CNN: ‘Devastating’: George Conway Reacts To Donald Trump Team’s Day in Court'

Source:CNN- The Source With Kaitlan Collins & George Conway. Perhaps you are up to telling for yourself who is who.

"Conservative lawyer George Conway tells CNN’s Kaitlan Collins how he thinks former President Donald Trump’s hearing in a circuit court of appeals went. CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams and Former Nixon White House counsel John Dean join to discuss." 

From CNN

"GEORGE CONWAY, CONSERVATIVE LAWYER: Well, the short answer is what they were doing there, was taking a bad argument, their immunity argument, and conflating it with another bad argument, which is something based upon the impeachment judgment clause, and mixing them all together, in the hope of getting a stronger argument.

And what happened was the Trump attorney, Sauer, set a trap for himself that Judge Pan just completely, completely closed off. And she was -- it was an intellectual tour de force by Judge Pan. Not only did she highlight the extreme nature of their position that a president might not be prosecutable, for assassinating political rivals, she did something else.

His exception -- his attempt to explain well, you could hold the president liable, was based upon that impeachment judgment clause, and misreading it by saying that if -- you can prosecute a former President, if they were convicted by the Senate.

Well, the problem was that completely is inconsistent with their main position, which is the President is absolutely immune. And let me elaborate just a little more on that.

Their position that the President is absolutely immune from being prosecuted for official acts, it stems from the notion that -- which he repeated, Sauer repeated, over and over again, that we must be -- we have -- we have to be afraid that there'll be political prosecutions.

And then, he's taking this other position, which again, is nonsense by itself, but trying to mix it in by saying, but you could prosecute him, if the Congress, which happens to be the most political body, in the United -- in the Capitol, says you can.

So, what he's saying on one hand, he's saying we can't have presidents prosecuted, because apart -- because it could be political. And then, he's saying that the political Congress gets to decide. It made absolutely no sense. And I was there, in the courtroom. And it was just, it was devastating." 

From CNN

From what I said yesterday about this case: 

"I think pretty much everyone whose not in the MAGA movement in America, (which is about 70% of the country) has predicted that Donald Trump would not lose his presidential immunity claim at the appeals court. 

I think the only question here is how big of a loss would it be. Would it be 2-1, with perhaps Judge Karen Henderson voting no and expressing a strong dissent to the decision. Would she vote no, but without giving an official dissent to the decision. Or would it be a strong 3-0 decision against the former President, with a strong, unified opinion against the former President's immunity claim, giving the Supreme Court some cover here and raising the possibility that they wouldn't even take Donald Trump's appeal here, because no new ground had been raised here and they know he would definitely lose. But perhaps the Trump's Justices don't want to make that official decision against him.

Based on Judge Henderson's questioning of Donald Trump's lawyer John Sauer, I think we're looking at a strong 3-0 decision against the former President (not former King) and they'll have a strong, unified opinion against the former President's presidential immunity claim. But as I keep saying, I'm not a lawyer.

Just to correct the record on something that John Sauer said: his client Donald J. Trump, is not being prosecuted for official acts that he did when he was President. He's being prosecuted for criminal acts that Special Counsel Jack Smith believed he committed when he was President. As well as criminal acts that Jack Smith believes he committed since leaving the presidency." 

From The New Democrat

From what my colleague Kire Schneider said yesterday about this case: 

"Michael Popok: "The Judge's aren't buying the impeachment argument (Donald Trump's double jeopardy claim) and are troubled whether they even have jurisdiction as far as if they can't even rule on this yet. I'll just wrap it up this way, Ben. They are going to as we think, they are going to rule against Donald Trump. I think it will be 3-0. I don't think it will go back to Judge Chutkan for anything. And I think the loser will have to take an emergency writ up to the Supreme Court." 

Ben Meiselas thinks that the Washington appeals court will rule against Donald Trump on jurisdiction grounds. Meaning that the appeals court doesn't think they should be ruling on this case, until Donald Trump is convicted.

Ben Meiselas then goes on to talk about President Richard Nixon in 1974, who resigned the presidency before he could get impeached and convicted by Congress. Well, that goes to one of Donald Trump's arguments having to do with double jeopardy, since the former President was impeached, but then acquitted by Congress back in 2021. 

But then Meiselas also mentions that President Gerald Ford pardoned President Nixon after Nixon was already out of office, in September of 1974. But if any President has presidential immunity from prosecution while as President, why wold any President ever have to be pardoned for anything at all? 

I think this is very simple. Donald Trump and his lawyers don't have any constitutional or legal case, for why their client should be immune for anything while as President, or as a former President. They might as well just argue that Donald Trump is immune from civil litigation or prosecution, simply because he's Donald Trump. Because that's the quality (if you want to call it that) of their arguments right now." 

From The New Democrat

Just to go back to what George Conway said: "GEORGE CONWAY, CONSERVATIVE LAWYER: Well, the short answer is what they were doing there, was taking a bad argument, their immunity argument, and conflating it with another bad argument, which is something based upon the impeachment judgment clause, and mixing them all together, in the hope of getting a stronger argument.

And what happened was the Trump attorney, Sauer, set a trap for himself that Judge Pan just completely, completely closed off. And she was -- it was an intellectual tour de force by Judge Pan. Not only did she highlight the extreme nature of their position that a president might not be prosecutable, for assassinating political rivals, she did something else." 

To put this very simply: Donald Trump's legal team doesn't have a case. Yesterday in court, Donald Trump's lawyers were trying to swim up stream, with just one arm and a leg. And that arm and leg was probably broken, just like their arguments and whatever case that they tried to argue in court yesterday. 

Donald Trump is an American citizen just like everyone else. And like with everyone else, when there's strong evidence that just didn't break the law, but broke multiple laws, but just didn't break multiple laws, but committed multiple felonies, even while as President of the United States, under Federal law and according to the U.S. Constitution as it relates to the rule of law and equal justice under law, you are supposed to be prosecuted. 

If Donald Trump actually thinks that he's innocent, or he knows he is guilty, but he thinks he can beat the case anyway, (perhaps simply because he's Donald J. Trump) he gets prosecuted and has his day in court. And of course he can always plead guilty, or cooperate with the prosecutors to get a lighter sentence. But you don't walk away from all of this simply because you were President of the United States, or your crimes were committed while you were President of the United States. Because that would be inconsistent with our system of rule of law, equal justice under law, and checks and balances. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.