Renowned attorney comments on new indictment against Trump

[g5000]

Jonathan Turley: The Supreme Court will have problems with this indictment | Fox News Video

Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley reacts to the special filing a new indictment in the election subversion case against former President Trump on 'Special Report.'

www.foxnews.com

I just now heard of this a couple hours ago. Basically, this nut Jack Smith (who was not supposed to be bringing the original case!) re-did the old indictment after the Supreme Ct ruled that presidents have immunity from lawsuits when they are (my words) working in their capacity as a president.

"Renowned attorney."

Turley is a "Fox News contributor" who predicted the New York jury was going to be either a hung jury or would acquit Trump.

Jonathan Turley is a hack. A total hack.

I would not trust Turley to tell me what time it is.

 

[berg80]

I frankly am bewildered.

Yes, we know.

Count 1: 18 U.S.C. § 371 * (Conspiracy to Defraud the United. * States) * *

Count 2: 18 U.S.C. § 1512(k) * (Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official * Proceeding) * *

Count 3: 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(2), 2 * (Obstruction of and Attempt to * Obstruct an Official Proceeding) * *

Count 4: 18 U.S.C. § 241 * (Conspiracy Against Rights)

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/27/politics/read-superseding-indictment-trump-january-6

 

[JoeB131]

This attempt by Smith will be thwarted by a higher court... and this time Smith will be warned to not do this again... he is trying to weasel his way around a supreme court decision and the courts do not like that...

Actually, all the courts lower than SCOTUS upheld his actions....

If SCOTUS wanted to throw out this case, they could have easily ruled on the absurd notion that the President has absolute immunity for actions. Even they weren't willing to go that far.

If anything, SCOTUS would probably be inclined to dial back their ruling even further, lest some future Democratic president abuse it.

 

[two_iron]

Wow, the minute I saw the headline, I knew it was Turley putting on his red dress and fishnets and whoring himself out.

Yeah, his tenured professorship at George Washington University Law School, in constitutional law, certainly can't compete with your 2-hour "Forklift Safety Certificate" and JiffyLube Employee of the Month honors.

I'll bet he wishes he was as smart as you...

 

[rightwinger]

Trump only gets away with it if he wins, which he won't.

After he loses the election, you'll be amazed how many of his Republican friends turn their backs on him, before he can do more damage to the party.

Then they will claim they never supported him

 

[Billiejeens]

I don't have opinion one way or other, but I wouldn't trust the word of any media hired "expert".

He was an expert long before he was a media person.

 

[Shareprofit]

Yeah, his tenured professorship at George Washington University Law School, in constitutional law, certainly can't compete with your 2-hour "Forklift Safety Certificate" and JiffyLube Employee of the Month honors.

I'll bet he wishes he was as smart as you...

Turley is a Trump sell out, no one cares what he says.

 

[Billiejeens]

Grand juries that are empaneled to hear evidence leading to a possible indictment aren't found. They are selected randomly. Holy moly, how you folks hate reality.

You have no relationship with reality.

 

[BackAgain]

Wow, the minute I saw the headline, I knew it was Turley putting on his red dress and fishnets and whoring himself out.

Nah. He simply did not agree with you, you ignorant twat stain.

Disagreeing with you is the hallmark of sanity. And you’re more of the whore.

 

[BackAgain]

Turley is a Trump sell out, no one cares what he says.

Fallacy time. It’s not who says it that matters. It’s what he or she says that does matter.

He happens to be correct.

 

[Blaster]

Smith is a poor prosecutor with a weak record for convictions.

 

[IM2]

Jonathan Turley: The Supreme Court will have problems with this indictment | Fox News Video

Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley reacts to the special filing a new indictment in the election subversion case against former President Trump on 'Special Report.'

www.foxnews.com

I just now heard of this a couple hours ago. Basically, this nut Jack Smith (who was not supposed to be bringing the original case!) re-did the old indictment after the Supreme Ct ruled that presidents have immunity from lawsuits when they are (my words) working in their capacity as a president.

 

[Shareprofit]

You have no relationship with reality.

Neither do you
Right now FIVE separate grand juries have hear evidence of Trump's crimes and every one of them has unanimously recomended your crime wave be indicted. Suck it up pal you're on the wrong side.

 

[WEATHER53]

It’s actually double or triple jeopardy done with a secret grand jury of all Trump haters so crazy eyes Jackass Smith can continue his obsessive, compulsive , zealot riddled persecutions.

 

[Billiejeens]

Fallacy time. It’s not who says it that matters. It’s what he or she says that does matter.

He happens to be correct.

The Democrat Censorship Industrial Complex does like people who don't follow the Democrat Script.

 

[IM2]

This attempt by Smith will be thwarted by a higher court... and this time Smith will be warned to not do this again... he is trying to weasel his way around a supreme court decision and the courts do not like that...

I don't think courts like any decision that makes somebody above the law.

 

[Shareprofit]

Smith is a poor prosecutor with a weak record for convictions.

You wish, right now that's all you've got. Sucker,

 

[Billiejeens]

Neither do you
Right now FIVE separate grand juries have hear evidence of Trump's crimes and every one of them has unanimously recomended your crime wave be indicted. Suck it up pal you're on the wrong side.

You're an idiot.
None of the charges survive an appellant court.

 

[Shareprofit]

The Democrat Censorship Industrial Complex does like people who don't follow the Democrat Script.

Neither do they like criminals like Trump who break the law you MAGA moron.

 

[IM2]

If this is the case….The Supreme Court has ruled a President is immune from prosecution for stealing an election as long as he uses official staff to do it

According to the SCOTUS, Biden can go talk to Jack Smith about this case and it then becomes part of his presdential duties to indict and convict Trump.