idioglossia [noun]
Word of the Day/DICTIONARY.COM
- an invented language developed by an individual or a very small group of people, especially by a child or by children in close contact, such as twins.
- a pathological condition characterized by speech so distorted as to be unintelligible.
How ironic is it that acting attorney general Todd Blanche wants to prosecute a former FBI director for supposedly using a coded message “8647” to encourage the assassination of a U.S. president? Especially, when a July 1, 2025 Vanity Fair article by Sam Tanenhaus suggests, “The most accurate model for understanding the transactional tough guy in the White House is the politically connected underbelly of 1970s and ’80s New York real estate.” You know, like those crime families that use terms such as “box of Ziti” for money, “take the cannoli” for destroying evidence, and “message job” for an operation signaling adversaries what was in store if they dared challenge mob leadership.
The MAGA-verse tells us the “don” in the White House, whether due to arrogance or ineptitude, does not need his own personal code language. “He tells us exactly what he thinks.” Though it is easy to argue what comes out of his mouth is consistent with the above definition of “idioglossia.” One need look no farther than Donald Trump’s May 31, 2017 Truth Social post, “Despite the constant negative press covfefe,” to understand what the linguist who coined the word “idioglossia” meant by distorted or unintelligible speech.
Do not, however, be fooled. There is an Omertà (code of silence) by which D.C. Don and his “made men and women” (bloodied soldiers) and “associates” (unofficial followers who have not taken the loyalty oath) communicate. For purposes of today’s discussion I will focus on the one most employed entry in the Trump lexicon, “Let me be clear…”
Its origins go back to Trump 1.0 and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, following disclosure of Trump’s 2019 “perfect phone call” with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy. In response to media inquiries, Mulvaney replied, “Let me be clear, there was absolutely no quid pro quo.” Within hours, every right-wing media outlet and MAGA/GOP member of Congress was echoing this sentiment. Loosely translated, “let me be clear” was about messaging and, more specifically, sent a signal to both “donna nostra” soldiers and associates that this was the party line and each of them were expected to toe it.
Sometimes, its use is so veiled the phrase appears to be a message directed at demographics other than administration insiders and supporters. Perhaps the best example is former secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem’s 2025 exortation, “Let me be clear; if you come to our country and you break our laws, we will hunt you down.” It may have sounded like a warning to undocumented immigrants as suggested by the phrase “if you come to our country and break our laws.” I would agree. No doubt these words referred to immigrants without required documentation or any non-citizen who had committed a crime.
It is the closing phrase which subtly exposes the message’s primary audience. If Noem’s modus operandi was designed to reduce the number of undocumented immigrants or non-citizen felons as quickly and legally as possible, she might have concluded by telling them about the incentive to self-deport via “Project Homecoming,” an initiative that provided financial incentives and travel support for those who volunteered to return to their country of pre-immigration residence. Or she could have announced that DHS was increasing the number of asylum judges to accelerate the identification and subsequent deportation of immigrants who did not qualify as refugees or had been charged and/or convicted of crimes while living in the USA illegally.
Instead Noem chose to send a different message, one directed at ICE, the administration’s literal soldiers, recruited and paid to “hunt down” the perceived enemy. Her language let ICE agents know they could operate under different rules and guidelines than other federal, state or local law enforcement officers. As hunters, the did not need warrants to “go into the woods” to seek their prey. They could wear disguises to hide their presence. They could put out bait to attract their marks. The could shoot their game based on the slightest rustling of the landscape. If and when Noem is held accountable for her role in this chapter of Project 2025, a la “A Few Good Men,” I hope there will be the following exchange during her cross-examination.
PROSECUTOR: You ordered ICE to “hunt down” undocumented immigrants
NOEM: That’s right.
PROSECUTOR: And ICE was clear what you wanted.
NOEM: Crystal clear.
PROSECUTOR: Any chance ICE ignored the order?
NOEM: Ignored the order?
PROSECUTOR: Any chance they just forgot about it?
NOEM: No.
PROSECUTOR: Then, Secretary Noem, are Renee Good and Lex Pretti dead because you ordered ICE to “hunt down” immigrants and people who protested that order?
NOEM: You want answers?!
PROSECUTOR: I want the truth. Did you order ICE to hunt down people?
NOEM: I did the job the president and Stephen Miller sent me to do.
PROSECUTOR: Did you order ICE to hunt down people?
NOEM: You’re goddamn right I did.
PROSECUTOR: If it pleases the court, I suggest the jury be dismissed and Ms. Noem be read her rights. The witness has rights.
Of course, this will not happen. Trump has already indicated he will issue blanket pardons to members of his administration and inner circle. So let ME be clear, crystal clear; by virtue of their decision in Trump v. United States, issuing pardons is an official act for which the president cannot be charged with a crime. And the recipients of a presidential pardon are relieved of any prosecution or conviction for their alleged crimes, whether it was an official action or not. Ergo, no member of this administration will ever be held accountable for any crime, regardless where, when or why they committed it. To close where I began, POTUS has a consigliere, but it is not Todd Blanche or former attorney general Pam Bondi. In fact, he has six consiglieres. You can find them in the law offices of Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch & Barrett, Attorneys-at-Whatever.
POSTSCRIPT
The subject of this blog was triggered by a much more recent event. On May 6, Evangelical pastor and Trump spiritual advisor John Mark Burns participated in the dedication of a 22-foot gold statue of Trump at the Trump National Doral Golf Club. Four days later, Burns responded to critics who compared the Trump monument to the golden calf in Exodus 32:1-6, saying, “Let me be clear; this is not a golden calf.” He was technically correct. It was not a calf. More like a fatted cow that was long overdue to be put out to pasture.
For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP
I have always thought that DT is more clever than credited. His “I’ve been told my a number of people that…”. The use of that phrase adds substance to his comment. Of course, there are no “number of people”. Of course, he never gets called upon to identify those who “told him”.
Agreed. After a decade to perfect the art of interviewing Trump, the media still has not learned the power of a relevant follow-up question.