That comes with the territory when you’re talking about a narcissist. I couple of years ago I listened to the podcast called “Dr. Death,” about a spinal surgeon who killed and maimed lots of people. He didn’t do it intentionally, he was simply a narcissist and couldn’t wrap his brain around the fact that he could have done a poor job of surgery.
Listening to that, I realized it’s just like Trump - his mind cannot comprehend that he could fail.
No relation. 
Sounds rather similar to a newer doc called Bad Surgeon.
ETA, went to go grab a link to the show and found out this doctor is the focus of Dr Death, Season 2.
123023-jack-smith-immunity-brief.pdf (documentcloud.org)
above is the brief for the immunity argument next tuesday. a really good read. sites, geo washington, and donald trump!
PSA: The .pdf is 82 pages (including front matter).
In case that influences your assessment of whether you have time to start reading it.
And they have the nerve to call it a brief.
Scoundrels.
an interesting bit from pages 28 and 29. team trump is going with the “he was just talking, first amendment free speech” argument. the following is team u s response to that argument.
The implications of the defendant’s broad immunity theory are
sobering. In his view, a court should treat a President’s criminal conduct
as immune from prosecution as long as it takes the form of
correspondence with a state official about a matter in which there is a
federal interest, a meeting with a member of the Executive Branch, or a
statement on a matter of public concern. That approach would grant
immunity from criminal prosecution to a President who accepts a bribe
in exchange for directing a lucrative government contract to the payer; a
President who instructs the FBI Director to plant incriminating evidence
USCA Case #23-3228 Document #2033810 Filed: 12/30/2023 Page 42 of 82
29
on a political enemy; a President who orders the National Guard to
murder his most prominent critics; or a President who sells nuclear
secrets to a foreign adversary, because in each of these scenarios, the
President could assert that he was simply executing the laws; or
communicating with the Department of Justice; or discharging his
powers as Commander-in-Chief; or engaging in foreign diplomacy.
Under the defendant’s framework, the Nation would have no recourse to
deter a President from inciting his supporters during a State of the Union
address to kill opposing lawmakers—thereby hamstringing any
impeachment proceeding—to ensure that he remains in office unlawfully.
“Listen, we’ll deal with those crimes once he commits them. Let’s focus, people, or we’ll never get through this.” /Trump counsel
I’d imagine Trump reading this and highlighting it for future reference with the addition of a black sharpy note of “Things to do!”, except for the fact that I can’t imagine him actually reading this.
I don’t take Raw Story too seriously in their continual gleeful prediction/celebration of Trump’s demise, but could their be any remote possibility that this is true? That the SC’s refusal to grant Jack Smith’s motion to expedite might be because they don’t intend to grant cert at all when the upcoming appeals court ruling that will likely deny him immunity is inevitably appealed to them?
I don’t know if they’ll refuse Trump’s inevitable appeal, but I don’t believe they’re going to say the president is immune as he isn’t the God Emperor of Dune free to do whatever he wants with impunity. We’ve got a system built on checks and balances.
I swear that Trump’s making the same argument to the SCOTUS over and over. At this point they might as well just say, “For the last time no.”
I don’t think anyone believes they will rule that way, but failure to grant the motion to expedite was seen as Trump probably succeeding in his bid to delay the DC trial past the election. If they don’t grant cert then I think the trial might be back on schedule.
I believe they do not usually state reasons if they deny cert? If they do want rid of Trump, maybe this move gives them more political cover than punting or ruling against him on the Colorado ballot issue?
Probably just wishful thinking.
I actually heard a pretty intelligent argument that has recently been advanced (and which the Appellate court specifically wants addressed):
Typically, in a criminal trial, the defendant’s appeals are made after the case is over, presuming they are found guilty (*Ross from Friends voice “In prison!” /*RfFv).
So, sure, donald can appeal a guilty verdict on the basis that he was immune from prosecution. But, like any other defendant, that issue isn’t ripe for appeal.
Like his performance with porn stars, it’s premature.
(My emphasis)
My Bet is that The Supremes rule that trump is NOT immune, but does get on the ballot.
That’s the way I’m leaning as well. Split decisions that get them out of the limelight on this issue. For now.
I don’t think anyone doubts this. The issue is the delay to the trial, which is Trump’s principal motivation for this appeal. The critical question is WHEN they make this ruling. To recap: they denied Smith’s motion to expedite a ruling, so DC Circuit must rule first.
Right now it’s looking pretty good for Trump. He expects to win somehow on the Colorado ballot appeal, which they are hearing soon. He expects to lose on the immunity appeal, which was really only for delaying purposes, and which is delayed to some unspecified time after DC Circuit rules.
There’s always a chance the SC refuses to hear Trump’s inevitable appeal when the DC Circuit Court rules, “LOL, no.” on presidential immunity.
I linked to an article speculating on the possibility that may deny cert on the inevitable immunity appeal above. I’m having trouble getting past this being wishful thinking, but it’s possible. Saying essentially nothing (I don’t think they usually publish reasons for denying cert?) and putting the DC trial back on schedule seems a more politically palatable path for the SC to push back against Trump’s excesses than punting on the Colorado ballot 14A appeal.
He should be off the ballot everywhere, but I have to pick just one between inconsistent 14A rulings kicking him off the ballot in half a dozen states and the chaos that may ensue with the election, or a successful criminal prosecution in DC and jail time before the election - I think I’d take the latter.
As I cited above, the DC circuit is mulling punting on the issue until after the trial is over.
That’s the customary timeline for a criminal defendant.
And it puts the trial back on track for March.