I've been mulling over these thoughts for a bit now and while I don't really have a solution, I need to write them down.
Since the 2008 Election campaign, Republican propaganda outlets have labelled Barrack Obama a "traitor" no matter how insignificant the event or how very far from even remotely being traitorous the action or intent. Since his inauguration he has also been labelled a "tyrant" in essentially the same manner. The result of this is the following:
1) It relativised the terms "treason" and "tyranny". If not wearing a flag lapel pin is treasonous, then the word treason is meaningless, it becomes a joke. So when someone like Kushner or Flynn engage in actual literally treasonous behavior nobody has a real word anymore to describe it, shielding them from criticism to a certain extent.
2) The relativisation also made a whole lot more people A-OK with such behavior. The conclusion here is "If it's okay for Barack Obama to be a tyrannical traitor to further his policies, then it's A-OK for us to do the same" even though of course Obama never behaved anywhere tyrannical or treasonous. That's how people are fine with Gianforte beating up a reporter or with the unconstitutional muslim ban.
3) I can't really tell which came first here. Either the republican party wrote itself a carte blanche to engage in such horrendous behavior with such propaganda and thus the people who would utilize it would rise to the top, or the people who would use it drove this propaganda to excuse their own despicable actions. But regardless of which came first, it's obvious that the GOP is little more than a cancerous outgrowth of political thought.