Can you imagine addressing a court of law with: "you have no power over me."

("Oh yeah?" the justices will think. "Watch.")

His idea of "separation of powers" is wacky.

The branches serve as checks against each other so no one branch becomes too powerful.

Aside: It's hard to imagine the Supreme Court bothering to take this at all. I don't know why so many people think it is a given that they will.

The Colorado case is different. There are good reasons for them to hear that one.

2/

At least the brief is clearly written. The two issues are (1) absolute criminal immunity for official acts (2) double jeopardy applies.

The problem are obvious.

Problem with #1:

Absolute criminal immunity isn't a thing. It doesn't exist. Moreover, what he did was no way part of his "official" duties (among other things presidents have nothing to do with elections, particularly when they are a candidate.)

3/

Problem with #2:

Double jeopardy (from the 5th Amendment, I attached the text) says you cannot twice be put in jeopardy of criminal punishment.

The only jeopardy he faced in the Senate trial was whether he would be removed from office.

Moreover, the impeachment clause actually says that after being tried in the Senate you can be criminally charged. (I attached that as well.)

It's all right there in the Constitution.

4/

Perfect line, from @mmaniac90

What was going through my head was the line in Singing in the Rain when Lina Lamont says, "Do you think I'm dumb or something?" (and everyone is thinking, yeah, we do!)

Here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE3C8gGPMNI

Next, Trump spends a few pages mischarcterizing the evidence.

("Mischaracterizing the evidence" generally annoys justices. It's not a good idea to annoy the judge.)

5/

Apparently Trump found a quotation from Chief Marshall. He gives the quotation like this:

As Chief Justice Marshall wrote in Marbury v. Madison, the President’s official acts “can never be examinable by the courts.”

Me: "Really? Marshall said that?"

So I pulled up a copy of Marbury v. Madison and started doing word searches.

Of course Marshall didn't say that.

Here's the case. You can see for yourself:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/

6/

I said this earlier: I don't really understand the assumption that people are making that the Supreme Court will hear this case.

Unless there is something I'm missing, here is how I understand the law: Until the appellate court decides, the trial is put on hold.

After the appellate court decides, SCOTUS can hear it, but doesn't have to, and if they do hear it. there is nothing that says the trial goes on hold while they decide. (It can but unlike the appellate rule, it isn't required.)

7/

Adding the obvious: I don't believe the lawyers who filed this think they will win on the merits.

They are hoping for a delay in the trial.

The thing is that everyone knows what they are doing.

That's what makes me think it won't work.

This Supreme Court has passed up opportunities to help him. They could have helped him with the election fraud stuff, or the executive privilege stuff, but they didn't.

I see no reason they will now. They'd have to go along with a gimmick.

8/

Also, if he actually thought he had absolute immunity from criminal liability, would't he want to know that now?

If he did have absolute immunity, all the criminal cases against him would evaporate.

To say, "I have absolute criminal liability but I want you to decide that next year while I have to keep defending myself in these other cases while I run for office" makes no sense.

9/