Trump prosecutors stopped dead in their tracks by top lawyer in the nation
The Trump prosecution is still not giving up. They want Donald Trump behind bars.
But the Trump prosecutors just got stopped dead in their tracks by the top lawyer in the nation.
Jonathan Turley, who is the professor of law at George Washington University, is one of the most highly-respected experts in terms of constitutional law in the entire nation. He’s an expert that both liberal and conservative lawyers and pundits will turn to for input on a major constitutional matter or political legal matter in the news.
Turley offered a critical analysis of special counsel Jack Smith’s revised indictment against former President Donald Trump in the election interference case. Speaking on Fox News’ Special Report With Bret Baier, Turley characterized the new indictment as a “shrinkflation indictment” – same packaging but less there than before.
“It’s the shrinkflation indictment. It’s the same packaging, just less product inside. What they did is kept the four charges, and they just took out any evidence that clearly would have contradicted the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity. It does not hold together, in my view, very well. I don’t even think it solves the problem,” Turley said about the case development.
Key Points from Turley’s Analysis
There are persistent legal issues for Special Counsel Smith. Despite Smith’s efforts to narrow the charges following the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity, Turley argued that significant problems remain.
The indictment still includes Trump’s communications with Mike Pence, which Turley believes are “presumptively protected” under the Supreme Court decision. Communications with members of Congress are also included, potentially raising similar immunity concerns.
“For example, he is keeping in, as one of the four main allegations, Trump’s communications with and to Pence. That’s still presumptively protected under the Supreme Court decision. He also includes communications with members of Congress that could also trip a wire,” Turley said about the Mike Pence matter.
Turley highlighted Smith’s decision to retain charges of obstruction of official proceedings as particularly interesting. A recent case (Fisher) has narrowed how prosecutors can bring such charges, requiring allegations of evidence tampering or destruction. Turley questioned how Smith would “thread that needle” given these constraints.
“What’s also interesting, Bret, is he keeps the charges of obstruction of official proceedings. There was a second case, the Fisher case, that dramatically narrowed how prosecutors can bring that charge,” the law expert and professor added to his comments. “They have to essentially allege tampering of evidence or destruction of evidence. It’s not clear how he’s going to thread that needle on those charges.”
Implications of Supreme Court Ruling
The Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity was expected to complicate cases against Trump. Smith’s revised indictment attempts to address this by omitting allegations related to Trump’s “attempt to leverage the Justice Department.” He also hopes to revise language concerning claims that Trump acted outside his official duties
Smith stated that the superseding indictment reflects efforts to “respect and implement the Supreme Court’s holdings and remand instructions.”
“The superseding indictment, which was presented to a new grand jury that had not previously heard evidence in this case, reflects the Government’s efforts to respect and implement the Supreme Court’s holdings and remand instructions in Trump v. United States,” Jack Smith shared in a legal court filing on August 27th.
While Smith has made adjustments, Turley’s analysis suggests that significant legal challenges remain for the prosecution in this high-profile case. Turley clearly doesn’t sound very confident he can overcome these challenges.
Most legal experts who have weighed in so far are skeptical that Jack Smith has a case that can make it anywhere at this point. Furthermore, from a political perspective, all these legal attacks on Donald Trump only seem to make him stronger at the end of the day.
Stay tuned to the DC Daily Journal.
