Are we seeing the revitalization of conservative civilization, all over the world has been a massive backlash against globalization, its leftist leadership, and its anti-cultural liberal values, and it's just the beginning.

I'm Dr. Steve Turley. I believe the liberal globalist world is at its brink and a new conservative age is rising.

Every day, as we examine these worldwide trends, discover answers to today's toughest challenges, and together learn to live in the present in light of even better things to come.

This is Turley Talks.

I think that this is a very weak case that's going to die very quickly, at least as far as being prosecuted in Georgia courts.

You do have attorneys for Mark Meadows, who is a Trump's former chief of staff, who filed a motion a couple of days ago to have a case transferred to federal district court, which they entitled because of a statutory immunity for federal offices, which is the case obviously with Mr. Meadows, as well as Mr. Clark, who is a DOJ attorney.

So this case does not have, and it's not just David, a transfer venue to a federal court. It is also an immunity to which they both entitled, and as I've argued for an article for you a little while ago, President Trump has a constitutionally based immunity based upon the Supreme Court case.

Let's call it Nixon versus Fitzgerald. There gives him absolute immunity for all the actions done within the outer perimeter of his constitutional duties, even if those actions were unlawful.

So the Fulton County case is not going to hold.

Hey gang, it's me, Dr. Steve, and more and more legal experts are coming out and saying precisely what you just heard. Trump has absolute immunity from prosecution for actions taken as President.

And now we have what looks like the first of a number of judicial decisions that are saying just that a Pennsylvania judge has just ruled that President Trump cannot be sued or indicted precisely because of the protection provided to him by presidential immunity.

Judge Michael Erdos has just ruled that Trump's immunity extends to a tweet he posted and statements he made during a Pennsylvania State Senate committee hearing in November of 2020, where Trump, of course, alleged fraudulent activity in the state's election counting process.

The lawsuit against Trump was brought by a supervisor of Pennsylvania's voting machines during the 2020 election, and that supervisor claimed that President Trump and Rudy Giuliani had together conspired to slander him and causing him to receive death threats and even suffer too hard attacks.

I mean poor guy, but according to this Pennsylvania judge, Trump's actions are indeed protected under what's called presidential immunity.

Now this protection comes from a Supreme court case called Nixon versus Fitzgerald.

And as you heard at the beginning from constitutional law scholar David Rivkin, the decision gives the President absolute immunity for all actions done as President, even if those actions were unlawful.

So it's very, very interesting. And now it's starting to make the rounds more and more that these four cases against Trump may indeed end up getting tossed out precisely because all even the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case, they all deal with actions Trump engaged in as President.

And it's already happening in Georgia, in the Georgia case, we're already seeing the beginning of this thing getting totally tossed out to fence attorney Leslie McAdougordan is arguing that Mark Meadows, Trump's former chief of staff, he's already in the process of basically ending the case, and he's doing it by asking a federal court to remove the case from the state court to the federal court on grounds that it targets his actions.

It targets his actions as a federal official. Now according to Gordon, this is intrinsic to the very structure of our federalist system of which the current Supreme Court, the conservative majority there has been an avid defender.

So the operative principle here is that federal officials can't be targeted under state laws for actions they took in their official capacity. This is part of the federalist system in which certain issues are reserved for states and others for the federal government to handle.

And here's the key. What Gordon found in her research was that in previous cases like this when federal courts intervened in every instance when the removal was granted, when the case was taken away from local prosecutors in every instance, the case got dismissed.

And so that's why this fellow at the beginning of this video, the constitutional law scholar, David Rivkin, that's why he doesn't think this case will ever even see the light of day.

...