Special Counsel Jack Smith’s recent indictment of former President Donald Trump has been described as lacking coherence. On Tuesday, Smith submitted a superseding indictment in the case concerning alleged election interference, which adjusted the charges following a Supreme Court ruling affirming that presidents enjoy extensive legal immunity for actions performed in the course of their official duties.
During an appearance on “Special Report With Bret Baier,” legal scholar Turley remarked that although Smith has eliminated conflicting evidence, he remains unconvinced that this revision adequately addresses the fundamental issues surrounding the arguments against Trump, particularly those aspects shielded by the Supreme Court’s rulings.
“It’s the shrinkflation indictment. It’s the same packaging, just less product inside. What they did is kept the four charges, and they just took out any evidence that clearly would have contradicted the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity. It does not hold together, in my view, very well. I don’t even think it solves the problem,” Turley said.
“For example, he is keeping in, as one of the four main allegations, Trump’s communications with and to Pence. That’s still presumptively protected under the Supreme Court decision. He also includes communications with members of Congress that could also trip a wire,” Turley continued. “The first two main theories deal with state officials and the slates, the alternative slates that Trump’s team was pushing. So he doesn’t really get out of the problem that many still see with this.”
Watch:
