Trump’s ‘license to kill or coup’ hits SCOTUS - our full breakdown:

youtu.be/DSk5cK63lbU?si…

This was a truly bonkers Supreme Court argument.

About half the court seemed like it was in denial that the U.S. just went through an insurrection, at times.

That question is simply whether a former President of the United States may be prosecuted for attempting to remain in power notwithstanding the election of his successor by the American People.

The D.A. is putting on this testimony that Trump balked at paying The Enquirer in the catch and kill plot, but the defense may use that to argue Trump didn't ultimately support/fund the McDougal plot.

This was a truly bonkers Supreme Court argument.

About half the court seemed like it was in denial that the U.S. just went through an insurrection, at times.

Kavanaugh echoes Gorsuch saying they care only about a rule they make for posterity-not how it impacts this defendant (Trump)

Does the public believe these proclamations, that there's more concern about some hypothetical future defendant, than the actual, real one before them?

'We're writing a rule for the ages.'

- Gorsuch

You can almost hear how sometimes, Justices seem excited by taking big cases, which may be part of why they take so many more big cases than legally needed (this appeal lost twice and has no circuit split etc)

These are some of the most extreme, authoritarian arguments presented to the Supreme Court in the modern era.

The lawyer for a former President literally defending a documented plot to overthrow an election as 'legal' - and a hypothetical *military coup.* All out in the open.

DOJ lawyer has key rebuttal:

Conservative justices asked 'won't good officials resist any unlawful orders?'...

he notes Trump threatened to fire DOJ officials who did *exactly that,* trying to find people who would carry out allegedly illegal orders.

TODAY: Listen to our LIVE coverage of the SCOTUS Immunity Arguments, beginning at 10am ET.

youtube.com/watch?v=VdDNCD…

Chief Justice Roberts says he's skeptical of core point in DC ruling against Trump.

DOJ's lawyer attacks Trump team's proposal that Congress must act before a former POTUS is indicted-- which would make indictments basically political, and fail to combat a coup, if a party in Congress backs one.