Fox News analyst hits Trump with bad news: Supreme Court immunity case 'favors Jack Smith'

Fox News analyst hits Trump with bad news: Supreme Court immunity case 'favors Jack Smith'
Jack Smith, Donald Trump (Smith photo by Robin Van Lonkhuijsen for AFP/ Trump by Saul Loeb for AFP)

Fox News judicial contributor Jonathan Turley said special counsel Jack Smith will likely prevail against Donald Trump at the Supreme Court.

During an interview on Tuesday, Fox News host Harris Faulkner asked Turley about Trump's bid to dismiss his election interference case based on presidential immunity.

"The Trump legal team is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to block a recent ruling that denied him blanket immunity for alleged crimes committed as president," Faulkner explained. "And this could delay his trial on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election."

"Well, the court, of course, has already rejected this urgency of special counsel Smith once," Turley noted.

ALSO READ: ‘Worst scenario’: Republican senator feeling used and abused by MAGA

Turley said the court of appeals had forced Trump to take his case directly to the Supreme Court.

"I think Trump has a good argument procedurally," he remarked. "I think it is unfair that he should not be given that same opportunity."

"Where it's going to have trouble, I think, is on the immunity claim. It's very sweeping," the Fox News contributor continued. "And I expect that there are going to be justices, including some on the right, who are skeptical of those claims."

"And what does that mean ultimately for Trump?" Faulkner wondered.

Turley argued there were two aspects to the appeal.

"One is the merits, where I think that it favors Jack Smith with the Supreme Court," he explained. "The other is schedule. Smith is really sort of unyielding and trying to get this thing tried to get Trump convicted before the election."

"Once you're past the summer, you're going to be running out of runway," he added. "The Department of Justice does not like trials right before an election."

Watch the video below from Fox News.

For customer support contact support@rawstory.com. Report typos and corrections to corrections@rawstory.com.

The hope of many Republicans who will be on the ballot in 2026 that they won’t pay a price for meddling with voters' healthcare is swiftly fading as new budget negotiations stall, according to reporting.

According to a report from Politico’s Joanne Kenen, GOP lawmakers have been hoping that the cuts in medical services and rise in rates for those taking advantage of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, would not take effect until after the election, but that is looking less likely, putting conservative lawmakers ill at ease about what is already expected to be a tough road ahead.

According to one political analyst, Republicans are now facing an “immediate firestorm.”

“A full year before anyone casts their vote in November 2026 — meaning now, in the fall of 2025 — the American health care system will begin transitioning from an era of unprecedented expansion of coverage to an era of unprecedented cutbacks. And President Donald Trump and the GOP-controlled Congress will be easy to blame,” Kenen wrote before adding that the Republican-controlled Congress is under the gun to reach a deal on expiring Obamacare provisions.

Without a deal, “insurance premiums are set to rise, often by double-digit percentages, in and out of Affordable Care Act exchanges,” and up to 14 million Americans could lose coverage.

With all of that looming, Patrick Brown, of the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center, who has pushed Republicans to be more receptive to the health needs of their constituents, stated, “I think the gamble the Republicans are taking is [voters] are not going to associate that with us, right?”

Bruce Siegel, president and CEO of America’s Essential Hospitals, claimed the GOP already has a problem, explaining, “There will be impacts before the ’26 midterms.”

“If you’re running a health system and you’re looking at millions of dollars of cuts starting next year, assuming these changes go forth… What do you do?” he elaborated. “Do you shut down your most profitable services? No, you shut down things that lose money. And that’s just the sad mathematics of it.”

You can read more here.

THANKS FOR SUBSCRIBING! ALL ADS REMOVED!

President Donald Trump privately "rages" at UK leaders like Prime Minister Kier Starmer for creating a "haunting" problem for him, according to one of the president's biographers.

Michael Wolff, who has written four books about Trump, discussed the president's trip to the UK on a new episode of "Inside Trump's Head," a podcast he appears on with The Daily Beast's Chief Content Officer, Joanna Coles. Wolff mentioned that the country's leadership appeared to have created a significant problem for Trump by dismissing an ambassador named Peter Mandelson, who had ties to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, ahead of Trump's visit.

Wolff said Mandelson's firing "plunged Trump into something of a rage."

"Trump went around saying to aides, 'Why couldn't they wait to do this until after the trip?'" Wolff said. "'This is just going to remind people of Epstein.'"

Wolff said Trump was particularly eager for the UK visit for a couple of reasons. First, it would give the president some time away from domestic issues he's facing, like the Epstein files, questions about the state of the US economy, and the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

Trump also seems to have a "postcard fantasy" about the royal family, Wolff said, and sometimes envisions himself being part of the family.

Eric Schmitt tried to present himself as an intellectual at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.

He came off like a little boy trying on his father’s clothes in the mirror.

It was all swagger and no fit.

Schmitt thoughtfully entitled his remarks, “There Can Be No Unity Between Good and Evil.” Even the subject of the hearing — smarmy FBI Director Kash Patel — must have been wondering to himself about how that could possibly be helpful.

The problem wasn’t merely with the content of Schmitt’s falsehood-laden messaging. His role, after all, was to parrot Donald Trump’s reprehensible words dividing the nation at a time of national strife, as no American president ever has before.

But Schmitt’s speech — which you can watch here or read here — was nothing more than a faux-intellectual diatribe delivered with the gravitas of Daffy Duck doing a TED talk.

Early on in his remarks, Schmitt sounded like a U.S. Senator:

Over the past week, leaders from across the political spectrum have come out and condemned Charlie [Kirk]'s murder and political violence more broadly. For that, we’re all very grateful. We should be grateful. There have been calls together to come together in the wake of Charlie’s murder and I want to do that. Someday, I pray we can be united as a country again and go forward again as one people under one flag.

That sounded fine to me. My reaction in this space had been that “we should all as Americans deplore — without qualification — Kirk’s murder. It’s a moment that could bring us all together in revulsion, across the great political divide.”

Unfortunately, Schmitt’s gratitude lasted just a few paragraphs. He cited some random polling which he claimed showed that liberals are fine with political violence and conservatives aren’t. That junk doesn’t deserve further mention here, much less — with no vetting or validation — at a U.S. Senate proceeding.

As for “coming together,” it was probably not all that helpful for the senator to spew lies like this one:

The George Soros empire has financed a vast ecosystem of radicals all working together — dropping off bricks at riots — to unleash a tidal wave of violent anarchists on our streets and prop it up with an army of researchers and experts and journalists and propagandists who downplay political violence.

Nothing like serving up propaganda to call out propaganda. It might soothe the sensibilities of MAGA faithful, but Schmitt’s just another politician making stuff up.

But what sets Schmitt apart is his veneer of solemnity while delivering such truly unserious drivel. With no self-awareness, Schmitt persists in trying to dress up the basest political tripe in a wardrobe of make-believe intellectualism.

Behold the philosopher Eric Schmitt holding forth with large words:

Upstream from the dehumanization and demonizing political violence and rhetoric tearing apart our country, is a divide on how we view America and Americans. Are we good? Are we evil? Is there something inherently special about Western civilization or is this 2,000-year project rotten to the core? And if it is something worth fighting for, which I believe it is, how do we do it?”

What?

Now, I’ve written quite a few clunky paragraphs in my day — and mixed more than my share of metaphors — but I’m not certain how to decode Schmitt’s gibberish.

We’ve all heard our nation described as a grand “experiment,” but arguably not one spanning 2,000 years. With apologies to those who maintain Jesus was an American.

And who describes “Western civilization” as a “2,000-year project?” Mind you, this wasn’t a slip of the tongue: it’s in his speech text and was faithfully repeated in his live remarks.

Are we good? Are we evil? Does dehumanization flow upstream? Were the Dark Ages part of Western civilization? Is this the sort of work product you’d get if Plato impregnated Laura Loomer?

I’m not so sure about those questions, but I am about this one:

Does Eric Schmitt truly not comprehend the outrageous hypocrisy of viciously attacking people’s character and motives who disagree with him — and calling them “evil” — and then whining like this?

And I would point out we’ve heard years of the left — their loudest voices — calling anyone on the right an extremist MAGA Republican, a fascist, a Nazi, an existential threat to democracy.

Check yourself. And don’t give me this both sides bullshit!

It’s hard to counter such eloquence from such a towering intellect.

Still, here’s a thought: If you truly hold the worldview that in American politics, everything comes down to good versus evil — and that you’re good and those of us who disagree with you are evil — say it all you want. It’s a free country.

But don’t bother pretending to be smart about it.

(Note: this is the first of a two-part post. Tomorrow’s installment will examine Schmitt’s premise that political violence in America is not a “both sides” matter.)

{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}