Here to weigh in, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz along with Fox News legal analyst Greg Jarrett.
Greg, we'll start with you tonight.
Let's start with this,
that basically the prosecutors
overstepped
using this obstruction
quote law to charge January 6 rioters.
Tell us what it means and more importantly how does it impact
the charges against Donald Trump?
Well the Supreme Court Sean is constantly having to fix the churlish maneuvers,
these sophomore mistakes of rogue prosecutors at the DOJ under Biden and Merrick Garland, they misuse and contort the law for political purposes and then they get spanked as they did today by the Supreme Court for bringing in proper charges. They tried
to force fit an obstruction
statute
that involves the tampering of evidence. Well my goodness, that's not what happened on January 6th and it means as you point out 330
people who were falsely prosecuted
will probably have their convictions either tossed or modified, but for Donald Trump,
it may mean that Jack Smith now has to rewrite his indictment or somehow find a way to circumvent
today's Supreme Court ruling. I think he'll try the latter
because 2 of the 4 charges in the DC case are based on this misapplied
obstruction
law. I guarantee you that Smith is furiously,
right this minute,
digesting
today's decision because
it could potentially gut the special counsel's case. So Smith is a desperate man with the immunity decision,
which I think will be against him coming on Monday.
Yeah. Professor, I'd love your take on this.
Well, first, this has great implications for the New York conviction. Remember yesterday Biden is calling Trump convicted felon? No, he's not. He was convicted of a non-crime in New York. What the prosecutors did in New York is exactly
what the Supreme Court condemned today.
It took a statute that was designed for other purposes,
stretched it, added another statute,
resurrected dead statutes under the statute of
limitations, and invented a new crime.
And the Supreme Court said today, no, no, no, you can't do that. You can't do that whether you're a New York prosecutor or a D.C.
Prosecutor. So this case not only helps Donald Trump and the District of Columbia, it virtually assures
his ultimate reversal of his conviction in New York as well. And it tells prosecutors like Bragg,
don't be creative.
Don't invent
new crimes in order to get at people you don't like, whether they're protesters
or the candidate for president of the United States. This is a good day for America, a good day for civil libertarians,
and I was very pleasantly surprised to see 1 of the liberal justices
join this opinion and shake her finger at prosecutors as well. So this is a very important case for all Americans and all civil libertarians.
Do you both predict, as I do, that the Supreme Court will weigh in on the immunity case with limited immunity that will likely help Trump? I predict that's the outcome. Do you agree?
Yes, I think so. I think they'll extend the existing civil protection for presidents to criminal immunity,
shielding them as long as their actions are within the outer perimeter
of official duties. And Trump has a valid argument.
And the most important thing to say is that if you had immunity while you're president, that immunity continues
after you're president. That's an argument that Jack Smith made the opposite of. The Supreme Court will reject that argument.
So between these 2,
basically we might say bye-bye to the DC case. Is that a fair analysis? Real quick.
Yeah. Okay.
Yeah. So the DC case and the Florida case as well.
Yeah. And the New York case. Appreciate you both.
Thank you.
All right, more Hannity straight ahead.
