[U] Finally Got Around To Reading The Dec. 1 DC Opinion That (Unsurprisingly) Holds Tangerine Doesn't Hold An Absolute Immunity Card.

Updated @ 9:40 PM EST: Tangerine is trying to delay his trial (again!) on these felonies, by taking an immediate appeal of the below ruling -- he says nothing else can be decided until he reaches the Supremes on immunity. Balderdash.

The able Judge Chutkan has set a very short fuse tonight, on his appeal, thus:

. . .MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP

Upon consideration of Defendant's [178] Motion for Order Regarding Automatic Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal, it is hereby ORDERED that the government shall file any opposition to Defendant's Motion by 5:00 p.m. on Sunday, December 10, 2023, and that Defendant shall file any Reply by 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 12, 2023. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 12/7/2023. . . .

End update.

USDC Judge Chutkan has written a very fine opinion here, in 48 pages.

It is spare in its prose -- and elegantly courtly. . . harkening back to an era when federal judicial opinions were scathingly lethal. . . largely as a result of the civility and aplomb with which they eviscerated felonious actors.

So too, here. Trump has been. . . filleted, quite nicely. He will lose on his specious mid-process appeals, as well. This is solid black letter law. . . devastatingly delivered largely because of how free from any hint of exaggeration it is. [In this regard, you may want to directly compare and contrast the below -- with any USDC opinion we've discussed out of Texas, in the last two years.] Here is the whole PDF -- and a bit, for spice and flavor of it:

. . .Those concerns do not carry the same weight in the context of a former President’s federal criminal prosecution. First, the Supreme Court has largely rejected similar claims of a “chilling effect” from the possibility of future criminal proceedings. During the Watergate prosecution, President Nixon argued that if recordings of his conversations were subject to criminal subpoena, the Presidential decision-making process would be compromised because his staff would be less candid. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 705–06. The Court disagreed, stating that it “cannot conclude that advisers will be moved to temper the candor of their remarks by the infrequent occasions of disclosure because of the possibility that such conversations will be called for in the context of a criminal prosecution.” Id. at 712. . . .

Indeed, the possibility of future criminal liability might encourage the kind of sober reflection that would reinforce rather than defeat important constitutional values. If the specter of subsequent prosecution encourages a sitting President to reconsider before deciding to act with criminal intent, that is a benefit, not a defect. “Where an official could be expected to know that certain conduct would violate statutory or constitutional rights, he should be made to hesitate.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 819 (1982). Consequently, to the extent that there are any cognizable “chilling effects” on Presidential decision-making from the prospect of criminal liability, they raise far lesser concerns than those discussed in the civil context of Fitzgerald. Every President will face difficult decisions; whether to intentionally commit a federal crime should not be one of them. . . .

Yup. He's soon to be. . . a convicted felon -- in at least two separate jurisdictions, around the east coast. Off now, grinning -- to go see that adorable 3-1/2 year old baby girl -- in her first real Holiday Pageant! Woot!

नमस्ते