This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

There is a lot of to’ing and fro’ing these days – don’t you like that phrase? – about what Donald Trump is doing in court.

But, to me, a non-lawyer, there seems to be one clear objective for Trump:  Delay court proceedings so the election can occur without a ruling going against him.

Of course, on the other hand, this also appears to be the case:  Trump benefits politically whenever he is hauled into court as he could be as he faces an incredible list of 91 charges.  His sycophants like when he portrays himself as the victim, as any narcissist would.

Washington Post Associate Editor Ruth Marcus covered these issues in a column that appeared this morning under this headline:  “Trump’s sly ‘I’m immune from prosecution’ claim finally runs aground.”

Here is how she started her column:

Error! Filename not specified.

“Donald Trump’s bid to evade criminal accountability for seeking to undo the 2020 election results might finally be hitting a brick wall.  With Trump in attendance, a three-judge federal appeals court panel seemed ready to reject the former president’s preposterous assertion of absolute immunity from prosecution for his official conduct, even after leaving office.

“The audacity of Trump’s claim has been evident since he raised it in the fall, as was the near-certainty that it would ultimately fail.  Still, there was something clarifying about hearing his motion to dismiss demolished by the judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit:  George H.W. Bush appointee Karen L. Henderson, joined by Biden nominees Florence Y. Pan and J. Michelle Childs.”

Of course, no matter what happened, Trump chortled after his day in court:  “We think we had a very good day today.”

Marcus answered as I would:  “…his spin does not make it so.  The panel’s questions got to the heart of Trump’s staggering overreach.  Their hypotheticals exposed the intolerable consequences of establishing such immunity.”

Marcus reports that judges confronted Trump lawyer D. John Sauer with the concessions his legal predecessors had made on Trump’s behalf long before — in the New York criminal investigation, that Trump enjoyed only “temporary presidential immunity,” while in office; in the second impeachment trial, that Trump could be criminally charged and so didn’t need to be convicted.

Sauer didn’t have a good response, though he and his co-counsels on behalf of Trump appear to be saying this:  In order to be charged with anything in court, a president or former president would have to be convicted first in an impeachment process in Congress.

In general comments, members of the three-judge panel hearing the case appeared to dispute the logic of Trump’s attorneys.

Here is how Marcus described the to’ing and fro’ing in court:

“Judge Henderson expressed some hesitation about the consequences of such a decision, asking:  ‘How do we write an opinion that will stop the floodgates” of tit-for-tat prosecutions of former presidents?  But she also questioned Sauer’s argument about Trump’s asserted immunity.  I think it’s paradoxical to say that Trump’s constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed allows him to violate criminal laws.’”

Good point.

Then, in a development that all of us non-attorneys could understand fully, Marcus reported on what she called, “The most chilling part of the Trump team’s argument — the part that revealed the implications of granting presidents the broad immunity Trump claims.  The example involved SEAL Team 6, the elite military unit.  Judge Pan put the question to Sauer:  “Could a president order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival?”

She pressed Sauer:  “…you’re saying a president could sell pardons, could sell military secrets, could order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival?”

If this didn’t underline the reality of Trump’s audacious claims, nothing would.

Then came the bottom line from Marcus:

“And that is the real point of the immunity dispute.  Trump’s lawyers don’t really expect to win it — they just want to run out the clock, past the current March 4 trial date and, preferably, past Election Day.  That won’t take just a quick ruling by Tuesday’s panel to avoid, but also an equally swift disposition by the full appeals court or Supreme Court, when the case inevitably comes its way.

“Timing isn’t everything here, but it’s awfully close.”

My conclusion mimics Marcus.  Trump is trying to run out the clock as a way to gain a second term in the Oval Office.

Perish the thought of that occurring.