While saying that this is an issue of first impression, the decision is constantly citing Supreme Court precedence and rulings. (The hope of course is that SCOTUS declines to hear the case or, if it does, declines to delay the trial.)

Screenshot #1: The court cites SCOTUS to debunk the "but he was the PRESIDENT" argument.

Screenshot #2: The idea here is: SCOTUS said a president is not immune from responding to a criminal subpoena why would he be immune from criminal indictment?

2/

As you might expect, courts really didn't like being told they had no authority to preside over the criminal trial of a fromer president. (Screenshot #1)

Criminal acts are not shielded by immunity and an indictment means a grand jury alleges that there were criminal acts, therefore, court have authority.

So simple, really.

Legislators have criminal or civil immunity for "what they say or do in legislative proceedings" but that criminal immunity is limited and doesn't apply here.

3/

The decision next spends some time on who has immunity for what.

Footnote #7 contains some mild judicial snark. Good lawyers don't quote dicta. (Being told by an appellate justice that you quoted dicta is almost as bad as being told you "misrepresented" the facts.) (Screenshot #1)

Next they analyze whether finding a president criminally liable under "functional policy considerations" and conclude that it is good policy. (Screenshot #2)

4/

And no, this won't "inhibit" presidents, except perhaps to inhibit them from breaking laws (my paraphrase of Screenshot #1)

In response to Trump's "this will open the floodgates to political persecutions" the Court points out the safeguards in place, grand juries, rules of evidence, etc.

Oh goodness. Screenshots 2 and 3 are 🔥

5/

(Am I up to 5? I can think, type, and read at the same time, but counting and spelling correctly are while thinking, reading, and typing is just too much 😂)

Now we get an emphasis on how serious the allegations are. (#1)

Oh, Yikes. See #2. Paraphrase: Nope you don't get to commit crimes, particularly the kind that let you neutralize the fundamental check on a president's power: The ability to be voted out of office.

Next they debunk Trump's silly argument about how the impeachment clause means that if he wasn't convicted, he can't be indicted later.

Finally they debunk Trump's Double Jeopardy argument: impeachment isn't a criminal proces.

6/

Apparently the Showhorses have kept their audiences in a state of constant panic because it took about a month for an appellate court to address an issue of first impression that SCOTUS will no doubt scrutinize.

Yes, democracy is backsliding. The cause is not how long it takes to write an appellate opinion. The meltdowns were pure theater.

7/

Answering a question here:

Dicta means something the court puts in the opinion that has no bearing on the decision. It's like a side comment.

It's basically an observation that wasn't necesssary for deciding the case.

Lawyers are supposed to be able to separate the rule and rationale from the dicta.

(As someone pointed out, sometimes it can be hard to tell. But I stand by my point: It's not good to be rebuked for that by an appellate court)

8/

I guess "dicta" sounds like a naughty word 😂