A “Fox News Sunday” segment discussed Democrats’ ongoing lawfare against former President Donald Trump and examined what is most likely to happen next after a “rubicon” has been crossed.

Host Shannon Bream first referenced a new poll that found a majority of Americans do not believe there is any way that Trump will get a fair trial in Manhattan, where he faces 34 felonies related to so-called “hush money” payments — charges brought by George Soros-backed District Attorney Alvin Bragg after he initially refused to bring the allegations and after federal prosecutors and the Federal Election Commission both said they found no evidence of any wrongdoing.

“In new polling from CNN, only 44% of Americans express confidence that the jury chosen for this case –the New York criminal case– will be able to reach a fair verdict. And 56% more skeptical that a fair outcome is in the cards. Molly, it seems to be across political ideologies,” Bream said.

“And not surprisingly. The whole reason why we’re seeing prosecutions in Democrat areas is to secure quick and easy convictions ahead of an election. But that brings up this bigger issue that Americans clearly seeing that is what’s going on,” The Federalist editor-in-chief Mollie Hemingway responded.

“We can talk about the particular weaknesses of one case or another, but really I think a lot of Americans are very much concerned about using the courts and lawfare to go after political opponents. You are seeing that in every single case,” she went on.

“The more reporting comes out, the more coordination there is about the timing of these cases to go after the Democrats’ top political opponent. And you saw it in the Supreme Court oral argument: People were very concerned about using the courts to go after political opponents,” she continued. “A Rubicon has been crossed here and Americans are very worried about what will have the rule of law, given that the Democrats are engaged in this kind of politicized lawfare.”


While prosecutors in a criminal case are supposed to try an win a conviction, Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, claimed on Thursday that Bragg inadvertently strengthened Trump’s argument for limited presidential immunity after the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case earlier in the day.

New York Judge Juan Merchan has mandated Trump’s presence at the trial concerning the $130,000 payment to porn star Stormy Daniels, effectively barring him from attending the Supreme Court’s oral arguments on presidential immunity scheduled for Thursday. Turley suggested that Bragg’s prosecution might undermine arguments that special counsel Jack Smith intends to present.

“In some ways, having him in New York is the best argument he could put in front of the justices because Alvin Bragg is making the case for him,” Turley said. “I mean, as the court considers the implications of not extending immunity to presidents, Alvin Bragg is showing what that means.”

“This is a highly political, in my view, legally absurd case in Manhattan, and it is playing out as the court considers the implications of this type of prosecution, and so for the court, I think it’s only going to reinforce this idea that we don’t necessarily want to go to either extreme, but perhaps there is a nuanced or middle road here where we can afford some protection to a president for actions taken related to their office,” Turley added.

Disclaimer: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.