I am surprised there has been no research into individual Justices previous positions on election law and novel prosecutions.
That would be rather more significant than bizarre investigations into who works in a counselor’s office of a justice.
I suspect Trump’s team has not already framed arguments they would use for this hearing. It is not, btw, about the actions themselves. It is about immunity of the president from prosecution for actions while president that do not fall within any specific statute. These “crimes” are invented theories.
It will be interesting to see if that issue arises at all, or if the court rules narrowly that no president is immune to prosecution for crimes committed, without addressing whether or not the actions in question are crimes. That is likely the biggest danger. A narrow ruling of that sort. But so far the conservative majority of the court has not sought to avoid issues by ruling narrowly.
Roberts wanted a narrow ruling on abortion and the conservative majority would not sign onto that and issued a broad ruling. So in that context, the question of if he behavior was criminal vs just ruling on immunity may come into play.