Greg Sargent: 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.

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.

I expect this dangerously radical court majority to do some version of this:

Seems crazy! But just logical. If a President cannot commit a crime in the course of an official act, like giving an order to the military, how can you prosecute the person who follows the order? There’s a whole code of military conduct about “illegal orders.” All orders are legal now.

Embedded skeet sketches out that Scotus will in future find that those following an immune order are themselves under that umbrella.

This sick SC better take their rulings back. They're creating serious problems. Can they repeal themselves?

wouldn't it also be extremely difficult to prosecute an underling without evidence sourced to said orders, though

Post