A Donald Trump lawyer has said that an alleged fake elector scheme was an "official act" and so should be immune from prosecution in Trump's federal election interference case.
Speaking to CNN's Kaitlan Collins on Monday night, Will Scharf, an attorney for the former president, laid out the next steps for special counsel Jack Smith's case following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that former presidents have absolute immunity for their official acts but no immunity for private acts.
In a federal indictment filed in August, Trump is facing four charges pertaining to his alleged attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election. He has denied all wrongdoing.
Trump's team is alleged to have created and submitted fraudulent certificates to falsely claim Trump had won the Electoral College vote in certain states to disrupt President Joe Biden's victory.
Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump speaks at a campaign rally in Chesapeake, Va., Friday, June 28, 2024. The Supreme Court has ruled that former presidents are immune from official acts undertaken during their... Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump speaks at a campaign rally in Chesapeake, Va., Friday, June 28, 2024. The Supreme Court has ruled that former presidents are immune from official acts undertaken during their presidencies. More AP Photo/Steve Helber
Speaking to Collins, Scharf said that Smith's "case should be dismissed" because it concerns official acts not private ones.
"We've admitted consistently that there are acts alleged in the indictment that would constitute private conduct but we believe that if the official conduct, the immune acts in the indictment are stripped away, that Jack Smith doesn't have a case, that this case should be dismissed on that basis," he said.
When pressed by Collins whether using a "false slates of electors" would constitute enough for a trial, Scharf denied that the Trump team had used false slates and said using "alternate slates" was an "official act."
He said: "We would say alternate slates of electors and as we argued before the Supreme Court, alternate slates of electors have been a method used by previous presidents."
He continued: "We believe the assembly of those alternate slates of electors was an official act of the presidency."
Newsweek contacted the Department of Justice by website form to comment on this story.
After its Monday ruling, the Supreme Court has sent the Department of Justice case back to a lower court in Washington, D.C., to determine what constitutes an official act.
This is likely to delay the case, meaning it is less likely it will go to trial before the November election. Legal experts have suggested Trump could dismiss the charges in the case if he wins the election.
Meanwhile Trump celebrated the ruling in a post to Truth Social, writing: "BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!"
The Biden campaign, on the other hand, said the ruling would not "change the facts" that Trump tried to "overthrow the results of a free and fair election."
"Today's ruling doesn't change the facts, so let's be very clear about what happened on January 6: Donald Trump snapped after he lost the 2020 election and encouraged a mob to overthrow the results of a free and fair election," the campaign said in a statement.
"Trump is already running for president as a convicted felon for the very same reason he sat idly by while the mob violently attacked the Capitol: he thinks he's above the law and is willing to do anything to gain and hold onto power for himself."
Gonstackk on July 2nd, 2024 at 12:53 UTC »
So he openly admits to trying to steal the election from the American people and his cult will still claim the democratic party was trying to steal it. Yet another projection to add to the pile from the right.
eugene20 on July 2nd, 2024 at 12:49 UTC »
Well Donald, it was already ruled by the federal appellate court that"When a first-term President opts to seek a second term, his campaign to win re-election is not an official presidential act," the panel of judges wrote. "The Office of the Presidency as an institution is agnostic about who will occupy it next. And campaigning to gain that office is not an official act of the office." source
By that attempting to fraudulently win your campaign also cannot be an official act.
Edit: even better, SCOTUS covered it themselves in the TRUMP v. UNITED STATES ruling yesterday - highlighted (hat tip cusoman), full pdf here, so Trump's lawyer can't have been paying much attention.
Page 5 of opinion of the court: "The parties before us do not dispute that a former President can be subject to criminal prosecution for unofficial acts committed while in office. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 28. They also agree that some of the conduct described in the indictment includes actions taken by Trump in his unofficial capacity. See id., at 28-30, 36–37, 124."
IrishViking1987 on July 2nd, 2024 at 12:47 UTC »
Fuck him and fuck the Supreme Court.