Greg Sargent's avatar

Greg Sargent

@gregsargent.bsky.social

14410 followers 188 following 1390 posts

Politics, politics, politics

Reposted by Greg Sargent

Brendan Nyhan's avatar Brendan Nyhan @brendannyhan.bsky.social
[ View ]

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

9 replies 19 reposts 72 likes

Reposted by Greg Sargent

Jennifer Winch 's avatar Jennifer Winch @jlwinch1.bsky.social
[ View ]

Republicans never hide their plans.

2 replies 14 reposts 72 likes

Reposted by Greg Sargent

b-boy bouiebaisse's avatar b-boy bouiebaisse @jbouie.bsky.social
[ View ]

we’re in danger

68 replies 383 reposts 1322 likes

Greg Sargent's avatar Greg Sargent @gregsargent.bsky.social
[ View ]

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"

1 replies 0 reposts 5 likes

Greg Sargent's avatar Greg Sargent @gregsargent.bsky.social
[ View ]

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

1 replies 0 reposts 10 likes

Greg Sargent's avatar Greg Sargent @gregsargent.bsky.social
[ View ]

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)

14 replies 84 reposts 225 likes

Greg Sargent's avatar Greg Sargent @gregsargent.bsky.social
[ View ]

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...

107 replies 344 reposts 633 likes

Greg Sargent's avatar Greg Sargent @gregsargent.bsky.social
[ View ]

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

1 replies 0 reposts 2 likes

Greg Sargent's avatar Greg Sargent @gregsargent.bsky.social
[ View ]

yeah, we discuss the pardon aspect of this

0 replies 0 reposts 2 likes

Reposted by Greg Sargent

Alexandra Samios's avatar Alexandra Samios @xanboni.bsky.social
[ View ]

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.

8 replies 9 reposts 28 likes

Greg Sargent's avatar Greg Sargent @gregsargent.bsky.social
[ View ]

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.

3 replies 13 reposts 54 likes

Greg Sargent's avatar Greg Sargent @gregsargent.bsky.social
[ View ]

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

0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes

Greg Sargent's avatar Greg Sargent @gregsargent.bsky.social
[ View ]

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...

7 replies 13 reposts 56 likes

Greg Sargent's avatar Greg Sargent @gregsargent.bsky.social
[ View ]

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...

2 replies 6 reposts 65 likes

Greg Sargent's avatar Greg Sargent @gregsargent.bsky.social
[ View ]

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.

3 replies 1 reposts 19 likes

Greg Sargent's avatar Greg Sargent @gregsargent.bsky.social
[ View ]

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?

2 replies 1 reposts 20 likes

Greg Sargent's avatar Greg Sargent @gregsargent.bsky.social
[ View ]

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.

1 replies 1 reposts 14 likes

Reposted by Greg Sargent

Elliot Blake's avatar Elliot Blake @elliotblake.bsky.social
[ View ]

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.

4 replies 14 reposts 41 likes

Greg Sargent's avatar Greg Sargent @gregsargent.bsky.social
[ View ]

.@rickhasen.bsky.social 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...

1 replies 5 reposts 13 likes

Greg Sargent's avatar Greg Sargent @gregsargent.bsky.social
[ View ]

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."

3 replies 22 reposts 70 likes

Reposted by Greg Sargent

Rick Hasen 's avatar Rick Hasen @rickhasen.bsky.social
[ View ]

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

2 replies 16 reposts 46 likes

Greg Sargent's avatar Greg Sargent @gregsargent.bsky.social
[ View ]

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."

3 replies 12 reposts 44 likes

Greg Sargent's avatar Greg Sargent @gregsargent.bsky.social
[ View ]

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:

3 replies 13 reposts 55 likes

Greg Sargent's avatar Greg Sargent @gregsargent.bsky.social
[ View ]

that is unfortunately a very good guess

0 replies 0 reposts 5 likes

Greg Sargent's avatar Greg Sargent @gregsargent.bsky.social
[ View ]

At a minimum he could order the prosecution with absolute immunity and demand the vote to end the filibuster with presumptive immunity

0 replies 1 reposts 9 likes

Greg Sargent's avatar Greg Sargent @gregsargent.bsky.social
[ View ]

I'm suggesting that he could ignore the law requiring House vote on expansion, but I suppose that would end in Constitutional crisis, right?

6 replies 1 reposts 10 likes

Greg Sargent's avatar Greg Sargent @gregsargent.bsky.social
[ View ]

Although you might run into issues with prosecuting a VP, right? Aren't there any legal experts on here?

1 replies 2 reposts 18 likes

Greg Sargent's avatar Greg Sargent @gregsargent.bsky.social
[ View ]

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)?

10 replies 9 reposts 60 likes

Greg Sargent's avatar Greg Sargent @gregsargent.bsky.social
[ View ]

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?

13 replies 24 reposts 149 likes

Greg Sargent's avatar Greg Sargent @gregsargent.bsky.social
[ View ]

Would probably be presumptively immune, as far as I can tell

2 replies 0 reposts 25 likes

Greg Sargent's avatar Greg Sargent @gregsargent.bsky.social
[ View ]

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?

15 replies 24 reposts 139 likes

Greg Sargent's avatar Greg Sargent @gregsargent.bsky.social
[ View ]

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:

2 replies 6 reposts 45 likes

Greg Sargent's avatar Greg Sargent @gregsargent.bsky.social
[ View ]

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...

4 replies 24 reposts 82 likes

Greg Sargent's avatar Greg Sargent @gregsargent.bsky.social
[ View ]

Isn't my argument that we need assurances that Biden has what it takes to avoid any *future* mistakes of this magnitude? Is that really something you disagree with? You think we can afford more mistakes like this?

3 replies 0 reposts 1 likes

Greg Sargent's avatar Greg Sargent @gregsargent.bsky.social
[ View ]

didn't my piece also talk about the downside risks of him withdrawing? you saw that in there, right?

1 replies 0 reposts 2 likes

Greg Sargent's avatar Greg Sargent @gregsargent.bsky.social
[ View ]

Where did I write that this isn't up to Biden? Point me to that line.

2 replies 0 reposts 0 likes

Greg Sargent's avatar Greg Sargent @gregsargent.bsky.social
[ View ]

because the concerns about his age, as wrong as they are IMHO, are very serious among a lot of voters, per polls

3 replies 0 reposts 2 likes

Greg Sargent's avatar Greg Sargent @gregsargent.bsky.social
[ View ]

If anything, I've gone farther than most in saying there are immense risks with an open convention scenario, Jon.

0 replies 0 reposts 1 likes

Greg Sargent's avatar Greg Sargent @gregsargent.bsky.social
[ View ]

I'm a little puzzled by this. The argument in my piece is primarily about the need for Bidens to seriously engage with whether he's got what it takes to avoid any more immense mistakes. I'm not a big advocate for an open convention, and I'm not sure why I'm being pigeonholed into that role.

2 replies 0 reposts 2 likes

Greg Sargent's avatar Greg Sargent @gregsargent.bsky.social
[ View ]

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...

4 replies 36 reposts 95 likes

Greg Sargent's avatar Greg Sargent @gregsargent.bsky.social
[ View ]

Yes, link here. Primary point is Bidens really need to grapple seriously with whether he's capable of avoiding any more mistakes of this magnitude in the future:
newrepublic.com/article/1832...

1 replies 0 reposts 1 likes