George Conway, a regular on CNN, discussed the federal appeals court’s rejection of former President Donald Trump’s claim of absolute immunity, describing it as “bulletproof” and suggesting it may not be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
Conway praised the decision for its comprehensive approach, combining constitutional text, precedent, history, logic, and the parties’ own admissions.
“It was masterful because it combined so many elements. It combined constitutional text, traditional precedent, history, and just sheer logic. And the parties’ own concessions, Trump’s own concessions. To make just an absolutely cohesive whole, opinion that is just inexorably leads you to the conclusion that he is not immune,” Conway said.
He emphasized the court’s careful consideration of the potential costs of non-immunity, highlighting the public interest in constitutional democracy and the peaceful transition of power.
“And it was just so well done. One other aspect of the decision, which makes it even more bulletproof, is the fact that they narrowly focused on the exact situation in this case,” he said.
Conway expressed doubt that any court, including the Supreme Court, could produce a better opinion on the matter, indicating that it may not be worth the court’s time to address the issue further.
“They weighed the potential costs of not having immunity, which is what Trump talked about, which is the danger of a floodgate of litigation, of criminal litigation, which they pooh-poohed. And they matched it up against, as they’re required to do by immunity case law, they matched it up against the public interest,” he said.
“And the public interest wasn’t just the public interest, the enforcement generally of the criminal law, but the public’s interest in constitutional democracy and the peaceful transition of power. When you weigh the two up against each other, there’s just no question.”
“I don’t see how even the Supreme Court could write, I don’t see how any judge, any court anywhere including the Supreme Court could write a better opinion that more accurately states what the law is and it should be. As a result I don’t think it’s worth the court’s time to deal with it at this point.”