Turley points out why appeals court ruling against Trump may actually be a victory: 'They succeeded in doing that'



Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley explained on Tuesday why the appeals court ruling against Donald Trump is not a total loss for the former president.

On Tuesday, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals rejected Trump's arguments that presidential immunity protects him from criminal prosecution in special counsel Jack Smith's election subversion case.

The three-judge panel explained:

For the purpose ofthis criminal case, former President Trump has become citizenTrump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant.But any executive immunity that may have protected him whilehe served as President no longer protects him against thisprosecution.
...
At bottom, former President Trump's stance wouldcollapse our system of separated powers by placing thePresident beyond the reach of all three Branches. Presidentialimmunity against federal indictment would mean that, as to thePresident, the Congress could not legislate, the Executive couldnot prosecute and the Judiciary could not review.

The forceful ruling, while a loss for Trump, is not a total victory for Smith, according to Turley.

"The most practical impact of this appeal was indeed the delay that it caused. It was very important for the Trump team to try to push this trial back. They succeeded in doing that," Turley reacted on Fox News.

"The next stage here is that they can ask for review of the entire court — what’s called an en banc petition. That has to be reviewed and voted on even if they reject it, and that will take some time," he explained. "And then they will no doubt appeal to the Supreme Court, which now has a considerable stack on the desks of these justices, including election-related cases."

Smith originally requested Trump's trial begin in January, giving the president just five months to prepare for trial. Judge Tanya Chutkan rejected that request and said the trial would begin on March 4, one day before Super Tuesday.

But Chutkan finally acknowledged last week the trial will not begin on time, and pushed back its start back indefinitely. The trial was derailed when she originally rejected Trump's immunity arguments, which the president's lawyers appealed, thus stalling court proceedings.

Smith tried to prevent a trial delay by petitioning the Supreme Court to bypass the appeals court — arguing the "public interest" necessitates a speedy trial — but the Supreme Court rejected the request.

With the trial delayed and Trump left with two appeal options, it's becoming less likely the trial will be concluded by Election Day.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Jack Smith got secret search warrant for Trump's Twitter account — and Twitter was fined $350,000 in the process



Special counsel Jack Smith obtained a secret search warrant to comb through former President Donald Trump's Twitter account.

Court documents unsealed on Wednesday show that a federal judge approved the warrant in January. The documents do not say, however, what investigators were searching for or what criminal evidence they believed may exist in Trump's account.

The existence of the warrant was revealed in court documents from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Not only did Smith obtain the warrant, but prosecutors hit Twitter with a "nondisclosure order that prohibited Twitter from notifying anyone about the existence or contents of the warrant," court documents said.

The D.C. Appeals Court said:

Based on ex parte affidavits, the district court found probable cause to search the Twitter account for evidence of criminal offenses. Moreover, the district court found that there were "reasonable grounds to believe" that disclosing the warrant to former President Trump "would seriously jeopardize the ongoing investigation" by giving him "an opportunity to destroy evidence, change patterns of behavior, [or] notify confederates."

Twitter, however, objected, arguing the nondisclosure order violated the First Amendment and would "preclude [Trump] from asserting executive privilege to shield communications made using his Twitter account." Twitter argued that enforcement of the order should have been halted until a court resolved those objections.

While in the process of litigating the nondisclosure argument, Twitter failed to comply with the search warrant fully until three days after a court-ordered deadline. The district court then held Twitter in contempt of court and levied a $350,000 penalty.

Although the amount of the fine is meaningless to Twitter, the court imposed the fine by taking advantage of Elon Musk's wealth.

"The government suggested sanctions that would accrue at a geometric rate: $50,000 per day, to double every day that Twitter did not comply," the appeals court explained. "The court adopted that suggestion, noting that Twitter was sold for over $40 billion and that its owner's net worth was over $180 billion. Twitter did not object to the sanctions formula."

In the end, Twitter lost its appeal. A three-judge panel consisting of two Biden appointees and one Obama appointee affirmed the district court's actions "in all respects."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!