Greg Sargent: Could Trump actually prosecute his enemies without cause? On the pod former prosecutor Kristy Parker and I dig deep into this question. Upshot: The law is still an impediment to him, but he wouldn't be legally liable for doing this. She's highly illuminating: newrepublic.com/article/1834...

Could Trump actually prosecute his enemies without cause? On the pod former prosecutor Kristy Parker and I dig deep into this question. Upshot: The law is still an impediment to him, but he wouldn't be legally liable for doing this. She's highly illuminating: newrepublic.com/article/1834...

Trump’s Rage At Liz Cheney Suddenly Veers In an Alarming New Directionnewrepublic.com With Trump's threats to jail Liz Cheney and other political foes going nuclear, a former prosecutor explains what a second-term crackdown on his enemies would really look like. It's gonna be ugly.

Such an important point in this pod--Trump might be immune but his underlings are not; and they have a constitutional obligation to refuse an illegal order, whether or not the person issuing it can be prosecuted. Thanks Greg.

1. In all likelihood, by future 6-3 SCOTUS decision: no they don’t. 2. The fact that Trump’s dictatorial commands will be executed by a rotating cast of expendable underlings doesn’t fill me with confidence.

Also: Trump can pardon his underlings after they’ve done crimes.

The Constitution is what a current majority of the SCOTUS says it is. Combine that with the unreviewable and absolute power of thecoardon, no Trump underling would refuse a Trump order. As a easy out, Trump will replace them with someone willing.

*the pardon not thecoardon :-)

Thank you! I tried to work that out, and it was beyond me. but anyway, I know my position is starry eyed and naive, but still.

"Yes, YOU can do this, Mr. President, but it would be illegal for me to do so." would be a horrible thing to tell the famously lazy Donald Trump. It would lead to a lot of "don't worry, I'll pardon you if it becomes an issue", and, after all, SCOTUS seems to say corrupt pardons are okey-dokey.

yeah, we discuss the pardon aspect of this

And if they carried out the order and were prosecuted, he could pardon them. But I'm doubtful that he'll find too many willing executioners. Or maybe I'm being naive.

we discuss all these permutations

Trump has cultists who have been itching to murder Democrats for decades.

He can make them do it if he pardons them. Unless they have great morals and integrity. Then they'll just get fired.

What if the president declares that they don't have that constitutional obligation?

They'd potentially be subject to prosecution under future admin (if there ever is one)

This reassurance is undercut by its conditionality.

I wonder how many people are willing to go to jail for him? Or lose their law licenses?

Trump selects a core group from the Border Patrol. Speaks directly to them and provides them direct orders. They arrest someone for “whatever” and smuggle them to a black site in say Saudi Arabia. He doesn’t need to prosecute anyone. He just needs to make them disappear into a very dark hole.

Bleak and extreme? Maybe. But Bush basically did this with accused “terrorists” with even less immunity than Trump would enjoy.

Trump *would* do that.

As long as the Roberts' Corrupt & Venal Court is in power, the law is no impediment to tRump or any other MAGAt. Roberts specifically left the door open for them to sanctify any MAGAt action they choose. Democracy in the US is on it's death bed waving feebly at voters who are paying no attention.

One suspects his directive to "find something" to charge them with will grease the skids. As will visits from "friendly" interlocutors reminding the judge in the case that it would be very important to Mr Trump if the case went forward.

Could Trump just drop dead any minute now?

Likelier as he grows older, but this is now a structural problem. The load bearing walls are gone. DeSantis is ready to step in.

Or Paxton. Or Noem...

Abbott before Paxton. Noem...may be best seated at RFK Jr. as he serves a canine BBQ.

I got Paxton and Abbott mixed up. That aside...brrrr.

They are the same asshole for all intents and purposes.

Here's what I don't understand. The President has no constitutional power - core or otherwise - allowing him or her to violate the Constitution. So how can an extraconstitutional act be an "official act" within his or her core powers?

Because he is the head of the executive branch. The only branch with enforcement powers. Plus he has the unreviewable, absolute power of the pardon. In other words, it doesn’t matter whether something is extra constitutional or official or core. The only check is impeachment + conviction.

The better question is: what can possibly stop him? The law is only an impediment if it can be applied by someone to him. Who’s that someone that is not his own DOJ and has enforcement powers?

Listen to the discussion, this is what it's about

Post