He had a way 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 "law" to charge January 6th 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, the sophomoric 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 improper 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 two of the four charges in the D.C. 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 a convicted felon. No, he's not. He was convicted of a noncrime 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 in 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 candidates 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 one 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 two, basically, we might say bye bye to the D.C. case. Is that a fair analysis? Real quick. Yeah. OK. Yeah. To the D.C. case and the Florida case as well. Yeah. Appreciate it both. Thank you. All right. More Hannity straight ahead.
Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.
