Legal analyst finds something that 'caught my eye' in latest Trump criminal ruling

The new ruling by Judge Juan Merchan, who denied Trump's claim of presidential immunity, was specific.

Lawfare's legal fellow and courts correspondent Anna Bower pointed to part of the ruling in which Merchan explains that Trump had ample opportunity to bring up the idea of presidential immunity as a defense earlier and chose not to. In fact, Trump could have brought up the matter when his lawyers briefed the Washington, D.C. Court of Appeals about the presidential immunity claim in the case around the federal election.

What was interesting to Bower is that when referencing the case in D.C., the judge wrote, "(hereinafter 'Federal Insurrection Matter') on October 5, 2023." She said that it "caught my eye."

Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story.

ALSO READ: EXCLUSIVE: Congress raids presidential campaign fund in surprise reversal

"Trump's defense here did NOT seem to imply he had immunity over the charges, only certain categories of evidence — distinguishing it from 'the Federal Insurrection Matter,'" commented Just Security's Adam Klasfeld.

Artist Candee Watson, a co-host on X "Spaces," remarked that Trump's followers are "melting down" over the matter. They remarked that special counsel Jack Smith hasn't yet charged Trump with insurrection. There is still an option to include that as the charges but it is unclear if he will do so.

Left-leaning comments said that Judge Merchan should have called it the "coup plot" instead.

In the D.C. case, Trump was charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, witness tampering, conspiracy against the rights of citizens, and obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding.

That case is on hold as parties wait for the Supreme Court to decide whether a president has absolute immunity from any criminal prosecution.

A new national poll by Marquette Law School out Wednesday found that Americans don't buy the presidential immunity claim. When asked whether "former presidents" should have immunity from criminal prosecution, 62 percent said "no." Oddly, when asked if former President Donald Trump should have immunity from criminal prosecution, 56 percent said "no." The sample of voters leaned more toward Trump voters.

Recommended Links: