Trump attorney spars with Supreme Court over alternate elector ‘mischaracterization’

by Summer Lane

Photo: Adobe Stock

The United States Supreme Court heard arguments in the anticipated presidential immunity case on Thursday, which will ultimately decide whether actions that presidents take in the Executive Office are shielded from criminal prosecution.

The case is an integral part of President Trump’s argument that the federal cases that have been brought against him in the wake of his administration are unjust. “If a President doesn’t have IMMUNITY, he/she will be nothing more than a ‘Ceremonial’ President, rarely having the courage to do what has to be done for our Country,” he stated on Thursday.

Trump attorney John Sauer represented the president’s side of the argument this week, and he and the judges frequently sparred over hypothetical events and the difference between an “official” duty and a “personal” action.

They discussed the allegations included in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s case against Trump in Washington, D.C., which claims that Trump deliberately assembled a false slate of alternate electors in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election, following claims of fraud in the election processes.

Per Politico, Smith has hotly disagreed that Trump should have immunity from prosecution even if his actions were linked to “official” presidential duties. In fact, it is that question that Supreme Court justices on Thursday kept returning to.

Sauer argued that the organization of alternate electors was certainly “official” based on historical precedent, and also noted that the president’s move to call a special session of the Arizona legislature to look into reports of election fraud was “absolutely an official act” that was intended to “defend the integrity of a federal election.”

The court squabbled lightly with Sauer over the plausibility of hypothetical crimes and events that a president could potentially partake in, including the assassination of a political rival or the utilization of the U.S. military to stage a coup. Would these actions be private or official?

Sauer argued repeatedly that it would “depend” on the circumstances and details of each incident to determine whether such an action could be considered official or private. He also noted that the indictment from Jack Smith to Trump on the issue of fraudulent electors was “a complete mischaracterization” and importantly highlighted that there was a “whole series of structural checks that are designed to deter these kinds of outlandish scenarios” from the Founding Fathers.

One of these safeguards, of course, is impeachment. Sauer argued that some alleged crimes that any president may or may not commit while in office should certainly be caught by the safeguards put in place by the Founders before leaving office in the first place.

“Prosecuting the president for his official acts is an innovation with no foothold in history or tradition and incompatible with our constitutional structure,” he stated.

He also noted that this understanding was an “unbroken historical tradition” spanning two centuries.

You may also like