Jonathan Turley Lays Out Two Big ‘Torpedoes’ That Could Hurt Jack Smith’s Case

Jonathan Turley, a notable legal expert and Fox News contributor, revealed two issues that could “torpedo” Jack Smith’s cases against former President Donald Trump.

This week, Trump and his legal team are presenting their case before a three-judge panel—arguing that the former president can not be retried on charges addressed in his second impeachment trial (charges of which he was later acquitted).

Further, Trump is arguing that he is immune from prosecution because he was “acting within his official capacity as president,” according to the Daily Caller.

Special Counsel Jack Smith, who appears to have a particular animus for Trump, is aggressively moving forward cases that appear to be vulnerable on several fronts, according to Turley.

The George Washington University law professor shared in an interview with Fox News: “There is a number of torpedoes in the water here. One is time, which you mentioned. Most of us expressed skepticism about the March 4th date. It seems even less likely now if that date is missed, can they get a trial in before the election?”

Turley continued: “Keep in mind this is a motivated panel that is likely to issue an opinion quickly. But the Trump campaign can ask for review en banc for the full court and then they can go to the Supreme Court and that will eat up the clock.”

Turley then noted that Smith may be facing an eligibility issue that could disqualify him from continuing to prosecute cases against Trump.

“There is also another…issue here,” Turley began. “A respected law professor at Northwestern, named Steven Calebresi, has filed briefs [stating] he thinks there is a problem with Smith himself. That he and others believe that Smith’s appointment is unconstitutional.”

“Now that’s the ultimate Hail Mary play but the panel seems to be giving it serious consideration,” added Turley. It doesn’t mean they are buying that argument, but it will be interesting if it comes up today.”

Agreeing with Calebreski are Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law professor Steven G. Calabresi, Boston University School of Law professor Gary S. Lawson, and former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese. These notables filed an amicus brief with the court in December

The brief argues that Smith does not meet the constitutional requirements to serve as a Special Counsel and therefore has no standing to bring charges against the former president.

The strongly worded brief supports Trump’s contention that the Biden administration has weaponized the DOJ—stating that Attorney General Merrick Garland overstepped his authority in appointing Smith as Special Counsel.

The brief states that Garland “exceeded his statutory and constitutional authority” in appointing Smith as Special Counsel. Therefore, “every action that [Smith] has taken since his appointment is now null and void.”

The brief adds: “We do not want future U.S. attorney generals, such as the ones Donald Trump might appoint, if he is reelected in 2024, to be able to pick any tough thug lawyer off the street and empower him in the way Attorney General Merrick Garland has empowered private citizen Jack Smith. Think of what that would have led to during the McCarthy era.”

Many are angry that Trump may overcome the multiple legal challenges the Left has set before him. On Tuesday morning, journalists were caught on a hot mic jokingly hopeful that Trump may be assassinated as he attends proceedings.

Scroll down to leave a comment and share your thoughts.