Donald Trump has long believed that because he was president, he was constitutionally allowed to do anything he pleased, without any possibility of ever having to answer for any of it in any way. He explicitly stated this belief while he was president and he has claimed the same sweeping immunity ever since he left office as well. He truly believes that somewhere in the Constitution is a clause that essentially bestows the divine right of kings upon the U.S. president. A president's actions can never be challenged in court because of this supposed loophole, in other words (according to Trump).

Just because Trump believes this to be true, however, does not actually make it true. Far from it. Today, Trump's fantastical views of presidential immunity hit the brick wall of legal reality in a courtroom. A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals heard Trump's arguments today, and (to put it mildly) they were not very impressed by them. Their ruling is now seen as almost a foregone conclusion -- the only real question is whether it will be a 3-0 unanimous decision or whether one of the judges might dissent. At this point, a unanimous ruling appears much more likely, as even the Republican-appointed judge on the panel (appointed by George H. W. Bush) showed a healthy degree of skepticism towards Trump's claims.

The case under appeal is the federal case dealing with the January 6th insurrection attempt. Trump's team made two legal arguments, neither of which held much water with the judges. The first is that Trump is immune because the Senate refused to convict him after he was impeached over the matter. The second is that Trump is immune because everything he did was an "official act" of the president, and therefore cannot be questioned by the judicial system. Trump is arguing, in two separate ways, that he deserves a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card.

The judges were not impressed.

Trump's first argument attempted to twist a clause of the Constitution to mean something it does not actually say. In laying out how the Senate shall conduct impeachment trials, Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution says:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

That final clause was obviously inserted to make sure that an impeached and convicted officer could not claim "double jeopardy" later, if the criminal justice system prosecuted him or her. The whole sentence is pretty easy to understand -- an impeachment trial is not a criminal trial at all, since it can only remove someone from office and ban them from ever holding office again. Those are the only possible penalties, and they are political in nature. The final clause assures the public that whatever wrongdoing which caused the House to impeach and the Senate to convict could also be criminally prosecuted afterwards.

Trump's legal team, however, latched onto the phrase "the Party convicted" and attempted to turn it on its head. They claim that because it was worded this way, if someone is impeached and not convicted, somehow this clause means that they cannot be held accountable by the justice system -- that Trump deserves a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card because the Senate refused to convict him. This is pretty nonsensical on the face of it, which was pointed out by both the prosecution today and the judges themselves. The best example that came up was: What would happen, for instance, if a president ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival either right before the end of the president's term in office, or if the president resigned from office the next day? Would that some how make him or her immune from prosecution for ordering the U.S. military to murder a political rival?

That is patently absurd, of course. And Trump's former legal team actually made the argument during his impeachment trial that the Senate should refuse to convict him because he was no longer in office -- and that the judicial system could then try him for any crimes. This was Trump's argument, mind you. His lawyers today had to disavow Trump's previous lawyers' argument, which was pretty embarrassing for them (one assumes).

The Constitution's clause is pretty clear -- a former officer of the United States can indeed be prosecuted for a criminal offense even if he has been previously impeached for the same offense. Period. It does not mean the exact opposite of what it actually says, in other words.

Trump's second legal argument was just as weak. His lawyer claimed that because Trump was president, everything he did after the election was somehow an "official act" of the president. He wasn't politically trying to save his skin by overturning the will of the people, he was instead merely investigating accusations that there had been election fraud. This is so laughable it doesn't even need explaining. But it fits in with Trump's long-held view that presidents can essentially do anything they please without any fear of any legal consequences later, no matter how illegal the acts may be.

None of the judges seemed very receptive to either argument Trump made, which is why most court-watchers today are predicting Trump is going to lose his appeal, and lose badly. The prosecution requested that the panel of judges issue a ruling within five days, which could actually happen (the whole appeal has been fast-tracked, so the ruling may appear astonishingly quickly). What happens next, however, is anyone's guess.

There are two more possible steps Trump could take. He could appeal the ruling to the entire D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and have all 11 judges hear the case again. Whether that works or not, Trump could then appeal to the Supreme Court.

The best possible outcome for the prosecution would be a swift ruling in their favor -- a ruling which upheld the trial judge's rejection of Trump's claims -- followed by both the full court of appeals and the Supreme Court just refusing to take the case. This would mean that both courts agreed fully with the initial ruling and saw no real reason to rehash the arguments.

If the full court of appeals hears the case, the biggest impact is likely to be further delays in the courtroom schedule. The trial is currently scheduled to begin on March 4th. If the full court of appeals hears the case, that date will likely slip by at least a few weeks. But the bigger delay could come if the Supreme Court decides to hear Trump's appeal. They could push back a ruling until June, or even dawdle until their next term begins in October. Doing so would give Trump exactly what he wants -- a delay so long that the case won't be over until after the election.

Chief Justice John Roberts is already going to have to address a few other significant cases which will have outsized impacts on politics and the presidential campaign. But Roberts absolutely hates the Supreme Court getting involved in politics, and reportedly wants to avoid doing so if at all possible. The easiest way for him to achieve this in this case would be to refuse to hear Trump's appeal after the appellate ruling against him. The Supreme Court would say to Trump: "Sorry, but the appeals judges got it right."

It takes four justices to vote to hear any particular case at the highest court. If the three liberals and Roberts decide hearing Trump's appeal would be a waste of time, they'd have to convince two more of the conservatives to vote against taking up the case. Whether this will actually happen is really anyone's guess. But it really would be a powerful statement by the court.

Donald Trump's fantasy that presidents can do -- and get away with -- anything they please while they are in office (and afterwards) is about to be smacked down... again. The legal arguments he put forth today are ridiculous on their face. It would take a whole lot of legal contortions for any court to agree with them. But the big question remains -- how long will the process take? Will Trump's January 6th trial happen in a timely manner, or will the courts aid his desire to delay everything so long that the election happens before a verdict is ever announced? While the outcome of today's hearing is pretty predictable, the timeline of what happens afterwards is not.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant