Trump immunity arguments at SCOTUS start in 20 minutes. They should have started on December 22, but the Republican justices want to make sure Trump can be president again, so they start in 20 minutes.

Ultimately, I do not think they'll give Trump blanket immunity for all crimes. But the thing I'm listening for is 'remand.' I'm listening for Thomas, Alito, and Roberts to say that Trump may have *some* immunity Judge Chutkan didn't fully consider. And send the case back to her.

Remand would be the ultimate delaying tactic here. Because then Chutkan will have to make *another* ruling. And that ruling will be appealed, first to DC and then to SCOTUS, which will only hear the case next term, *after* the election, if Trump loses.

Remand is the play if the Republican justices fear they haven't already delayed this trial enough to get Trump through the election.
If they think they have, if they think there's no real chance Jack Smith can bring the trial before then... they'll rule against immunity, 7-2.

John Roberts starts out with questions for Trump's lawyer, D. John Sauer. Roberts doesn't often use his prerogative to go first, deferring to Thomas who is more senior.
So... this is all a good sign that Roberts is not buying the core Trumpian argument.

I'm assuming Sauer is sick/recovering from having his vocal chords flayed by Ramsay Bolton. His vocal quality is going to be rough to listen to, but not as rough as the stupid words coming out of his mouth.

The opening round of questions is about the 'official acts' question. Trump is arguing that [trying to steal the election] is an 'official act' that the President is immune from prosecution. Roberts is saying that the trial is *about* whether the act is official.