The executive function of a thing is many times its sole obvious source of power. Consider a computer program, the program does what is was written to do from the time of its compilation. After invocation (throughout its "runtime") until the program exits. For a sufficiently complex program the moment of its exit (or the state of it) is unknowable. I worry that the execution of state power is similar. The executor itself decides which program is going to run. If I design a program with a representative group of users who tell me how the program should run, I can design the program a certain way, get feedback and prove that it works to the users as expected, but if I then change the program again and execute it, the users have no power at all in terms of what the program does or when it stops.
The only thing the users can do is force the program to stop. They can try to do something that generates an exception, or they can wait for it to finish and prepare their very important and powerful judgements for the executor. And in this case the executor has shown time and time again his willingness to lie and cheat to get his way. Not anyone else's. So why would you trust him the next time?
With the state, the program's administration can also change how the program is executing at anytime, using any language, without even understanding what exactly they're doing. They don't have to even send clear directives to the program. They can just flood it with so many instructions that figuring out what it is even doing becomes impossible.
There are those who admire the program. They are happy with what it is doing at that moment. Maybe they don't care about how the program started doing what they wanted. Others recognize the risk.
If there's anything Trump has shown us it's that an information and event firestorm, flooding the zone, is powerful enough to render the other branches virtually meaningless. The judicial seemingly has no effective enforcement mechanisms at the highest levels of power. The executive branch can now execute its own way out of any barriers the other branches try to put up.
Of course, some pro-Trump people realize the risks of this and speak out. There is a line in the sand where to not speak out is deriliction of duty, people like Rand Paul, Thomas Massie and Ted Cruz realize this (though suprisingly calling Ted's wife ugly and his father a murderer is not quite there for him). In general Massie and Paul seem much more principled about calling out the commisars than Cruz and Greene. Greene is OK with the commisars until you get to the Epstein business (that's a pretty far line). For Massie and Paul, it's irresponsibility with the budget, and for Cruz it is the First Amendment. Of course for any other presidential candidate the Access Hollywood tapes would have been the red line.
Benjamin Franklin and other founding fathers warned of despotism and greatly valued one's ability for self-reflection and acknowledgement that they are not always in the right. Something Trump is obviously incapable of doing. According to Isaacson, Franklin shared this anecdote during his time in France which illustrates the point (paraphrased, originally in French): 1
"Once upon a time, there were two sisters who lived together and prided themselves on their wisdom and judgment. They were inseparable, sharing everything from secrets to chores. But as with all siblings, little disagreements arose now and then—over recipes, visitors, or the best way to mend a stocking. One evening, after a minor spat about whose advice on a neighbor's gossip was sounder, the younger sister turned to the elder with wide-eyed astonishment and exclaimed: "Comment est-ce possible, ma chère sœur, que je sois toujours dans le vrai?" ("How can it be, dear sister, that I am always right?")"
Referencing this story in his speech to the Constitutional Convention Franklin said: 2
"Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure that it is not the best."
"On the whole, Sir, I cannot help expressing a Wish, that every Member of the Convention, who may still have Objections to it, would with me on this Occasion doubt a little of his own Infallibility, and to make manifest our Unanimity, put his Name to this Instrument."
I am not sure that it is not the best. There is probably a less than 10% chance that Trump could even understand or adequately explain this sentiment. Let alone believe in it and practice it. Ha. Imagine Trump on any occassion "doubt[ing] a little of his own [i]nfallibility". There is ample evidence to conclude that Trump only wants what he wants, and to him that is the same as the truth. In Trump's world, his being wrong is impossible. And therefore, to him, anyone who says he is wrong really is a traitor or terrorist.
* * *