OK. So. I've gone through the Kasowitz and Dowd/Sekulow memos, as well as the NYT story — nytimes.com/2018/06/02/us/… — and here are my thoughts ...
1. Despite Trump's tweet, we don’t know who leaked this. Giuliani previously acknowledged to me that the "Mueller questions" list could have been a "friendly" leak. Here, that same principle would appear to apply, since what leaked is only the case made by Trump's lawyers.
2. We don’t know how much of this remains the operative position of Trump’s outside lawyers. This letter was sent January 29 and yet, per Trump’s outside lawyers’ telling, they were in discussions and nearing a decision on an interview when the Cohen raids happened on April 9.
3. It's interesting this is coming from the outside lawyers. We have no clue which if any of these legal positions are the positions of the White House Counsel’s Office — let alone the Justice Department generally, or the Office of Legal Counsel, specifically.
As to 2, it appears that Giuliani is saying this is still, at least broadly speaking, their strategy — as to a subpoena. BUT! (see next tweet in thread!)
The subpoena strategy is not the same as the interview strategy. The January letter purports not to make Trump available for an interview for much of anything relating to any obstruction questions, so I'm not sure the subpoena response plan says much re: their interview strategy.
(Giuliani has not yet responded to my request to talk — I was holding off on tweeting in case he called — but he's not yet done so. I remain interested in whether the letter reflects their current position on certain specifics laid out in the letter.)
A lot of folks already tweeted some specific ~highlights~ of sorts from the two letters obtained by the NYT. If you're on Twitter on a Saturday caring about this, you follow those folks and already read those tweets, so ... here are some other letter-specific notes I have.
(But, seriously, as detailed in the NYT story and in every thread, WHAT IS THEIR DEAL with only focusing on 1505??? Did anyone get what was going on there?)
In the June 2017 Kasowitz letter, it is very interesting to note that the OLC opinion in Part B backing up the "unitary executive" argument related to a law attempting to get the CDC to be able to send information about AIDS to American households without political interference.
Here's the 1988 OLC opinion, finding that Congress went too far: It was authored by none other than Chuck Cooper. documentcloud.org/documents/4492… 
In the January 2018 Dowd/Sekulow letter, this line stood out: "Perhaps most notably, your office has already been given access to conversations with the President himself." What does that mean?
These two endnotes are to a CNN article and a WSJ editorial, respectively. I'm at a loss how lawyers decided to use these to stand for the facts they purport to stand for.
The whole section of the January 2018 memo laying out what happened with Flynn cites to single memo from McGahn that is dated Feb. 15 — after Flynn was fired and the day *after* Trump talked to Comey about Flynn in the Oval Office.
Ironically, that single memo, written about the Jan. 26-Feb. 14, 2017, period is used as evidence by Dowd/Sekulow in the same memo — about the same facts — where they attack Comey's immediately-post-meeting memoranda.
