An attorney representing Donald Trump at his criminal immunity hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday conceded that several aspects of Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss were private acts, not official.
In arguing that he is immune from criminal prosecution in his federal criminal cases, such as the election interference case, Trump has claimed that his efforts to overturn his defeat were official parts of his role as president — and therefore, he cannot be charged since the U.S. Senate didn’t convict him in his impeachment trial.
Conservative justice Amy Coney Barrett, reading from special counsel Jack Smith’s legal brief about the federal election interference case, listed off for Trump attorney D. John Sauer a series of alleged crimes Trump committed to try and stay in office:
“I want to know if you agree or disagree about the characterization of these acts as private,” Barrett asked Sauer. “Petitioner turned to a private attorney, who was willing to spread knowingly false claims of election fraud, to spearhead his challenges to the election results. Private?”
Sauer: “I mean, we dispute the allegation, but that sounds private to me.”
Barrett: “Petitioner conspired with another private attorney, who caused the filing in court of a verification signed by petitioner that contained false allegations to support a challenge.”
Sauer: “That also sounds private.”
Barrett: “Three private actors, two attorneys, including those mentioned above, and a political consultant helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding, and petitioner and a co-conspirator attorney directed that effort.”
Sauer: “You read it quickly. I believe that's private.”
Barrett: “So, those acts you would not dispute. Those were private and you wouldn't raise a claim that they were official.”
Sauer: “As characterized. … What we would say is official is things like meeting with the Department of Justice to deliberate about who's going to be the acting attorney general of the United States, communicating with the American public, communicating with Congress.”
The U.S. Supreme Court was hearing arguments on whether Trump is immune from criminal prosecution for acts while he was president. If justices end up ruling in his favor — which is viewed as unlikely — his federal criminal cases would end.
But it’s not clear if justices will come to a quick ruling: Several conservative justices Thursday questioned what the future consequences could be if presidents don’t have criminal immunity. If the justices don’t quickly issue a ruling, it is less likely that the federal election interference trial against Trump, which is currently frozen, would reach a verdict before Election Day in November.
