Turley: Trump Is Right — New York Case Is an ‘Embarrassment’

Smith: “Let’s bring in Jonathan Turley now, George Washington University law professor and Fox News contributor. Jonathan, you look at the court of public opinion on this, U.S. adults’ view of the hush money case that we are watching play out in real time, and when asked how Americans see the former President Trump’s behavior in this hush money case, 35% say they see it as illegal, okay, but 31% say it’s unethical, but not illegal, and 14% say nothing wrong. So, 45% of respondents say they see it as unethical or nothing wrong, more than those who see it as illegal behavior. Your thoughts on this day?”
TURLEY: “Well, that is not unexpected. I think if you poll people and ask if Trump was responsible for the bubonic plague, you would end up with the same 35%. I mean, we have these hard numbers on either end of the poll when it comes to Trump. They don’t move no matter what the subject is. What is clear is, in this case, Trump is right. This is an embarrassment. I mean, the fact that we are actually talking about this case being presented in a New York courtroom leaves me in utter disbelief. I mean, the arguments today did, in fact, capture all the problems here. You had this misdemeanor under state law that had run out. This is going back related to the 2016 election. They zapped it back into life by alleging that there was a campaign finance violation under the federal laws that doesn’t exist. The Department of Justice doesn’t view it this way. But on top of that, you’ve got these tough factual issues that were laid out well by the Trump team, saying someone else designated this as a legal expense and he was actually paid far in excess of this because this was a legal account. But also keep in mind, this is what Hillary Clinton’s people did. Remember, when they funded the Steele Dossier, which they denied to reporters, they put it as a legal expense. And then they fought the eventual fine they received from the federal government saying that it was a legal expense. But now you’ve got some of the same Democrats supporting this bizarre theory.”
ROBERTS: “So, in terms of Democrats too, Trump says that there’s coordination between Bragg’s office and Washington. Bragg’s office says, ‘No, no, no, there’s no coordination.’ Yet, what do we see at trial today? The prosecution being led in part by Matthew Colangelo, who was the former associate attorney general of the United States, who gave up that plum position to go back and become a state prosecutor. Does that seem a little unusual?”
TURLEY: “Well, you can only imagine what Trump was thinking. This is like playing poker with someone with their cards facing outward. I mean, the first person they bring up is the very guy that they got from the Biden Justice Department, who is leading this effort. That only reaffirms and supports this narrative that this is all coordinated. It’s a mystery to me why they would do that, except there is a chilling reality here: it doesn’t matter, it’s New York. The fact is that most people in most courts would be, like, ‘Whoa, let’s not start with the former Biden justice attorney to make this argument.’ But in New York, it doesn’t matter because not much else matters except the name of the defendant on the caption, Donald Trump.”
Smith: “You know, it’s remarkable, as we continue to cover this, Jonathan, the optics of President Biden out there on the campaign trail, three stops in Pennsylvania on Friday, last week alone, and the former president sitting in a courtroom. He lamented that very point earlier on missing campaigning. Listen.”

[Clip starts]
Trump:” This is what took me off and takes me off the campaign trail. Because I should be in Georgia now. I should be in Florida now. I should be in a lot of different places right now campaigning, and I’m sitting here. This will go on for a long time. It is very unfair. The judge is conflicted, as you know. It is very unfair, what’s going on. I should be allowed to campaign.”
[Clip ends]

Smith: “Many times, he said, ‘That’s very unfair. I should be allowed to campaign.’ I want to get your reaction to that.”
TURLEY: “Well, I think he’s right. This case should not have been brought. If it were brought, there is no reason to have this right before the election, in my view. But this is becoming the split screen election, right? Earlier, it was pretty damaging to see the split screen between Trump in different court rooms. This is even more effective, when the other side of the screen shows a Biden campaigning in key states like Pennsylvania, while he’s held in this courtroom. It really brings home something that bothers a lot of Americans, including people that don’t particularly like Trump, that this is the weaponization of the criminal legal system. It’s something we should all be able to condemn, but in this age of rage, it just does not matter to many people.”
ROBERTS: “Jonathan, one quick question about one other issue here, and that is the bond that Trump put up here in court. Letitia James pounding the table, saying that this company that put it up, Knight Specialty Insurance, not qualified, they probably don’t have the resources to make good on it if it gets called in. A New York judge put the kibosh on that argument and said, ‘No, $175 million is just fine with me.’ So where does this go from here?”
TURLEY:” Well, it has just been unrelenting that James has been constantly hitting on this bond, but also on the case. The court said, ‘Come on. He put up $175 million in cash. What do you want? I’ll put some more conditions on this, but I am not going to say that this bond is invalid because it’s not, it’s a perfectly good bond in the sense that he’s going to pay this if he has to. So what is James going to do next? I don’t know. I mean, order pizzas to his house? I don’t know. But it has been just the series of harassing moves by James.”