The Daily Fuckup

The day after Donald Trump’s Jan. 9 immunity hearing in Washington, the basic takeaway was straightforward: the three-judge panel did not sound eager to embrace his lawyers’ broad theory of presidential protection. The hearing centered on Trump’s claim that a former president cannot be prosecuted for conduct tied to official duties, even if prosecutors say that conduct was criminal. That argument is not just a legal side issue. It is one of the main ways Trump is trying to slow the federal election-interference case and keep its central questions from reaching a jury any time soon. ([cadc.uscourts.gov](https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/news/public-advisory-january-9-2024-oral-arguments-no-23-3228-united-states-america-v-donald-j-trump?utm_source=openai))

Questions from the bench suggested the judges were wrestling with the limits of the theory rather than treating it as a close call in Trump’s favor. Reporters covering the hearing said the panel appeared skeptical of the idea that simply labeling conduct “official” would put it beyond criminal prosecution, especially when the conduct at issue concerned Trump’s efforts to remain in power after losing the 2020 election. The court’s own notice shows the argument was heard on Tuesday, Jan. 9, 2024, in the D.C. Circuit. ([cadc.uscourts.gov](https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/news/public-advisory-january-9-2024-oral-arguments-no-23-3228-united-states-america-v-donald-j-trump?utm_source=openai))

That matters because Trump’s defense depends in part on delay. If his immunity claim had sailed through, it could have forced more appeals and potentially pushed the case farther down the calendar before trial. Instead, the oral argument looked like a rough day for a strategy built around making the case stall at the threshold. Prosecutors argue the conduct alleged in the indictment was part of an effort to cling to office, not normal presidential business, and that distinction is the legal fight at the center of the case. The judges’ questions did not decide that dispute, but they did suggest Trump’s team was not getting the broad reading of presidential power it wanted. ([apnews.com](https://apnews.com/article/26e6e525c040d0e546b37f2786bfd132?utm_source=openai))

The stakes go beyond one criminal case. A ruling that accepted Trump’s framing could have drawn a much wider boundary around executive power and made it harder to hold future presidents to the criminal code for acts they say were official. The hearing suggested the panel was aware of that larger consequence and was not eager to announce a doctrine that would make alleged crimes easier to rebrand as protected presidential conduct. The argument is still just an argument until the court rules. But based on the questions asked on Jan. 9, Trump’s immunity theory left the courtroom looking more exposed than secure. ([cadc.uscourts.gov](https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/news/public-advisory-january-9-2024-oral-arguments-no-23-3228-united-states-america-v-donald-j-trump?utm_source=openai))