As to absolute immunity on an explicit textual basis, Trump's attorney is grasping at straws - but he made the best argument he could as to that proposition. If I was judging performance (as opposed to strength of legal arguments) - Trump's attorney was more instantly familiar with the cases the court was interested in and better able to use those cases to his advantage, but committed the classic "sin" of refusing (repeatedly) to answer the judge's questions. The prosecution's attorney was not as fluent with the cases, but was much bettter at listening to the judges and answering the quesitons they asked.
I don't think the court will find he had immunity. But I'm not absolutely positive they will reach the core issue as to abosulute immunity. I think they may dump it back to the District Court to determine which, if any acts, were entirely private acts - with the premise being that he has no immunity for purely private acts. There were a lot of subtleties to the arguments about purpose v. nature of the actions. I am not familiar with the cses cited - but the court was very interested in those cases, and it sounds like they may want fact-finding and preliminary legal analysis as to his actions.
= new reply since forum marked as read
