He claims the Constitution grants him “absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions performed within the ‘outer perimeter’ of his official responsibility” while he served as President of the United States, so long as he was not both impeached and convicted for those actions.

There is civil immunity for acts within the scope of responsibilities, but the facts alleged in the indictment were not within his responsibility because POTUS has nothing to do with certifying elections.

2/

It's rare to win by putting forward novel theories, but it can happen. For example, if the year is 1954, your name is Thurgood Marshall, and you argue that the existing law is wrong and racial segregation violates the equal protection clause, you win.

Chutkan summarizes Trump's statement of facts and then says, "Those generalized descriptions fail to properly portray the conduct with which he has been charged."

That's judicial snark for "you are distorting the evidence."

3/

Chutkan takes apart Trump's argument that because he was not convicted by the Senate for these crimes, he is immune from prosecution after leaving office.

She says serving as president is not a permanent "get out of jail free card." 🔥

The only ambiguity in the Constitution is whether a president can be criminally prosecuted while in office.

(Aside from me: As I read the impeachment clause, the answer is no. He's supposed to be impeached and removed first, which makes sense.)

4/

Here we go. The next thing Chutkan does is quote the impeachment clause and give a common sense reading. (Page 8 - 9)

Chutkan gives lots of reasons Trump's reading of the impeachment clause is absurd.

I have another: If you have to be impeached and removed to be eligible for criminal prosecution after leaving office, a person can go on a crime spree during his final days in office, before the impeachment-removal proceedings can be carried out.

5/

Some more judicial snark.

First, a caselaw quote: “Criminal conduct is not part of the necessary functions performed by public officials.”

Then this: "the requirement that the president “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” does not grant special latitude to violate them."

🔥 🔥

Next, she gives a good reason not to confer special immunity on the president . . .

6/

"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."

And a good bit of judicial snark included in this example of George Washington following a discussion about how no person is above the law (Screenshot)

At the time, the Constitution didn't limit presidents to 2 terms, but Washington voluntarily stepped aside and didn't run again.

Chutkan: Washington set the example. 🔥

7/

Here's the thing about this opinion: Defendants usually lose motions to dismiss because hurdles are so high, but this decision was particularly biting.

I think it's safe to say at this point that Trump knows (or is reasonably sure) he will be convicted of these charges in D.C.

The tone of this decision is completely professional but the message is clear: Nope. Sorry. You get no special consideration as a former president, thereby torpedoing what he thinks is his strongest defense.

8/