The argument for widespread presidential immunity faces rough seas

Greg Sargent/The New Republic:

How Trump’s lopsided immunity claim could spark a second-term crime wave

If the courts decide that the insurrection merits immunity and Trump wins back the presidency, what might he feel emboldened to do in his second term?

This was widely described as a Hail Mary attempt to scuttle the tenure of Special Advisor Jack Smith. lawsuits against Trump for conspiracy to obstruct the official process of Congress’ counting of presidential electors – otherwise known for nearly 250 years in this country as the peaceful transfer of power.

But there’s another way to understand Trump’s decision: it’s about what comes next. If he wins on this front, he will be largely unfettered in a second presidential term, free to pursue all manner of corrupt schemes without fear of legal consequences after leaving office.

That Trump might attempt such moves is not idle speculation. He tells us so himself. He openly threatens a range of actions during the second term – such as prosecuting political enemies without any evidence – that would almost certainly push the boundaries of the law in novel and ugly ways.

Let’s listen to the opinion of some law professors on this subject, starting with Randall Eliason/Sidebars:

DC Circuit skeptical of Trump’s immunity claims

Justices highlight extreme consequences of Trump’s argument

At the start of Sauer’s argument, Judge Pan hit him with a long series of questions that highlighted the extreme consequences of his position. Trump argues that the Constitution’s impeachment clause means a former president can only be criminally prosecuted if he or she has been impeached and convicted of the same or similar conduct.

The clause of the indictment judgment provides:

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend beyond removal from office, and disqualification from holding and enjoying any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States: but the party found guilty will nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, and judgment. and punishment according to the law.

Trump’s argument is that since this clause only refers to the “party found guilty” upon arraignment who will be subsequently prosecuted, it means, by negative implication, that a party who is not convicted after indictment cannot be prosecuted.

Lee Kovarski/X via thread reader:

ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS ON TODAY’S DC CIRCUIT (CADC) ARGUMENTS ON PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY (PI) (PROJECT ADAPTED). Today, the CADC heard oral arguments on whether DJT had a PI for 1/6, with specific reference to the prosecution of Jack Smith in Washington DC. Trump almost certainly lost 3-0.

The judges were Henderson (appointed R), Childs (Biden), and Pan (Biden). The main problems were as follows.

Jonathan V Last/The rampart:

This could be the high point of Trumpism

An argument for why Trump’s numbers may not improve and Biden’s numbers are likely to improve.

(Mark) Halperin then says that Biden’s three big problems are:

1. That he plays from behind as a starter, which earns him media attention.

2. Republicans quickly and resolutely rallied behind Trump.

3. That certain parts of the Obama coalition – black, Hispanic and young voters – have not (yet?) rallied behind Biden.

I slightly disagree with Halperin on the importance of #1 and what he calls the mainstream media. My view is that journalists tend to overdetermine media influence in electoral politics.

But no matter how much weight one wants to give to this factor, Halperin is right: because Biden is trailing Trump, the media’s focus is always like: “Unemployment is 3.9%; Here’s why it’s bad for Biden.

And the only way that changes is if Biden advances in the polls.

As for points 2 and 3, these are vectors on which Biden can reasonably hope to improve and Trump probably cannot.

For example: I would tell you that over the next month we will be approaching the high point of the Trump polls.

Brian Beutler/Disabled :

We cannot afford weak liberalism in the Trump era Sincere objections to Trump’s disqualification from the ballot are reversed out of unjustified fear

The glaring weakness here is that the Republicans are real adults, making decisions for themselves, with a mix of real and fake information, and the fact that their leader has engaged in an insurrection and thus could be disqualified from office. its functions were not hidden from them at any time. They called it an insurrection. They admitted Trump’s guilt. Then they decided to reappoint him as their leader. This seems to me to be their problem, not our problem.

Marc Jacob/“Stop the Presses” on Substack:

The media is playing dumb and amplifying the lies of January 6

When Journalists Bend the Truth, MAGA Disinformation Wins

On Thursday, the Associated Press wrote this two-sided headline: “One attack, two interpretations: Biden and Trump both make the January 6 riot a political rallying cry.»

On Sunday, USA Today weighed in with this scandalous advance: “For Donald Trump, January 6, 2021 was “a beautiful day”. For Joe Biden, it was the day “we almost lost America.” And then USA Today followed up with a story that acted like it didn’t know which point of view was more valid.

Between these two examples of performative ignorance, the New York Times weighed with its own twist of “duel realities”:

These media know who is telling the truth and who is lying. But they are afraid to tell the public directly. In the case of the Times, its headline was roasted on social media (including by me), then rewritten:

Here are your dueling polls in New Hampshire:

Ron Desantis is plummeting in the polls. But of course, the only polls that matter take place on Election Day. Losers always say this before losing.