Abbreviated Pundit Roundup: The argument for sweeping presidential immunity hits rough seas

[Brexiter]

Greg Sargent/The New Republic:

How Trump’s Unhinged Immunity Demand Could Unleash a Second-Term Crime Spree

If the courts decide that insurrection merits immunity, and Trump wins back the presidency, what might he feel emboldened to do in term two?

This has been widely depicted as a Hail Mary effort to scuttle special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump for conspiracy to obstruct the official proceeding of Congress’s count of presidential electors—otherwise known for nearly 250 years in this country as the peaceful transfer of power.


But there’s another way to understand Trump’s move: It’s about what comes next. If he wins on this front, he’d be largely unshackled in a second presidential term, free to pursue all manner of corrupt designs with little fear of legal consequences after leaving office again.


That Trump might attempt such moves is not idle speculation. He’s telling us so himself. He is openly threatening a range of second-term actions—such as prosecuting political enemies with zero basis in evidence—that would almost certainly strain the boundaries of the law in ugly new ways.

2024 is the "better angels" election. And it's pass-fail.

— Jill Lawrence (@JillDLawrence) January 9, 2024

Let’s hear from some law professors on this, starting with Randall Eliason/Sidebars:

D.C. Circuit Skeptical of Trump's Immunity Claims

Judges highlight the extreme consequences of Trump's argument

Early in Sauer’s argument, Judge Pan hit him with a great series of questions that highlighted the extreme consequences of his position. Trump is arguing that the impeachment judgment clause in the Constitution means that a former president may only be criminally prosecuted if he or she was impeached and convicted for the same or similar conduct.

The impeachment judgment clause provides:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Trump’s argument is that because this clause refers only to the “party convicted” at impeachment being subject to later prosecution, that means, by negative implication, that a party who is not convicted after impeachment cannot be prosecuted.

If you're just tuning in, the Trump argument today in federal court is that a President can order the murder of opponents and political rivals - but cannot be prosecuted for those crimes - unless Congress first impeaches and convicts for that conduct.

— Jamie Dupree (@jamiedupree) January 9, 2024

Lee Kovarsky/X via Threadreader:

ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS ON TODAY’S DC CIRCUIT (CADC) ARGUMENTS ON PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY (PI) (LAYPERSON FRIENDLY).

Today, CADC heard oral arguments on whether DJT has PI for 1/6, in specific reference to Jack Smith’s prosecution in DC. Trump almost certainly lost 3-0.

The judges were Henderson (R-appointed), Childs (Biden), and Pan (Biden).

CBS News' latest poll asked Americans whether they think that "Donald Trump should have immunity from criminal prosecution for actions he took while he was president pic.twitter.com/Gn1Cokk4X3

— Maggie Jordan 91 criminal charges, 4 jurisdictions (@MaggieJordanACN) January 9, 2024

Jonathan V Last/The Bulwark:

This Might Be the High-Water Mark of Trumpism

An argument for why Trump’s numbers can’t get much better and Biden’s numbers are likely to improve.

[Mark] Halperin then says that Biden’s three big problems are:

1. 
   That he’s playing from behind as an incumbent, which sets a media narrative against him.
   
   
2. 
   That Republicans have quickly and decisively rallied to Trump.
   
   
3. 
   That parts of the Obama coalition—black, Hispanic, and young voters—have not (yet?) rallied to Biden.
   

I slightly disagree with Halperin on the importance of #1 and what he calls the Dominant Media. My own view is that journalists tend to overdetermine the influence of the media in electoral politics.

But however much weight you want to give this factor, Halperin is directionally correct: Because Biden is trailing Trump, the media slant is always something like, “Unemployment is 3.9%; Here’s Why That’s Bad for Biden.”

And the only way that’s going to flip is if Biden moves ahead in the polling.

As for #2 and #3, those are vectors along which Biden can reasonably hope to improve and Trump probably cannot.

For instance: I would posit to you that, over the next month, we will be approaching the high-water mark for Trump’s poll numbers.

I’ve now spoken to three folks at this Haley event - most decidedly supporting her - who voted for Trump both times but are now looking for new leadership. I asked what their turning point was. For all of them, it was Election denialism and January 6th.

— Ali Vitali (@alivitali) January 9, 2024

Brian Beutler/Off Message:

We Can't Afford Weak-Kneed Liberalism In The Trump Era Sincere objections to disqualifying Trump from the ballot are reasoned backward from misplaced fear

The glaring weakness here is that Republicans are real adults, making decisions for themselves, with a mix of real and fake information, and the fact that their leader engaged in insurrection and might thus be disqualified from office was not hidden from them at any point. They called it an insurrection. They acknowledged Trump’s culpability. Then they decided to reanoint him as their leader. This strikes me as Their Problem, not Our Problem.

Marc Jacob/”Stop The Presses” on Substack:

Media play dumb and amplify Jan. 6 lies

When journalists sidestep the truth, MAGA disinformation wins

On Thursday, the Associated Press wrote this both-sides headline: “One attack, two interpretations: Biden and Trump both make the Jan. 6 riot a political rallying cry.”

On Sunday, USA Today chimed in with this outrageous lead: “For Donald Trump, Jan. 6, 2021, was ‘a beautiful day.’ For Joe Biden, it was the day ‘we nearly lost America.’” And then USA Today proceeded with a story that acted as if it didn’t know which view was more valid.

In between those two examples of performative ignorance, the New York Times weighed in with its own “dueling realities” spin:

These news outlets know who’s telling the truth and who’s lying. But they’re afraid to tell the public directly. In the Times’ case, its headline got roasted on social media (including by me), and was later rewritten:

Here are your dueling New Hampshire polls:

Where they generally agree: DeSantis is in single digits. The CNN poll actually DeSantis him at 5% -- behind Ramaswamy.

— Aaron Blake (@AaronBlake) January 9, 2024

Ron Desantis is tanking in the polls. But, of course, the only polls that matter are on Election Day. Losers always say that before they lose.