Jonathan Turley questioned the January 6 indictment of former President Donald Trump saying the case against Trump by Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith was “very difficult to prove.”
Turley said: “It’s really approaching the urban legend status because he’s not charged with incitement. He’s not charged with insurrection. He’s not charged with seditious conspiracy.
“He’s not charged with all of those things the Democrats impeached him on the second time. So they’re really bigfooting the Constitution here. It’s not there. But the question is, what is here? And I have to tell you, this is pretty thin soup, in my view.
“They have a colossal constitutional problem that they will have to overcome from the outset.
“They have to establish all of these linchpins, that he not only believed that — the truth of the matter, that he understood he was lying, but then he played a criminal role in getting these other individuals to take the steps mentioned in the indictment.
“That is a very difficult case to prove, and I think part of the dynamic that we’re seeing is that you can’t just pursue a president from pillar to post across the country without people beginning to tune out.
“I mean, look, this day would be called a life-changing experience for most people.
“For Donald Trump, it’s called Thursday.
“He is — this is his third indictment.
“He’s going to likely get a fourth indictment, and the real jury in this case is likely the one that will be voting for 2024.
“And I think we’re already seeing how this is impacting them.
“But I have to tell you, I — in this case, I should think that Trump would welcome aspects of this case, precisely because of that issue and also because he has these threshold legal questions that he should be able to get to the appellate courts fairly quickly.
“So Smith has to be careful what he’s asking for.
“The Trump team might give it to him.
“It’s unlikely he will get a trial put in front of the Florida trial.
“But they could very well help him out in moving these issues to the appellate court and asking them, is this the criminalization of disinformation?
“Are you about to criminalize false political speech?
“Because, in the past, the Supreme Court has been extremely skeptical of laws that attempt to do that.”