Jonathan Turley, a legal analyst for Fox News, responded to the recent Supreme Court ruling on the January 6 riot by stating that it severely weakens Jack Smith’s legal cases against Donald Trump. The decision made by the highest court in the country highlighted that prosecutors from the Department of Justice had gone too far in using an obstruction law to charge individuals involved in the riot.
This ruling may lead to a reopening of some cases of those who were previously convicted for their participation in the events of that day. Turley expressed his views on the matter during an interview with Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum, emphasizing that the decision is favorable for the former president as it significantly undermines the case being constructed by Smith in Trump’s D.C. criminal trial.
MACCALLUM: Jonathan, do any of the rioters who are in jail today get released because of this?
TURLEY: They very well could be. There’s two aspects to this. Some of them were convicted of what is now established to be, improper charges. I mean, that hundreds of people were the subject of improper charges by the Justice Department. That includes, President Trump, who has not been tried yet. They were also sentenced, based on this conviction, as well as a mix of other things. So those sentencing decisions now have to be reevaluated. I said all along that I was surprised by how heavy the Department of Justice went on obstruction. I analogized it to someone going to Vegas and playing roulette, but only betting red. Well, basically, the court just said red’s not a bet. So we’ve got to go back and look at all of these cases, not just for those, who now have these convictions knocked out, but how they impact sentencing. For President Trump, this is a big day. I mean, I’ve said all along that Fisher needs to be treated as important as the immunity decision, potentially for Trump. It basically rips the wings off the plane that Jack Smith is trying to get off the ground in DC. Now, can he push that plane forward on the runway? I don’t know. Because if you take this this claim out, it’s really integral to his entire complaint. I mean, it’s hard to see how the complaint holds together if if he was excessive and wrong in bringing these charges. So normally you would see a superseding indictment. And as, as my friend Andy said, but I expect he’s going to try to avoid that. But for Trump, what a day. I mean, his nominees put the court over the top in delivering the coup de gras on Chevron. And then they just knocked out hundreds of these, convictions for January 6th. These citizens should not have been charged with this crime.
