Jan 9th and the COA oral arguments...

[cosmickid]

I realize there is a poll/thread regarding Trump and the Supremes, but that thread has devolved (per usual) into an off topic discussion regarding Roe vs Wade...

But at the same time, there have been a few (possibly very consequential) developments regarding Trump's appeal and attempt to invoke "absolute immunity", and I' m not aware of those being discussed here...

A couple of Amicus briefs filed initially that won't have Team Trump leaping for joy... First off reported on Dec 29th...

"Sixteen former prosecutors, elected officials, other government officials, and constitutional lawyers, including individuals appointed in the Nixon, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Trump Administrations, submitted an amicus brief Friday to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in the case United States v. Donald J. Trump.

The brief... supported the district court’s December 1 ruling that former President Trump’s extraordinary request that the court grant him absolute immunity from federal criminal prosecution for all official acts he took while President has no basis in constitutional text, structure, or history."

The amicus brief explains in detail why the immunity sought by former President Trump “is inconsistent with our Constitution and would subvert the bedrock principle that no person is above the law.”
You can read about it and see the 16 amici here, and the overwhelming majority are either Republicans or served under Republican Admins...

Prominent Former DOJ Officials, U.S. Attorneys, Others Tell DC Appeals Court In Amicus Brief: Trump Is Not Immune From Prosecution - Democracy 21

Sixteen former prosecutors, elected officials, other government officials, and constitutional lawyers, including individuals appointed in the Nixon, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Trump Administrations, submitted an amicus brief Friday to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District...

democracy21.org

That was the first thorn in Trump's side and he's not happy...
Then a few days ago, the non-profit American Oversight filed a brief arguing that the COA doesn't even have the jurisdiction to currently heal the Appeal. They claim that based on SCOTUS precedent, the case must be sent baack to Judge Chutkan for trial, and that it's only after Trump is found guilty in trial court that he could then file his appeals...

"The group cites Supreme Court precedent for the proposition that challenges are only allowed at this early stage of a criminal case if they’re based on claimed rights that would stop a trial from happening in the first place, and those rights are limited to what's explicitly set out in a statute or the Constitution. Trump claims presidential immunity and that, because of double jeopardy principles, his second impeachment acquittal bars his prosecution. But because those arguments don’t rest on explicit guarantees against being tried, the American Oversight brief argues, he can’t raise them at this point. "
Ironically enough the 1989 case being cited (Midland Asphalt) resulted in a unanimous ruling with Scalia writing the opinion...

New question in Trump immunity appeal: Can it even be heard in court right now?

With oral argument set for Jan. 9, the D.C. Circuit could decide it doesn't have the power to decide Trump's broad immunity claim before trial.

www.msnbc.com

So here is what I see as possible storm clouds for Trump... Both of these briefs were just filed within the past week, and yesterday the Court informed both sides that they should be prepared to address the issues raised by BOTH briefs...

"Donald Trump's legal team and Special Counsel Jack Smith's prosecutors should come to court next week ready to discuss a range of issues raised in an official capacity by several outside legal experts, a federal appellate panel said Tuesday.

In a one-sentence order, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered that at oral arguments scheduled for Jan. 9, both parties to the case should be prepared to address "any inquiries by the Court regarding discrete issues raised in the briefs filed by amicus curiae."

Trump, Jack Smith Must Be Prepped to Address Legal Experts' Amicus Briefs in Presidential 'Immunity' Appeal

Donald Trump's legal team and Special Counsel Jack Smith's prosecutors should come to court next week ready to discuss amicus briefs, a federal appellate panel said Tuesday.

themessenger.com

Since the Court has the option to entertain or reject either or both of the briefs, the fact that they specifically mentioned both of them strikes me as pretty bad news for Trump. Esp when in his final response prior to arguments, he attempted to state a position and actually cited his own 40+ pages of rambling Truth Social "expose" of supposed election fraud as case history to support his claims. As one commentator put it, it's like Trump was attempting to create his own case law in support of his position...

 

[Bowlmania]

I realize there is a poll/thread regarding Trump and the Supremes, but that thread has devolved (per usual) into an off topic discussion regarding Roe vs Wade...

But at the same time, there have been a few (possibly very consequential) developments regarding Trump's appeal and attempt to invoke "absolute immunity", and I' m not aware of those being discussed here...

A couple of Amicus briefs filed initially that won't have Team Trump leaping for joy... First off reported on Dec 29th...

"Sixteen former prosecutors, elected officials, other government officials, and constitutional lawyers, including individuals appointed in the Nixon, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Trump Administrations, submitted an amicus brief Friday to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in the case United States v. Donald J. Trump.

The brief... supported the district court’s December 1 ruling that former President Trump’s extraordinary request that the court grant him absolute immunity from federal criminal prosecution for all official acts he took while President has no basis in constitutional text, structure, or history."

The amicus brief explains in detail why the immunity sought by former President Trump “is inconsistent with our Constitution and would subvert the bedrock principle that no person is above the law.”
You can read about it and see the 16 amici here, and the overwhelming majority are either Republicans or served under Republican Admins...

Prominent Former DOJ Officials, U.S. Attorneys, Others Tell DC Appeals Court In Amicus Brief: Trump Is Not Immune From Prosecution - Democracy 21

Sixteen former prosecutors, elected officials, other government officials, and constitutional lawyers, including individuals appointed in the Nixon, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Trump Administrations, submitted an amicus brief Friday to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District...

democracy21.org

That was the first thorn in Trump's side and he's not happy...
Then a few days ago, the non-profit American Oversight filed a brief arguing that the COA doesn't even have the jurisdiction to currently heal the Appeal. They claim that based on SCOTUS precedent, the case must be sent baack to Judge Chutkan for trial, and that it's only after Trump is found guilty in trial court that he could then file his appeals...

"The group cites Supreme Court precedent for the proposition that challenges are only allowed at this early stage of a criminal case if they’re based on claimed rights that would stop a trial from happening in the first place, and those rights are limited to what's explicitly set out in a statute or the Constitution. Trump claims presidential immunity and that, because of double jeopardy principles, his second impeachment acquittal bars his prosecution. But because those arguments don’t rest on explicit guarantees against being tried, the American Oversight brief argues, he can’t raise them at this point. "
Ironically enough the 1989 case being cited (Midland Asphalt) resulted in a unanimous ruling with Scalia writing the opinion...

New question in Trump immunity appeal: Can it even be heard in court right now?

With oral argument set for Jan. 9, the D.C. Circuit could decide it doesn't have the power to decide Trump's broad immunity claim before trial.

www.msnbc.com

So here is what I see as possible storm clouds for Trump... Both of these briefs were just filed within the past week, and yesterday the Court informed both sides that they should be prepared to address the issues raised by BOTH briefs...

"Donald Trump's legal team and Special Counsel Jack Smith's prosecutors should come to court next week ready to discuss a range of issues raised in an official capacity by several outside legal experts, a federal appellate panel said Tuesday.

In a one-sentence order, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered that at oral arguments scheduled for Jan. 9, both parties to the case should be prepared to address "any inquiries by the Court regarding discrete issues raised in the briefs filed by amicus curiae."

Trump, Jack Smith Must Be Prepped to Address Legal Experts' Amicus Briefs in Presidential 'Immunity' Appeal

Donald Trump's legal team and Special Counsel Jack Smith's prosecutors should come to court next week ready to discuss amicus briefs, a federal appellate panel said Tuesday.

themessenger.com

Since the Court has the option to entertain or reject either or both of the briefs, the fact that they specifically mentioned both of them strikes me as pretty bad news for Trump. Esp when in his final response prior to arguments, he attempted to state a position and actually cited his own 40+ pages of rambling Truth Social "expose" of supposed election fraud as case history to support his claims. As one commentator put it, it's like Trump was attempting to create his own case law in support of his position...

Don't worry. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that Trump prevails on the immunity argument. The claim that Trump's election subversion activities were undertaken in his official capacity as president in an effort to ensure election integrity is laughably absurd.

Here's a quick history of some of the past election-related statements and commentary by that great defender of democracy and protector of election integrity, Donald Trump:

• On Election Night 2012, when Obama defeated Romney and was re-elected president, Trump called the election a "total sham." "We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!" he said.
• In early 2016, after the Iowa caucuses, Trump insisted that he did not lose in Iowa but rather that the election was stolen (sound familiar?) from him. "Ted Cruz didn't win Iowa. He stole it!" Trump said.
• In October 2016, just weeks before the general election, he wrote, "The election is absolutely being rigged by the dishonest and distorted media pushing Crooked Hillary - but also at many polling places - SAD." As always, there was no evidence to support his claim of fraud, and he won the election. The "rigged" talk then stopped for a while, until he started falsely claiming he won not just in the Electoral College but also the popular vote. "In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide [it wasn't a landslide], I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally." Lol. There was no evidence of widespread voter fraud then, just as there wasn't in 2020.
• In the 2020 general election, he insisted - - long before a single vote was cast - - that the only possible way he could lose the election was if it was rigged.
• Following the 2020 election, and moments before major media outlets projected Biden as the winner, Trump lied (imagine that) in a tweet, "I WON THIS ELECTION, BY A LOT!" That was just the beginning of his two months-long assault on democracy and the election process.

None of this, of course, will explicitly factor into the Supreme Court's decision to reject his immunity claim but, like most of us, the justices are well aware of it. More importantly, they know what a disastrous precedent they'd be setting if they accepted his argument. They'll throw him a bone on the ballot eligibility issue, but he'll lose - - bigly - - on immunity.

 

[cosmickid]

Don't worry. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that Trump prevails on the immunity argument. The claim that Trump's election subversion activities were undertaken in his official capacity as president in an effort to ensure election integrity is laughably absurd.

Here's a quick history of some of the past election-related statements and commentary by that great defender of democracy and protector of election integrity, Donald Trump:

• On Election Night 2012, when Obama defeated Romney and was re-elected president, Trump called the election a "total sham." "We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!" he said.
• In early 2016, after the Iowa caucuses, Trump insisted that he did not lose in Iowa but rather that the election was stolen (sound familiar?) from him. "Ted Cruz didn't win Iowa. He stole it!" Trump said.
• In October 2016, just weeks before the general election, he wrote, "The election is absolutely being rigged by the dishonest and distorted media pushing Crooked Hillary - but also at many polling places - SAD." As always, there was no evidence to support his claim of fraud, and he won the election. The "rigged" talk then stopped for a while, until he started falsely claiming he won not just in the Electoral College but also the popular vote. "In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide [it wasn't a landslide], I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally." Lol. There was no evidence of widespread voter fraud then, just as there wasn't in 2020.
• In the 2020 general election, he insisted - - long before a single vote was cast - - that the only possible way he could lose the election was if it was rigged.
• Following the 2020 election, and moments before major media outlets projected Biden as the winner, Trump lied (imagine that) in a tweet, "I WON THIS ELECTION, BY A LOT!" That was just the beginning of his two months-long assault on democracy and the election process.

None of this, of course, will explicitly factor into the Supreme Court's decision to reject his immunity claim but, like most of us, the justices are well aware of it. More importantly, they know what a disastrous precedent they'd be setting if they accepted his argument. They'll throw him a bone on the ballot eligibility issue, but he'll lose - - bigly - - on immunity.

Here's an even more delicious dilemma for the Orange one... Money or possible criminal conviction...

It seems that 3 yrs after the fact, Trump attempted to raise the issue of "absolute immunity" in the E Jean Carol (original) defamation lawsuit, which is set to go to trial in Jan. The same (very persuasive) damages expert that testified and helped secure a $148 Million decision vs Rudy in the Moss/Freeman case is set to testify.

Remember this is after a seperate jury has already found Trump guilty of defaming E Jean the 2nd time he attacked her AFTER he left the WH. That jury also found that Trump was civilally liable for sexual assault. The cases have gone to trial in reverse order, because there have been a number of delays in bringing to trial the original 2019 events...

Now Trump had hoped to defend himself on the basis of absolute immunity, since he was POTUS. But both the District court and now the 2nd Circuit have ruled that Trump waived "absolute immunity" as a defense becuase he failed to assert it for nearly 3 yrs..Basically Alina Habba/horrible lawyering strikes again.

The 2nd Circuit denied Trump's application for a stay and for an en banc hearing. That means Trump is trapped. His only hope to delay the EJC is to appeal to SCOTUS on an emergency basis to clarify the issue of "absolute Presidential immunity" in the civil matter. But as soon as he does that, Smith will be able to turn the tables and urge SCOTUS to combine the civil and criminal cases with regards to "immunity".

I've probably buthered this explanation, but this analysis lays it all out pretty well...

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Here's an even more delicious dilemma for the Orange one... Money or possible criminal conviction...

It seems that 3 yrs after the fact, Trump attempted to raise the issue of "absolute immunity" in the E Jean Carol (original) defamation lawsuit, which is set to go to trial in Jan. The same (very persuasive) damages expert that testified and helped secure a $148 Million decision vs Rudy in the Moss/Freeman case is set to testify.

Remember this is after a seperate jury has already found Trump guilty of defaming E Jean the 2nd time he attacked her AFTER he left the WH. That jury also found that Trump was civilally liable for sexual assault. The cases have gone to trial in reverse order, because there have been a number of delays in bringing to trial the original 2019 events...

Now Trump had hoped to defend himself on the basis of absolute immunity, since he was POTUS. But both the District court and now the 2nd Circuit have ruled that Trump waived "absolute immunity" as a defense becuase he failed to assert it for nearly 3 yrs..Basically Alina Habba/horrible lawyering strikes again.

The 2nd Circuit denied Trump's application for a stay and for an en banc hearing. That means Trump is trapped. His only hope to delay the EJC is to appeal to SCOTUS on an emergency basis to clarify the issue of "absolute Presidential immunity" in the civil matter. But as soon as he does that, Smith will be able to turn the tables and urge SCOTUS to combine the civil and criminal cases with regards to "immunity".

I've probably buthered this explanation, but this analysis lays it all out pretty well...

View embedded media

I'm not bothering to pay attention to all that, but I will just point out one very important thing: whether or not Trump enjoys immunity and whether or not he raised the issue in a timely manner in a particular proceeding are two entirely separate issues.

 

[cosmickid]

I realize there is a poll/thread regarding Trump and the Supremes, but that thread has devolved (per usual) into an off topic discussion regarding Roe vs Wade...

But at the same time, there have been a few (possibly very consequential) developments regarding Trump's appeal and attempt to invoke "absolute immunity", and I' m not aware of those being discussed here...

A couple of Amicus briefs filed initially that won't have Team Trump leaping for joy... First off reported on Dec 29th...

"Sixteen former prosecutors, elected officials, other government officials, and constitutional lawyers, including individuals appointed in the Nixon, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Trump Administrations, submitted an amicus brief Friday to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in the case United States v. Donald J. Trump.

The brief... supported the district court’s December 1 ruling that former President Trump’s extraordinary request that the court grant him absolute immunity from federal criminal prosecution for all official acts he took while President has no basis in constitutional text, structure, or history."

The amicus brief explains in detail why the immunity sought by former President Trump “is inconsistent with our Constitution and would subvert the bedrock principle that no person is above the law.”
You can read about it and see the 16 amici here, and the overwhelming majority are either Republicans or served under Republican Admins...

Prominent Former DOJ Officials, U.S. Attorneys, Others Tell DC Appeals Court In Amicus Brief: Trump Is Not Immune From Prosecution - Democracy 21

Sixteen former prosecutors, elected officials, other government officials, and constitutional lawyers, including individuals appointed in the Nixon, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Trump Administrations, submitted an amicus brief Friday to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District...

democracy21.org

That was the first thorn in Trump's side and he's not happy...
Then a few days ago, the non-profit American Oversight filed a brief arguing that the COA doesn't even have the jurisdiction to currently heal the Appeal. They claim that based on SCOTUS precedent, the case must be sent baack to Judge Chutkan for trial, and that it's only after Trump is found guilty in trial court that he could then file his appeals...

"The group cites Supreme Court precedent for the proposition that challenges are only allowed at this early stage of a criminal case if they’re based on claimed rights that would stop a trial from happening in the first place, and those rights are limited to what's explicitly set out in a statute or the Constitution. Trump claims presidential immunity and that, because of double jeopardy principles, his second impeachment acquittal bars his prosecution. But because those arguments don’t rest on explicit guarantees against being tried, the American Oversight brief argues, he can’t raise them at this point. "
Ironically enough the 1989 case being cited (Midland Asphalt) resulted in a unanimous ruling with Scalia writing the opinion...

New question in Trump immunity appeal: Can it even be heard in court right now?

With oral argument set for Jan. 9, the D.C. Circuit could decide it doesn't have the power to decide Trump's broad immunity claim before trial.

www.msnbc.com

So here is what I see as possible storm clouds for Trump... Both of these briefs were just filed within the past week, and yesterday the Court informed both sides that they should be prepared to address the issues raised by BOTH briefs...

"Donald Trump's legal team and Special Counsel Jack Smith's prosecutors should come to court next week ready to discuss a range of issues raised in an official capacity by several outside legal experts, a federal appellate panel said Tuesday.

In a one-sentence order, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered that at oral arguments scheduled for Jan. 9, both parties to the case should be prepared to address "any inquiries by the Court regarding discrete issues raised in the briefs filed by amicus curiae."

Trump, Jack Smith Must Be Prepped to Address Legal Experts' Amicus Briefs in Presidential 'Immunity' Appeal

Donald Trump's legal team and Special Counsel Jack Smith's prosecutors should come to court next week ready to discuss amicus briefs, a federal appellate panel said Tuesday.

themessenger.com

Since the Court has the option to entertain or reject either or both of the briefs, the fact that they specifically mentioned both of them strikes me as pretty bad news for Trump. Esp when in his final response prior to arguments, he attempted to state a position and actually cited his own 40+ pages of rambling Truth Social "expose" of supposed election fraud as case history to support his claims. As one commentator put it, it's like Trump was attempting to create his own case law in support of his position...

So the hearing iis being streamed, and I've been listening, since I've never heard an actual appellate hearing before. So far the Trump attny seems to be geting handled by the justices, they seem to disagree with every point he tries to make. And he sounds like a frog...

 

[mattndallas]

I'm not bothering to pay attention to all that

Et tu?

 

[BradStevens]

So the hearing iis being streamed, and I've been listening, since I've never heard an actual appellate hearing before. So far the Trump attny seems to be geting handled by the justices, they seem to disagree with every point he tries to make. And he sounds like a frog...

View embedded media

Sauer is very knowledgeable and very prepared but, I think, made a mistake in answering the questioning re the impeachment clause and the judge asking if Sauer's other arguments "fall away" if he concedes that the Prez can be tried after an impeachment.

He should have said, no, they are still relevant to the interpretation of the impeachment clause. He could have saved himself 10 minutes of back and forth there (from about 8:40-18:40).

That said, his argument runs into the same weakness that the Trump defense in the impeachment hearings did: pragmatic timing. If he is saying Trump can only be criminally tried after being impeached, but Trump already defeated his impeachment by arguing that he couldn't be impeached after leaving office (judicial estoppel, then, might apply here), how do you handle impeachable, outrageous acts in the waning days and hours of a presidency? Are we really going to interpret the Constitution such that a President can order Seal Team 6 to murder a political rival on the last day he's in office and never be tried for it because of timing issues?

To me, just as in the Co case, this type of pragmatic argument is the most persuasive in deciding the case.

 

[Bowlmania]

Sauer is very knowledgeable and very prepared but, I think, made a mistake in answering the questioning re the impeachment clause and the judge asking if Sauer's other arguments "fall away" if he concedes that the Prez can be tried after an impeachment.

He should have said, no, they are still relevant to the interpretation of the impeachment clause. He could have saved himself 10 minutes of back and forth there (from about 8:40-18:40).

That said, his argument runs into the same weakness that the Trump defense in the impeachment hearings did: pragmatic timing. If he is saying Trump can only be criminally tried after being impeached, but Trump already defeated his impeachment by arguing that he couldn't be impeached after leaving office (judicial estoppel, then, might apply here), how do you handle impeachable, outrageous acts in the waning days and hours of a presidency? Are we really going to interpret the Constitution such that a President can order Seal Team 6 to murder a political rival on the last day he's in office and never be tried for it because of timing issues?

To me, just as in the Co case, this is the type of pragmatic argument is the most persuasive in deciding the case.

Forget pragmatism. I haven't read/heard of a single legal scholar opining that the impeachment judgment clause provides a win for Trump. It's a losing legal argument.

The clause reads: "Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: But the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.”

It's clear the "the party convicted" in the Senate can still face criminal prosecution. But Sauer's (Trump's lawyer) argument that the clause implies: 1) that conviction in the Senate is a prerequisite for criminal prosecution; and 2) that acquittal in the Senate precludes such prosecution does not logically flow from the language of the provision, and strains credulity.

 

[UncleMark]

The clause reads: "Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: But the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.”

The framers anticipated some knucklehead claiming that impeachment and conviction was a Get Out of Jail Free Card, and put that clause in there as a GTFOH. They didn't anticipate some knucklehead claiming impeachment and conviction was required for any post-Presidency prosecution, and it sounds like the panel isn't buying it either.

 

[BradStevens]

Forget pragmatism. I haven't read/heard of a single legal scholar opining that the impeachment judgment clause provides a win for Trump. It's a losing legal argument.

The clause reads: "Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: But the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.”

It's clear the "the party convicted" in the Senate can still face criminal prosecution. But Sauer's (Trump's lawyer) argument that the clause implies: 1) that conviction in the Senate is a prerequisite for criminal prosecution; and 2) that acquittal in the Senate precludes such prosecution does not logically flow from the language of the provision, and strains credulity.

The only way you can conclude it strains credulity is to refer to the consequences of reading it that way. Thus you need pragmatism to get where you’re going

 

[cosmickid]

The framers anticipated some knucklehead claiming that impeachment and conviction was a Get Out of Jail Free Card, and put that clause in there as a GTFOH. They didn't anticipate some knucklehead claiming impeachment and conviction was required for any post-Presidency prosecution, and it sounds like the panel isn't buying it either.

I hear a lot of legal analysts saying they can't even see SCOTUS taking the case because there is no issue for them to decide. I guess we'll see...

But complex legal arguments aside,to me,the greatest flaw in Trump's "reasoning" is that he seems oblivious to the fact that absolute immunity would apply to Biden, just like he wants it to apply to him. Does he really want Biden to have the same exact capability that Trump employed in The Big Lie? Convince a bunch of morons that the other side cheated and just hang on to power illegally?

While Judge Pan's example of Seal Team 6 was extreme (and seemed to be a well placed trap) it struck me that Trump's team seemed to argue as if they only thought those examples pertained to Trump. They were so eager to proclaim that the precondition of Impeachment AND Conviction (a purely political mechanism) should apply to Trump, that they semingly failed to grasp that it will apply equally to Biden (and any other subsequent POTUS) when it comes to the issue of criminal liability and "official acts".

I'd have liked to see Judge Pan expand on the hypothetical of absolute immunity for criminal acts by shifting Trump's behavior following 2020 with possible Biden actions if Trump somehow "wins" in 2024. Trump's team was so preoccupied with providing him cover. for the "official acts" he undertok to overthrow the 2020 election results, that they seem oblivious to the fact that under the arument they're making Biden could do the exact same thing in 2024. And Trump would be powerless to prevent him from doing so...

I would love to have heard Sauer respond to that set of facts...

 

[BradStevens]

I hear a lot of legal analysts saying they can't even see SCOTUS taking the case because there is no issue for them to decide. I guess we'll see...

But complex legal arguments aside,to me,the greatest flaw in Trump's "reasoning" is that he seems oblivious to the fact that absolute immunity would apply to Biden, just like he wants it to apply to him. Does he really want Biden to have the same exact capability that Trump employed in The Big Lie? Convince a bunch of morons that the other side cheated and just hang on to power illegally?

While Judge Pan's example of Seal Team 6 was extreme (and seemed to be a well placed trap) it struck me that Trump's team seemed to argue as if they only thought those examples pertained to Trump. They were so eager to proclaim that the precondition of Impeachment AND Conviction (a purely political mechanism) should apply to Trump, that they semingly failed to grasp that it will apply equally to Biden (and any other subsequent POTUS) when it comes to the issue of criminal liability and "official acts".

I'd have liked to see Judge Pan expand on the hypothetical of absolute immunity for criminal acts by shifting Trump's behavior following 2020 with possible Biden actions if Trump somehow "wins" in 2024. Trump's team was so preoccupied with providing him cover. for the "official acts" he undertok to overthrow the 2020 election results, that they seem oblivious to the fact that under the arument they're making Biden could do the exact same thing in 2024. And Trump would be powerless to prevent him from doing so...

I would love to have heard Sauer respond to that set of facts...

Sauer doesn't care. He's trying to keep his client out of jail.

 

[Bowlmania]

The only way you can conclude it strains credulity is to refer to the consequences of reading it that way. Thus you need pragmatism to get where you’re going

I'm not sure what that means.

It is manifestly apparent, particularly following oral argument, that Trump's lawyers don't have a serious legal argument for immunity. First, the claim that Trump's conduct, as outlined in the election subversion indictment, falls within his official responsibility as president because he was working to ensure "election integrity" is laughable on its face. It's clear he was acting solely out of political self-interest. Further, Trump's counsel's construction of the impeachment judgment clause is equally absurd for the reasons I discussed earlier.

None of Trump's arguments pass muster legally. The practical implications of the inevitable denial of his immunity claim are icing on the cake.