Okay, so given Trump's move to undo pardons granted by outgoing US President Joe Biden so he can target DoJ officials who prosecuted him for real crimes he actually committed, and the above-mentioned pattern of Trump's aggrieved fascist ranting transmuting into official, state-recognized reality, while serving to justify oppressive action by the regime, what are we to make of Trump declaring that media outlets that report on him critically, including named organizations MSNBC and CNN, are "illegal" during that same speech at the US Department of Justice? Well, I think for starters it's safe to assume that none of this means *anything* good.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-claims-msnbc-and-cnn-are-illegal-in-doj-speech_n_67d4a0a4e4b0a37116aefc88

Donald Trump Claims MSNBC And CNN Are ‘Illegal’ In DOJ Speech

"The president gave a speech Friday at the Justice Department railing against news outlets he says have unfairly targeted him.

Trump singled out CNN and MSNBC, which he called “MSNDC,” claiming those outlets “literally write 97.6% bad about me” and are “political arms of the Democrat Party.”

He added, “In my opinion, they’re really corrupt and they’re illegal, what they do is illegal.”

Trump then argued that media organizations that report negative things about him “are really no different than a highly paid political operative,” insisting, “it has to stop, it has to be illegal” because “it’s influencing judges and it’s really, eh, changing law, and it just cannot be legal.”

He additionally claimed that news outlets cover him negatively “in total coordination with each other.”

Whether they're playing it cool on purpose, or not, this story is once again mostly being reported in corporate media as an extension of Trump's longstanding grievances with anything he perceives as critical media coverage and the outlets that produce it; although boutique "progressive" websites and nonprofit media have been a little quicker to realize why this isn't just "Trump being Trump" anymore and how dangerous it is to assume our new American Mussolini lacks purpose in his actions here.

Frankly, I don't think it's an accident that in the very same speech Trump previewed loyalty investigations into Justice Department officials, and attempted to usurp the power of his Attorney General by declaring himself the country's "chief law enforcement officer," he declared liberal establishment media an active political arm of the opposition party, and accused them of both actively conspiring against him, and engaging in criminal activity. What does it mean when the "chief law enforcement officer" declares media critical of him "corrupt" and "illegal?" And how much more ominous is that meaning when its set against the backdrop of a US president celebrating his election as a victory against (what is now) his own Justice Department, while promising what sure sounds like legal investigations into DoJ lawyers and officials that dared to bring charges against him?

The obviously implication here is that Trump thinks the DoJ should target and prosecute media outlets that are critical of him, he has the right to order the department to do so because he's running the DoJ, and anyone who opposes that activity is likely to find themselves purged from the department at a minimum, and quite possibly prosecuted themselves. What many of the corporate media outlets likely to be targeted by Trump's assault on free speech rights and critical media coverage have passed off as a vengeful old man "playing the hits" is actually a fully formed operation to seize control of the American legal apparatus or at least the prosecution portion of it, redefine what is a crime, manufacture consent to target his enemies with the US Department of Justice, and threaten to punish or dispose of anyone who dares to get in his way over a silly little thing like "the law." Trump may have delivered it like a drunk racist grandpa, but his speech is clearly a calculated attempt by the president to drastically expand his own powers, and prosecute his fascist agenda - whether he's doing it for revenge or not (he is), is ultimately the *least* important factor here.

This then dovetails into the methods by which Trump is actually attempting to accomplish this fascist, anti-free speech bullshit; specifically the larger narrative of unreality the Trump regime is constructing day by day. Trump is working to equate critical media with his political opposition, his political opposition with protestors, and protestors with terrorists, while his larger regime takes actions against that opposition as if what Trump is suggesting here were already indisputable truth. I hate to keep bringing up literally Hitler, the Nazi Party, and the German Enabling Act of 1933, but students of history will gladly tell you that Hitler's playbook for transforming Germany into a autocratic one-party dictatorship looks an awful lot like exactly what Trump is doing here.

While you certainly don't "have to hand it to the nazis," I must admit that it's way easier to show people that the Trump regime's attempts to target anti-genocide protestors using "War on Terror" logic will lead to them targeting all protestors using that same logic, when they just blurt that part out loud:

https://www.commondreams.org/news/deportation-protest

DHS Official Explicitly Equates Protest to Terrorism in 'Stunning' Interview

"The Trump administration has accused Khalil, who is of Palestinian descent, of leading "activities aligned to Hamas" and protests where pro-Hamas propaganda was distributed, but officials have provided no evidence that he's provided support to Hamas or other groups designated as terrorist organizations by the U.S. government.

A White House official this week told The Free Press that Khalil is not being accused of breaking any laws, but is rather "a threat to the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States," and Edgar's comments to Martin offered further evidence evidence that DHS is working to deport Khalil without accusing him of a crime.

"He is coming in to basically be a student that is not going to be supporting terrorism," said Edgar. "So, the issue is he was let into the country on this visa. He has been promoting this antisemitism activity at the university. And at this point, the State Department has revoked his visa for supporting a terrorist type organization."

This story comes out of an interview with Troy Edgar (Trump's deputy homeland security secretary) by NPR's Michel Martin; thus it's important to note that while Edgar isn't making a legal argument here, he is absolutely working the court of public opinion to sway your perception about the legality of Trump's unlawful arrest, detainment, and ongoing attempts to deport a former Columbia University student green card holder, legally residing in the country with his wife (who is an American citizen), for protesting a genocide (by Israel) in Gaza, facilitated by both the current, and prior US administrations.

With that in mind, the first thing I'd like to point out is the bizarre, manipulative, and legally irrelevant language Edgar uses here. From a technical standpoint, the phrase "activities aligned with Hamas" is wholly unrelated to any law on the books in America, even our nightmare War on Terror era anti-terrorism laws, while simultaneously covering such a broad spectrum of activities that untold millions of Americans could potentially be "engaging in activities aligned with Hamas" - if for example, as in Khalil's case, you've advocated for ending Israel's genocide in Gaza, or the US government's arm shipments to Israel that make it possible, you've technically engaged in "activities aligned with Hamas," who also want the genocide and arms shipments to end. Does anyone, including Troy Edgar know what "a terrorist type organization" means? You won't find a single paragraph in US law that discusses prohibitions against supporting "a terrorist *type* organization" and this is really just a way for Edgar to say Khalil is working for "terrorists" without exposing himself to liability for false accusations; it's a poison phrase to turn public opinion against the accused, and in favor of the Trump administration's unlawful and quite frankly fascist actions. This is of course setting aside that Edgar, much like the rest of the Trump regime, continues to use the War on Terror legal language of "supporting a terrorist organization" (typically financially, materially, or logistically) to describe protesting a genocide; a stretch that also has no basis in American law that I'm aware of.

Additionally of course, there's the bombshell this article is mostly based around to consider; a US deputy homeland security secretary just went on public radio and argued that (legally nebulous) "pro-Palestine activity" and even just protesting in general, is terrorism. While many disingenuous bootlickers will try to parse Edgar's words here, he was given plenty of opportunities to answer questions about what "terrorist" activities the government was alleging Khalil engaged in, and Troy continually repeated the phrases "pro-Palestinian activity" and "protesting." Furthermore given that the entire Trump administration keeps making this "mistake" over and over again, it seems pretty reasonable to assume that at least from a propaganda perspective this is the regime's official position on supporting Palestinians and protesting in general.

Folks, can you think of any reason why an increasingly unpopular fascist administration presiding over the rapid impoverishment of the US labor class, and working with Israel to ethnically cleanse Gaza, would want to declare "pro-Palestinian activity" and "protesting" to be terrorist activity? Might it be because they expect a lot of Americans to start getting interested in Palestinians and protesting?