WASHINGTON (AP) — There was talk of drone strikes and presidential bribery, of a possible “forever” ruling and also of the Founding Fathers. The presidential race wasn’t mentioned, but it wasn’t far from the mind.

The Supreme Court heard more than two and a half hours of arguments on the historic question of Whether former President Donald Trump is immune from prosecution in a case that accuses him of plotting to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

Although the judges seemed likely to reject Trump’s claim of absolute immunity, it seemed possible that he could still benefit from a long delay in the trial, possibly beyond the November election.

A look at some of the many notable moments:

‘A RULE FOR THE AGES’

Justice Neil Gorsuch expressed concern that prosecutors or political opponents might have bad motives for pursuing political rivals. Michael Dreeben, a lawyer on special counsel Jack Smith’s team, responded that this fear was inapplicable in this case.

“I appreciate it,” Gorsuch said. “But you also appreciate that we’re writing a rule for all ages.”

Other justices were no less lofty in describing the case’s historic stakes and potential to set a precedent that will stand the test of time far beyond Trump. To conservative justices, that approach seemed like a way to set aside the facts of Trump’s impeachment and the brazen abuse of power it alleges and focus instead on the implications of a court ruling in cases that have not yet been charged, but which in theory they could be.

“In my view, this case has enormous implications for the presidency, for the future of the presidency, for the future of the country,” said Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee who served in the George W. Bush White House and generally He is seen as a firm protector of presidential power.

Still, the court seemed more interested in the future than the present as it contemplated the upcoming ruling. There were also many historical appeals, with frequent invocations of the nation’s Founding Fathers.

UNSPOKEN WORDS

There was no reference in the arguments to “November.” Not even “2024”. Even Trump’s name was barely mentioned, and especially in the context of the formal titles of the court cases.

However, there is no doubt that the 2024 election was the proverbial elephant in the room, and in that sense, the words that were not spoken were almost as strong as those that were said.

In the background of Thursday’s session was a tacit recognition that the court is helping to decide not only whether Trump is immune from prosecution but also whether he can be tried before the vote.

The uncomfortable reality for an institution that resists being considered a political actor is that a decision that takes until late June or early July to draft, or that orders a lower court to conduct additional analysis on what acts it could conceive of Trump’s right to immunity could delay the trial until after the election.

Dreeben was careful not to mention the consequences of the court’s ruling on the election or to urge that it be handed down quickly for political purposes.

The closest, though still oblique, reference to the election came from Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who at one point told Dreeben: “The special counsel has expressed some concern about the speed and his desire to move forward.”

MORE WORK AHEAD?

While the court seemed highly skeptical of Trump’s attempt to dismiss the case, several judges suggested that it might have to be returned for further legal wrangling before the case could go to trial.

Such a ruling would almost certainly delay the trial until after the election. That would be a victory for Trump because, if he defeats President Joe Biden in November, he could presumably order his new attorney general to dismiss the case or grant himself a pardon.

Barrett and others repeatedly attempted to pin down Trump’s lawyer and Smith’s team on whether the acts alleged in the indictment were official acts (and therefore potentially protected from prosecution) versus private acts.

And even as Chief Justice John Roberts made clear his resistance to Trump’s sweeping claims of absolute immunity, he also said he had “concerns” about an earlier appeals court ruling that rejected Trump’s immunity arguments. Trump but did not provide a detailed analysis of whether the actions in the impeachment were official or private.

The lower court, Roberts said, appears to be saying simply that “a former president can be prosecuted because he is being prosecuted.”

“Why shouldn’t we send it back to the Court of Appeals or issue an opinion making it clear that that’s not the law?” Roberts asked Dreeben.

Smith’s team has told the court that even if it determines there is some level of immunity for official acts, there are enough private actions alleged in the indictment (such as conspiring to submit false voter lists) for the case to go to trial immediately.

“The president has no duties regarding the certification of the winner of the presidential election,” Dreeben said. “So I find it difficult to understand how there could be a serious constitutional issue in saying ‘you can’t use fraud to defeat that function, you can’t obstruct it through deception, you can’t disenfranchise millions of voters.’ Let his vote be counted for the candidate they chose.’”

THE JUSTICES TO WATCH

The liberal justices seemed likely to side with Smith’s team in ruling that the trial should go forward, suggesting that Trump’s argument upended the Constitution.

“The framers did not include an immunity clause in the Constitution. They knew how to do it,” Justice Elena Kagan said. “And, you know, it’s not so surprising that they were reacting against a monarch who claimed to be above the law. Wasn’t the point that the president wasn’t a monarch and the president wasn’t supposed to be above the law?

Meanwhile, Kavanaugh and fellow conservative Samuel Alito appeared more receptive to Trump’s claims, particularly the suggestion that not granting immunity could open the door for former presidents to be prosecuted for political reasons.

But ultimately the matter may fall to Roberts, who at one point questioned whether the case could move forward if the prosecution’s official acts were removed, saying doing so could create a “one-legged bench.”

Barrett’s nuanced questioning suggested she is another person to watch.

Barrett, who was appointed by Trump, got Trump’s lawyer, D. John Sauer, to admit that former presidents could be prosecuted for private actions. And Sauer acknowledged that some of Trump’s alleged conduct surrounding the 2020 election was not the official act of a president.

Trump “turned to a private attorney, who was willing to spread deliberately false allegations of election fraud to spearhead his challenges to the election results. Private?” Barrett asked Sauer.

“That sounds private to me,” he responded.

Hypotheticals galore

Sure, the judges pressed the lawyers on the actual acts of the prosecution, wanting to know which of the actions Trump took in his failed but frantic bid to stay in power might merit legal protection.

But there were also many hypothetical scenarios, which is not surprising given that judges and courts generally enjoy testing the outer limits of lawyers’ arguments as they determine where to draw the line.

Sauer opened the door by saying that without immunity, President George W. Bush could have been prosecuted for “allegedly lying to Congress to induce war in Iraq” and Biden for “illegally inducing immigrants to enter the country illegally for his border policies.” ”.

Roberts returned to the topic and asked whether a president who accepted a bribe for the appointment of an ambassador could be prosecuted.

And so it happened. What about selling nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary? Kagan wanted to know. A drone attack against a US citizen abroad authorized by then-President Barack Obama? Kavanaugh asked.

One particularly notable hypothesis came from Alito, who raised the possibility that an outgoing president who loses a close race but fears impeachment upon leaving office could attempt to remain in power, creating “a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy.” ”. “