Trump v. United States -- What I Heard In Listening To The Oral Argument.

The Shortcomings of the Work Done in the Trial Court -- and not Corrected In The Appellate Court --Were On Full Display In The Frustrations Expressed by the Justices.

They didn’t want to find themselves in this place. Chief Justice Roberts has made it a personal mission for two decades to lift the Court out of partisan fights over political perogatives and power-struggles. The last thing he wants is for the legacy of the “Roberts’ Court” to begin with having “selected” Presidents by virtue of its decisions.

But political actors in Washington and elsewhere — liberal progressive Democrat partisans — have decided that the most effective way to prevent Donald Trump from returning to the White House is to use the courts as a vehicle to derail or destroy any campaign for that to happen. To that end they have devised multiple “first of its kind” theories of criminal liability to pursue in multiple courts all with a single goal — to pin a felony conviction on Trump prior to the election in order to damage him as a candidate in the eyes of the “mushy middle” of the electorate.

They have found willingly complicit allies in those efforts in the federal and state judiciaries.

The end result is that in order to escape these novel theories of criminality being pressed against him on multiple fronts by partisan actors — some of whom campaigned on PROMISE to do exactly what they are doing — former President Trump has pushed a claim of “Presidential Immunity” as his own partisan response to the partisan lawfare being waged against him.

And SCOTUS finds itself in the exact spot that CJ Roberts has worked so hard to avoid.

Contrary to the caterwauling of the partisan Democrat actors pushing the idea that the Court is in the tank for Trump, recall that the Court turned back multiple efforts by Trump to slowdown or block the investigations by contesting steps taken in both Washington and New York to obtain records. Those happened before the charges were filed and the novel theories of criminal liability were laid out for analysis.

This article is more of a “30,000 Foot View” of what I heard as some key exchanges during the oral argument, and not an in-depth analysis. I will likely focus on 2 or 3 key areas in more depth in later articles prior to the opinion being issued. I have several such topics in mind. But if there is one that stands out to you, note it in the comments below.

A few observations in general: