Trump lawyer backs off absolute immunity argument at Supreme Court
D. John Sauer conceded there are allegations in the indictment that do not involve official acts, meaning they would not be subject to any presidential immunity.
WASHINGTON — Former President Donald Trump has long argued for absolute immunity in his federal election interference case, but his lawyer struck a different tone Thursday during arguments at the Supreme Court.
With the justices appeared largely skeptical of the argument that the entire indictment against Trump should be dismissed, attorney D. John Sauer made some concessions.
Sauer appeared to agree with special counsel Jack Smith, who is leading the prosecution, that there are some allegations in the indictment that do not involve "official acts" of the president.
Sauer's main argument was that the entire indictment is premised on official acts, which should be protected by immunity in part to ensure that presidents' hands are not tied over fear of prosecution after they leave office.
Sauer accepted that Trump can be prosecuted for private acts that were not tied to his official duties as president.
Rating: 5