In early Monday morning, when a large part of the press representatives still slept in the White House, demanded US President Donald Trump the federal government, a “comprehensive investigation” against the singer-songwriter Bruce Springsteena critic of Trump, and his support for the president last year.
Early morning in the White House – Trump’s explosive demand
On Friday, the incumbent US President Springsteen had already warned that he should “Hold his mouth“. And” We will all see how things will go on “as soon as the rock star is back in the United States. Springsteen did not comply with this request. And on Saturday at a concert in Manchester, England, once again commented on the “incompetent” president. “There are currently things that change the essence of the democracy of our country. And they are too important to be ignored,” he said.
From the stage to the target: Trump’s revenge campaign against celebrities
These comments led to one new wave of unfounded threats From Trump against Springsteen and two other prominent personalities who Kamala Harris support for 2024. Beyoncé and Oprah Winfrey.
Trump’s social media outbreak: anger and assumptions
There are numerous scandals, authoritarian takeovers and moral disgusts that from the Second Trump government be committed. Most of the eyes. The president, who was accused twice and repeatedly under indictment, lives from attention. Therefore, it may seem easy to dismiss Trump’s latest outbreak, which is obsessed by celebrities, as a mere tantrum or even as a distraction maneuver.
That would be a mistake. Trump’s crusade against the first constitutional additive and the freedom of expression ranges at least until his first four years in the White House and its Presidential campaign 2016 back. And Trump’s repeated threats against “The Boss“Are just another front in the large -scale campaign of its second government against the Free expression and democratic values in this country.
Legal reality vs. Trump’s narrative
“The accountability obligation for a group of people who behave as if they were above the law may be for Rolling Stone be uncomfortable. But it is refreshing for the American people, ”says Harrison Fields, spokesman for the White House under Trump. He adds that the Ministry of Justice and the Federal Election Commission are responsible for these supposed matters. And that ‘every authority will act independently in its decisions’.
The motif behind Trump’s campaign: retribution
According to three sources, Trump has repeatedly expressed his intention to hire the FEC and other government agencies before and after his election victory in 2024 to close confidants to close confidants of the Ministry of Justice, the Federal Communications Commission. Everything to punish “illegal” violations of the campaign financing law by democratically oriented celebrities. Including late night talk show moderators and other liberals.
A president under indictment – and on revenge issue
“How much did Kamala Harris Bruce Springsteen pay for his bad appearance during her presidential campaign? Why did he accept the money if he is such a big fan of her? Isn’t that a significant and illegal election financing? What about Beyoncé? … And how much went to Oprah and Bono ??? wrote The President on Monday on his social media website.
“Candidates must not pay for support what KAMALA did under the guise of paying for entertainment. This is not legal! For this unpatriotic” entertainer “, this was only a corrupt and wrong way to capitalize on a broken system. Thank you for your attention in this matter !!! “
Trump’s legal reasoning is wrong here – he has effectively turned the situation upside down.
Fact check: Harris’ payments to production companies
Harris did not pay Beyoncé, Winfrey or Springsteen for their support. In reality, the candidate has made payments to their production companies for services provided. As it is required by law.
Payments to Harpo, Parkwood, Thrill Hill documented
Harris’ campaign team indicated, $ 1 million to have paid to Winfrey’s production company Harpo Productions to organize and fill their live streams in Detroit in Detroit. The Harris campaign paid $ 165,000 in Beyoncé’s production company Parkwood Production Media in November after it occurred at a Harris rally in Houston. The campaign paid 76,000 dollars on Springsteens production company Thrill Hill Productions after performing in a Harris rally in Georgia in October.
Legal basis for market -based remuneration
The laws on the election campaign financing require that election campaigns pay the market value to their service providers. If she had not paid these companies for her services at an event or rally, this would have shown an illegal donation to the election campaign in two ways. The donation would have exceeded the donation limits. And companies must not donate directly to candidates.
And yet there are right -wing lawyers and political consultants who have supported or even fueled Trump’s impulses in recent months. According to the sources, some of these lawyers and employees are now working in Trump’s government.
Trump’s attempts to punish television programs
The president also apparently believes that a late night comedian who tells a common joke about him could represent an illegal donation to his opponents.
During his first term he tried to get his Ministry of Justice, Saturday night live and to punish other television programs. And indicated his employees in the White House separatelyDisney to push, the late night moderator Jimmy Kimmel to censor from ABC.
New government with loyal staff
When Trump did such things during his first term, some of his most important employees turned their eyes. Laughed about it. And then waited until he continued. Or forgot it again. Today President Trump is surrounded by high -ranking employees, whose most important qualifications are that they are the most fascist, corrupt and nonsensical Explore and implement claims dutifully.
Systematic implementation of political revenge
One reason why Trump is still fixed to use campaign financing laws against his political and cultural enemies, such as the songwriter of “Thunder Road”, is pretty simple. Revenge.
Personal motivation: Stormy-Daniels conviction
According to people who have spoken to Trump about it in the past few months, the president still has not wounded that he – first in 2018 by federal prosecutors, then in 2023 by the district prosecutor of Manhattan, Alvin Bragg – as a mastermind for violation of campaign financing laws and to pay for women, including the most famous porn actress Stormy Daniels. Bragg complained Trump, and the trial last year led him to be as First because of a crime convicted US President entered the story.
Focus on celebrities as a new target
In the past few months, the President has grumbled privately that if the public prosecutor’s office (as he sometimes calls it) “Bullshit” allegations in connection with the campaign financing against him, there is no reason why this should not be applied to certain famous entertainers, television and news personalities, democratic politicians and other targets. This is what two sources said that have spoken to Trump about this matter.
Quote from Mike Davis: “Nobody stands above the law”
“The Democrats pretended to take care of violations of the campaign financing when President Trump pursued her legal disputes,” Mike Davis, a conservative lawyer from the area of Trump, who plays a key role in the Maga rights elite, told Rolling Stone. “Maybe they shouldn’t have throwed stones if they are sitting in the glass house. Nobody is above the law.”
New measure: order for cancer determination
It would be much easier to dismiss Trump’s threats to Springsteen. If Trump’s new government hadn’t already shown a joyful willingness prison to throw just because she expressed her opinion or a comment have written. And only last month, this president gathered the media and television cameras so that they could watch him in the Oval Office signed a implementation regulations with which the Ministry of Justice was instructed to initiate criminal investigations against Chris Krebs. A former Cyber Security officer from Trump, whose only offense was to have publicly said the truth that the election 2020 actually not against Trump had been manipulated.
Political effect of the threats is more than implementation
As the Trump team knows very well, it is almost irrelevant whether the Trump government will ever initiate a formal examination against jumping steels or its absolutely legal support from Vice President Harris at the time. The threat of doing the whole power of the federal government against The Boss because he has exercised his right to freedom of expression is already a repressive measure. One that would not have been ignored or excused by practically any other US politician in recent history.
Symbolic policy with real effects
In a way, all of this is to be expected. Even if it is objectively scandalous and abusive. During his candidacy for re -election in 2024, Trump promised the voters to get out of the Oval Office “Retribution” will practice. And that his enemies, whether real or imaginary, would suffer. Either because they had tried to hold him accountable for his various alleged crimes. Or because they have annoyed him.
Sometimes Trump tried to vague his explicit promise and resorted to the argument that political and economic “success” would be his retaliation. His PR attempts in the election campaign may have made false hopes for some of his employees.
Trump promised “retribution” in the 2024 election campaign
At the beginning of January, before Trump’s second inauguration in Washington, DC., The prominent lawyer Alan Dershowitz spoke about a documentary about John Eastman at a demonstration in Trump’s private club and estate Mar-A-Lago in Florida. A lawyer who helped Trump to stay in power. And to tip the results of the 2020 election. (Dershowitz can be seen in the film.)
Alan Dershowitz ‘Appeal to Trump in Mar-A-Lago
Dershowitz, who describes himself as a liberal democrat and while Trump was part of his defense team, told the first office. Rolling Stonethat during his speech he noticed that the then designated president was sitting in the audience. At that moment he decided to address Trump directly. And to express a kind of modest request.
“I said I was against any kind of instrumentalization of the legal system. And I hope that the new government will end any kind of lawfare,” recalls Dershowitz. “I said the right response to what happened to you, it is not not to do it to the Democrat. But not to do it to anyone … Both parties should refrain from instrumentalization.”
Trump’s reaction: nod instead of contradiction
At this point, according to the lawyer, “Trump seemed to nod in agreement”.
One can certainly say that the 45th and 47th President of the United States did not really agree.