MeidasTouch article posted minutes ago: Summary of Oral Arguments in Trump Immunity Hearing

[highplainsdem]

https://www.meidastouch.com/news/summary-of-oral-arguments-in-trump-immunity-hearing

Just a sample below. Much more at the link.

-snip-

John Sauer argued the case for Trump. He was the same lawyer who lost the gag order appeal. James Pearce argued the case for the government. He was the attorney who argued for the government on the gag order issue.

Sauer began by arguing that any ruling by the court denying immunity could open a "Pandora's box" where George Bush could be prosecuted by misleading the public about WMDs in Iraq, or Barack Obama could be prosecuted for murder for drone strikes, or Biden prosecuted for lack of border enforcement. A judge then asked Sauer if a president could sell military secrets to a foreign government, sell pardons, or order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political opponent, would he have immunity? Sauer repeatedly refused to answer that question directly, which frustrated the court.

Sauer said that a president can only be prosecuted criminally if he has first been impeached and convicted by the Senate, even if the conduct was clearly an "official act." After a lengthy back and forth about that, a different judge asked Sauer to address the issue of whether Trump's charged conduct was "private acts" or "official duties." Sauer argued that the conduct Trump engaged in - speaking and meeting with members of Congress, DOJ and state elections officials - was part of his official duties as president. Sauer also argued that the court should not consider what Trump's motive was at the time - whether that was selfish or not - it only matters that it was being done as part of his normal duties as president.

One judge then said that the way she reviews case law like Marbury v. Madison and its progeny cases is that a distinction is drawn between "discretionary" official acts and "ministerial" official acts, the latter of which would not be given immunity. Sauer argued that those cases dealt with government officials who were not the president, and that the president is an exception to the holding of those cases.

-snip-

[HelpImSurrounded]

1. There it is again - "The president is an exception"

Brett Kavanaugh - "Unitary Executive"

These people WANT a monarch. They want to reduce the Constution to a powerless scrap of paper.

[flying_wahini]

3. I think even Kavanaugh knows BS when he hears it. He may be going along now but

They all are party guys until they actually have to ink the deal.

Kavanaugh won’t want to be lumped in with the Clarence and Alito on the vote but that depends on how much money the Big Donors are offering. He’s a greedy little fucker.

[CCExile]

9. But DOES HE CARE?

(except about beer, of course).

[birdographer]

10. He's seeing a new expensive fridge

made specifically for storing beer at the exact temperature needed, and his being able to fill it weekly.

[usaf-vet]

4. AS LONG AS IT'S THEIR MONARCH. And yes I am yelling because I'm so sick of this evil trying to overtake our democracy!

Apologies!

[forgotmylogin]

11. The President is not an exception. "Governmental Immunity"

Sauer began by arguing that any ruling by the court denying immunity could open a "Pandora's box" where George Bush could be prosecuted by misleading the public about WMDs in Iraq, or Barack Obama could be prosecuted for murder for drone strikes, or Biden prosecuted for lack of border enforcement. A judge then asked Sauer if a president could sell military secrets to a foreign government, sell pardons, or order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political opponent, would he have immunity?

When I was in Social Studies class in high school, the Governmental Immunity example they gave us was a Sheriff could not pull over a lawmaker speeding to cast a vote that would ultimately lower the Sheriff's salary and then detain them for some bogus reason until the vote was over to prevent them from casting a vote. That would be obstructing the lawmaker in the course of doing their job for the people they represent. That lawmaker might still be personally responsible for a speeding ticket, but should be immune from being prevented from doing their job in a significant manner that someone like a crooked Sheriff could exploit.

On a higher level, yes: the President needs a certain amount of immunity because they may need to do things in service to the country that in a lower frame of reference are illegal - they might need to order a dangerous terrorist hunted down and assassinated. They're doing this in service to the country so they are not personally responsible for that person's murder and cannot be personally charged for doing it. They may need to keep mum or directly lie to the press about a top secret mission that isn't public yet. That's what immunity is for.

This immunity is not personal. If a senator hits and kills someone while DUI they don't get blanket immunity for that.

45's attempt to interfere with the transition of political office (both physically with the riot on J6, and procedurally leading up to it with the fake slates of electors he planned for Mike Pence to swap in that day) casts him as the crooked Sheriff trying to interfere with a government process, not as a lawmaker trying to do his job. Mike Pence refused to get in a car that day suspecting he might be detained and remained on the premises to do his job. That was the right thing. The Secret Service officer who shot Babbitt was doing so to protect people from harm officially as part of his job description, not shoot a "peaceful protestor" and thus is immune.

What Trump is doing boils down to stuffing the ballot box to change the outcome of an election. A thing he's accused hundreds of voters and officials of doing, but no instances have been found to be true except what he did. A candidate can legally challenge an election; they can't attempt to cheat the rules and then declare that since he's purportedly "in charge" that the rules don't apply. That's an example of a monarchy where an official is above the law, and our system of government is specifically designed to prevent a monarchy. A forcibly-attained monarchy against the will of the governed people is what's known as a dictatorship.

[dalton99a]

2. Kick

The court then asked Pearce to address the "Pandora's box" argument that any criminal prosecution of a president would be "inherently political." Pearce said that only applies if someone attempts to prosecute a sitting president, but not for a former president. Pearce then said there would be a greater political danger if immunity was granted in Trump's scenario, since any president in the future would believe that he could not be prosecuted if he used private individuals and the levers of power to subvert an election. This was probably the most effective part of his argument.

Pearce argued that under Trump's position, a president could order the US military to assassinate his political opponent, and as long as he resigned before he was impeached he could never be criminally prosecuted for it when leaving office because he has absolute immunity from prosecution unless he has been impeached first. He then asked the court "is that the world we want to live in?"

Pearce also argued that Sauer's position that the court could not consider Trump's motives or intent was nonsensical when reviewing whether his actions were taken as part of his official duties versus private conduct because the reason why he did something goes to the heart of whether he was doing it as part of his official duties or for himself.

[KatyaR]

5. we're never gonna get rid of him.

This is going to go on forever.

[Tansy_Gold]

6. I so often feel the same.

[Orrex]

8. Every day that he doesn't stroke out on live national tv is a day wasted

[Ray Bruns]

7. "Sauer repeatedly refused to answer that question directly, which frustrated the court"

Pissing off the judges is always a good legal strategy.