In a Fox News program, Jonathan Turley, a law professor at Georgetown University, asserted that the U.S. Supreme Court needed to find a middle ground in the presidential immunity case so that future commanders-in-chief would be safeguarded but also held responsible if they deviated from established guidelines.
On Thursday, the justices heard arguments from former President Donald Trump’s attorneys as well as prosecutors from the office of special counsel Jack Smith. The complaint is based on accusations made by Smith in Washington, D.C., against Trump for, among other things, allegedly attempting to obstruct Congress’ certification of the results of the 2020 election.
“There is a slippery slope on both sides, but I was surprised with the three justices on the left, is that they didn’t seem at all concerned about how extreme that argument would be — leaving a president with no protection,” he told anchor Shannon Bream. “So the question that most of the justices were struggling with, and I thought they were doing in good faith, is how do we find a more balanced, nuanced approach here?”
“The government made a major concession to Justice Gorsuch when he said there are things you can’t criminalize that a president does, and the government said yes,” he continued. And he said, ‘Doesn’t it sound a lot like immunity? Isn’t it our job to try to define where that is?’ It was a devastating moment.
“So there is a real chance that this could be sent back to the trial court, to say we need more information of which of these acts were part of an official function, and which were not,” he aded. “That will take time and likely derail any effort to try Trump before the election in Washington, D.C.”
Turley similarly criticized the so-called “hush money” trial earlier this month, labeling it “legally absurd” and based on 34 felony counts Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg brought against the former president.
“I’m going to put up this letter, this is from Stormy Daniels that President Trump posted, I know you’ve seen this, it says, ‘” said Fox host Maria Bartiromo to start the story.The truth is that all parties to the alleged affair have denied its existence in 2006, 2011, 2016, 2017, and now again in 2018, according to Stormy Daniels. I refuse to retract this affair only because I received hush money. Stormy Daniels writes, “I’m denying the affair because it never happened.” Sir?
“Yeah, everything about this case is, in my view, legally absurd. You know, this case is basically a state misdemeanor that had run out under the statute of limitations,” Turley began.
“Bragg was forced, after he declined for a long time to bring this charge, to do so. His predecessor rejected it. So they took a dead misdemeanor and bootstrapped it into effectively trying a federal crime. But the federal crime here under election law was rejected under the Department of Justice,” Turley continued.
Turley added, “They did not feel that this should be charged. So you have this crazy* case that’s going to go forward and it’s going to turn on the testimony of people like Michael Cohen. And Michael Cohen just recently had a judge call him a serial perjurer, and he is going to appear as the center of this case.”
Trump recently issued a serious warning:
“Just four years ago I was a very popular and successful President of the United States, getting more votes than any sitting President in history,” he wrote. “Tomorrow morning I’ll be in Criminal Court, before a totally conflicted Judge, a Corrupt Prosecutor, a Legal System in CHAOS, a State being overrun by violent crime and corruption, and Crooked Joe Biden’s henchmen ‘Rigging the System’ against his Political Opponent, ME!”
“I will be fighting for myself but, much more importantly, I will be fighting for our Country,” he wrote.
