Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, has recently penned a column for The Hill that explores his perspective on Donald Trump’s legal issues in New York and attempts to link them to two recent Supreme Court cases. Throughout the article, Turley seeks to create a narrative where he argues that the treatment of Trump’s case reveals a significant departure from established legal norms as upheld by the Supreme Court.
Turley’s arguments hinge on comparisons to two Supreme Court cases: Gonzalez v. Trevino and Erlinger v. United States. In Gonzalez v. Trevino, Turley draws a parallel to a retaliatory arrest claim, arguing that Trump’s NY conviction for falsifying business records is similarly frivolous. However, such claims fail to hold water when juxtaposed with legal records. The New York Law Journal clarifies that nearly 9,800 felony charges for falsifying business records have been issued since 2015, hence Trump’s case is far from unique or unprecedented.
- His comparison to Erlinger’s case, which dealt with enhanced sentencing for unlawful firearm possession, also falls short. Turley suggests that the jury in Trump’s case lacked unanimity on the secondary crime, drawing a disingenuous parallel to Erlinger. However, this narrative overlooks that juries are not typically required to agree on the motive, only on the crime itself.
This wasn’t Turley’s first use of intellectual contortions to fit a preferred narrative, as highlighted in previous articles which have covered his controversial stances to maintain favor within the MAGA movement and avoid falling out of favor with his audience on platforms like Fox News.
For example, the idea that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg “pledged to get Trump” is, at best, an exaggerated interpretation of Bragg’s statements. Even Turley’s assertion that Bragg’s predecessor rejected the case simplifies the intricate legal decisions made inter-temporally by different DAs like Cy Vance, who left the investigation ongoing. According to the New York Times, any decision made was nuanced and did not reflect political intentions as suggested.
Turley’s arguments, presented with selective facts and paraphrased conclusions, highlight a contentious perspective but fail to substantiate that Trump’s prosecution is markedly different from other legal cases in New York. For further reading, you can access the original article on Above the Law.