By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Salvatore “Sammy the Bull” Gravano’s endorsement of Donald Trump highlights a disturbing pattern: Trump’s administration resembles a “government of gangsters.” This assertion is supported by Trump’s own legal history, the numerous individuals with criminal backgrounds in his inner circle (including Charles Kushner), and a disturbing trend of appointing officials with accusations or convictions of sexual misconduct. This mirrors the anti-establishment sentiment analyzed in John Ganz’s *When the Clock Broke*, further emphasizing the comparison between Trump’s operation and organized crime. Trump’s alleged past dealings with the Mafia and his leadership style only reinforce this unsettling parallel.
Read the original article here
Donald Trump’s administration often felt less like a government and more like a criminal enterprise. The sheer number of individuals with questionable backgrounds appointed to high-level positions fueled this perception. It wasn’t just the occasional controversial figure; it felt like a deliberate strategy. The appointments seemed designed to create a network of individuals bound to Trump through shared secrets or mutual dependence, reinforcing loyalty and silencing dissent.
This wasn’t a matter of incompetence; it was calculated. Trump’s business dealings, rife with allegations of shady practices, suggest a pattern of operating outside ethical norms. This pattern continued into his presidency. The constant stream of controversies surrounding his administration reinforced the idea that rules and laws were mere suggestions, easily bent or broken to suit his needs.
Trump seemed to thrive in the murky waters of ethically dubious relationships. His business ventures, often characterized by failure, served as breeding grounds for alliances forged not through success, but through shared experiences and mutual need for protection. This network of associates then carried over into his political life, making the lines between business dealings and government affairs increasingly blurred.
The frequent accusations of blackmail were not mere political rhetoric. Trump’s relationships, both personal and professional, seemed to operate on a system of unspoken leverage. The sheer number of potential liabilities, both financial and personal, that surrounded his associates might have served as effective blackmail tools, ensuring their continued loyalty. This mirrored the dynamics of traditional organized crime, where silence and complicity were bought with threats and promises of protection.
The composition of his cabinet further strengthened this impression. Many appointees had pasts marked by controversies, accusations of unethical behavior, or even criminal charges. This wasn’t accidental; it seemed calculated to populate the government with individuals whose loyalty was secured not by competence or shared ideology, but by shared vulnerability. A government filled with people who would risk exposure to maintain their positions.
The sheer audacity of this operation is astonishing. The implication that an entire national government could be run as a criminal organization, one that operates under an unwritten code of loyalty and secrecy, is chilling. It speaks to a profound erosion of traditional norms, a disregard for ethical standards, and a manipulation of power dynamics.
Trump’s actions weren’t the impulsive moves of an incompetent leader; they were calculated plays in a dangerous game of power. He seemed to understand the power of loyalty bought through shared risk and vulnerability, effectively constructing a political machine more akin to a criminal syndicate than a legitimate government.
This “mob boss” style of governance wasn’t limited to domestic policy. His interactions with foreign leaders, often characterized by private meetings and unusual levels of deference, further fed into the narrative of a clandestine operation operating outside established diplomatic protocol. The lack of transparency and the prioritization of personal relationships over national interests contributed to this perception.
The legacy of Trump’s presidency is one of persistent questions and troubling implications. The idea that a major world power could be run using the tactics of a criminal organization is not a theoretical abstraction; it was a lived reality for four years. And this experience raises serious questions about the resilience of democratic institutions in the face of such sustained attacks on ethical norms. The potential for future leaders to emulate this model of governance, to co-opt democratic structures for personal gain, is a significant threat. The ongoing investigations and repercussions highlight the lasting damage caused by this extraordinary situation.