Rick Hasen’s Live Blog of the Supreme Court’s Oral Argument Over Trump’s Claim of Immunity in the Federal Election Subversion Case (Refresh this page frequently for updates) electionlawblog.org?p=142644
Sauer's argument for Trump is breathtaking in allowing the President to murder or commit a coup so long as it is wrapped in the trappings of a President's official acts.
This argument still has a ways to go. But it is easy to see the Court (1) siding against Trump on the merits but (2) in a way that requires further proceedings that easily push this case past the election (to a point where Trump could end this prosecution if elected).
Dreeben stresses that what Trump was charged with, trying to subvert the election, is not part of any official acts. Alito wants to avoid the facts of this case (for good reason!).
Alito tries to turn things on their head, by saying that to encourage peaceful transitions of power, you need to give incumbents absolute immunity so they will leave and won't worry about prosecution later. This is the most insane thing I've heard today (and there have been many crazy things).
So access to abortion isn't explicitly in the Constitution, therefore SCOTUS can't do anything to protect it. But executive privilege isn't explicitly in the Constitution, and SCOTUS is willing to entertain the notion the Founding Fathers--notoriously friendly to kings--simply overlooked it.
The problem with the 'official act' argument is that the J6ers weren't government employees. The National Guard were government forces but weren't called. Rudy did not work for the DoJ but official council told Trump he lost and to STFU. There was nothing 'official' about it.
I mean, how many US presidents used those trappings to avoid responsibility for allowing murders and coups in other countries? Or murders and usurpation of Mexican and Indigenous territory, for that matter?
Not defending Trump, he’s a monster. But he’s also an inevitable outcome of American history
