George Conway: 'Bulletproof' Trump immunity ruling may not be 'worth Supreme Court’s time'

07 February 2024

On Tuesday, February 6, three federal appeals court judges handed down a major decision that special counsel Jack Smith was hoping for: Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson, Florence Pan and J. Michelle Childs emphatically rejected former President Donald Trump's claim that he enjoys total immunity from prosecution in Smith's election interference case.

The decision upholds a previous ruling by Judge Tanya Chutkan, who has been assigned to the case. Chutkan flat-out rejected Trump's "presidential immunity" argument, stressing that U.S. presidents do not enjoy a "divine right of kings."

Similarly, Henderson, Pan and Childs wrote, "We cannot accept former President Trump's claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power — the recognition and implementation of election results. Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count."

Trump and his loyalists are hoping the U.S. Supreme Court will reverse the decision, but it remains to be seen whether or not the justices will agree to review it — and what they will decide if they do.

During a February 6 appearance on CNN, conservative attorney George Conway praised the "masterful" ruling as "bulletproof" and expressed strong doubts that the High Court will strike down Henderson, Pan and Childs' ruling.

The Never Trumper told CNN's Kaitlan Collins, "It was masterful because it combined so many elements. It combined constitutional text, judicial precedent, history, and just sheer logic — and the party's own concessions, Trump's own concessions — to make just an absolutely cohesive whole opinion that just inexorably leads you to the conclusion that he is not immune. And it was just so well-done."

Conway added that an "aspect" of the ruling that makes it "even more bulletproof" is the fact that the three judges "narrowly focused on the exact situation in this case."

Conway told Collins, "They weighed the potential costs of not having immunity…. And they matched it up against the public interest…. This was the public's interest in constitutional democracy and in the peaceful transition of power."

When Collins asked the conservative attorney what the U.S. Supreme Court might say about the ruling, he responded, "This opinion is so good and so clear, so comprehensive. There's nothing in it that could be possibly attacked. And I don't see how even the Supreme Court…. could write a better opinion that more accurately states what the law is and should be. And as a result, I don't think it's worth the Court's time to deal with it at this point."

Conway added, "If Trump is convicted — which I think he will be — they can actually review this after his conviction."

Watch the full video below or at this link.

From Your Site Articles