Burpelson said:

---

Nixon getting Pardon really sticks out.

---

Interesting, he resigned before he was impeached and received a "pre-pardon" correct?

Just wanting to understand this in terms of this proceeding. This is great content - but I get lost in the back and forth.

Thanks to everyone posting notes.

That's correct. Ford pardoned Nixon for any crimes he may have committed. He hadn't been charged with anything at that point.

Barrett:

Sauer said remand was appropriate to determine what is official vs private, and you can't mention the official to the jury. thoughts on that?

Dreeben:

this is integrated conspiracy of private and official actions. So all the evidence needs to be shown to jury to put it all together even if the official acts are not criminal. and you instruct jury not to convict for the official acts, only look to see if they establish motive.

Im Gipper said:

---

Do you have a post-argument prediction?

---

not done yet!

CyclingAg82 said:

---

Burpelson said:

---

Nixon getting Pardon really sticks out.

---

Interesting, he resigned before he was impeached and received a "pre-pardon" correct?

Just wanting to understand this in terms of this proceeding. This is great content - but I get lost in the back and forth.

Thanks to everyone posting notes.

---

Just to be clear. Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974. Ford issued the pardon a month later, September 8, 1974.

Jackson:

Kavanaugh and Gorsuch suggest Blasingame as appropriate framework to use here also, but it seems Trump says "all" official acts get immunity no matter what. For purposes of this case, why can't we just answer the question "do all official acts get immunity?"

Dreeben:

you could do that. and that's the end of it, no need to fashion a test. Trump says immunity for all, we say no absolute immunity. I say no new test needed, use Youngstown to decide


jackson:

if we see question as broader, is this the right case to hammer out that answer? there is really no argument these allegations fall into the "core" actions of a president (which Dreeben essentially conceded), so why create a test?


Dreeben:

I agree, no need.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

f things have to go to court to determine official capacity, then the president can be drug to court for every action they take.

---

dreeben not arguing that. specifically says many things are not reviewable by congress or anyone.

---

…and who determines that something is non-reviewable?

I'm not trying to put words in dreeben's argument - I just don't see a logical conclusion other than a president being buried in a tsunami of legal challenges. Even if most are dismissed as non-reviewable - it would still sucks time and resources.

Drebeen done.

Sauer says no rebuttal needed.


argument done.

Dreeben went too far into the weeds making assertions of fact directly relating to the underlying allegations in the Jan 6th indictment. Despite being instructed by Alito and Gorsuch to keep the arguments in general not specific to this case.

It is clear to me that Dreeben is a TDS driven true believer that OMB. He still believes in the Russian hoax, apparently.

My prediction? narrow ruling 5-4, remanding back to trial court.

Post argument WAG:

Dreeben did a much better job than Sauer, but in fairness he had the much easier case.

if anyone thought the court was going to find absolute immunity exists for president for criminal actions, they are going to be very disappointed. at best alito may say that, though I don't think he will, and Thomas could join. Also unlikely.

I don't know if they will be couched as dissents or concurrences, but I expect 3-4 opinions to be authored.

the end result is going to be that most of what Trump is alleged to have done does not fall under the scope of any immunity that exists.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Post argument WAG:

Dreeben did a much better job than Sauer, but in fairness he had the much easier case.

if anyone thought the court was going to find absolute immunity exists for president for criminal actions, they are going to be very disappointed. at best alito may say that, though I don't think he will, and Thomas could join. Also unlikely.

I don't know if they will be couched as dissents or concurrences, but I expect 3-4 opinions to be authored.

the end result is going to be that most of what Trump is alleged to have done does not fall under the scope of any immunity that exists.

---

You really believe Trump incited an insurrection at the Capitol on Jan 6th?

Final answer WAG breakdown:

Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Kagan, Roberts, Barrett: no absolute immunity, but immunity does exist, create a test similar to that for civil by not exactly the same

Jackson & Sotomayor: concur in part, but say there no need to craft a test for future here, Trump lawyer conceded many of these acts are not official acts so no immunity.

Alito & Thomas: concur on no absolute immunity, but immunity does exist; it should be a "no plausible basis" test used which is harder to prove than the majority will rule





edited for clarity

BMX Bandit said:

---

Final answer WAG breakdown:

Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Kagan, Roberts, Barrett: immunity does exist, create a test similar to that for civil by not exactly the same

Jackson & Sotomayor: concur in part, but say there no need to craft a test for future here, Trump lawyer conceded many of these acts are not official acts so no immunity.

Alito & Thomas: concur on there not being absolute immunity, but say it should be a "no plausible basis" test used

---

Remand or not?

Quote:

---

Remand or not?

---

I think its most likely remanded. hard to think of a scenario where it won't be. they could decide now what is personal and what is not, but not their style really.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

You really believe Trump incited an insurrection at the Capitol on Jan 6th?

---

nothing i wrote remotely suggests I believe that.




and I don't think he did

---

Well then which specific acts from the indictment do you think fall outside official acts?

BMX Bandit said:

---

Final answer WAG breakdown:

Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Kagan, Roberts, Barrett: immunity does exist, create a test similar to that for civil by not exactly the same

Jackson & Sotomayor: concur in part, but say there no need to craft a test for future here, Trump lawyer conceded many of these acts are not official acts so no immunity.

Alito & Thomas: concur on there not being absolute immunity, but say it should be a "no plausible basis" test used

---

If I'm reading that right and you didn't have a typo....you actually think this will go 5-4 in Trumps favor with Alito and Thomas being on the dissent side? No way.

I think you are misreading it. my apologies if worded poorly.

my prediction is no one will say absolute immunity exists as Trump briefed. But I think his lawyers knew they were never getting that.
.
alito and thomas will want to fashion a test much more stringent than the other 5 I listed.


not necessarily a "dissent" as a said above. could be that they could also concur in part. Roberts is going to want to get no dissents if possible like in the colorado case. (see metadata that leaked)

BMX Bandit said:

---

I think you are misreading it. my apologies if worded poorly.

my prediction is no one will say absolute immunity exists as Trump briefed. But I think his lawyers knew they were never getting that.
.
alito and thomas will want to fashion a test much more stringent than the other 5 I listed.


not necessarily a "dissent" as a said above. could be that they could also concur in part. Roberts is going to want to get no dissents if possible like in the colorado case. (see metadata that leaked)

---

Gotcha. Not worded poorly, read it too quickly and overlooked you said those 5 would say immunity exists, not absolute immunity.

Quote:

---

my prediction is no one will say absolute immunity exists

---

That was always a non-starter for me as well as the impeachment and senate acquittal as double jeopardy. That was equally dumb.

Remove that absolute immunity argument and the justices likely don't go down the absurd hypothetical rabbit hole.

I also think Kagan realized she made a mistake in positing Trump ordering the military to perform a coup...on himself. If he's still CINC at the time, he's still POTUS.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Dreeben:

no, because that was civil case, not criminal case about acting as candidate or acting as president.

here is an example, Trump said "all I need you to do is find me 11,000 votes and change" that is clearly acting as office seeker, not president.

(not exactly what Trump said I don't think)

---

It isn't. Parlatore made that clear that the beginning of that conversation was about the numbers that were being reported to him as questionable votes/ballots being around a hundred thousand. Daunting task for Raffensperger to conduct that large of an investigation (assuming he was so inclined, since he was not) within the small amount of time left to do so.

Sensing his reluctance, that is when Trump said scaling it back to the margin of victory being in the 11,000 vote area not a hundred thousand. Trump also repeatedly asked for Raffensperger's numbers so they could compare them but he refused.

---

So Dreeben lied?

opinion from two that watch court far more closely and are more knowledgeable than i:

With the caveat that Justice Barrett is sometimes less predictable based on argument than her colleagues, this strikes me as most likely to be correct—especially that this likely comes down to Roberts, who was quite coy during today’s arguments. https://t.co/pjgK8dNb8F

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) April 25, 2024

Quote:

---

So Dreeben lied?

---

Today? Yes, several times, that is if one considers misstating facts as lying.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

So Dreeben lied?

---

Today? Yes, several times, that is if one considers misstating facts as lying.

---

Thanks for the response.

Just a reminder of what the four counts against Trump are in the DC indoctment.

Conspiracy to defraud the United States using dishonesty, fraud and deceit to impair, obstruct and defeat the lawful federal government function by which the results of the presidential election under 18 U.S.C. 371.

Conspiracy to corruptly obstruct and impede the January 6th Congressional action (certification proceeding) under 18 U.S.C. 1512.

Conspiracy against the right to vote and have one's vote counted under 18 U.S.C. 241.

And those "crimes" revolve around Trump's concerns about election fraud in 2020.

I went back to reread the indictment after today's oral arguments. In light of what happened today, it really is quite ridiculous that SCOTUS has to male an immunity ruling in general on the basis of the narrative within the indictment.

Indictment is HERE

I know everyone involved has to go through the motions of the details, but any reasonably honest person with common sense knows that this is all political gaming the system to destroy Trump . A waste of time and money !

oysterbayAG said:

---

I know everyone involved has to go through the motions of the details, but any reasonably honest person with common sense knows that this is all political gaming the system to destroy Trump . A waste of time and money !

---

Agree. If they really had anything concrete against him there would be zero need for such flowery and misleading language in a speaking indictment that presents their narrative instead of facts.

Thanks for the notes and comments!

Waiving rebuttal was weird!

...I am not sure why counsel would not want to get added time to answer these questions before the justices.

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) April 25, 2024

Im Gipper said:

---

Waiving rebuttal was weird!

...I am not sure why counsel would not want to get added time to answer these questions before the justices.

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) April 25, 2024

---

My .02 is that Sauer didn't want to get trapped with the absurd hypotheticals again.

This immunity issue is a very sticky wicket. Yes, a President must follow the "Law" in official acts, but Lawfare makes up the " Law " in the indictments ! I think the justices will try to craft something that will cool down and slow down the rush and make it complicated to go after a former President on creative nebulous interpretation of Federal Law.

It sticky for sure on official acts, but Team Trump conceded today lots of what's alleged is NOT official acts.

Im Gipper said:

---

It sticky for sure on official acts, but Team Trump conceded today lots of what's alleged is NOT official acts.

---

Nor are they crimes for that matter. Or if they were, the wrong statutes were cited.

Quote:

---

"Now, if an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off in a peaceful retirement but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?" Alito asked. "And we can look around the world and find countries where we have seen this process where the loser gets thrown in jail."

"So I think it's exactly the opposite, Justice Alito," Dreeben said. "There are lawful mechanisms to contest the results in an election and outside the record but I think of public knowledge, petitioner and his allies filed dozens of electoral challenges and my understanding is lost all but one that was not outcome determinative in any respect. There were judges that said in order to sustain substantial claims of fraud that would overturn an election results that's certified by a state, you need evidence, you need proof and none of those things were manifested. So there's an appropriate way to challenge things through the courts with evidence, if you lose, you accept the results, that has been the nation's experience."

"Thank you," Alito interjected.

---

He's misleading here. He claims the election lawsuits were dismissed after evidentiary hearings. That was very rarely the case. They were dismissed without any hearings on standing or laches most frequently. But he has to say that to support the indictment's claims that Trump committed fraud and was knowingly dishonest in claiming election irregularities.

ETA: Forgot the LINK