I want to expand on this. It’s important to see the hypotheticals that Coney Barrett put before Trump lawyer, John (“Sig”) Sauer SOURCE:
[ACB]“So, you concede that private acts don’t get immunity?” Barrett asked Sauer, to which he replied, “We do.”
[Barrett then referred to pages 46 and 47 of Smith’s brief in the case.]
[She alluded to three hypothetical acts as outlined in the case, asking Sauer whether each of the following was considered a private act:]
The 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.
The petitioner conspired with another private attorney who caused the filing in court of a verification signed by petitioner that contain false allegations to support a challenge.
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. A petitioner and a co-conspirator attorney directed that effort.
“So those acts you would not dispute?” Barrett said. “Those were private, and you wouldn’t raise a claim that they were official?”
[Sauer said his side disputes all the allegations but said that all three scenarios are considered private acts.]
So, we’re not saying Trump DID any of those things, but somebody doing those things hypothetically would clearly be acting outside the boundaries of their official duties.
BAM!