I’m not sure which is the best word to describe how the absolute immunity argument went for Team Trump. It’s a toss-up between disaster and catastrophe. It’s time for the MSM to stop treating these childishly inept arguments as serious. And it’s time for everyone to understand that Trump’s legal defense is a shit show run by clowns. The head clown is pictured above.

I had a hard time listening to the argument live. Trump’s lawyer D. John Sauer sounds like he swallowed a twenty pound bag of gravel. Voices matter in the courtroom, Sauer sounds like Froggy from the Our Gang comedies or someone with a three-pack a day addiction to unfiltered Camels.

I circled back to listen to the argument after it was over. Via the magic of the YouTube, you can too:

The argument lasted for a grand total of 76 minutes because Sauer ran out of things to say. You would have thought someone named D. John would have more mustard on his legal fastball. Instead, he croaked ineffectually as the judges grilled him. The MSM headlines called the judges skeptical, scathing is more like it.

As much as I hate to be fair to any Trump lawyer, it’s hard to argue a case in which your arguments are so pitiful. The client is in charge of this case. The client is a delusional lunatic whose only goal is delay, delay, delay.

Repeat after me: The Trump legal defense is a shitshow run by clowns.

The so-called double jeopardy argument is one of the stupidest things ever presented in a courtroom. According to Team Trump, a president can only be charged for crimes committed in office if he’s impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate, which has never happened. That means a crooked Oval One could resign in order to avoid prosecution. If that’s so, why did Tricky Dick accept a pardon from Jerry Ford? It’s because he was already an unindicted co-conspirator and could have faced charges without the pardon, that’s why.

The highlight of the argument was this exchange:

“Judge Florence Pan, a Biden appointee, homed in on Trump’s claim that the Senate’s failure to convict him at his February 2021 impeachment trial precluded any prosecution over Jan. 6. 

If Trump agrees that former presidents can be prosecuted if they are convicted in an impeachment trial, she asked, doesn’t that reduce the argument to a simple question of how to interpret the Constitution’s impeachment judgment clause? 

Sauer refused to fully entertain Pan’s line of argument, saying that he saw it as a “narrow exception” to the otherwise absolute immunity for presidents. 

“Given that you’re conceding that presidents can be prosecuted under certain circumstances, doesn’t that narrow the issues before us to can a president be prosecuted without first being impeached and convicted?” Pan reiterated. 

Pan pounced with attention-catching hypotheticals to express the near-limitless boundaries of Sauer’s argument. 

She started (relatively) small. 

“Could a president sell pardons or sell military secrets?” she asked. “Such a president would not be subject to criminal prosecution?” 

She then built to her crescendo. 

“Could a president order SEAL team six to assassinate a political rival?” she asked. 

Sauer maintained that the president would have to be impeached and convicted by Congress.  

“If he weren’t, there would be no criminal prosecution?” Pan asked incredulously. “No criminal liability for that?”

This argument is absurd, bonkers, nuts, and bananas. It’s so ridiculous that Judge Pan should have offered Sauer a banana to console him over his embarrassment. He would have, of course, slipped on the peel and done an enormous pratfall. The whole argument was slapstick comedy at its stupidest.

Most appellate arguments are won by the briefs, not oral arguments. Team Trump brief is just as preposterous as Sauer’s raspy oral argument. Their case is so weak that the delay they’re seeking might not happen. It’s a stone cold LOSER.

I now believe there’s a decent chance that this case won’t reach SCOTUS. When they declined to take cert, there were no dissents. Sounds like a signal that four Justices don’t think Trump’s claims are meritorious. which means they may send it back to Judge Chutkan for trial. That’s what they should do.

I just violated my pledge not to make any predictions. This argument is so weak, that if I’m wrong and SCOTUS takes the case, Team Trump will lose decisively. Even Justices Thomas and Alito might have a hard time swallowing the sweeping claims made by Sauer. I doubt that Chief Justice Roberts wants this steaming pile of shit to land on his docket. Stay tuned.

Repeat after me: The Trump legal defense is a shitshow run by clowns.

Here’s hoping the judges make quick work of these fakakta arguments. It’s time to uphold the rule of law and place Defendant Trump in the dock where he belongs.

The last word goes to The Temptations:

4/25/2024 UPDATE: I covered this morning’s hearing. It was Absolutely Bonkers.