Still absorbing the Trump immunity ruling. My sense is that while the substance is problematic, expanding the scope of presidential immunity unreasonably widely, my biggest complaint is that the timing and procedural aspects of it seem nakedly tailored to hinder Trump's being prosecuted for conduct that clearly falls OUTSIDE of the immunity. Had they not waited until the last day to drop it, the hearings they remanded to the district court would be done by now and trials underway.

@mattblaze I'd phrase it a bit differently: "As if the substance were not bad enough, the timing is awful and apparently calculated.”

@SteveBellovin It's not just the timing. They also remanded every issue to the district court, including those for which there's already a record that they could have ruled on. This makes it all but impossible for the actual trials to start before the election.

@mattblaze Yup, though I expect (well, hope) Judge Chutkan to set an aggressive briefing schedule, and for the DC Circuit to do the same. Of course, then it will go back to SCOTUS…

@SteveBellovin One thing I'm not sure of is whether the (inevitable) appeals from the hearings would be heard before the trial or only after conviction.

@mattblaze I suspect before trial. From p 30 of the opinion: “The essence of immunity “is its possessor’s entitlement not to have to answer for his conduct” in court. Mitchell, 472 U. S., at 525. Presidents therefore cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution.” But hey, we're both just genuine fake lawyers.