Presidential immunity hearing

No.  

The correct answer is: absolutely not.

And if it's yes, then I guess Biden has a job to do.

SCOTUS gave him the delay, now the lawyers can say whatever will keep him happy.  It doesn't have to be an actual effort to argue the case.  

Despicable. But good on Sotomayor, I guess, for making them say it.

I expect Justice Roberts will find other reasons to send the case back to Chutkan for further action before she can set the trial date.

Yes. None of this makes any sense at all.  It was only ever a delay tactic, and SCOTUS is complicit.

But Alito is making his loyalties clear.

Oh, my goodness.  That's a stretch the light from another universe couldn't match.

Reasonable guess.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 04/26/2024:

UPDATE 04/28/2024:

The immunity question

Jack Smith (through Michael Dreeben) has filed the government's response to Trump's ridiculous claim of immunity from prosecution.

 [...] 

“Rather than vindicating our constitutional framework, the defendant’s sweeping immunity claim threatens to license Presidents to commit crimes to remain in office,” Smith and his team wrote in an 82-page filing. “The Founders did not intend and would never have countenanced such a result.”

[...]

“Any burdens of post-Presidency criminal liability have minimal impact on the functions of an incumbent and are outweighed by the paramount public interest in upholding the rule of law through federal prosecution.”

[...]

Smith argues that while presidents deserve protection from civil lawsuits, there is no blanket immunity from criminal prosecution, particularly for a former president charged with making grave threats to the transfer of power. Even if presidents did enjoy immunity for their official duties, he argues, Trump’s actions would not qualify for such protection because he was acting well outside the bounds of his proper duties.

[...]

“No historical materials support [Trump’s] broad immunity claim, and the post-Presidency pardon that President Nixon accepted reflects the consensus view that a former President is subject to prosecution after leaving office.”

[...]

“Because the only remedies available in the impeachment proceedings were removal and disqualification, the defendant was never previously placed in jeopardy. But even if he were, the indictment charges different offenses than were at issue in his impeachment,” prosecutors wrote.

[...]

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court turned down a request from Smith to bypass the normal appeals process and take up the presidential immunity issue on an urgent basis. The justices did not explain their decision, but it does not preclude the question returning to the high court after the appeals court rules.

[...]

Another potential wrinkle in the case: Outside advocacy group American Oversight has urged the appeals court to essentially punt the appeal, contending that Trump — like most criminal defendants — had no right to an appeal until after a trial and jury conviction.

  Politico

UPDATE 12/31/2023:

Help!

Special counsel Robert Mueller III has recruited the Justice Department’s top criminal law expert [Deputy solicitor general Michael Dreeben] to help with his investigation of ties between the Trump presidential campaign and Russian officials.

[...]

The move signals that Mueller is seeking advice on the complexities that have arisen already in the investigations, including what constitutes obstruction of justice.

"Michael Dreeben is to criminal law what Robert Mueller is to investigations,” former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal said Thursday night. “Literally the very best. Yet another sign of how serious Mueller is about this matter." Now a partner at Hogan Lovells, Katyal has been a key figure in challenging President Donald Trump’s travel ban.

  National Law Journal

I am so devoid of hope for us at this point that my intial reaction to Mueller's appointment and to this one is that they're pumping up how great these guys are so that we'll accept their decision when they clear Trump of every charge against him.

In 2005, Dreeben argued and lost a case for the government involving obstruction-of-justice charges against the Arthur Andersen accounting firm in the wake of the Enron scandal.

And that doesn't help.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that when Dreeben approaches the lectern at the Supreme Court, "I know he will tell it straight."

Gee, thanks, Ruth. I wish I had your confidence.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.