THANKS, CHIEF!:

Trump's lawyers argued that sitting presidents are absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas. Alternatively, they insisted that prosecutors should have to show a "heightened need" when subpoenaing the president, demonstrating that their action is a "last resort" to obtain information "not available from any other source."

Chief Justice John Roberts' opinion for SCOTUS, issued in July, rejected both these arguments. Roberts explained that nothing in the Constitution compels state prosecutors to show a "heightened need" for a subpoena of the president. Nor do the president's constitutional powers shield him from a subpoena while in office. To the contrary, historical practice confirms that "the public has a right to every man's evidence." However, Roberts noted, a president may challenge a subpoena that is issued in bad faith if he can show it was designed to harass him. He can also defeat a subpoena by showing that it will impede his constitutional duties. The chief justice then sent the case back down to the lower courts, giving Trump an opportunity to raise these final objections.

Roberts' decision was diplomatic: It confirmed that no one is above the law without immediately forcing Trump to comply with the law. But it was also a time bomb, because the chief justice surely knew that none of those objections had any merit in this case. The bomb went off on Thursday.

Tweet   @brothersjudd