1. My political theory of the Court is in play today. With @POTUS @RealDonaldTrump looking like he's going to lose badly in November, #SCOTUS is being asked to give up its power regarding @JoeBiden today if it rules for Trump. In the House case I think they will fashion a rule
2. that is consistent with precedent. I did not get any impression that the justices were interested in a vast departure from the previous rulings. On @ManhattanDA case, IMO @JaySekulow is such a weak advocate that I don't think they take him seriously. Bluster and overreach.
3. Just playing to an audience of one. He confirmed the brief conceded that they are not trying to stop the grand jury that I take to be an admission that they can indict him. Issue is if they proceed, whether the grand jury has tools needed to do their job. I can't imagine they
4. sign on to that absurdity. I think Trump loses the NYC Grand Jury case and may be indicted during the campaign. I think they know that. Whether that will impair their decision making by being tempted to split the baby is the question. I think based on the law and facts,
5. Trump should lose both cases. Again, coming back to my political theory of the Court, Trump has the smell of defeat about him and nobody in their right mind would hitch their horse to Trump's wagon currently loaded with cadavers. 😎
6.NYC attorney Carey Dunne just said that @ManhattanDA can't indict Trump while in office.
7. Roberts sort of just said that the NYC case was closer call than the House case. Now he's asking for a suggestion of a higher burden rule. I think he knows he's in the majority and will write the opinion and he's getting the standard nailed down for the state grand juries.
8. I have to go back to exactly what Roberts said but it sounded like he was tipping that Trump loses the House case and he is concerned to not open a flood gate of local prosecutions against a sitting president. @JoeBiden
9. NYC attorney Dunne was clear that the rule they may apply should not apply to NYC because they have already established no Art 2 burden. Dunne is sticking to a "case specific" analysis. I think that punts but is common in these matters of judicial discretion.
10. Breyer is trying to develop NYC Dunne's suggestion for a rule but part of it involves a reference to the US district court. I personally think that would require an amendment of the Title 28 removal statute that currently provides removal for official acts to Federal court.
11. Alito is now developing that rule. So if I read the tea leaves correctly, Alito will go for a rule that give the federal judiciary last word on it. I don't think this works and violates the anti-injunction act but they seem okay with it. But I've been in arguments where the
12. judges question like they are questioning Dunne and those are ones that I won and established major changes in the existing law.
13. J Sotomayor is clarifying that Dunne is not adopted heightened needs standard advanced by DOJ. But she says his rule encompasses it. Dunne say his is not as strict related to trial practice, just grand jury and that standard they have met and the district court found it met.
14. Kavanaugh is a poser. He doesn't understand the case law. He's trying to look smart and Dunne is better prepared and steered him back to the actual issue. Now Roberts is asking about the standard. President is too busy what do we do with that distraction. Dunne doesn't buy
15. into the I'm too busy to deal with a secret proceeding." Now Thomas is asking about examples of burdens that might apply. Points to Clinton language in dicta if a president was asked to appear at trial or multiple days of depos. That's the kind of thing that shouldn't happen.
16. Alito is asking for critique of Clinton case. Dunne is able to push back on any parade of horrible that might come. Sotomayor is asking about the standard. Dunne is clarifying that there is not an automatic burden on the Art 2 branch. He is going to the weighing of burden.
17. Sounds like they are trying to find a way to rule consistent with the precedent. That's bad for Trump IMO. As an aside, IMO Carey Dunne is a really good attorney. Smart meets well prepared. @neal_katyal
18. Kavenaugh is going back to stay until out of office. Dunne says 1. Absent statute of limitations (a problem here) waiting loses witnesses and evidence. 2. Here, third-parties in this case gives them a way to be above the law if the statute prevents going forward.
18. Dunne is wrapping now. Back to @JaySekulow for rebuttal. He is saying the NYC agrees there are Art 2 burdens. He says no showing of heightened need. That's just not so. The Dunne wrap just showed it. Sekulow is back to the fact they copied the House subpoena. Now Sekulow
19. is whining like Trump. And that's it. Case submitted.
19. If Roberts writes the majority with the liberals he could have a draft pretty quick There really isn't any evidence he will stop the grand jury. Dunne's concession to not prosecute while in office could be part of the order. I think they have to indict for the statute,
20. they should just not unseal the president if charged. But his kids and corporate entities should be fair game anytime. On House, the record in the district court is clear that there was no finding of abuse or of a claim of executive or other privilege.
21. Mazars & @DeutscheBankAG should comply. 15 days I'll start looking for an opinion. I need to check how may cases are still to be decided. Roberts could drag it on but if it's bad for Trump, doing it in late summer or early fall could be the Trump campaign's Coup de Grace.
