Two Sides. One Story. You Make the Third.
By Carlos Taylhardat | 3 Narratives News | September 28, 2025
“They are sick, radical Left people … and they can’t get away with this.”
Donald Trump, reacting to the Comey indictment, Sept. 26, 2025 — Politico
Narrative Lede
The phrase has been building for years, swelling from rally chant to governing principle: radical left people. In Donald Trump’s telling, they are the source of America’s unraveling, a threat from within that must be exposed, punished, stopped. The words have consequences. On September 26, 2025, celebrating the Justice Department’s indictment of former FBI Director James Comey, Trump said there “will be others,” then added the line above—the latest in a drumbeat of warnings that his political and legal adversaries are part of a larger, malignant left. Politico
Within 48 hours, a different warning cut through the noise. On MSNBC, Ty Cobb—Trump’s former White House special counsel—looked into the camera and said we should be “scared to death.” Cobb is not a liberal activist or a Never-Trumper pundit. He is the lawyer who, from July 2017 to May 2018, reported directly to President Trump and managed the White House response to the Mueller investigation. He’s also the same attorney who publicly called Robert Mueller “an American hero,” and who has, over time, turned sharply critical of Trump’s post-presidency conduct.
This story is not a verdict. It’s a map. First, the Trump team’s own narrative—what they say, who they single out, how they justify the hunt. Second, the counter-narrative—Cobb’s warning, the “Obama arrest” deepfake, and the wider concern about turning the machinery of the state inward. Third, the longer lens: what America did during McCarthyism when it last pursued “subversives,” and what that history might tell us now.
The Trump Team’s Case
The Core Claim
In Trump’s framing, a network of “radical left people” has weaponized institutions—intelligence, justice, the media, philanthropy, even Big Tech—to sabotage him and, by extension, the nation. The September 26 press gaggle captured the tone: Comey’s indictment was “just the beginning,” and the people behind “the hoax”—his critics and investigators—are “sick, radical left people.” The message: the system was used against us; now the system will be used back—legally, properly, and thoroughly. Politico
Trump and his allies have attached the “radical left” label to a shifting constellation of targets: Democratic politicians and prosecutors; left-leaning donors and NGOs; protesters they fold into the shorthand “antifa”; and media figures they say are part of a hostile information machine. In 2024 he also mused about using the National Guard or military to handle “radical left lunatics,” casting the threat as “the enemy from within.” Critics called that authoritarian talk; supporters called it overdue realism. The Washington Post
Who’s on the List?
There is no published “enemies list.” Instead, the roster is inferred from naming patterns across rallies, interviews, and posts. Recent weeks make the logic visible:
- Former officials tied to the Russia probe — exemplified by Comey’s perjury indictment, which Trump celebrated while predicting “others.” (He denies direct interference; he also publicly pressures DOJ to move “swiftly.”) Politico
- Left-leaning “influence networks” — wealthy donors and foundations accused of financing unrest or “lawfare.” (Categories are broad; proof is often open-ended.)
- “Radical left Democrats” in Congress and blue-state prosecutors — cast as orchestrating selective justice against Trump and allies.
- Street movements — “antifa,” anarchists, and activists portrayed as shock troops for a cultural revolution.
- Media — framed as a megaphone for misinformation against MAGA.
This is the prosecutorial narrative as politics: a moral crusade recast as accountability. If the other side “weaponized” the state, the argument goes, then restoring balance requires calling out the radical left and pursuing crimes that were ignored or excused.
The Obama Deepfake — Evidence or Emblem?
This summer, an AI-generated video appeared to show former President Barack Obama being arrested in the Oval Office. Trump shared the clip; news outlets identified it as fabricated. Days later, he accused Obama of “treason” in Oval Office remarks. To supporters, the deepfake dramatized what they believe is true; to skeptics, it was a dangerous use of synthetic media by a sitting president. ABC News
The Counter-Story (Cobb’s Alarm and the Information War)
Ty Cobb’s Disclosure — and Why It Matters
Cobb’s résumé is not that of a partisan bomb-thrower: Harvard and Georgetown alum, former federal prosecutor, veteran of elite law practice, direct report to Trump (2017–2018) during the Mueller probe, and a lawyer who called Robert Mueller “an American hero.” In the clip, Cobb warns that prosecutions pursued as political retaliation threaten the constitutional order.
The Cost of Unreality
What does it do to a polity when its leader shares a fabricated arrest video of his predecessor? When other AI fabrications—like the “MedBed” miracle-hospital clip—flash across social feeds and vanish? It degrades the substrate of politics: our ability to agree on what happened five minutes ago. The Verge
The authoritarian worry isn’t just about rhetoric (“enemy from within,” “radical left lunatics”). It’s about the convergence of three tools—state power, criminal law, and synthetic media—in the hands of actors who say their political opponents are an internal threat. Major outlets documented Trump’s flirtation with using troops or Guard against domestic “enemies” in 2024. None of that proves intent; it does illustrate a trajectory. The Washington Post
Trump allies reply that this is overblown: their speech is protected; their investigations are lawful; the real authoritarianism was the “weaponization” of DOJ, FBI, and courts against them since 2016.
The Long Lens (McCarthyism and the Last “Radical” Roundup)
“McCarthyism” is the word Americans reach for when politics becomes a hunt. It refers to the early-1950s anti-Communist crusades centered on Senator Joseph McCarthy—accusations launched with scant evidence, reputations wrecked by insinuation, civil servants purged under loyalty schemes, artists blacklisted, and a culture of fear that lingered for decades. Britannica’s succinct definition: a period of “accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence,” amplified by hearings and media spectacle. Encyclopedia Britannica
A crucial fact often lost in shorthand: McCarthy was a senator; he did not run the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). HUAC pre-dated him (1938), survived him, and conducted many headline-grabbing hearings (Hollywood, schools, labor). McCarthy chaired Senate investigations—most infamously the 1954 Army–McCarthy hearings—that imploded on live TV and triggered his censure. Background: HUAC (Wikipedia)
“Did they imprison the radical left?” Yes—and no.
- Yes, in the sense that leaders of the Communist Party USA were prosecuted and imprisoned under the 1940 Smith Act, which criminalized advocating the violent overthrow of the U.S. government. In Dennis v. United States (1951), the Supreme Court upheld convictions of 11 CPUSA leaders; more followed. Justia: Dennis
- No, in the sense that McCarthy’s own Senate theatrics were not what put people behind bars. His power was reputational—hearings, lists, smears—while Smith Act prosecutions (and some contempt cases) did the jailing. Subsequent rulings (e.g., Yates, Noto) narrowed the government’s reach, and the excesses of the era provoked a national backlash. The Free Speech Center
Scene-by-Scene: A Week That Shows the Stakes
- Friday, Sept. 26 — Trump cheers the Comey indictment, says he hopes “there will be others,” labels critics “sick, radical left people.” Politico
- This weekend — Ty Cobb, Trump’s 2017–18 White House special counsel, warns that politicized prosecutions and historical revisionism are dangerous. Segment: MSNBC on YouTube
- This summer (context) — Trump shares an AI deepfake of Obama “being arrested,” then in the Oval Office suggests “treason.” ABC News
- Also this weekend — The “MedBed” AI video flashes across social media and is deleted. The Verge
However you read this sequence—vindication or vandalism—it’s the texture of the moment: a hunt narrated in superlatives and staged for screens, with law close behind.
The 3 Narratives
1) Trump Team Narrative (in their voice)
America is under attack from within by radical left people—the ones who weaponized the FBI and DOJ, lied to Congress, slandered a president with the Russia “hoax,” and used the courts to steal policy after they couldn’t win fairly. If Comey lied, others did, too, and there should be accountability. This isn’t retaliation; it’s restoring equal justice. If the “enemy from within” escalates, we will meet it with every lawful tool, National Guard, investigations, prosecutions, because the rule of law must mean something again.
2) Counter-Narrative (Cobb, Civil Liberties, Rule of Law)
Be afraid of leaders who convert political grievance into prosecutorial purpose. When a president shares an AI deepfake of a predecessor being arrested, then calls him a traitor from the Oval Office, you can feel the brace snapping in democratic culture. Ty Cobb, Trump’s own former White House lawyer, warns that the Comey case looks like historical whitewash and political retribution, legally flimsy and civically dangerous. The “radical left” label is a catch-all that can swallow dissent, journalism, and opposition.
3) The Third Narrative (Yours to Test)
America has been here before, but never quite like this. In the 1950s, McCarthy’s witch hunts thrived on Cold War espionage fears and a real nuclear adversary. The prosecutions that stuck, like Dennis v. United States, rested on laws about violent overthrow. The rest was theater: televised hearings, blacklists, and a climate of suspicion that rotted civic trust. Today’s “radical left” hunt is not about spies slipping secrets to Moscow; it’s about prosecuting political enemies, litigating grievances, and weaponizing synthetic media to make rumors feel real. The stakes are less about national survival than about whether a democracy can survive when its leaders call dissent treason and show their followers the AI movie version of justice.
That distinction matters. In 2025, protests outside courthouses, statehouses, and social platforms are no longer sideshows; they shape indictments, fundraising, and primetime narratives. Legal precedents are being tested in real time, whether speech can be criminalized as “radical left,” whether deploying Guard against demonstrators passes constitutional muster, whether deepfakes count as evidence or fraud. The McCarthy era left scars that later hardened First Amendment protections. The danger now is that we forget those scars and allow fear, grievance, and spectacle to redraw the boundaries again, this time with AI on the front lines.
Related on 3 Narratives: Eighty Years of the UN · When the Lens Lies: AI & Politics · Can the Rift Be Repaired? Left vs. Right
Sources
- Politico — “Cheering Comey indictment, Trump predicts ‘there will be others’” (Sept. 26, 2025)
- MSNBC/NBC (YouTube) — “Ty Cobb: We should be scared to death” (segment)
- ABC News — “Trump accuses Obama of ‘treason’ in Oval Office remarks”
- The Verge — “Trump posts, then pulls, AI ‘MedBed’ video”
- The Washington Post — “Trump talks of using military against ‘enemies within’” (Oct. 13, 2024)
- Encyclopedia Britannica — “McCarthyism: definition & context”
- Justia — Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951)
