Thread by @jedshug

Audio here for Trump v. Vance, 2d Circuit argument on @manhattanDA subpoena of Trump's tax returns from accountant Mazars.

I'll be following it here. Thread.

https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1187003007843622913

@ManhattanDA 2/ William Consovoy, representing Trump:
Suggests that there is a doctrine of "Temporary Presidential Immunity."

It's obviously worth noting that Clinton v. Jones rejected a president's "temporary" civil immunity for Jones's civil suit for pre-presidency actions.

@ManhattanDA 3/ Consovoy is struggling to distinguish this case from US v. Nixon's Oval Office tapes.
He says the Oval Office tapes subpoena were of a 3d party.

Puzzling: this Mazars subpoena is just as much a 3d party.

And the judges note that the Nixon tapes were... the Nixon tapes.

@ManhattanDA 4/ Telling:
Consovoy: "Danger if 100s of state prosecutors can investigate a president."

2d Cir: "Wouldn't your argument block federal prosecutors? There are 95 federal US Attys."

Consovoy: "But the AG can control all those prosecutors."

Um. Exactly. A low Barr for justice.

@ManhattanDA 5/ The audio cut out for a while. But the Court asked if a president was worried about state DA or state court harassment, he/she could use Section 1983 to get into federal court and review.
Interesting. I wonder if the court's question suggests expanding 1983?

@ManhattanDA 6/
Now Carey Dunne for Vance's office:
2d Cir: "Aren't there some kinds of absolute immunity for presidents? (question implied Nixon v. Fitzgerald, suits for official acts, but focused on whether a sitting pres could be tried).
Dunne doesn't want to concede. Interesting.

@ManhattanDA 7/ Judge Chin & Judge Katzmann are focused on whether a president, if facing state prosecution, can get into fed court to assert rights and powers.

It seemed to me Dunne says yes, if the conduct is related to the Office.
But not necessarily if investigating private conduct.
Hmm.

@ManhattanDA 8/ The questions so far have focused on whether there is federal jurisdiction to review state prosecutors' subpoenas relating to the president.

If I had to read tea leaves, the 2d Cir. judges are rightly worried about leaving these questions solely to state court review.

@ManhattanDA 9/ Judge Chin to Consovoy:
"What about the shooting on 5th Ave hypo? No state process?"

I think Consovoy said, but I'm not sure: "No. There would be immunity." (at 10:51 AM).

@ManhattanDA 10/ I went back to re-listen to the exchange on the 5th Ave shooting immunity. At 46:22:
Judge Chin: "You're concerned that [state prosecutors] are going to act in bad faith?"
Consovoy first makes an important point:
"I think there is an incentive [to act in bad faith]..."

@ManhattanDA 11/ Consovoy, relying on Clinton v. Jones as fed review: "Local pressures may apply differently in a state forum than in federal."

Judge Chin: "What about the 5thAve shooting hypo?
Local authorities couldn't investigate?"

Consovoy: "Once a president is removed from office..."

@ManhattanDA 12/ Consovoy for Trump: "This is not permanent immunity."

J Chin: "While in office? Nothing could be done? That is your position?"

Consovoy: "That is correct."

Katzmann: "So even gathering documents to be used later?"
Consovoy: "That can be done. I apologize."

I am confused.

@ManhattanDA 13/ Consovoy: "I meant to say with respect to the president directly or through his 'custodians'" [who would be covered by immunity from investigation].
We haven't tried to stop this grand jury."

So prosecutors can investigate, but can't ask a president shooter any questions?

@ManhattanDA 14/ Trump atty bottom line:
"We are simply saying:
Criminal process [a subpoena] issued to a sitting president who has not been ruled out that he is a target of the investigation falls comfortably with the immunity that has to be accepted."

My God. This is crazy imperialism.

@ManhattanDA 15/ Crazy lawyering alert.
The president's lawyer argued explicitly in federal court today, and I'm not exaggerating:

If the president shot someone on 5th Ave, state prosecutors could "investigate" the shooting, but could not even subpoena the president (or his "custodians").