The latest flurry of court rulings striking down former President Donald Trump's claims of executive privilege might suggest the walls are closing in on his legal team as the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and special Georgia grand jury investigations progress.
According to The Guardian, a number of legal experts have weighed in with their perspectives on what the latest rulings could mean for Trump and how it is becoming more difficult for him to avoid testifying.
Speaking to the news outlet, former DOJ prosecutor Michael Zeldin said, "Trump's multipronged efforts to keep former advisers from testifying or providing documents to federal and state grand juries, as well as the January 6 committee, has met with repeated failure as judge after judge has rejected his legal arguments."
He added, "Obtaining this testimony is a critical step, perhaps the last step, before state and federal prosecutors determine whether the former president should be indicted … It allows prosecutors for the first time to question these witnesses about their direct conversations with the former president."
Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. prosecutor in eastern Michigan, also shared a similar opinions.
"Favorable rulings by judges on issues like executive privilege and the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege bode well for agencies investigating Trump," said McQuade. "Legal challenges may create delay, but on the merits, with rare exception, judges are consistently ruling against him."
Another issue is the political dynamic of the judges who have delivered the rulings. The news outlet noted: "Although Trump has been irked by the spate of court rulings against him and his allies, experts point out that they have included decisions from typically conservative courts, as well as ones with more liberal leanings."
Highlighting remarks from former U.S. prosecutor Dennis Aftergut, the outlet noted that he said, "Just last month, the 11th circuit court of appeals, one of the country's most conservative federal courts, delivered key rulings in both the Fulton county and DoJ Trump investigations."
He also emphasized: "The speech and debate clause only affords immunities from testifying about matters relating to congressional speeches and duties. That dog didn't hunt here."
Aftergut also noted the irony in the momentum of these cases. "The irony is that the new momentum has been spurred by lawsuits that Trump and his key loyalists filed as they've sought to block subpoenas for their testimony and documents," Aftergut said.
Michael Bromwich, a former DOJ inspector also shared his prediction of what's to come. "I think Trump is likely to be charged in Georgia and in the documents case," Bromwich said to the news outlet. "I'll be interested to see which happens first."
