Events of the Trump Regime in the week ending August 22, 2025 merit special focus for making something clear that has been a very clear trend for decades. The reaffirmation of this trend should serve as a wake-up call not to Republican politicians – frankly, their corruption, fealty and silence have proven them beyond redemption – but as a wake-up call to people who have voted for Republican politicians and may still think of themselves as "Republican." The pattern reflected in the news is that Republicans believe in and follow a very peculiar and dangerous concept of power and justice. And that peculiarity does NOT stem from the corruption of a single person. It has been evident over the last half decade or more of history, back to 1968 in fact.
As a Republican candidate for President in 1968, Richard Nixon had a Republican fundraiser speak directly with the South Vietnamese government and tell them they would receive a better deal for ending the war from a Nixon Administration so they would not complete a deal in 1968 that might help lame duck President Lyndon Johnson and Democratic candidate Hubert Humphrey running against Nixon. The South Vietnamese President announced a decision to avoid any peace talks on November 2, 1968, just three days prior to the election which Humphrey then lost to Nixon by less than one percent of the vote.
In 1980, John Connolly, a former Democratic Governor of Texas and then-Republican operative working on behalf of the Reagan campaign, visited multiple countries in the middle east to provide a message to be communicated to the Iranian government – keep the hostages until after the election and you'll get a better deal from a Reagan Administration than a re-elected Carter Administration. (Sounds eerily similar to Nixon in 1968, doesn't it? No surprise, Nixon strategists continued to hold sway within the Republican Party through at least 1992.). The Iranians did hold the hostages, until Inauguration Day 1981.
On March 13, 2002, only six months after the September 11, 2001 attacks, Republican President George W Bush stated "I truly am not that concerned about him" when asked about the continued failure of the US to capture Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. In reality, US forces and intelligence had allowed bin Laden to escape a position in caves at Tora Bora in December 2001 and since then had zero idea of his whereabouts. Yet they were confident in stating he was no longer in a position to harm Americans. At that point, preserving face for a bumbling Administration became more important than continuing to actively pursue a man who triggered the loss of 3000 lives even if it meant experiencing frustration from the American public. (In contrast, the Obama Administration related a story from 2007 of a courier making frequent visits to Pakistan to a name via a wire tap in 2010, then traced that person's travel to a city in Pakistan and by September 2010 identified the building ("compound") being visited as oddly upscale and different from its surroundings and confirmed it as bin Laden's likely hideout. On May 2, 2011, a raid was approved on that facility resulting in the death of bin Laden, two years and three months into Obama's term, securing justice not only for September 11 families but the world.)
While abandoning attempts at bringing Osama bin Laden to justice or a deadly, well-deserved end, the George W Bush Administration was instead rapidly assembling (forging, really...) a story to justify launching a war to topple Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. The reasons were wrapped in post-September 11 rhetoric about global terrorist networks and weapons of mass destruction but the mindset was already at work in the Bush Administration prior to September 11, 2001 and Bush was quoted himself on his motives during the 2000 campaign where he was quoted saying "There's no doubt his hatred is directed mainly at us. There's no doubt he can't stand us. After all, this is a guy that tried to kill my dad at one time." Dubya exacted his revenge and probably thinks "justice prevailed" for his dad but America opened a second, disastrous, $3 trillion dollar war in Iraq which virtually destroyed any chance of success in the $2.3 trillion dollar war in Afghanistan, which, while equally dubious from a practical military perspective, at least bore the seed of some moral legitimacy in toppling a government that had provided years of shelter to the actors who launched the September 11 attacks.
On June 30 of 2008, Jeffrey Epstein was facing a 53-page federal indictment on sex trafficking charges involving dozens of women and some minor-aged women yet was given a plea deal barring all federal prosecution against Epstein, any named co-conspirators in the indictment, and (more amazingly) all non-named co-conspirators referenced in the federal indictment IN EXCHANGE for pleading guilty to lesser state charges on solicitation which did not mention the involvement of minors. United States Attorney Alexander Acosta, a Republican, and State Attorney Barry Krischer, a Democrat, were both involved in the deal and the later finger-pointing that erupted when the case was re-investigated in 2018 by The Miami Herald.. In short, STATE prosecutors were first pursuing the case but Krischer's office treated the victims as willing prostitutes (including the minors) and crippled his case via his questioning of witnesses in grand jury proceedings. At that point, federal prosecutors and US Attorney Acosta became involved and crafted their own 53-page indictment on federal charges. That 53-page indictment at the federal level resulted in lawyers and prosecutors creating the outrageous plea deal which was hidden from victims until the plea for state charges was accepted in state court. After the 2018 investigation in The Miami Herald, courts ruled prosecutors had violated federal laws regarding victims' rights in cutting the original deal.
On January 6, 2021, President Trump, a Republican, organized a rally of followers near the White House, spoke to that armed crowd of thousands and directed them to march on the Capital and "stop the steal.". Those thousands attacked hundreds of police (Capital Police and Washington DC Police) and the US Capital itself as part of a coup whose planning began prior to his election loss in November 2020. Over two months of premeditation regarding a criminal attempt to REJECT the decision of millions of American voters.
On January 20, 2025, on the inauguration of his second term, President Trump signed a blanket pardon and commutation of convictions and sentencing for fourteen named individuals and to "all other individuals convicted of offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capital on January 6, 2021." The "proclamation" further directed the Department of Justice to immediately cease all investigations and prosecutions of other parties for activities related to January 6. Absolutely zero consideration of circumstances and facts for specific cases.
On July 24, 2025, current Deputy Attorney General of the United States, Todd Blanche, a Republican and former criminal defense attorney for Donald Trump, was dispatched to interview Jeffrey Epstein's convicted co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxell at her current prison in Tallahassee, Florida and obtain "answers" to "questions" about the Epstein case. No competent, ethical prosecutor or lawyer could identify any value that could come out of such an interview with such blatant conflicts of interest among all parties involved and the transcripts confirmed those concerns. Maxwell provided nothing of value to anyone with an adversarial position to her situation and transcripts were released in which she said she "never witnessed the President in any inappropriate setting in any way." But something DID come out of those interviews. Within a week of completing the bizarre interview, Maxwell was moved from the LOW-security prison in Florida to a MINIMUM-security federal prison "camp" in Texas, again abusing any norms about "justice" regarding sentencing and punishment of sex offenders. Federal prison guidelines bar any convict serving time for sex offenses from serving time in minimum security prisons, much less "camps" with no formal security presence guarding the perimeter fence or preventing people from entering. Given that ONE villain in this play was already nixed while under supposed maximum security watch awaiting prosecution, it seems odd that a party already CONVICTED would be placed in such an insecure location. Even if Maxwell has no intent to escape or harm anyone else within the facility, the greater public has an interest in ensuring she is protected and serves every day of her sentence rather than getting attacked and potentially killed and thus creating another rabbit hole for conspiracy theorists to dig for the next thirty years.
On August 22, 2025, a search warrant was executed on the home of John Bolton, noted policy curmudgeon and onetime national security advisor in the first Trump Regime. Bolton was one of the leading advocates for one key policy in the first Trump term – the goal of terminating the nuclear monitoring pact with Iran – but seemed to have many differences with the rest of the Trump Regime Take I on many other policies leading Bolton to quit or be fired (depends on who you ask) after serving seventeen months. Since leaving, Bolton has frequently appeared on television shows criticizing Trump policies in both terms. When asked to comment about the search, Trump said this:
I know nothing about it. I just saw it this morning. I tell Pam and I tell the group, I don't want to know about it. You have to do what you have to do. He is not a smart guy. But he could be a very unpatriotic guy. We're going to find out. I'm not a fan of John Bolton. He's really sort of lowlife. I could know about it. I could be the one starting it. I'm actually the chief law enforcement officer.
Does anything about that appear remotely Presidential? Or circumspect? Or reserved? Until this President, there were virtually ZERO incidents of ANY American President explicitly commenting on a tactical event related to a federal investigation of ANYONE prior to charges being filed after weeks or months of investigations withiin the DOJ which themselves took place without any comment from even the Attorney General, much less the President. In the Trump Regime, this conduct occurs DAILY and even involves different department heads retweeting each other's tweets as they all virtually chest-bump each other for going so far over the line in being hard-asses like the boss wanted.
The comments above are even more disturbing because they reflect a psychological "tell" that has been one hundred percent consistent across Trump's entire public life, even predating politics. The tell? Trump is INCAPABLE of verbally making a statement which in any way limits or cedes any sort of power or influence he thinks he possesses over someone or that another person is ascribing to him. Because his intellect is so stunted, there is no counterbalancing psychological force at work to combat his ego and this narcissistic impulse to claim a perceived power, even if a normal human would find multiple reasons to DENY or CEDE the power, even if only for appearances.
Go back to Trump's comment. Trump first DENIES that he DOES know ANYTHING about the search warrant, its motivation or its timing. A normal person, even a normal crook, would have no problem leaving the statement at that. Trump cannot leave it there. Leaving it there would leave the impression that he recognizes a President should NOT be intervening in the specific tactics and timing of work in a particular case.
Trump CANNOT accept thinking that anyone else thinks that he accepts that restriction on his power. Read what he said (my italics added for emphasis). I could know about it. I could be the one starting it. I'm actually the chief law enforcement officer.
Because Trump has yet to be held to account for any transgressions in his ENTIRE life, his psychology is such that making these "I could" comments is also very likely a tell that he actually HAS engaged in the actions he is denying while not forswearing. There is nothing in his history to have created a fear of actually telling the truth about some prior offense. There have never been consequences and essentially confessing to some prior offense is another form of power flex proving that he can get away with anything. His Access Hollywood recording on the bus didn't explicitly address one case where he DID assault a woman, but remember what he said then... "When you're famous, you can just grab 'em..." We know now that he was adjudicated of doing EXACTLY that at least once in the case of E. Jean Carroll and accused by at least 27 other women. In a court of law, this pattern of communication is not sufficient to convict. But in the court of public opinion and the more important circumstance of individual Americans needing to comprehend if their President is working FOR them or AGAINST them, it's perfectly valid to incorporate logic into any decision about allowing someone with this mindset to retain power.
However, Trump is not a unique Republican in this approach to power. Trump is only unique in the toddler levels of impulsiveness driving his mindless assertions of these limitless powers he believes he has. But over the past decade and certainly in the first seven months of the second Trump Regime, it is clear many other Republicans in federal and state elected and appointed positions have a similar inability to understand or respect limits on what they perceive are their powers within our judicial system. They don't even respect the limits of power when they're not holding power and merely trying to obtain it. There are dozens (hundreds?) of officials scattered across federal and state government who believe anything they do using their powers of office is justified as long as their actions help Republicans retain power. When that contingent has a President at the top of the org chart with even less impulse control over abuse of power, the country will see the rule of law collapse. It is already happening.
A country of 350 million inhabitants cannot operate with a single President willing to intervene in EVERY federal case (and state cases will be next – would-be Constitutional separations of power mean nothing when no one is following the Constitution) and pick and choose winners based on who most recently offended him or kissed his ass. A country of 350 million cannot operate an economy in which a single President is arbitrarily setting trade policies with billion dollar impacts to thousands of businesses and even demanding ownership control of companies in exchange for letting them merely try to continue operating without interference.
WTH
