During a recent discussion, host Harris Faulkner brought attention to the fact that former President Donald Trump is gearing up to appeal a decision that denied him immunity from criminal prosecution. Additionally, Special Counsel Jack Smith expressed a desire to swiftly bring the matter to a conclusive resolution. Legal expert Turley weighed in on the situation, asserting that while Trump may have a valid procedural argument, his case might falter when it comes to the merits.
Turley began by highlighting what he considered a procedural issue. He pointed out that the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit appeared to be posing a threat of punishment for Trump merely for appealing its decision. Turley explained that attempting such an appeal could result in the appellate court sending the mandate back to the trial court. This, in turn, could lead to the initiation of pretrial proceedings before a thorough review of the case—a situation Turley deemed unfair.
However, Turley quickly transitioned to another critical aspect of Trump’s legal challenges. He expressed skepticism about Trump’s immunity claim, describing it as sweeping and predicting that some justices, even those on the right, might be doubtful of its validity.
When asked about the implications for Trump, Turley elucidated the two main factors at play. Firstly, he delved into the merits of the case, opining that it leans in favor of Special Counsel Jack Smith when presented to the Supreme Court. The second aspect Turley addressed was the timing or schedule of the legal proceedings. He highlighted Smith’s determined efforts to expedite the trial and secure a conviction before an upcoming election. Turley pointed out the potential challenges associated with scheduling a trial close to an election, noting that the Department of Justice typically prefers to avoid such scenarios.
In unpacking the procedural concerns, Turley raised the issue of potential punishment for Trump’s appeal. He argued that the threat of sending the mandate back to the trial court creates an unfair scenario where pretrial proceedings could resume without a comprehensive review of the case. This procedural quagmire, according to Turley, adds a layer of complexity to Trump’s legal strategy.
Shifting to the immunity claim, Turley expressed reservations about its broad scope. He anticipated skepticism from some justices, even those ideologically aligned with Trump, which could undermine the strength of this aspect of the case. This analysis implies that Trump’s legal team may face an uphill battle in convincing the judiciary, particularly on the immunity issue.
Regarding the merits of the case, Turley provided a nuanced perspective. While acknowledging the potential procedural hurdles, he emphasized that Trump’s challenges might be more pronounced when the substantive aspects of the case are considered. Turley indicated that, in his view, the merits of the case favor Special Counsel Jack Smith, suggesting that Trump may encounter difficulties in overcoming the legal arguments put forth by the prosecution.
The discussion also touched upon the strategic element of timing in legal proceedings. Turley highlighted the urgency displayed by Special Counsel Jack Smith in attempting to expedite the trial and secure a conviction before an election. He noted that as the legal process extends beyond a certain point, it becomes increasingly challenging to schedule a trial close to an election. Turley pointed out the Department of Justice’s general aversion to conducting trials in the proximity of electoral events.
In essence, Turley’s analysis provides a multifaceted examination of the various challenges facing Donald Trump in his legal endeavors. From procedural intricacies to concerns about the breadth of the immunity claim and the strategic considerations of timing, the discussion paints a comprehensive picture of the complexities surrounding this legal battle. As Trump gears up for his appeal, the legal landscape appears fraught with challenges that could shape the trajectory of the case and its potential impact on the political landscape.
“I think Trump has a good argument procedurally,” submitted Turley, who said that the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was essentially threatening to punish him for appealing its decision.
“If he tries to do that, they’ll send the mandate back to the trial court. And what that means is that the trial court could start pretrial proceedings again before anyone reviews this,” said Turley. “I think it is unfair.”
But then Turley shifted gears.
“Where he’s [Trump] going to have trouble, I think, is on the immunity claim. It’s very sweeping, and I expect that there are going to be justices, including some on the right, who are skeptical of those claims,” he argued.
“And what does that mean ultimately for Trump?” inquired Faulkner.
“Well, there’s two aspects in play here,” he answered. “One is the merits, where I think that it favors Jack Smith with the Supreme Court. The other is schedule. Smith is really, you know, sort of unyielding and trying to get this thing tried to get Trump convicted before the election. Once you’re past the summer, you’re going to be running out of runway. The Department of Justice does not like trials right before an election.”
