https://apnews.com/live/trump-supreme-court-immunity-updates I listened to a good portion of this but was in and out of the hearing, so I'm waiting for the full transcript to be released. However, the Supreme Court just wrapped up oral arguments on Trump's presidential immunity appeal. This is effectively an appeal of Judge Chutkan's ruling. Based on the oral arguments, it seems clear that her order on this matter was a complete joke, and the government didn't even attempt to use her conclusion at the Supreme Court. If anyone thought Chutkan's order was worth the paper it was written on, sorry, but you're wrong. She claimed there's no such thing as presidential immunity for "any acts committed while in office." That was just her crazy speaking. Another interesting part of the arguments was when the government claimed there was a "good faith" prosecution in this case we heard some chuckles. They had a rough day at the office. The government's position is that there is immunity, which he kept calling "authority exceptions" for some absurd reason, for certain acts, and Trump's acts are not covered under immunity. There was also a lot of conversation about safeguards from state prosecutors using local authority to attack the presidency, as we have seen with Bragg and Fani. There was skepticism about allowing this unchecked and without defined boundaries for the state. At the end of the day, it looks like the result of this decision could be a 5-4 or 6-3 decision siding with Trump on immunity. However, Chutkan's conclusion that there is no immunity, even for official acts, seems to be effectively dead. Another outcome is the court may define the boundaries and then force Chutkan to hold hearings on the evidence to determine whether or not Trump's actions fall within those boundaries.
Similar assessment from ABC. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/live-updates/trump-immunity-supreme-court-arguments/?id=109581119
Another really interesting part of the questioning was when the government was defending Obama using drone strikes to kill Americans who were not on the battlefield and we're not an imminent threat. He was asked directly if Obama could be prosecuted for killing Americans. His response? No, because he says the system worked as intended. Obama's WH told him he was allowed to kill Americans who were not an active threat, but who they suspected were affiliated with bad people. So the WH deciding on its own that it can kill Americans is the check and balance. Assassinating Americans sleeping in their beds is what they called a "public authority exception." Any there any statute the identifies and defines a "public authority exception" to murder? Doesn't seem to be a thing. They made it up for the oral arguments against Trump. You can't make this up. Obama is immune from murder because his WH says so. We can't go back and second guess Obama's analysis because the checks and balances has already taken place. His administration decided for itself. So if Obama is immune from murder charges is Trump immune from charges for political speech? No, because Biden's administration can second guess Trump's actions and they have an election they want to win. This is the legal analysis on presidential immunity you have to agree with if you agree with the prosecution.
