One of Donald Trump's lawyers appeared on CNN this week to lay out their new defense strategy to get the election subversion charges against Donald Trump thrown out. The lawyer claimed that the attempts to overturn the election constitute "official acts" of the president under the Supreme Court's new ruling, and therefore the charges must be dropped. If that is their argument going forward then Jack Smith should have nothing to worry about, as Farron Cousins explains.
Link - [ Ссылка ]
Listen to our videos in an audio format by subscribing to our podcast: [ Ссылка ]
Don't forget to like, comment, and share! And subscribe to stay connected!
Connect with Farron on Twitter: [ Ссылка ]
*This transcript was auto-generated. Please excuse any typos.
In an interview with CNN this week, one of Donald Trump's lawyers laid out what the new legal strategy is going to be for the January 6th case after the Supreme Court's immunity ruling earlier this week. And according to that lawyer man by the name of Will Scharf, they're going to argue to the judge, judge Tanya Chut, that, uh, all of those horrible things Donald Trump did, right? The election subversion, you know, the fake electors, which he says are not fake. Instead they're alt alternate electors. We're just gonna tell her that those were official acts and therefore she's gotta dismiss the case. I'm gonna read you what Mr. Scharf says is their new strategy going forward. And then even without a law degree myself, I am going to expertly pick it apart because it's really that dumb. Here's what Mr. Shar had to say. We've admitted consistently that there are acts alleged in the indictment that would constitute private conduct, but we believe that if the official conduct, the immune acts in the indictment are stripped away, that Jack Smith doesn't have a case that this case should be dismissed on that basis.
Then Kaitlyn Collins with CNN, who was interviewing Mr. Scharf, pressed him on the false slates of electors. And he said, we would say alternate slates of electors. And as we argued before, the Supreme Court, alternate slates of electors have been a method used by previous presidents. We believe the assembly of those alternate slates of electors was an official act of the presidency. So bing, bang, boom, right? Everything Trump did, those were official acts. How can you argue with that? Again, didn't go to law school, don't have a law degree. I've worked in the legal field for 20 years, however, and I've learned a few things here and there, but even aside from that, I'm also a logical thinking human brain, a human being with a brain, um. Wow, really messed that up, right? That's not a good thing to screw up. But anyway, I'm a moderately intelligent, I think human being, so let's pick this apart, shall we?
We believe that Donald Trump's attempts to subvert the 2020 election results were official acts of the presidency. That argument, which is one they're going to bring up in court, is easily picked apart, not just by myself, but Jack Smith can dismantle it far more brilliantly than I can. But I will say this, the easiest way to pick that apart is say, okay, if it was an official act of the presidency, who paid for it? Did the DOJ pay for it? Right? Did the federal government pay for this because it was an official act of the president? Nope. In fact, the DOJ, the government said we're not gonna do it. So at that point, Donald Trump had no choice but to use his campaign. He used his campaign money, he used his campaign lawyers, he used his campaign staffers. He wasn't using official people with the federal government. No. They said, no, we're not gonna do it. He had to use this campaign. Therefore, this was not an official
Act of a president. This was an unofficial act by a candidate for the presidency. That's the first argument picked apart. Again, if I can do that, Jack Smith can do it a million times better. The second argument, these alternate slates of electors, right? That's an official act, uh, bull crap. The president of the United States has no authority whatsoever over how states conduct their elections or how states pick their electors. Those rights according to the United States constitution itself, rest with the states themselves, and each state can come up with different rules and, uh, uh, means as to how to conduct their elections and pick their electors. The president of the United States has no authority over that arena
