This week on The Imperial Presidency: break the law for me and I'll pardon you

[LittleFuzzy]

Key words being civil court and actions as President?

Wrt a claim of that particular kind of immunity, yes. That does not address immunity or privilege arising elsewhere, though.

I think the confusion is because Trump had legal problems during the campaign (before being president)...but his legal team treats everything as absolute immunity or EP, including impeachment.

Well, they're going to make a bunch of claims both true and untrue. Inventing crap out of thin air is practically a signature of the Trump Presidency.

I was wondering about that. It makes sense for Kupperman to ask the courts for guidance (no one wants to be forced into that pickle). I'm not sure why the judge gave a December court date, unless it's a huge punt like you said.

Could be. Could also just be when there was room on the docket after providing adequate time for parties to prepare their case. One reason dodges like that work for plaintiffs is how judges here are always swamped with work and how much preparation legal arguments and deliberation require

[GGT]

Well, they're going to make a bunch of claims both true and untrue. Inventing crap out of thin air is practically a signature of the Trump Presidency.

Should we be concerned that "crap" has been normalized and adopted by some in the legal field? Seriously, wtf is happening when Trump's lawyers tell a judge (in a tax case) that he could literally shoot someone on 5th Ave. and not be indicted?

[LittleFuzzy]

Should we be concerned that "crap" has been normalized and adopted by some in the legal field? Seriously, wtf is happening when Trump's lawyers tell a judge (in a tax case) that he could literally shoot someone on 5th Ave. and not be indicted?

Yes and no. It's specious and wastes time and that is a cause for concern because it is one (albeit just one of many) reasons behind the already-mentioned backlog of work swamping the judicial bench. Beyond that it's not terribly relevant nor a cause for concern. It's not the lawyers' job to thresh the wheat from the chaff, it's their job to advocate for their client. Doing that well may in fact require throwing up a bunch of crap. Throwing out the crap is the job of the judge (aided somewhat by opposing counsel)

[GGT]

I'm concerned that lawyers are "advocating" for their client with specious arguments that turn into political "narratives", which turns everything upside down: Witch hunt, Hoax, Fake News, Deep State, Impeachment Sham, etc.

Trump is also restructuring the judiciary with 'conservatives' who seem to believe in presidential supremacy, while dismantling the institutional trust that's crucial for our republic. In the big picture, this is scary stuff for laypeople (like me), but it's good to know people like you (who are well versed on the law) aren't so worried. I'll hang onto that while holding my breath.