Admitting that these facts were so inextricably intertwined in a colloquy with justice barrett, that it would be very difficult to separate them out on remand. Thats how i interpreted his statements. Please to translate that for people watching, that means that basically, if it wasnt official act, they would not be able to use that potentially at trial. He was arguing they should be able to use it to paint a bigger picture. But trump has argued, total immunity. He has not said, well, some of these are private x. This would mean the case could at least in part go forward and go to trial, we believe that without the official acts charged in the indictment, there is no case. Weve been very consistent in our position from the start, starting with the District Court proceeding through the circuit. Now at the us Supreme Court, that what were talking about is absolute immunity. Yes. But absolute immunity just for a president s official acts in office. I think thats a crucial distinction. And its been missed in much of the Press Coverage around President Trumps die, is there no case if its just for part of the acts that are in the indictment. Well, because the indictment itself relies largely on acts that we believe are clearly official. Were talking about breakdown, what well looking at things like asking the Department Of Justice to investigate claims of Election Fraud considering placing the acting Attorney General of the United States, which is at the absolute heart of the president s power under article two of the us constitution, we believe that this is an indictment that charges official acts and therefore, if the if the court were to recognize the sort of immunity that weve proposed, we dont see how this case could proceed, but as john said, you also believed that this indictment charges private x. John said that he could be tried for private x. There are some private acts in the indictment or their their acts that could be characterized as private in the indictment. President wouldnt have immunity from those. The question though is why cant those be tried . And then once the you say or official trying to make jeff clark, the Attorney General, put those aside and remove them why would trump not be able to be tried for the private well, i think if you if you read the indictment, what theyre trying to point to as a much larger scheme that really involves largely official conduct so without the official conduct of the Supreme Court, word are recognized president ial immunity, the way that weve suggested, i believe the indictment would have to be dismissed. What are the private acts that you believe are in the indictment . Id have to look at the indictment more closely, but i think the sorts of things that youre talking about private conversations that were mentioned that the court today, private conversations actions between the president and his political team. That sort of thing looks more like private conduct. Then the sorts of things we just discussed, like directives given to the Department Of Justice and consideration of president ial personnel. But the other acts that were brought up today where were conversations he had with people like john eastman and jenna ellis and Rudy Giuliani one, three people who did not work on behalf of the federal government. Those are charged in the indictment. So why could trump not go to trial for that . Its worth noting and its really important to explain what this alternate slates of electors were really throughout american history, probably most notably in 1870s six, when youre challenging a president ial election after the certification deadline in certain states, you present alternate slates of electors and that gives political actors the opportunity to get to the bottom of whether fraud occurred, whether outcome determinative fraud occurred. And it allows them to pick a different slate in 18, 76 rutherford b. Hayes was alive did president on the back of three alternate slates of electors. So those sorts of preparatory actions giving political actors the ability to act on allegations of Election Fraud. I think theres probably intermixed private and official conduct their and that ultimately will be a very thorny issue for the District Court on remand to assess thats a pretty General Perez view of the fake slates of electors as amy coney barrett, the justice noted today, even fake paperwork that was just created for slates of electors that were not alternate. They just were fake their fraud. You a little again, in 18, 76 rutherford b. Hayes was elected president 20 in night, theres a long history this is a 1960, theres not a long history of multiple slates of fake electors, people who are not the legitimate electors representing the will of the voters in arizona, wisconsin, pennsylvania, and michigan chicken. Well, again, what were talking about is alternate slates of electors and you can characterize them as fake or not. But in cases where there are serious allegations of Election Fraud, this is the system thats been used throughout american history, probably most recently in the 1960 election when an alternate slate of electors from hawaii was seen he said, let me ask you this because if you believe that there are some private acts in here and some official acts in here, why didnt you ask the District Court two months ago to suss that out . Why wait and take it to the Supreme Court with this claim of total immunity or position has been consistent from the District Court through until today . We believe that President Trump has absolute immunity for his official acts in office. The di doesnt draw that he absolutely does. The dc district, unfortunately, issued a ruling that said there is absolutely no immunity in the criminal context, The Dc Circuit affirmed that incorrect ruling. And the reason why the argument today i think took the tender that it didnt probably the reason why were before the Supreme Court at all is because of the agreed justness of those decisions to not recognize any immunity in the criminal context whatsoever. Well, the Supreme Court, the justices did see the conservative ones, at least skeptical of that. But i have to ask you, Something Else because when one of the justices asked today if the president ordered a Military Coup, if that would be considered an official act, your team, john sauer argued, quote, it would depend on the circumstances, whether it was an official act. What what are the circumstances were ordering a Military Coup is an official act of the presidency will get when you youre talking about official acts, you dont look too intense. You dont look to purpose, you look to their underlying character. So if that were if that sort of situation were to unfold using the official powers of the president , you could see there being an aspect of official nes to that i would say though, that our constitutional system provides powerful structural checks against exactly those sorts of scenarios which have safeguarded our republic throughout american history. So the idea that thats the argument people make. And also we never had a moment where im sitting president tried to overturn a legitimate election until now. Again, i would, i would fight your characterization of what happened in 2020, but all of this parade of hypotheticals that some of the justices today that our opponents have put forward, whether its the quds, whether its Seal Team Six assassinating political rivals. Its worth noting that the Structural Change X in place and our constitution, not including criminal prosecution of former president s, have served to safeguard us from exactly those sorts of scenarios throughout american history. And its actually our Parade Of Horribles. This idea of political prosecutions, crippling president s, thats what were seeing play out in america today. Well, i would disagree with that characterization. I noted that, you refer to them as the biden investigations, obviously present biden is not involved in these, but you just said that theyre hypotheticals theyre actually not alyssa farah griffin, who is a common structure in the white house, tweeted this and said that there was a moment where she personally witnessed donald trump suggesting that whoever leaked that, he went to the bunker during the George Floyd Protests at the white house should be executed. So its actually not really that but they obviously werent executed but the person has to be executed for it to be brought to bear. I think hyperbole has a place in almost any office but id come back to think its just hyperbole. I make it pretty brazen argument that Military Coups could potentially be official acts that will the person wasnt executed. It doesnt matter just because a Military Coup or any of these sort of Parade Of Horribles could constitute an official act, doesnt mean that theyre right, doesnt mean that they would be loud under a constitutional system and doesnt mean that were in any way, shape, or form justifying that what were talking about here though is the scope of immunity that president s need to be able to rely on to discharge their core article two responsibilities as president without immunity. I think youll end up in a situation where president s will essentially be blackmailed by hi, there political rivals with the threat of political prosecution the day they leave office. And to me thats a very scary scenario. So do you disagree with Justice Ketanji brown, jackson who said what youre arguing could allow the seat of the presidency to become where you can act with impunity that any criminal act couldnt happen because you have nothing to fear, no prosecutor, we believe immunity is inherent in the constitutional design, so thats the system weve been operating under for hundreds of years and its not actually in the constitution we believe that immunity naturally follows from the constitution the same way that civil immunity, which isnt written in the constitution naturally follows from our constitutional system. And that was recognized by the court and Nixon Be Fitzgerald in 1982, what is it victory here . Is it the Supreme Court embracing your argument on total immunity or is it just sending get back to the lower court and therefore, delaying the january 6 trial from happening before the 2024 election. We think its very important for the future of the presidency, for the court to embrace a vigorous doctrine of president ial immunity in the criminal context. So thats what victory was still considered. And victory if they just send it back to the lower court and then it essentially delays the trial. We believe that whats going on here is much more important than this particular trial or this particular defendant. We believe that whats at stake here as the future of the presidency and without a vigorous immunity doctrine, i fear for the future of our country well, sharaf great to have you, you were inside the Supreme Court today. Thank you for joining us. Thanks for having me also here tonight. My panels back with me. Donald trumps former attorney, jim trusty, cnn legal analyst and former federal prosecutor, elliot williams, and civil rights lawyer share lin eiffel, who is the Vernon Jordan chair and civil rights at the Howard University recited law school. Let me just start with you since youre just joining us, can i just get your reaction to what you heard from trumps attorney of how they viewed today . Yeah. I mean, it was an interesting argument in that there were these hypotheticals that should have been at the most extreme, but they really werent because the person that were dealing with, donald trump is the same person who asked his defense secretary, couldnt we just shoot shoot protesters in the legs . He is the same president who said he wishes that he had generals like hitler had generals in germany. We just heard the tweet that you mentioned about someone being executed for leaking that he was in the bunker during the George Floyd Protests. The examples that we were hearing today from some of the justices about what a president who felt he had unfettered power and would suffer no consequences could do were ripped from the headlines. They were the kinds of things that the former president has said. And i think it was shocking to hear the former president since attorney mr. Sour suggests that those things could be official acts, selling Nuclear Secrets to a foreign adversary. We have a president who stole classified documents, which is the subject of another piece of litigation. So these are not things that were pulled from the sky. These are real serious possibilities and to have the tourney of the former president s stand in the well of the United StatesSupreme Court and suggests that these things could be official acts. And the only thing more shocking than him making that argument was having a majority of Supreme Court justices not sound as though they were horrified. A guest at hearing that that was the position the former president was taking. Jim trusty what was your reaction . Because john sauer did make a big concession today and saying that some of that in the indictment is private x ive never heard them say that before. Well, you know, hes conceding the flavoring of the private acts provided by hey barretts questions, which hes saying shimming the criminal intent within the actions which gets you down to very minute factual issues of like a did an elector a replacement elector, feel like they were defrauding or were they actually thinking this is the backup plan if we went in court, which has a lot of things that have been said by that other side. So look, the reality and what were kind of struggling with. I think collectively is the court is likely to try to create a line, but that line is going to be a difficult line to define precisely. So when you talk about an official act, is it this particular minute action or comment or conversation, or is it within the broader . For category of defending the country or safeguarding elections and were not going to really know where they come out on that until they do, but thats going to thats going to be the battleground Going Forward for litigating whether something falls within or without immunity. And both john sauer and well moment ago, both exceptionally good attorneys all i think all but conceded that the next step ought to be number one, either sending it back for more findings or just let it go to trial and have a jury sort out this question of whats an official act and what isnt. But it was a huge concession for which neither of them i think had very compelling answer to be perfectly candid. I thank its not just mere hypothetical. We are talking about specific conduct that a president can engage in. Whats make up another one right here. If a president kidnapped or kidnapped and harmed Supreme Court justices for the purpose of a pointing, their success theres clearly an official acts of the presidency also clearly a crime and you cannot keep a straight face and make an argument that thats not a prosecutor will act. The thing that stood out to me also was i remember when trump was impeached after january 6, Mitch Mcconnell stood in the well of the senate and said, well, the Justice System will take care of him. This is not the place to take care of this. The Justice System, the argument that kinda went over like a lead balloon today. John sauer did still trying to make was that you must president first must be impeached and then convicted to then be prosecuted for some yeah, this is the baitandswitch, even trumps attorneys said that after trump was impeached, Mitch Mcconnell said it and his attorneys also said that the proper avenue is criminal prosecution, not this process. So thats kind of a beitin twitch, but i want to get back to Something Else. I dont think that these private acts that were conceded today, which i think frankly, i want to be nice to mr. Sour, but i dont think that he did a terrific job. Those concessions were deadly calling the speaker of the house of the Arizona Legislature and asking him to call back the legislature so that they could put in fake electors, doesnt have anything to do with the president s official power, doesnt have to do with the justice department, has to do with the president placing a call to rusty bowers and arizona to ask him to do something that was illegal. The president telling Rudy Giuliani to spread the idea of this false its elector scheme to various people is private attorney that is not an official act. A call to raffensperger to rapids work with the Secretary Of State and saying, find me 11,000 more votes. This theres nothing about this that is entangled with the official powers of the presidency. And any one of those counts of the in