I tend to watch Nicolle Wallace’s Dateline: White House every afternoon, and I especially pay attention when she discusses the nature of the terror threat in this country, especially domestic terrorism in the wake of January 6th. Her empanelled guests are usually crisp and knowledgeable, lending critical insight into the interplay of politics and extremism at this juncture of our history.
A few weeks ago, she had as part of her panel of experts Frank Figliuzzi, a former FBI agent and now MSNBC contributor. He said something that perked my ears up:
Figliuzzi: I have to think back to the late ‘60s and early ‘70s for a moment in law enforcement history where law enforcement, particularly the FBI, but also police departments struggle to figure it out . . . I’m talking about a period of time where the violence—anti-Vietnam protests, sometimes; terror groups bombing police stations; the Symbionese Liberation Army kidnaps Patty Hearst, very anti-government; people start hijacking planes to Cuba—and the FBI is sitting there, going, “What is going on domestically?”
There’s a similar risk and threat here that law enforcement is trying to get their arms around it and do it in a hurry. Because while we’re focused on this one event this evening—understandable—this is a sustained, high-security posture that has to be taken for the foreseeable future, trials that could go on months, if not years, in appeals. And finding that one lone actor or that organization in its infancy that is going to do something bad—it hearkens back to late ‘60s, early ‘70s for law enforcement.
Wallace: You’ve got the leader of this movement fanning the flames of just what you’re describing, not saying, “Don’t do that in my name,” but welcoming it, seemingly.
Figliuzzi: Yeah, ‘60s / ‘70s was the ground-up, people’s movement, right? This is being driven by what we call stochastic terrorism. We’ve heard this phrase before, where a leadership figure paints the party or some person or entity as subhuman, demeans them to the point where people feel very comfortable hurting them, violent acting out against a group that’s been painted as something less than human. That’s what we’re watching happen here.
The event that day (August 24th) was Donald Trump surrendering himself in Georgia and how that represented a heightened threat level. Today, we face something similar, though not so singular a moment: Trump was just found in a summary judgment to have committed fraud in terms of the Trump Organization, where he may need to surrender not just millions of dollars and assets but his entire manner of being able to conduct business in his home state of New York.
One needn’t be a psychologist to realize that this could be devastating for Trump. Real estate in New York was how he got his start (put aside the fact that he inherited the business from his father). It’s his stomping grounds and the source of where he draws much of his self-worth. Indeed, his response on social media underscored his feelings, where he declared that his worth is more than what the numbers declare in the court ruling. His very being is tied up here.
This is a dangerous moment in my eyes because it comes on the heels of Trump splashing himself in a gun store, conspicuously handling a gun. Again, one does not need to be steeped in the intricacies of propaganda to see that he used that photo op to squeeze as much adoration and goodwill out of his target audience, the diehard Second Amendment folks, as he possibly could.
That he may or may not have broken or skirted federal law by receiving that weapon is immaterial to those folks; they can be expected to be beside themselves in joy in seeing their idol caressing one of their very favorite fetish objects, a steely firearm. This was the whole package, and it’s sure to have ignited and to have fused those two things together in their imaginations. It’s a fresh and vivid association now, living in their minds: Trump and the gun are one.
Would Trump use this moment of self-doubt and humiliation to send what is being more widely recognized as coded alerts to his people? I cannot say, and I don’t want to speculate on a timetable or timeline. However, it’s a combustible mix to have Trump at such a low point—again, the ruling goes right to the heart of his self-image—juxtaposed with the emotional intensity of that photo op still fresh and lingering in the air.
Alex Wagner had a segment about this potential as well:
I’m thinking about this because I feel that we may have been more on alert for the Georgia surrender and of Trump’s other criminal calendar dates in terms of court cases because they have the ultimate opportunity to send him to prison. These are critical stakes, and so we may see them as having more import. Yet I think this loss of face for Trump with regards to his possible loss of his namesake instrument by which he does business, something he’s long associated with himself, is equally perilous, if not more so. Trump’s never been to jail (other than that booking); he doesn’t know what prison is. His imagination is not concrete on that issue. But he can imagine loss. And the idea of losing something that dear to him may lead him to take rash action.
In his case, he wouldn’t use the prop that he obtained the other day. He would use his words to activate the people who are devoted to him, and he would have them be his weapon.
I’m not a mindreader and I can’t see the future. Again, I make no predictions here. But I think the potential for danger certainly exists here.