╌>

Jonathan Turley Says Alvin Bragg Is Making Trump’s Immunity Case ‘For Him’

  

Category:  Op/Ed

Via:  vic-eldred  •  4 weeks ago  •  14 comments

By:   Story by Harold Hutchison

Jonathan Turley Says Alvin Bragg Is Making Trump’s Immunity Case ‘For Him’
“This is a highly political, in my view, legally absurd case in Manhattan, and it is playing out as the court considers the implications of this type of prosecution, and so for the court, I think it’s only going to reinforce this idea that we don’t necessarily want to go to either extreme, but perhaps there is a nuanced or middle road here where we can afford some protection to a president for actions taken related to their office,” Turley continued.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


G eorge Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said Thursday that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg helped former President Donald Trump make his case for immunity.

New York Judge Juan Merchan   ordered   Trump to attend the trial regarding a $130,000 payout to porn star   Stormy Daniels , meaning he cannot attend the Supreme Court’s oral arguments on presidential immunity set for Thursday. Turley said that Bragg’s prosecution may work against arguments special counsel Jack Smith will make.

“In some ways, having him in New York is the best argument he could put in front of the justices because Alvin Bragg is making the case for him,” Turley said. “I mean, as the court considers the implications of not extending immunity to presidents, Alvin Bragg is showing what that means.”

“This is a highly political, in my view, legally absurd case in Manhattan, and it is playing out as the court considers the implications of this type of prosecution, and so for the court, I think it’s only going to reinforce this idea that we don’t necessarily want to go to either extreme, but perhaps there is a nuanced or middle road here where we can afford some protection to a president for actions taken related to their office,” Turley continued.

Smith   secured   a four-count indictment against Trump in August related to the former president’s alleged efforts to challenge the results of the 2020 election. Trump’s attorneys   accused   Smith in February of having “a political motive” to try the case before the 2024 presidential election, which former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy noted after Turley’s comments.

“The fact that there seems like there’s a crisis and there’s criticism of the court that they didn’t get to this fast enough is not over a legal imperative, it’s over a political imperative where you have Democratic prosecutors, one in New York is an elected Democratic prosecutor, who decided that they wanted to get Trump on trial and by their life, hopefully convicted in the run-up to the election,” McCarthy said. “To my mind, if I’m the court, I’m actually put off by that. I don’t feel like a pressure to accelerate my consideration of the case, I resent the fact that I have been thrown gratuitously into a political context.”


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    4 weeks ago

The testimony given yesterday by David Pecker was devastating to the prosecution and today it only got worse. We still don't know what crime Trump was supposedly concealing, the prosecutor called it a conspiracy to try and win an election and we all know how the jurors are going to vote. So, ya, I guess the Justices on the Supreme Court are saying to themselves, we can never let such malfeasance ever happen again.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2  Sean Treacy    4 weeks ago

 think it’s only going to reinforce this idea that we don’t necessarily want to go to either extreme, but perhaps there is a nuanced or middle road here where we can afford some protection to a president for actions taken related to their office,

Exactly.  A balance between protecting a President  against partisan prosecutors while still holding him accountable for misdeeds. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3  JohnRussell    4 weeks ago

no one interested in honest commentary pays any attention to turley

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.1  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @3    4 weeks ago
no one interested in honest commentary pays any attention to turley

Sooo........progressives

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @3    4 weeks ago

TRUTH

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
4  Greg Jones    4 weeks ago

The Democrats foolish actions could lead to them setting new precedents that could come back to haunt them down the road.

We now know they believe it is OK to go after former presidents and administration member once they leave office.

I can imagine a lot of cases being opened after Trump is sworn in to investigate all of Biden's high crimes and misdemeanors.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5  Gsquared    4 weeks ago

Contrary to your "reporting", Pecker's testimony made the prosecution's case and was devastating for the defense.  He admitted that Trump's sole intention was to cover up his conduct in order to influence the 2016 election, not to protect his family from enbarrassment.  That is the foundation for the felony charges, and based on Pecker's testimony alone, Trump's felonious misconduct has already been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

As for Turley, his opinion is absurd.  How can misconduct that occurred before Trump became President be subject to  Presidential immunity under even the most attenuated theory?  Obviously, it can't.  For Turley to imply that Trump's hush money payments to Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election had anything to do with Trump's "actions related to" his time in office is, in the most appropriate legal terminology "pure hogwash".

Clearly, reason and rationality are not part of Trump defenders' playbook.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gsquared @5    4 weeks ago
He admitted that Trump's sole intention was to cover up his conduct in order to influence the 2016 election, not to protect his family from en

Trump was President in 2017. 

 Turley to imply that Trump's hush money payment

The "hush money"  payment was not illegal.  NDA's are perfectly legal. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Gsquared  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1    4 weeks ago
Trump was President in 2017. 

So?  The alleged misconduct occurred before Trump was in office.

The "hush money"  payment was not illegal.  NDA's are perfectly legal. 

So?  The felony counts are based on election interference, which, obviously, occurred before the election.  The "hush money" was central to the election interference scheme and, again, did not have anything to do with Trump's "actions related to" his time in office.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.1    4 weeks ago
he alleged misconduct occurred before Trump was in office

The misconduct took place in February 2017. 

e felony counts are based on election interference, which, obviously, occurred before the election

but the only alleged  illegal act took place in February 2017, which, obviously, occurred after the election. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.1.3  Gsquared  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.2    4 weeks ago

Ok, you contend that the election interference occurred after the election.  Make that argument to the jury.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.3    4 weeks ago
ou contend that the election interference occurred after the electi

I don't contend that. The State does.  The only alleged illegal act occurred with the misbooking of the NDA (even though that would be a federal crime and  the feds did not pursue it) in 2017 . That's it.

So  what was the illegal act in 2016 that constitutes illegal election interference (whatever that is)? 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
5.2  Ronin2  replied to  Gsquared @5    4 weeks ago

[comments about other members are always off topic] [] and [no value]

[] Where is the damn crime?

Turley has forgotten more about the law than most on this site will ever know.

[sweeping generalization, labeling.][]

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.2.1  Gsquared  replied to  Ronin2 @5.2    4 weeks ago
Where is the damn crime?

If you don't know what the allegations are by this time, that is not anyone's issue but yours.

Turley has forgotten more about the law than most on this site will ever know.

In general that would be true.  Specifically, Turley hasn't been a lawyer as long as I have by about 7 years, but based on his crap arguments he probably has forgotten more.

 
 

Who is online