Great thread.

Fwiw, not only do I share your views, but I think that having a small number of SCOTUS high priests is affirmatively bad for the law and for our profession, and that problem can also be a relevant consideration when consistent with client interests.

I tend to agree.

I think a declination memo, without more, might not be Brady material. But if if there is a document saying “let’s prosecute Comey because he’s an enemy of Trump,” well *that* might be Brady material.

I think the DOJ would argue that if the contents are privileged, then DOJ employees cannot be compelled to testify as to those contents.

But if there is evidence of illicit motivation, there might be other ways to get at it.

Generally agree, but I think the DOJ has good arguments for why it can't be made to say what the memo recommended.

If I were the DOJ, I would argue that confirming or denying whether it's a memo *against* prosecution would necessarily divulge privileged contents of the memo.

The fact that a memo exists might not be privileged. Whether it recommended for or against prosecution would likely be privileged, though, right?