Thread by @lyonmj14

A thread with some thoughts on today #trump arguments at #SCOTUS:

The #mazars case was first--deals with the House Oversight Committee subpoenas for financial information. Important to remember: these were subpoenas to Trump accountants for info that preceded his Presidency. 1/

#SCOTUS liberal wing almost certain to unify in favor of the House and enforcement of subpoena. Question will come as to conservatives.

I thought Alito was most strident in questioning the subpoena's legitimacy. Thomas' questions were more reserved, but he seemed to agree. 2/

Kavanaugh was more equivocal, but he didn't ask anything that gave away a position. I expect him to fall in line with Alito/Thomas.

Roberts is a question mark. Tough questions for both sides and seemed to want a balance of positions. I don't think he was thrilled with... 3/

...Trump position, but he didn't want to adopt House's outright either.

That leaves Gorsuch, who, to me, was the biggest surprise of the #mazars argument. His questions signaled real doubt on Trump position and a desire to be deferential to Congress. 4/

Hard to see Gorsuch outright joining liberal position, but it could happen. What might be more likely is that Gorsuch/Roberts stake out a middle ground and convince their liberal colleagues to sign on to give the House a victory. Not sure what that position would be, though. 5/

An aside: I thought Strawbridge was quite good for Trump in #Mazars argument. Easy for me to say, but I thought Little struggled for the House. The Justices had some questions that I thought were fairly easy that he fumbled. And Alito boxed him into a corner at one point. 6/

As for #Vance - the #TrumpTaxReturns case - this was quite different. I didn't think any of the justices bought Trump's position. Recall first-this is a grand jury subpoena from the NYC prosecutor for tax returns and other financial information, again directed to 3rd parties. 7/

Trump's position: the President should not have to answer a subpoena in a state court criminal case while in office. I didn't think the justices understood that after Clinton v. Jones, where Court held Pres. Clinton could not use immunity to avoid sitting for a deposition. 8/

Lots of questions: how is answering a subpoena for documents more intrusive than a deposition? Didn't think Sekulow had a great answer for that. 9/

On that note, Sekulow was loud and abrasive. Did not find him credible at all. Trump should have let Strawbridge argue both cases, if he was willing to do it.

One interesting line: Sotomayor asked why #Trump should be given higher protection than ordinary citizens. 10/

Sekulow's answer was basically "because he's the President."

Very next statement from Kagan: "we've said this for hundreds of years: the President is not above the law." Not exactly a great moment for Trump there. 11/

So while there could be a dissent or two, I do think the outcome of #Vance case may be a holding that Trump can't block the subpoena and Manhattan DA will get the tax returns. 12/

That said, anti-Trump sentiment should be rooting hard for an affirmance in #Mazars rather than #Vance. If Manhattan DA wins in #Vance, grand jury will see the returns, but its proceedings are confidential. Thus, the public won't see them (at least not initially). 13/

By contrast, if House Oversight Committee wins in #Mazars and subpoena is enforced, the Dems won't hesitate to release them (assuming they can do so under the law). 14/

So if you want to see #Trump's financial information, #Mazars, to me, is the more important case. That said, a victory for the DA in #Vance could be an evisceration of the Trump position that his tax returns deserve absolute secrecy while in office. 15/