The Supreme Court granted President Clinton’s petition for certiorari to hear the Paula Jones case, then ruled against him 9-0. Similarly, Trump will likely lose the Manhattan DA case by a lopsided vote given what we heard today. He’ll probably lose the ... https://twitter.com/devinher/status/1260201331546918912

... House subpoena case today, although he may get a couple of more votes in that one.

It’s also interesting to remember—my recollection could be wrong here, but this was my sense—that the media commentariat after the Jones argument tended toward predicting a close, narrow decision that could even go either way. (I didn’t feel that way.)

And when the decision came down, the commentariat was surprised at the Court’s unanimity.

Indeed, confirming my decades-old recollection, the lead @nytimes story actually said the decision came with “surprising unanimity”!

The oral argument was Clinton’s high-water mark, and I think the same is true of Trump’s cases today. The reason being that the Court takes hypothetical concerns about harms to the presidency seriously.

But in the end, the Court’s deciding the case that is *actually* before it, which means Trump’s going to lose big, worse than most people may think, just as happened with Clinton 23 years ago.

One more point on this thread from yesterday. I said that the commentariat speculated after the argument in the Jones case that the decision might be close or and that either side might win. https://twitter.com/gtconway3d/status/1260280486796177409

That was an understatement. Many people actually thought *Clinton would win*. In fact, this was the next day’s lead story in the @nytimes:

The dynamic was similar to the reaction to yesterday’s argument. The Court spent a lot of time on the parade of hypothetical horribles that could follow from a ruling against the president—in future cases. But in the end, they only have to decide the case before them *now*.

And the actual cases before them both in 1997 and now, aren’t that difficult, because there’s no claim Trump has to do anything significant in response to the subpoenas—which have been issues to others, not him.