Greg Sargent

@gregsargent.bsky.social

14434

Followers

188

Following

1393

Posts

Politics, politics, politics

Reposted by

Now, now — they’re just objective, detached observers, Greg. 🫠

"The preliminary results upended widespread predictions of a clear victory for the National Rally," says the NYT just now. Wait, who made these predictions of a massive victory for the National Rally again? Oh yeah, these guys did:

Reposted by

Greg Sargent

I told you they want you dead. Vote like your life depends on it. It does.

NEWS --> Mark Robinson, the MAGA extremist GOP nominee for governor in North Carolina, appeared to endorse political violence against unnamed foes in a recent speech. "Some folks need killing!" he shouted. "It's a matter of necessity!" Video and story here: newrepublic.com/article/1834...

MAGA Gov Candidate’s Ugly, Hateful Rant: “Some Folks Need Killing!”newrepublic.com Mark Robinson, the GOP nominee for governor in North Carolina, has a long history of incendiary comments. But he may have topped himself this time.

Note this: Mark Robinson's spokesman "did not respond to a question about who the people with 'evil intent' are that Robinson alluded to immediately prior to the 'killing' comments."

Mark Robinson's campaign is now trying to spin away the significance of his violent rant. North Carolina reporter Rob Schofield does a nice job cutting through the campaign's talking points and showing why his comments are so concerning: bsky.app/profile/greg...

Reposted by

Greg Sargent

What would you say if you saw it in another country?

Reposted by

Greg Sargent

Republicans never hide their plans.

Reposted by

Greg Sargent

we’re in danger

Reply to

Sarah Posner

yes -- also the full speech (linked in piece) has lots of Christian Nationalist overtones. Connects blood of Christ to blood of 1776 patriots to present "freedoms"

Reply to

whet moser

also the opening line in the t-script orients the whole thing toward enemies in the present

One striking detail in this story: The Pastor at Lake Church, where Mark Robinson gave this speech, told me he and Robinson expected these remarks to be "scrutinized." Then the Pastor defended them! (also worth noting Christian Nationalist overtones in rest of speech cc @sarahposner.bsky.social)

Reply to

David Elwell

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

Reply to

Karmageddon

we discuss all these permutations

Reply to

Bruce R McF (etc.)

yeah, we discuss the pardon aspect of this

Reposted by

Greg Sargent

Reply to

Greg Sargent

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.

Reply to

Alexandra Samios

Yes, @qjurecic.bsky.social, our pod today with Kristy Parker of Protect Democracy gets into this a bit

Reply to

Staid Winnow

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

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...

Reply to

Popehat

Thanks. I'm just puzzled by the idea that it's okay to admit evidence of what the president corruptly demands in exchange for an official act, but it's not okay to inquire into the motive behind an official act.

Reply to

Humble follower

Fair. Am hoping @kenwhite.bsky.social and @normative.bsky.social can explain what the text even means on its own terms

Reply to

Popehat

Right, but in the case of taking a bribe for a pardon or some other favor (cabinet position, policy, etc.), the implication of the footnote is that evidence of the nature of the exchange is usable. What I don't get is how/whether this coexists with prohibition on examining motive.

I.e., the suggestion is that if Trump were on tape saying, "give me $100,000 for X official act," that would be admissible. But examination of motive in carrying out the official act is not? How does this work?

Reply to

Julian Sanchez

[email protected] and I get into this in our pod discussion. Trump can order prosecutions of opponents with zero cause and his motive for doing so is irrelevant bsky.app/profile/greg...

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.

The question I have, @normative.bsky.social and @kenwhite.bsky.social, is whether this footnote complicates matters a bit.

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."

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: