Thread by @LarrySchweikart

1) Many of you are beyond angry, and bitter. I get it. This is an assault every bit as serious as Confederate secession in 1860-61. Here is my Q&A:

2) Q: Was this "crime" before Trump was president, hence not covered by immunity?

Zen Master: "Actually Trump's "crimes" occurred when he was President. The indictment starts with events in January 2017." So it would fall under aspects of the Supes immunity decision.

3) We know the NY Appeals Court is lib. But how lib? What is the likelihood they reverse?

ZM: "This verdict will get tossed by a higher court.  The precedent set is so dangerous that it can't stand.  They just threw out Harvey Weinstein's NY conviction, so NY's higher courts have shown a willingness to rule in favor of unpopular defendants. Weinstein's case (rape) was far more serious than this tripe."

4) Separately:
ZM: "Re this argument about prosecutors in red states: Who would they indict?  Biden's from Delaware. He has nothing to do with Texas.  Someone tweeted that Paxton should indict him over the border. First, a federal court would immediately enjoin TX from enforcing the indictment. Second, it would get tossed on presidential immunity grounds."

5) Separately:
ZM: "This verdict (I think) will help Trump with any persuadable justices regarding immunity [at Supreme Court]. The Manhattan case has been a circus. I think the justices (at least most of them) want to put a stop to this shit as much and as soon as possible."

6) Finally, regarding this idea some lawyer floated:
ZM: "Just wanted to flag something that you'll probably see going around Twitter: the possibility that SCOTUS will issue a common law writ and take up the case, bypassing the NY state courts.  I'd be beyond shocked if they did this.  It's a pipedream."