The Memo: Trump’s blast at MSNBC — empty threat or real danger?

Former President Trump’s latest blast at a news organization is sharpening concerns about a drift toward authoritarianism if he is elected to a second term — even as skeptics wonder how he could make good on his threats.

On Tuesday, Trump in a Truth Social post complained that MSNBC was guilty of “election interference” because of its coverage of him, which he likened to “a 24 hour hit job.”

More ominously, Trump contended that “our so-called ‘government’ should come down hard on them and make them pay for their illegal political activity.”

It was not entirely clear what Trump had in mind, and a Trump adviser declined to answer when asked what specific action the former president was suggesting.

MSNBC, as a cable network, is not subject to the same regulation by the Federal Communications Commission as is the case with “over-the-air” broadcast networks such a ABC, CBS and NBC.

Still, Trump critics see the comments as parallel to other incendiary statements from the former president about his plans for a potential second term.

In a November interview with Univision, for example, Trump answered “yeah” when asked if he would weaponize the justice system against his opponents in the same way he alleges has been done to him.

“If I happen to be president and I see somebody who’s doing well and beating me very badly, I say, ‘Go down and indict them.’ They’d be out of business. They’d be out of the election,” Trump said.

He has recently described political opponents as “vermin,” while a Washington Post story in November reported that he and allies had “begun mapping out specific plans for using the federal government to punish critics and opponents should he win a second term, with the former president naming individuals he wants to investigate or prosecute.”

Heidi Beirich, the co-founder of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, contended that, taken as a whole, Trump’s purported plans, including “his threats to use the Department of Justice against his enemies, or threats like this with MSNBC,” were part of a broader push “to install loyalists and attempt to not have any opposition.”

“Trump has been pretty clear what he wants to do if he gets back into office so I take him at his word,” Beirich added.

There are, however, sizable questions over whether Trump could go forward with his plans, given that any government-led attempt to punish a particular media outlet simply for unfavorable coverage would surely be met with legal challenges.

Jack Rakove, a professor of history and American studies at Stanford University and a constitutional expert, said that while Trump is an “unprecedented” figure, that does not mean he is free from the restraints of the law.

“There are all these constraints built into the system, so it’s not as if they would disappear on Jan. 21,” he said, referring to the day following the next presidential inauguration. “It’s a complicated constitutional system. Being elected president doesn’t allow you to simply take over.”

Still, Trump critics see plenty of grounds for concern.

His blast against MSNBC conspicuously referred to Brian Roberts, the CEO of the cable network’s parent company, Comcast. Trump called Roberts “a slimeball who has been able to get away with these constant attacks for years.”

The personal invective against Roberts might ultimately be less significant than the reference to MSNBC’s parent company — a conglomerate that has numerous other business interests against which a potential second Trump administration could make adverse decisions.

The former president has history of that kind of attack.

Previously, Trump has complained publicly that Amazon does not pay enough taxes, for example. 

Many political figures, including Democrats, have voiced similar critiques. But in Trump’s case, his objections seemed to be rooted in his objections to coverage of him by The Washington Post, owned by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos.

In the early days of his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump wrote on social media that the Post “loses money (a deduction) and gives owner @JeffBezos power to screw public on low taxation of @Amazon. Big tax shelter.”

While president, Trump said that if Post employees went on strike demanding higher pay from Bezos, it would “get rid of Fake News for an extended period of time.”

At the time, some speculated about whether Amazon could be subject to antitrust actions. But such moves typically come from the Federal Trade Commission, which is an independent agency.

Concerns arose, however, when Trump as president called for a boycott of AT&T. At the time, in 2019, the telecom giant was the parent company of CNN. Trump mused on social media that if people stopped “using or subscribing” to AT&T, the company would “be forced to make big changes” at CNN.

Trump supporters tend to argue that these kinds of statements are a form of venting rather than serious proposals for action. They also assert that media coverage of Trump is indeed unfair, citing issues such as the coverage of the so-called Steele Dossier, which made unsubstantiated and lurid allegations about Trump’s personal conduct.

But Trump critics argue that he is deadly serious. Disaffected Republicans contend that Trump’s impulses in this direction are far from conservative, given his clear enthusiasm for using the power of the state against individuals or corporations.

“He is not by any definition a conservative,” said John ‘Mac’ Stipanovich, a longtime GOP operative in Florida and a strong Trump critic.

“He is a right-wing populist extremist — of convenience. He just says things that appeal to him, and that he believes will appeal to the MAGA base.”

Meanwhile, the concern in the media is clear. 

MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell responded to Trump’s attack in an 18-minute monologue on his show Wednesday evening.

Part of O’Donnell’s argument was that Trump’s threats were not being treated with the seriousness they deserve, in part because he issues them so frequently.

In the past, “if any previous president or leading presidential candidate in either party ever made such a threat, it would have been the lead story in every news organization in the country — every TV channel, every newspaper,” O’Donnell said.

“And now it’s not news.”

The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage.