George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley argued Tuesday that Judge Juan Merchan’s refusal to toss President-elect Donald Trump’s conviction blew up the media’s narrative about the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling.
Merchan rejected Trump’s lawyers’ request Monday night to dismiss the president-elect’s 34-count conviction for allegedly falsifying business records to cover up a $130,000 hush money payment to former porn actress Stormy Daniels. Turley said this decision contradicted the media’s panicking about the Supreme Court’s ruling in July that presidents are immune from prosecution for official acts taken while they are in office.
“[Merchan] really iron-plated this decision. He said ‘first of all, this was not official conduct and even if it was official conduct, it wasn’t protected,’” Turley said. “And if it was protected, and there’s some evidence that came in that shouldn’t have come in, it was all harmless error. So you can pick any one of those three and he would still be good to go. That is an opinion that is likely to get support from some people on the appellate level. What’s interesting about the opinion is it really contradicts what many in the media have said for months. That the Supreme Court’s decision granted sweeping immunity, that it was a ‘death squad ruling,’ Merchan had no difficulty in finding exceptions that might apply to this case.”
“And so I think a lot of judges will probably agree with the outcome, not necessarily all of the reasoning of Judge Merchan, but we will have to see. There are good faith arguments that the Trump team made and will make on appeal,” Turley continued.
WATCH:
The left-wing media and Democrats feared that Trump and future presidents would be allowed to commit any crime without facing any consequence as a result of the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling. Their concerns reflected Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion, which stated that the court created “a law-free zone” for the president who is now “insulated from criminal prosecution.”
Bragg, who prosecuted Trump in the case, suggested in November that Merchan suspend the sentencing until after the president-elect leaves office in January 2029. Turley said the idea of waiting until after Trump’s presidential term to conduct the sentencing is a “horrific idea” that could lead to bad outcomes for the nation and the legal system.
Special Counsel Jack Smith charged Trump in August 2023 with four counts over his alleged attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election results on January 6, 2021. Trump’s legal team attempted to have the case dismissed on the grounds that the now-president-elect was immune from criminal prosecution for official acts taken during the presidency.
After the Supreme Court ruled that a president is immune from official acts, Smith filed a superseding indictment in an attempt to argue that Trump acted outside of his presidential duties. The special counsel dismissed the case, along with the indictment which alleged that the now-president-elect mishandled classified documents, after Trump won the election.
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who charged Trump with 18 counts for allegedly attempting to overturn the election in Georgia, is currently on hold from pursuing her case as the Georgia Court of Appeals is contemplating on whether she should be disqualified over an alleged undisclosed relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
