Greg Sargent

@gregsargent.bsky.social

14347

Followers

188

Following

1386

Posts

Politics, politics, politics

Reposted by

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.

I think I slightly mischaracterized our discussion here. We don't conclude the law is an impediment *to Trump.* We talk about how his underlings could be taking a big risk by carrying out his designs. But as we also say, Trump could pardon them. So as we concluded, the threat is profoundly grave.

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.

Worth noting: Trump will be emboldened if he wins due to a *combination* of things: 1) SCOTUS immunity ruling 2) Escaped accountability for previous crimes On the pod, former prosecutor Kristy Parker is great on how far he can really go in targeting enemies: newrepublic.com/article/1834...

Reposted by

Greg Sargent

He wasn’t going to be constrained by anything anyway, but this ruling gives him a veneer of lawfulness for his inevitable lawlessness should he return to office.

Chilling point from @rickhasen.bsky.social on SCOTUS ruling and second Trump term, on today's pod: "You want to know how far this opinion goes? Just wait six months. He's going to get advice as to what his maximal power is. We may find out sooner rather than later how far these powers go."

Frightening @rickhasen.bsky.social take on SCOTUS ruling and second Trump term: "The opportunity for him to commit crime has been vastly expanded...this opinion does a lot of damage to the rule of law." On the pod, we go deep into how SCOTUS has unshackled Trump: newrepublic.com/article/1833...

Supreme Court Shocker Could Give Trump Terrifying Second-Term Powersnewrepublic.com In the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling on Trump's demand for immunity, a leading legal expert explains why there's deep cause for alarm about what he'll be free to attempt if he wins again.

Reposted by

Greg Sargent

This is the key point I have been trying to make:

Crucial point @rickhasen.bsky.social makes on this pod: Roberts court is so worried about future, hypothetical incursions on presidential power that it gives the green light to the threat posed to the Constitutional order by Trump that is blaring loud warning signs right now. Must-listen:

The Supreme Court ruling on absolute immunity gives the president "something like the immunity that a king in England would have enjoyed," says @rickhasen.bsky.social on this pod. "And that immunity is great power."

I think Biden menacing Kamala Harris with a firearm would not be a protected official act. But (question for experts) couldn't he order DOJ to prosecute her if she refused (with absolute immunity) and personally tell her she must decline to certify to avoid prosecution (with presumptive immunity)?

Am I correct that, if Trump won the Electoral College, and Joe Biden held a gun to Kamala Harris' head and told her not to certify the election, this would be within the parameters of official conduct and Biden could not be prosecuted for it?

In all seriousness, if Biden informed Manchin/Sinema that they will be prosecuted if they don't vote to end filibuster/appoint four new justices, wouldn't that conversation be presumptively immune from prosecution, since it's a discussion about how to advance the president's agenda?

Question: After SCOTUS ruling, can Biden now order DOJ to prosecute Manchin/Sinema on trumped up charges if they refuse to vote to end the filibuster and appoint four new justices? Wouldn't order to DOJ be absolutely immune, and wouldn't threat to the senators be at minimum presumptively immune?

On the bright side, on this pod Andrew Weissmann also goes into detail about why the Supreme Court's recent ruling on obstruction-of-an-official-proceeding will impact very few prosecutions of 1/6 rioters. Useful and illuminating:

New pod: Andrew Weissmann makes a powerful, disturbing case that Trump's threats to pardon 1/6ers and prosecute his enemies mean that if he wins, our justice system could become unrecognizable. "We certainly won't be the country we thought we had." Listen: newrepublic.com/article/1833...

Trump’s Ugly New Rants About Jan. 6 Pardons Suddenly Seem Very Ominousnewrepublic.com With Trump escalating his threats to pardon MAGA supporters who attacked the Capitol, former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann explains how this shows the rule of law is in deep peril.

New pod: Under Project 2025, an army of Trump loyalists would deeply corrupt information gathering by the government and turn it into little more than pro-Trump propaganda. We dig deep into this with @volts.wtf, who is highly illuminating on the dangers here: newrepublic.com/article/1832...

MAGA’s Eruptions of Rage at CNN Reveal Why Project 2025 Is So Ominousnewrepublic.com With MAGA enraged at the very idea of fact-checking Trump, a leading critic of our discourse explains how Project 2025 would help MAGA transform the government into a weapon against truth.

Reposted by

Greg Sargent

A POV that doesn't seem out there is there are huge parts of the Dem base that aren't likely to take kindly with Dem elites taking away their candidate after they made their choice. SC had a primary, and Biden got 95% of the vote.

Unlike many others On Here, I don't think there's a way for Biden to bow out without it leading to extreme risks of a very different kind. We need more of an acknowledgment from the replace-Biden camp that this is not a remotely easy dilemma. newrepublic.com/article/1832...

[email protected] is one of the few noting there are *also* serious risks w/nominating alternative to Biden. As I suggested, we also can't be sure an alternative would fare better against Trump! Still, I lean toward thinking Bidens should take Q of whether he should withdraw a lot more seriously

Whatever the Bidens end up deciding, it's baffling that they seem to think it would somehow reflect badly on his career to bow out. Screen cap on left: NYT on the Bidens' thinking Screen cap on right: My suggestion that this isn't a good way to think about the situation

icymi

What's really disturbing about the debate fiasco is there's no way to be confident that Biden has it in him to pull off the near-flawless execution he'll need to win at this point. At a minimum, the Bidens owe us a real conversation about that. My take: newrepublic.com/article/1832...

What Joe Biden Really Owes the Country Right Nownewrepublic.com There's no sugar-coating the debate, which was a disaster. At a minimum, he and Jill owe the country an honest conversation about whether he can still do this.

Reposted by

Greg Sargent

Chenault is Black, unlike the overwhelming majority of big-company CEOs. So maybe, just maybe, he has a learned and lived perspective on abuses of establishment power that his White brethren don't.

Former American Express CEO Kenneth Chenault has been privately arguing to executives that stability and the rule of law matter. Notable: Chenault tells me some execs respond that they don't think 1/6 can happen again! Astonishing head-in-the-sand stuff. 3/ newrepublic.com/article/1831...

Reposted by

Greg Sargent

Reply to

Andrew Hinton 🔵 ☁️

Wondered for weeks about this but concluded they 1) can't imagine he would do it, 2) even if he did it somehow the courts would stop him, 3) even if they didn't somehow it wouldn't impact them personally, and 4) even if it did impact them personally they could fly overseas. bsky.app/profile/greg...

It's amazing that some corporate leaders are willing to support Trump for tax cuts and deregulation while shrugging about what Trump's threats to wreck democracy and the rule of law would do to the business climate. 1/ New piece from me: newrepublic.com/article/1831...

Trump’s Shameless, Corrupt Wooing of Plutocrats Is Suddenly Backfiringnewrepublic.com A media narrative has somehow taken hold that CEOs are stampeding toward Trump. The full story isn’t nearly so simple.

Reposted by

Greg Sargent

Yep. bsky.app/profile/greg...

my blogdom for @davidaustinwalsh.bsky.social's email, please DM me if you have it

Topics covered on this pod: *Trump allies worry attacks on Biden's age erred by lowering expectations, @MarcACaputo says *Deep split in MAGA-world between cultish allies & traditional GOP operatives who are realistic about his difficulties *How the cult of Trump invincibility fuels overconfidence

"Trump is like nuclear power. He produces a lot of energy and radiation. The trick [for his advisers] is to keep the cooling tower over the reactor, so it doesn't go into meltdown." On the pod, reporter Marc Caputo is so good on MAGA-world's thinking about debate: newrepublic.com/article/1831...

Trump Allies Secretly Fear He Botched Debate Expectations for Bidennewrepublic.com With Trump and his backers relentlessly smearing Biden as senile, a veteran reporter who’s well sourced in MAGA world explains why Trump allies worry he set expectations for Biden too low.

Useful, illuminating piece from @dandrezner.bsky.social explaining that Trump's main support among business elites comes from reactionary investor/financier class that has little concern for the national interest (thanks for citing my reporting on this): danieldrezner.substack.com/p/is-capital...

Is Capital Backing Donald Trump?danieldrezner.substack.com Capital normally swipes right. This year matters are more complicated

Reposted by

Greg Sargent

There are a lot of people with a lot of power who really do not understand the concept of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Reposted by

Greg Sargent

Reply to

Greg Sargent

I'd love to know which CEOs have poor enough judgment to believe that January 6 proved the guardrails are sturdy.