OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
Georgetown University law professor Jonathan Turley stated during a Sunday Fox News segment that the U.S. Supreme Court needs to find a balance in the presidential immunity case that the justices heard last week.
This is important to protect future presidents while ensuring they are held accountable for their actions if they operate outside certain boundaries.
Last week, the justices heard arguments from prosecutors with special counsel Jack Smith’s office as well as attorneys for former President Donald Trump.
The case is based on charges brought against Trump by Smith in Washington, D.C., for allegedly trying to interfere with Congress’ certification of the 2020 election results, among other charges.
“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.
He added: “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. That will take time and likely derail any effort to try Trump before the election in Washington, D.C.”
Earlier this month, Turley also made critical comments about the so-called ‘hush money’ trial stemming from 34 felony counts brought against the former president by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, calling the case “legally absurd.”
Fox host Maria Bartiromo kicked the segment off by asking: “I’m gonna put up this letter, this is from Stormy Daniels that President Trump posted, I know you’ve seen this, it says, ‘Stormy Daniels writes, ‘The fact of the matter is that each party to this alleged affair denied its existence in 2006, 2011, 2016, 2017 and now again 2018. I’m not denying this affair because I was paid hush money. I’m denying the affair because it never happened,’ writes Stormy Daniels. 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.”
WATCH:
