An Update on Alexander Smirnov

Hat tip Emptywheel, we now know a little more about what the investigators knew about Alexander Smirnov and when they knew it.  The vetting took place in July, 2020, shortly after Smirnov made his shocking allegations.  Apparently my prior impression that Smirnov's allegations were disproven by his travel records was not entirely correct.  Special Counsel has filed a vetting of Smirnov's story with the court, which shows that the reality is somewhat more complex. 

Actually, it is far from clear what the vetting revealed because most of it is blacked out.  However, we can compare Smirnov's allegations in the FD-1023 statement to his handler, the results of the investigation, and the indictment say about the four meetings that Smirnov alleged.

First alleged meeting:  

Smirnov said that in "late 2015 or early 2016" he was introduced to Oleksandr (Alexander) Ostapenko.  The FD-1023 statement does not give Ostapenko's background other than to say that there is more information about in in a 2018 1023.  In any event, Ostapenko does not appear to have worked for Burisma.  Nor does the report say where they met, only that Smirnov and Ostapenko "traveled to Ukraine" to meet with Burisma officials.  Present were Burisma's CFO Vadym Pozharsky (Vadim Pojarskii), Mykola Zlochevsky's daughter and her husband, and a US business partner of Smirnov whose name was blacked out and who did not understand what was said because he did not speak Russian.  One gathers from this that Ostapenko is a Russian-speaking Ukrainian businessman of some type.  Smirnov alleges that Pozharsky told him that Burisma hired Hunter to "protect us, through his dad, from all kinds of problems," but gave no further details.*

The FBI's examination of Smirnov's passport revealed that he was in Ukraine 5/22/15 through 5/23/15; 10/10/15 through 10/12/15; and 11/30/15 through 12/6/15.  The latter two visits were both in "late 2015" and thus consistent with Smirnov's story.  The FBI said that it could be difficult to pinpoint the exact meeting and suggested asking for credit card receipts.  

The indictment states that this statement is proven false, not because of Smirnov's travel records, but because he met with Burisma officials for the first time in 2017, under the Trump administration.  The source for this appears to be "Associate 1," "a Ukrainian business consultant," presumably Ostapenko, and "Associate 2," "a American who owned a cryptocurrency business."  "Associate 2" is definitely the American identified in Smirnov's 1023 and it was apparently his travel records that disproved the first meeting.  "Associate 2" did not travel outside of North America between 2011 and 2017 and therefore could not have been at the first meeting, as Smirnov alleged.  The indictment also cites e-mails from 2017 introducing Smirnov to Burisma officials for the first time.  

Second alleged meeting:

Smirnov then alleged that he met with Ostapenko and Burisma CEO Mykola Zlochevsky in Vienna "approximately one or two months after the aforementioned Burisma meeting in Ukraine," about the time the Joe Biden publicly called Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin corrupt and called for his removal.  Smirnov alleged that it was at this meeting that Zlochevsky said he had paid Joe and Hunter Biden each a $5 million bribe to remove Shokin.  Needless to say, this would be a serious crime, and the fact that Smirnov never reported the alleged meeting until 2020 was a major red flag.

In this case, Smirnov's travel records really did disprove the alleged meeting.  Biden publicly called for Shokin to be removed in December, 2015.  Smirnov's October, 2015 trip to Ukraine really did take place about two months earlier.  His travel records showed he went through the Vienna airport twice in October, 2016 and once in December 2016, but never in 2015.  The investigator could not rule out the possibility that Smirnov might have driven to Vienna from some other country in Europe.  

The indictment confidently says that Smirnov was not in Vienna at the time of Biden's speech.

Third alleged meeting:

Actually, the third alleged meeting was a telephone call between Smirnov, Ostapenko, and Zlochevsky, said to have taken place after Trump was elected but before he was sworn in.  No location was given.  Smirnov alleged that during the meeting Zlochevsky said the Bidens coerced him into making the payment, and that he had texts and recordings to prove it.

Since this was a phone call with no location given, the initial vetting could not check it against travel records.  The indictment says that the conversation never took place because Associate 1 (Ostapenko) never spoke to Zlochevesky, either in person or by phone.   

Fourth alleged meeting:

The fourth alleged meeting was also a phone call, this time with a location given. Smirnov said that on some unspecified date in 2019 he met with Ostapenko on matters unrelated to Burisma.  Nonetheless, some time during the meeting Ostapenko called Zlochevsky, who was then on the run and hiding in an unknown location in Europe.  During the conversation, the subject of the alleged bribe again came up and Zlochevsky said the money transfer was so well concealed that it would take ten years to trace it.  The handler apparently expressed some skepticism because he asked why Zlochevsky would make such unsolicited admissions.  Smirnov said bragging of this type was common.

The FBI was able to confirm that Smirnov really did travel to London on unrelated matters from October 7-11, 2019.  The main evidence the indictment offers against the phone call is that Ostapenko (Associate 1) never spoke to Zlochevsky.   

Emptywheel finds it interesting that Smirnov's visit to London and the alleged conversation happened about the same time Lev Parnas was arrested while heading to Vienna, apparently to meet with Zlochevsky.  She suggests that if the phone call happened, Zlochevsky may have been using Smirnov as an alternate channel to circulate dirt on Hunter Biden after his attempt to convey it to Parnas was thwarted.  That sounds most implausible to me.  In all prior dealings with Giuliani, Zlochevsky had denied any improper dealings with the Bidens.  Why would he change his story in 2019?  And why give any credence to Smirnov's allegations about the meeting, given that alleged 2019 conversation was the tail end of a whole string of fabrications?**

Named individuals

The vetting also asked what Smirnov knew about a series of Russian or Ukrainian individuals and some companies.  I recognized two of the names.  Vadym Pozharsky was the Burisma CFO and is mentioned in Smirnov's 1023.  Pozharsky really was an associate of Hunter Biden and really did send and e-mail to Hunter thanking him for introducing Pozharsky to Hunter's father.***  Karina Zlochevska was Zlochevsky's daughter and is mentioned in the 1023.  They appear to be real associates, who Smirnov met in 2017.  He appears to have taken many of the details of the initial 2017 meeting (location, people attending, American colleague who did not speak Russian) and simply moved them back in time to "late 2015 or early 2016."  

I have no idea who any of the others were. 

Interestingly, the report does not mention any response from Smirnov on either Pozharsky or Zlochevska.****  He denied any knowledge about the others, which is probably true.  He recognized that if he made anything up about about them, the FBI could spot the lie.  

Emptywheel was able to shed some light on one of the named individuals -- Michael Guralnik.   Guralnick was apparently a Ukrainian born in Soviet times, who graduated from the Soviet military academy, served ten years in the Soviet army, and later became a US citizen.  He was associated with Giuliani's attempts to dig dirt on Joe Biden and also corresponded with Lindsey Graham.  Emptywheel links a Daily  Beast article that mentions various others associated with Giuliani,  none of whom are mentioned in the FBI's vetting.

Other:

The vetting also mentions that Smirnov's first reports to the FBI on Burisma are from the spring of 2017 and there was no earlier mention.  Nor was there anything else from any other source to suggest that Joe or Hunter Biden had been bribed.  The FBI then asked how Zlochevsky communicated with the Bidens and the handler said that Smirnov did not know.  Presumably Smirnov recognized that if he named a method the FBI might investigate it and find out that he was lying.   Almost four pages are then blacked out.  

Steps not taken/recommended further investigation:

The FBI has three stages of initial inquiry:  assessment, preliminary investigation and full investigation.  (The Durham Report discusses the distinction at some length on page 24).  The vetting was an assessment, which limited the scope of investigation.  Recommendations for further investigation included interviewing Smirnov's colleague, going over Smirnov's travel records in greater detail with him, investigating Smirnov's phone, especially his exchanges with his handler, and comparing with other reports, including with other agencies.  The remainder of the report (about three pages) is blacked out.

Special counsel appears to have taken the additional steps -- interviewing Smirnov's colleague, reviewing the texts he exchanged with his hander, talking to Ostapenko, and looking at the e-mails Smirnov exchanged.  These additional measures decisively disproved Smirnov's allegations.

In short:

The initial vetting of Smirnov's report was less thorough than the investigation that led to his indictment, but enough to raise serious questions about his allegations.

Results of the initial vetting that seemed to corroborate Smirnov's report:

1. Smirnov was confirmed to know the people he mentioned in the 1023 and did not claim knowledge of people he did not know.
2. Smirnov traveled to Ukraine about the time of the alleged first meeting in Kiev.
3. Smirnov traveled to London in 2019, as alleged.

This was presumably what Scott Brady was referring to when he said that he had confirmed that Smirnov was in the places he alleged at the times he alleged.

Results of the initial vetting that undermined Smirnov's report:

1. Smirnov's earliest reports of contact with Burisma date to 2017, contradicting the claim in 1023 that he met with Zlochevsky in 2015 and 2016.
2. Smirnov was not in Vienna at the time of the alleged second meeting.

This is to say nothing of Smirnov's failure to report the foregoing until 2020!  I supposed one could say that he did not report the first two meetings because he was afraid of retaliation from Joe Biden, then Vice President.  But why didn't Smirnov report the whole business in 2017 or 2019, when Trump was in office?

Apparently the FBI decided that Smirnov was not trustworthy because nothing further happened at the time.  Special Counsel, when forced to investigate further, learned that:

1. Smirnov's e-mails exchanged in 2017 confirmed that he was meeting with Burisma officials for the first time.
2. Smirnov's American colleague was definitely not in Ukraine at the time of the first alleged meeting.
3. Ostapenko denied every speaking with Zlochevsky, either in person or by phone.
4. A month before Smirnov made the 1023 claiming that Zlochevsky had told him he had bribed Joe and Hunter Biden, Smirnov exchanged texts with his handler expressing a belief that the Bidens had been bribed and that he would have the tape proving it as soon as he met with "the guys" (presumably his Russian sources).  Nothing in these texts so much as suggested that Smirnov had any personal information on the subject.

Special Counsel recommended a four to six year sentence (the judge imposed a six year sentence).  Emptywheel considers this seriously excessive, although she is not sure why Special Counsel made the recommendation -- most likely confidence that it would not matter because Trump would issue a pardon.  In particular, she is offended that the sentencing recommendation blames Smirnov for all the time and resources he made government expend investigating his lies.  Emptywheel believes that the government could have seen through the lies with the exercise of minimal common sense, and that its waste of resources was the result of Republicans relentless pressuring it to pursue this most implausible lead.  

Congressman Jerry Nadler has asked the Inspector General to investigate the whole dubious business.  Alas, it seems a safe assumption that Donald Trump will spike the whole thing and we will never learn the real story.

_______________________________________________

*That is not, in and of itself, necessarily evidence of a crime.  I read an excellent New Yorker article pointing out that a weak country being invaded by its more powerful neighbor and heavily reliant on a powerful sponsor for its protection is not going to antagonize the powerful sponsor by investigating a company with its Vice President's son on the board of directors.

**I supposed he could have changed his story because the whole business had gone public and he wanted to change his story accordingly.

***Joe Biden denied such a meeting and his schedule did not reflect one.  However, it later appeared that Joe Biden made an unscheduled appearance at a charity dinner his son was attending and briefly spoke to Pozharsky.

****Several words are blacked out before naming those two.  Writ Media is named after the two and also does not have response.  The FBI knew that Smirnov knew Pozharsky and Zlochevska, since they are named in his 1023.  Possibly the omitted words say that the FBI is not asking about these.

Confessions of a Square

 And yes, I have to admit I am extremely old-fashioned in news consumption.  I prefer to read, rather than hear or watch news.  Aside from the problems of listening to news at work, the advantages of reading news are (1) you can actually take in information faster by reading than listening and (2) reading lets you set your own pace.

I like scrolling through tweets up to a point but end up wanting something meatier to sink my teeth into, like an extended article.

And I don't like podcasts.  Podcasts only engage the auditory centers of my brain.  The rest of my brain is being unused and getting impatient.  I need to mend clothes or do something else with the rest of my brain to listen to podcasts.  Whatever did people do back when the main form of news and entertainment was the radio?

Why the End of the Legacy Media Would Be Really, Really Bad

 

Since Donald Trump won the election, Elon Musk has been exalting the the legacy media are finished, that they are out of touch and in a bubble and that social media is the journalism of the future.  Needless to say, Musk does not see anything out of touch or in a bubble about promoting or believing blatant lies about Hurricane Helene.  Presumably he saw those lies as authentic, making the little matter of factual accuracy irrelevant.

And plenty of people on our side are also dismissing the legacy media as irrelevant -- too afraid of being accused of liberal bias to call Trump out pre-election and now too intimidated by him to do hard-hitting reporting.  Instead, our side is setting up its own podcasts and Substrack accounts to do what the legacy media is too timid to do.

In effect, it is the return of the blogosphere.  Well, as one who never left blogging in favor of tweeting, I am happy to see it make a comeback.  However, blogging was never the same as real journalism and it is not a substitute for real journalism.  If the legacy media dies and social media/Substrack/podcasts take its place, we will have lost something immensely valuable.

The chart above is revealing in more ways than one.  Most obviously, it shows that objective journalism is more reliable than advocacy journalism.  But the vertical axis is noteworthy.  At the very top, it places "Fact Reporting."  Next comes "Mix of fact reporting and analysis," followed by pure analysis, then opinion, and then unreliable sources.  The point here is not so much that there is anything wrong with analysis or even opinion, but that a focus on analysis and opinion means that someone else is actually gathering the facts.  Gathering the facts, after all, is what journalism is all about.

Furthermore true journalism is labor-intensive.  It means more than just seeing a factlet on line or hearing a rumor and repeating it.  True journalism means in-depth investigation, thorough-going fact checking, and pursuing multiple sources.  Doing that it a lot of work.  It is generally more work than one person can do.  Quality journalism calls for reporting, checking, and editing.  It is a team effort.  This contrasts with, say, a typical blog/Substract, which is usually analysis of other people's reporting, or a podcast, which is the same, or an interview of someone with actual knowledge.

I will concede that advocacy journalism (left or right, at least in theory) can produce boutique publications that do through, in-depth factual investigation of specific topics.  In fact, boutique publications are almost always advocacy journalism, whereas objective journalism tends more toward "middle brow" publications, i.e., reporting daily news, rather than in-depth investigation of a narrow topic.  But good investigative journalism by boutique publications best serves as a supplement to daily news rather than a substitute.  The in-depth nature of boutique publications comes at a serious cost to the breadth of middle-brow, daily news publications.  This breadth is necessary for an informed citizenry.

In short, what you get on social media is not real journalism.  It is parasitic on real journalism.  If the host dies, even the minimal value of news from social media will die with it.  Boutique journalism can offer valuable in-depth information on a narrow topic, but without broad-based, reliable reporting of the daily news, boutique journalism lacks the context to give it meaning.  

Elon Musk wants to kill real journalism.  We shouldn't be helping him.

Reflections on Jimmy Carter's "Malaise" Speech

 

Retrospectives on Jimmy Carter often say that his presidency began circling the drain when he gave the "malaise" speech.  (Some acknowledge that he did not actually use that word).

The most fascinating aspect of that speech is not so much the problems he was addressing or the solutions he proposed, but just how contemporary it sounds.

This is what Jimmy Carter said in 1979:

 

As you know, there is a growing disrespect for government and for churches and for schools, the news media, and other institutions. This is not a message of happiness or reassurance, but it is the truth and it is a warning.

These changes did not happen overnight. They've come upon us gradually over the last generation, years that were filled with shocks and tragedy.

We were sure that ours was a nation of the ballot, not the bullet, until the murders of John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. We were taught that our armies were always invincible and our causes were always just, only to suffer the agony of Vietnam. We respected the Presidency as a place of honor until the shock of Watergate.

We remember when the phrase "sound as a dollar" was an expression of absolute dependability, until 10 years of inflation began to shrink our dollar and our savings. We believed that our Nation's resources were limitless until 1973, when we had to face a growing dependence on foreign oil.

These wounds are still very deep. They have never been healed.

Looking for a way out of this crisis, our people have turned to the Federal Government and found it isolated from the mainstream of our Nation's life. Washington, D.C., has become an island. The gap between our citizens and our Government has never been so wide. The people are looking for honest answers, not easy answers; clear leadership, not false claims and evasiveness and politics as usual.

 Change a few particulars, and it might be something any politician -- or any commenter on social media -- might say.

Right now the refrain was that the COVID pandemic, the lock downs, and the 2020 riots destroyed trust in our institutions.

Before that, people lamented that George Bush lying us into the war in Iraq and the bailout of financial institutions destroyed our trust in the system.

And in 1979, Jimmy Carter was saying we lost trust in our institutions due to the 1960's assassinations, the Vietnam war, the Watergate scandal, inflation, and the oil embargo.

And lest one think that at least there was trust in our institutions before that, don't forget that an earlier generation had to deal with the corruption of the Harding Administration, the Great Depression, and World War II.

And before that someone was proposing that the nation actually lost its innocence in 1919 when the World Series was rigged.

It's almost as if there have always been problems.

I am old enough to have a teenage memory of Jimmy Carter's speech.  And, young as I was, it seemed to me even then that maybe living in an illusion -- falsely thinking that our armies were invincible, our leaders incorruptible, and our resources limitless -- was not sustainable, and that facing unwelcome realities was simply a fact of life.

An unwelcome but inevitable part of growing up for every child is learning that one's parents are not perfect.  And an unwelcome but inevitable part of reaching political adulthood is learning that our institutions are not perfect either, and that our society has problems.

But true maturity lies in understanding that no parents are perfect, that no institutions are perfect, and that every society has always had problems and always will.

How much of the true underlying cause of so many of our political problems is that all too many people have not reached that state of civic adulthood?

Donald Trump's Cynicism is Extraordinary

 

Donald Trump's New Years Day tweet on the debt ceiling shows a truly extraordinary degree of cynicism.  Basic factual background, for anyone who needs filling in, is here.

Short version: The debt ceiling limits the federal government's ability to borrow.  No other country has an equivalent provision.  So long as the government spends more than it receives, it necessarily has to borrow and sooner or later its borrowing will run up against the debt ceiling.  At that point, it will only be able to pay part of its bills.  No one knows what will happen next, because no one wants to find out, but the general assumption is that it will be very, very bad.

Republicans in Congress have regularly used that threat as a way to blackmail Democratic presidents, most recently in 2023, when Speaker Kevin McCarthy backed down and extended the debt ceiling until after the election.  

Now Trump is calling for abolition of the debt ceiling, tweeting:

The extension of the Debt Ceiling by a previous Speaker of the House, a good man and a friend of mine, from this past September of the Biden Administration, to June of the Trump Administration, will go down as one of the dumbest political decisions made in years. There was no reason to do it - NOTHING WAS GAINED, and we got nothing for it - A major reason why that Speakership was lost. It was Biden’s problem, not ours. Now it becomes ours. I call it “1929” because the Democrats don’t care what our Country may be forced into. In fact, they would prefer “Depression” as long as it hurt the Republican Party. The Democrats must be forced to take a vote on this treacherous issue NOW, during the Biden Administration, and not in June. They should be blamed for this potential disaster, not the Republicans!

The cynicism of this statement is so remarkable it really calls for unpacking.  

He is well aware that a debt ceiling breach could cause serious economic harm -- so severe that he uses the terms "1929" and "Depression" to characterize the possible results.

Then he says that Kevin McCarthy's decision to lift the debt ceiling was "one of the dumbest political decisions made in years" because any harm caused by the breach would have been "Biden's problem, not ours."*

Then he becomes outraged that once he becomes President, the Democrats must might give him a taste of his own medicine.  He is angry that they might want to harm the economy to hurt him -- right after saying Republicans should have harmed the economy to hurt his predecessor!  Ignored here: once Trump is inaugurated, Republicans will control all branches of government and are quite capable of raising the debt ceiling with no help from Democrats.  Apparently he does not trust Republicans to do so.

In any even, he does not care what happens to the economy.  He just wants to ensure that, "They should be blamed for this potential disaster, not the Republicans!"

____________________________________________________
*Probably not entirely true.  While the resulting economic fallout would undoubtedly have led to a Republican landslide win, a Republican landslide win would not have put an immediate end to the economic fallout.  Just as Obama was blamed for not immediately ending the aftermath of the financial crisis and Biden was blamed for not immediately ending the aftermath of the COVID pandemic, Trump would ultimately be blamed for not cleaning up fast enough from a debt ceiling breach.  He does best to do this time exactly what he did last time -- inherit a country in reasonably good shape and take credit for that.

A Second Trump Term, MAGA, and Fascism

 

So, I have previously discussed Trump and fascism before and after his first term.  What about a second term?  And, again, to be clear, by fascism I do not mean anything that threatens to undermine democracy.  Clearly by that standard, Trump qualifies.  But what about real fascism.  And the only honest answer I can give is that it is hard to say, but there are some elements of MAGA that are decidedly alarming.  

So, what about Trump and fascism this time around?

A middle class populist movement that both punches up and kicks down, but mostly kicks down. Well, during his campaign Trump demonized both immigrants and "elites."  Since winning, he gives all signs of handing the country over to the plutocrats.  But then again, classical fascism followed a similar trajectory, joining forces with traditional elites when it could not take power on its own.  Mussolini, unable to draw adherents to a party that was both left wing and nationalist, instead became an enforcer for large land owners.  Hitler's alliance with old elites was much more on his own terms -- but he still destroyed the Storm Troopers when his business and military allies demanded it.  

Driven by fear and ambition, but fear predominates. Donald Trump certainly knows how to fear monger!  His talk about Hannibal Lecter and the like was completely insane.  How many people believed it and how many were just upset about inflation or thought the border was being overwhelmed I could not say.

A psychology of lizard brain machismo.  Again, duh!

An ideology of palingenetic populist hypernationalism.  Palingenetic means a rebirth.  In other words, palingenetic hypernationalism is the belief that one's nation has fallen from its former glory and must be reborn.  That definitely sounds like Trump!  As does the populism and nationalism.  I suppose there is room for debate about hyper-nationalism, but the basic attitude of hostility toward the rest of the world is hard to miss.

A paramilitary party that has taken over the state (or aspires to take over the state) and claims (or aspires to claim) an effective monopoly of political activity.  I commented before that the Republican Party in general appears to believe it is entitled to political power, but not to political activity.  It is willing to tolerate the existence of the Democrats, so long as they will agree not to hold meaningful power.  Trump, in seeking to overturn any election for President that Democrats won (as he would certainly have done if he had lost in 2024) takes it farther than any other Republican, but no farther than its logical conclusion.  Whether the Republicans will allow any Presidential election that Democrats win to stand remains to be seen.  So far, they are allowing Democrats to win election to any other office.

But it is the potential paramilitary aspect that is really scary.  Already it is not just the threat of a primary challenge that keeps Republicans in line, but actual physical threats as well.  There has not been widespread paramilitary activity by the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers and the like so far this time, largely because the ones who tried to overturn the election got stiff prison sentences.  But Trump has made quite clear that he intends to pardon the January 6 defendants.  It seems safe assumption that during a second Trump term, paramilitaries will be safe from federal prosecution -- and probably from prosecution by any Republican state or local officials as well.  How far Trump will go into turning the Proud Boys into the paramilitary arm of his party is anyone's guess.  

And now the old standbys.

From Stanley Payne, in Fascism: Comparison and Definition (1980):

The fascist negations:

Anti-radical:  The radical left is really  not much of a factor in the US today, pro-Hamas protesters notwithstanding.  But Trump is good at fear mongering about non-existent threats.

Anti-liberal: Very much so.

Anti-conservative:  Trump seems to be following the classical fascist trajectory of adopting a rabble-rousing style that scares conservatives and then selling out to them, at least to judge by his chumminess with plutocrats.

Ideology and goals:

Creation of a new nationalist authoritarian state based not merely on traditional principles or models. Well, Trump clearly wants to deploy the power of the state against political opponents and immigrants, and against an ill-defined "wokeness."  I still don't think he is planning anything as sweeping as true fascists.

Organization of some new kind of regulated, multiclass, integrated national economic structure, whether called national corporatist, national socialist, or national syndicalist.  I don't see it.

The goal of empire or a radical change in the nation’s relationship with other powers. Well he is threatening to annex Canada, the Panama Canal and Greenland.  I don't think anyone seriously expect him to do any of this, but it sounds a lot more like a fascist foreign policy than he pursued last time. 

Specific espousal of an idealist, voluntarist creed, normally involving the attempt to realize a new form of modern, self-determined, secular culture.  Huh?

Style and Organization:

Emphasis on aesthetic structure of meetings, symbols, and political choreography, stressing romantic and mystical aspects. To some degree.  

Attempted mass mobilization with militarization of political relationships and style and with the goal of a mass party militia. See discussion of a paramilitary party above.  

Positive evaluation and use of, or willingness to use, violence.  I am again going to refer back to the paramilitary part.  Clearly Trump is willing to resort to violence rather than accept defeat.  I just don't know to what extent he will deploy it once in power.

Extreme stress on the masculine principle and male dominance, while espousing the organic view of society. Well, duh.  

Exaltation of youth above other phases of life, emphasizing the conflict of generations, at least in effecting the initial political transformation.  This is one of the most alarming parts of the new Trump movement.  In is first term, it was mostly a movement of the old.  This time, it is increasingly a movement of the young, with the conviction that it is the movement of the future. That makes it a whole lot scarier than last time.

Specific tendency toward an authoritarian, charismatic, personal style of command, whether or not the command is to some degree initially elective. Duh!

In short, it is really going to depend on whether Trump starts using the Proud Boys as his private militia or not.  If he does, he will have some disturbingly fascistic tendencies.

Robert O. Paxton, The Anatomy of Fascism, and the "nine mobilizing passions":

-- a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of any traditional solutions:  Yes, and in defiance of the facts.

-- the primacy of the group, toward which one has duties superior to every right, whether universal or individual, and the subordination of the individual to it:  I don't really think so.  Definite dehumanization of out-groups (often poorly defined), but not real desire to subordinate the in-group.

-- the belief that one's group is a victim, a sentiment which justifies any action, without legal or moral limits, against the group's enemies, both internal and external:  To a considerable extent, yes.  We will see how far this goes.

-- dread of the group's decline under the corrosive effect of individualistic liberalism, class conflict, and alien influences:  Except for the individualistic part, yes.

-- the need for closer integration of a purer community, by consent if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary:  Among the MAGA faithful, definitely.  We will see about the tech bros.

-- the need for authority by natural leaders (always male), culminating in a national chief who alone is capable of incarnating the group's destiny: Well, duh!

-- the superiority of the leader's instincts over abstract and universal reason:  Again, duh!

-- the beauty of violence and the efficacy of will, when they are devoted to the group's success: Same comment as above about paramilitary.

-- the right of the chosen people to dominate others without restraint from any kind of human or divine law, right being decided by the sole criterion of the group's prowess in a Darwinian struggle:  There are at least tendencies in this direction.

In short, Trump and the MAGA faithful sound a lot like fascists and have the potential to move in a fascistic direction.  We will see how far it goes.

Authoritarians Would Rather Be Ruled by a Tyrant Than Laws

Although, as I have said before, this is actually four propositions:

1. The law protects our in-group
2. The law does not bind our in-group
3. The law binds out-groups
4. The law does not protect out-groups

The first and third propositions are not controversial.  The fourth only comes up sporadically, although I expect to see a lot of it under a Trump administration.* But man, oh man, do you see a lot of the second proposition out there!

That is what is meant, after all, when right-wingers talk about "weaponization of government."  They are outraged at any attempt to bind them by law.

And maybe "law" should be broadened to "rules."  That is, to all appearances, the real issue on Twitter/X.  In pre-Musk times, Twitter had certain terms of service banning certain types of lies.  Terms of service do not carry the force of law,** but they are rules.  Right wingers lied, quite regularly.  Russian bots and troll farms also circulated lies, mostly calculated to advance right-wing causes.  Twitter made some attempts to enforce its rules against lies.

Naturally right wingers were outraged.  How dare social media enforce rules against them!  If right wing posts got taken down more often than left wing posts, it couldn't be because right wingers lied more often.  It could only be an active attempt to persecute conservatives.  And if Twitter went so far as to ban, say, Alex Jones, it couldn't possibly be because his lies were hurting people.  It could only be persecution of conservatives.

Conservatives demanded an end to all terms of service, and even to algorithms.  Social media should be required to post everything not expressly illegal, an probably do it in a first-come-first-serve basis.  If there was any blocking or favoring to be done, users could do it.  Then Elon Musk bought Twitter and right wingers said that he was a free speech absolutist and all was well.

Naturally, right wingers never questioned Musk's "free speech absolutism" when he used algorithms to manipulate results, banned speech he disliked, and let right wing lies manipulate his banning decisions.  At best, Musk supporters might justify their championship by saying if anyone felt unfairly treated, that was the other person's problem.  But often right wingers even wanted to require all social media to adopt Musk's content moderation policies.

And now that Musk is applying his rules to them, right wingers are once again outraged.  They are also learning the hard was just how arbitrary Musk's "rules" are, seeming to consist of one rule only -- never say anything that Elon Musk dislikes.  And, indeed, at least one commenter (no, not going to hunt the comment down and link) said that given the choice, he would prefer a tyrant enforcing arbitrary decisions to a team of bureaucrats because it was easier to evade notice by a single tyrant.  This does raise interesting questions about the role of bureaucracy in maintaining the rule of law, or at least the rule of rules.  But in any event, tyrants do not act alone.  They employ minions, and give their minions considerable leeway to be petty tyrants in their own domain.  Alternately, a tyrant like Musk who has fired most of the minions can rely on vigilantes.

Either way, I find it most revealing that these authoritarians, if they cannot obtain an exemption from following rules altogether, would rather be governed by an arbitrary tyrant than by the rule of law -- or rules.

_______________________________________________

*Specifically, the idea that procedural safeguards to not protect outsiders.

**Except in the sense that all contractual terms carry the force of law.