Conservative legal expert Jonathan Turley recently gave his opinion on Trump’s arguments before the Supreme Court regarding presidential immunity. According to Turley, the federal prosecutors going after Trump are struggling in their case.
Last week, the Supreme Court justices heard arguments on Trump’s case for immunity, suggesting that the President of the United States is legally protected from official and unofficial actions taken while in or leaving office.
Special counsel Jack Smith has argued that former President Trump is not protected from his actions, which fall outside the bounds of protected activity. Therefore, this would make him vulnerable to criminal prosecution, just as any private citizen would. “If the court were to embrace special counsel Jack Smith’s arguments, a president would have no immunity from criminal charges, even for official acts taken in his presidency,” Turley wrote. “It would leave a president without protection from endless charges from politically motivated prosecutors.”
However, Turley noted, “If the court were to embrace Trump counsel’s arguments, a president would have complete immunity. It would leave a president largely unaccountable under the criminal code for any criminal acts.”
Turley’s assessment of the arguments pointed out that a good case for Trump’s immunity claims can be observed in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s hush money trial, which he labels as “legally absurd.” He claims Bragg is a prime example of what presidential immunity seeks to protect from.
“If the justices want insight into the implications of denying any immunity, they just need to look north to New York City. The ongoing prosecution of Trump is legally absurd but has resulted in the leading presidential candidate not only being gagged but prevented from campaigning. Alvin Bragg is the very personification of the danger immunity is meant to avoid,” he added.
Turley further criticized the federal prosecutors for their arguments before the nation’s highest court, which essentially amounted to “Trust us, we’re the government.” Given the historical precedent of prosecutorial abuse, some of the justices expressed skepticism toward this assertion. “It was effectively a “Trust us, we’re the government” assurance. Justice Samuel Alito and others questioned whether such reliance is well placed after decades of prosecutors’ proven abuses,” the legal scholar added.
Turley addressed another point, asking if former President Barrack Obama could theoretically be prosecuted for his military actions, such as drone strikes. This comment further substantiated Turley’s previous comments that suggested presidents could be open to endless prosecution if they lack immunity.
“Finally, if there is no immunity, could President Barack Obama be prosecuted for ordering the killing of a citizen by drone attack and then killing his son in a second drone attack? The government insisted there is an exception for such acts from the murder statute,” he wrote.
Ultimately, Turley stated that neither argument is entirely foolproof. “In the end, neither party offers a particularly inviting path. No immunity or complete immunity each holds obvious dangers,” he said. Reports indicate that the Supreme Court is anticipated to send the decision back down to the lower courts, which could delay an outcome for the federal trial well beyond the election.
"*" indicates required fields