‘Absolutely!’ Trump’s Lawyer Tells Supreme Court That Trump Had ‘Right’ to Back Fraudulent Elector Scheme

D. John Sauer, the lawyer tasked with arguing that former President Donald Trump has immunity from the federal charges leveled against him for his actions in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election, told the Supreme Court that Trump had the “right” to back fraudulent electors to try to secure a second term in office on Thursday.

The claim came after Justice Samuel Alito asked Sauer if the president is immune from prosecution for unlawful acts if they are committed by the president in his official capacity.

“I’m sure you’ve thought of lots of hypotheticals where a president could say, ‘I’m using an official power,’ and yet the president uses it in an absolutely outrageous manner,” observed Alito

Justice Sonia Sotomayor then jumped in to ask Sauer to “apply it to the allegations here.”

“What is plausible about the president insisting and creating a fraudulent slate of electoral candidates? Assuming you accept the facts of the complaint on their face, is that plausible that that would be within his right to do?” she inquired.

“Absolutely, Your Honor,” insisted Sauer. “We have the historical precedent we set in the lower courts of President [Ulysses S.] Grant sending federal troops to Louisiana and Mississippi in 1876 to make sure that the Republican electors got certified in those two cases, which delivered the election to Rutherford B. Hayes. The notion that it’s completely implausible, I think, just can’t be supported based on the face of this indictment-”

“Knowing that the slate is fake? Knowing that the slate is fake, that they weren’t actually elected, that they weren’t certified by the state? He knows all those things,” interjected Sotomayor.

“I dispute that characterization,” replied Sauer. “The indictment affixes the word label to the so-called fraudulent electors, it affixed the word fraudulent. But that’s a complete mischaracterization.”

“But I want to address a more higher level point, a fundamental point, which is that, as Justice Alito’s question indicated, there’s a whole series of structural checks other than criminal prosecution that are designed to deter these kind of, you know, outlandish scenarios are extraordinarily, obviously illegal things,” he concluded.

Watch above via MSNBC.