Thread by @rgoodlaw

State of play in United States v. Trump:

1/ On Friday night, Jack Smith offered to file a new brief that could provide the public "the first glimpse of the government’s evidence beyond the four corners of the indictment—an explosive prospect.”

justsecurity.org/99693/immunity…

2/ “It is conspicuous that the special counsel does not appear to be opposing such a mini-trial, which may be important to Judge Chutkan as prosecutors would likely see tradeoffs with such public hearings.”

analysis by @NormEisen @Matt_Seligman @Edanyaperry @JoshuaGKolb

@NormEisen @Matt_Seligman @Edanyaperry @JoshuaGKolb 3/ A mini, mini trial?

“A reasonably prompt evidentiary hearing — or 'mini trial' — on immunity… may focus on the specific allegations that most deserve such an inquiry (e.g., the allegations involving former Vice President Mike Pence).”

Upshot: Prospect of Pence as a witness

4/ Authors write that Chutkan could order briefing on immunity to take 3 weeks.

“Even Trump’s proposed schedule...would be only twice as long—but it includes a host of other matters as well, from the Fischer framework to motions involving discovery and more”

Useful comparison:

@NormEisen @Matt_Seligman @Edanyaperry @JoshuaGKolb 5/ Many have missed that the superseding indictment is designed not just to overcome new SCOTUS test for presidential immunity. But also new SCOTUS test for obstruction.

Superseding indictment adds new allegations to accomplish the latter goal.

And one more important item...

6/ One more important item. Thanks to authors:

A comparison document.

It shows the tracked changes between the original and superseding indictment in US v Trump (including the new allegations apparently added to support the obstruction charges).

PDF: justsecurity.org/wp-content/upl…