BREAKING NEWS!

BREAKING: @BuzzFeedNews and I won our appeal before the DC Circuit to further unredact the Mueller report, specifically passages pertaining to Donald Trump, Jr. et al.

This is a massive win and it's all thanks to the expert legal arguments by our attorney @mvtopic pic.twitter.com/MhezEF9nQz

— Jason Leopold (@JasonLeopold) November 30, 2021

I'll just start there, because that's the court that is currently hearing arguments on Trump's appeal (I'm listening to it on-line as I type), and to say the Court is not inclined to support Trump is an understatement.

STARTING NOW: Big court showdown for Trump’s effort to block access to Jan. 6 records sought by House investigators…. https://t.co/kixsICITfQ Feed of arguments here: https://t.co/KOWXimKmgN

— Josh Gerstein (@joshgerstein) November 30, 2021

The Court's primary concern, as already reported, is that the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear this argument because this is a matter already agreed to between the Congress and the President and the former POTUS (whoever he is) can't ask the courts to weigh in on a question that's already been decided by the other two branches of government.  The judges just spent about 30 minutes making Trump's lawyer chase his tail on this issue, and it was clear they were never satisfied with his answer.  The basic argument of the court was they were being to asked to review an agreement between Congress and the White House because the former POTUS didn't like the deal they'd struck.  And what standing does the former POTUS have to raise that issue, what harm is done that he can seek to correct?  The only answer Trump's lawyer had was a harm to the constitutional structure of the Presidency.  And there's your standing issue, faced plainly:  what standing does Trump have to seek redress of that "harm"?*

I had to break off before the House counsel could start his argument, and in any appellate argument the judges try to make both sides squirm.  But the simple facts are:  the court set this for expedited hearing (today) and has already asked the parties to explain why the Court has any authority in this matter (jurisdiction, not standing as some outlets have reported; although the court may be asking for review of both topics: the court's jurisdiction and Trump's standing).

*It strikes me as a very inchoate harm.  I think the court will agree. I could make the same claim, but no court would give me the time of day.  Trump has a statutory status to object, but does that status invoke the Courts to decide when Congress and the White House are in agreement? The judges made a more cogent argument than I can report without the transcript, but I think Trump loses this round, and I still don’t think the Supremes get involved.