Thursday on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity,” FNC contributor Jonathan Turley offered his assessment of the presidential immunity arguments made on behalf of former President Donald Trump earlier during oral arguments before the Supreme Court.
Turley called it a “good day” for Trump.
Partial transcript as follows:
HANNITY: Let’s get your take, first, on the argument before the Supreme Court today on the issue of immunity. I always thought the better argument was limited immunity, not absolute immunity. Putting all of that aside, I thought a lot of — a lot of interesting points were brought up by the justices if I may.
And I think that, you know, if you look at the comments of Clarence Thomas who said, well, what about presidents that have been you know led coup efforts abroad or arguments that about Barack Obama and killing with drone strikes, Americans?
I thought those opening arguments by the Trump attorney was well was a well-thought out argument or the same thing with George W. Bush and the argument they made there, will this apply to all future presidents and will it be in the back of their mind as they make life and death decisions, which is, you know, a big part of their job?
TURLEY: Yeah, I thought that these were pretty penetrating questions from the justices. You know, the three liberal justices made very clear early on they were going to vote with the special counsel. But the remainder of the justices were concerned about arguments on both sides. They didn’t like the sweeping aspects of the Trump team’s argument, but they also did not like the sweeping arguments of the special counsel.
And Chief Justice John Roberts delivered a haymaker on the D.C. Circuit. He quoted a line from them which basically said that these acts can be prosecuted because they’re being prosecuted, and that circular language really sort of produced some chuckles in the room. But Roberts was asking a very serious question, how can that be the standard for presidents?
So it looked like they were trying to sort of grope in the darkness, trying to find a third option, something that gives protection to presidents while not giving them carte blanche.
HANNITY: Yeah, I agree. I did see your X post about wavering rebuttal which I agree with you. That was a little unexpected and frankly an opportunity missed to my view.
TURLEY: Yeah, I was very surprised when Chief Justice Roberts turned to the Trump’s counsel and said, all right, rebuttal and he said, no, thanks, and that’s something you rarely see. There was a lot still on the table and you — I don’t know of any circumstance quite frankly where you ever pass on rebuttal in the Supreme Court.
HANNITY: Well, let me ask you this, I don’t see a definitive ruling against Trump. I know it’s not wise to maybe listen to oral arguments and think about how these justices ultimately will rule. I think, ultimately, a majority of justices and this was my impression seem inclined to rule that former presidents have protection from criminal charges but not absolute immunity.
I don’t know if that means remanding it down to a lower court. I don’t know if that means that they will give instructions to a lower court, or if they will just outright decide it right there. What are your thoughts?
TURLEY: Well, if this trajectory continues from oral argument, it was a good day for Donald Trump, because there were five justices that clearly were not ding into the D.C. Circuit’s approach. Now, that doesn’t mean that they’re going to say that Trump is immune from prosecution. But at a minimum, if that is the case, they would likely have to remand it to the district court to say, we need you to develop this record a little further. If they do that, it’s hard to see how this could possibly be tried before the election.
And if president — if former President Trump has made the next president, then Robert — then Jack Smith may never see a jury in this case. I mean, it could end the prosecutions.
Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor
