No. of Recommendations: 4
I am listening to the coverage of the hearing. I think Trump's case is toast.
Amy Coney Barret asked Trump attorney John Sauer directly, does the immunity you describe apply to personal acts of a President? Sauer answered no. She then cited numerous acts alleged in the indictments and asked him public or private. He answered private to each.That's a weird response by Sauer. In the case below, Trump argued that all of the acts in the indictment were "official acts." The DC Circuit court analyzed the legal issues on that basis. Their ruling didn't distinguish between personal/private and public acts of the President. They concluded that even the
officials acts of a President did not enjoy immunity.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.ns...That's why I think the Court granted cert - the lower court opinion was pretty sweeping in arguing that
no official acts were immune from potential criminal prosecution.
I think it's a partial win for Trump if they get a Court ruling that holds that personal acts are not immune but official/public acts might be. He can then go back and instead of demanding categorical immunity, ask for an "act by act" determination of which actions were immune, and try to knock out some charges that way.
