George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley on Tuesday likened the indictment of former President Trump to a “legal slurpee.”
“I have never seen an indictment quite like this one," he told Fox News’s Bret Baier.
"I know a lot of judges that would have been not too pleased to receive an indictment like this and would have said, ‘you know, what the heck is this?’” he continued. “I mean, what are you alleging? And [Manhattan District Attorney Alvin] Bragg just sort of waved it off and said I don't have to really say. But my question is how did the grand jury understand what it was doing? We will see a little better with the bill of particulars. But it really raises concerns as to how well the grand jury understood these key linchpins because this thing has the feeling of like a legal slurpee. It's instantly satisfying but it has no nutritional value, there is really nothing there.”
George Washington University Law School Professor Jonathan Turley slams Bragg's patently political prosecution.
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) April 4, 2023
"This case could collapse."
"There's no there there."
"A legal slurpy...no nutritional value, there's really nothing there." pic.twitter.com/qElD8BGv6q
Trump has been charged by a New York grand jury with 34 counts of falsifying business records. The former president pleaded not guilty to all the charges.
Writing about the indictment in the New York Post, Turley went on to call it “unintelligible" and argued it was done to appease leftists.
"Bragg knows his audience. The question is whether he knows this judge," Turley wrote. "Bragg is counting on Judge Juan Merchan being intimidated or distracted by the historical moment. Even if he is right, Merchan will not be the last judge who will have to review this case. At some point, Bragg will have to state the actual criminal basis for these 34 counts."