should he win. *

In the wake of the election, capitulations have begun to accelerate. Almost immediately, Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski (of MSNBC’s Morning Joe) “went to Mar-a-Lago for a fence-mending meeting with President-elect Donald Trump.” It was widely panned as a sell out. Even staff within MSNBC viewed it as “a troubling early sign of capitulation to Trump. ‘Normalizing Trump is a bad idea,’ wrote Katie Phang.” **

A few days later, Comcast announced plans to “spin off its NBCUniversal cable TV networks, including MSNBC” within the next year. There is speculation that this could lead to the end of MSNBC altogether. Even worse: guess who half-joked that they might purchase the network? Elon Musk! [By the way, the ongoing right-wing takeover of mainstream media is very far from a joke. It’s happening.]

Of course, fears of retributions after Trump takes office are not unwarranted — as he has vowed revenge on his enemies, especially the media, on numerous occasions.

More generally, as The Guardian wrote a few days before the election:

“A lot has changed since 2016 – including the increasingly conservative bent of the US supreme court after three Trump appointees. If Trump is elected in November, the laws that protect news organizations might crumble or be weakened.” “Donald Trump poses a clear threat to journalists, to news organizations and to press freedom in the US and around the world.”

The Brookings Institute similarly asked:

“Donald Trump has threatened to shut down broadcasters, but can he?”

The answer: Possibly, yes. “A president of the United States already has powers beyond coercing the FCC. These powers could be exercised not only against broadcasters, but also against those who operate the internet.”

So some prudence is justified. The question is how much and in what way. What we are now seeing is too much and in the wrong way. ***

Not surprisingly, capitulation extends beyond the media. Eight years ago, Democratic governors were more than willing to do battle with Trump. Now, not so much. As Politico wrote:

“Dems’ new Trump resistance strategy is ‘Playing nice.’ As Democratic governors game out how to deal with a second Trump administration, one thing is clear: It’s not 2016 anymore. Governors face a more politically sophisticated version of Donald Trump, and are calculating that they need to choose their battles more carefully — and find ways to cooperate — after their anti-Trump strategy led to a nationwide shellacking.”

In the months ahead, I expect the list of left-wing capitulators to continue to grow.

In other words, if you are someone who remains determined to fight the Trump agenda, you may find yourself increasingly isolated as the people and organizations you’ve counted on as allies succumb to the fear of and pressure from the Trump White House.

In case you are still unclear as to what this all means: This is the beginning of how democracies end.

A starting point

Yes, it can be disheartening to watch these capitulations and realize that a huge swath of this country not only seems unconcerned about Trump’s promised retributions…they are positively enthusiastic at the prospect. But let’s not forget that, while Trump won the election, more than half of the country (75 million people!) did not vote for Trump (with the latest count, Trump’s vote total is now less than 50%!). There are a whole lot of people out there who are on our side — who oppose Trump and understand the danger he represents. This is a starting point to counter any sense of isolation and to instead join the resistance.

_____________________

* Update December 5: The situation at The Los Angele Times is far worse than I realized at the time this column was first posted. Harry Litman lays it all out here, making it clear that he “doesn’t want to continue to work for a paper that is appeasing Trump and facilitating his assault on democratic rule for craven reasons.”

** Update December 6: The situation on Morning Joe has gotten worse since this column was first posted. David Frum describes how he was “excused” from the show (and will likely never appear on MSNBC again) for a rather mild critical comment he made about Pete Hegseth and Fox News. Shortly afterward, co-host Mika Brzezinski read an apology for his remarks. Frum continues: “It is a very ominous thing if our leading forums for discussion of public affairs are already feeling the chill of intimidation and responding with efforts to appease.”

More generally, Marc Elias has echoed the sentiments expressed here, writing: “”What has surprised me, depressed me and ultimately angered me are the voices that have gone silent. So many who were so loud in warning about the dangers of Trump now speak only in whispers if at all. The critics who were bold and brash when they thought Harris would win are now tamed and seeking accommodation. Media figures who claimed to be the bastion of protection for our democracy now make pilgrimages to temper Trump’s anger.”

*** Update December 16: Yet another bowling pin falls. This time ABC News capitulates…making a $15 million settlement in a court case that Trump brought against the network and where ABC would have likely prevailed. It involves statements made by George Stephanopoulos  during an interview with Senator Nancy Mace — regarding a court’s finding in the E. Jean Carroll lawsuit that “Donald Trump has been found liable for defaming the victim of rape by a jury.” Trump claimed he was defamed. It’s a win for Trump that he does not deserve…and allows him to avoid what would have been an embarrassing deposition. If Trump were not President-elect, the settlement would almost certainly never have happened. To read all the gory details, check out this column by Harry Litman.