Trump’s lawyers warned that if a president can be prosecuted for actions taken while in office “such prosecutions will recur and become increasingly common, ushering in destructive cycles of recrimination,” adding that “Without immunity from criminal prosecution, the Presidency as we know it will cease to exist.”

If Presidents commit crimes in office, they should be held accountable. And if the Presidency ceases to exist because of the justice of accountability, then let the office perish in injustice.

Your honor you have to put my insurrection trial on hold as I am too busy planning my next insurrection

So if the president can’t do anything illegal, unless he’s been impeached and convicted for it…

Dark Brandon needs to send Trump to Gitmo and see how that changes the math.

If they want a delay, he shouldn’t be allowed to run until the trial is complete.

Edit: trial not trail

This is a dumb argument for anyone with sense, but it's probably the best one he could possibly make.

For whatever godforsaken reason, the minute you run for office, the courts lose their goddamn minds and act like, "Courts hate this one trick, but they can't stop you."

These justices seemed incredulous that since no state had needed to remove an insurrectionist in the past they were uncertain if a state could, as if we should expect insurrectionists running annually.

I’m not holding my breath.

The impeachment procedure is remediation as a means to remove someone from office based on bad behavior. The basis of high crimes and misdemeanors would imply it being criminal, and properly as I recall it Clinton was impeached for lying to Congress about a BJ which would fall under perjury. If Trump was charged every time he lied we would never have done anything else during his term...

None of that shields someone from actual criminal charges though. There was this thought that 'if the president does it then it's by default lawful' but if that actually stood as a precident all it takes is one unhinged person getting into office and the whole idea of having checks and balances is out the window. You couldn't sanction anyone for any behavior that the president had engaged in thereafter. In practice you have an emperor with the Congress being nothing more than a token body.

Fun fact: Precedent exists for presidential immunity. Nixon.

Nixon resigned after Watergate because of the obviously impending impeachment by Congress, and then was subsequently granted a pardon by Ford. It can be legally argued that if presidential (or candidate!) immunity existed in law, in any form, then there would have been no reason to resign or grant a pardon as Nixon could have simply stood beside it and blown raspberries. Therefore, it must not exist in law.

SCOTUS: Okily dokily!