Internet shreds Donald Trump attorney Will Scharf for claiming 'fake electors' scheme was 'official act'

WASHINGTON, DC: An attorney representing former President Donald Trump has suggested that the "fake electors" scheme may be considered an "official act," thereby making the 78-year-old presumptive GOP presidential nominee immune from prosecution under the recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity.

According to Trump's attorney Will Scharf, some of the alleged actions in the ex-president's federal election subversion indictment may qualify as private conduct.

However, Scharf argued on CNN Monday night that the efforts to present slates of alternate electors from key battleground states in 2020 do not fall into this category, according to The Hill.

“We believe the assembly of those alternate slates of electors was an official act of the presidency,” Scharf said, pointing out that the Supreme Court has left this question for lower courts to determine.

What could be likely outcome for Donald Trump in election subversion case?

On Monday, July 1, the United States Supreme Court verdict established that the core powers of the POTUS are immune from criminal prosecution and that United States presidents are generally entitled to immunity for official acts, however, they’re not shielded for unofficial or private actions.

In the context of the federal election subversion case involving former President Trump, the justices clarified that certain allegations in the indictment are directly related to official duties, such as meetings with Justice Department officials to investigate alleged election fraud.

However, allegations concerning the scheme to overturn the election results by advocating pro-Trump electors in seven critical states require further consideration at the district court level, as determined by the SCOTUS justices.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett diverged from the majority on this particular matter, expressing that she sees “no plausible argument for barring prosecution of that alleged conduct,” despite concurring with the majority on other aspects of the ruling.

During his CNN interview, Scharf argued that if the official acts were removed from the MAGA strongman’s federal election subversion indictment, there would be insufficient basis to support the ongoing prosecution.

“I don’t think there’s sufficient private conduct here to support the indictment, to support the ongoing prosecution, and that’s what we’re going to be litigating in front of the district court now,” he claimed.

Internet slams Donald Trump's attorney 

One X user remarked, "Of course they are going to try but that’s a hard uphill battle to prove."

Another user said, "I expect one question before the court will be - does the president have the power to choose electors. The answer is no. So it's not an official act."

Another user wrote, ""Fake" = not official."

One user claimed, "On its face that seems ridiculous. The president has no official role in supervising or administering elections."

Another X user quipped, "Nope Critical thinking is severely lacking with these folks."

Another user tweeted, "Good luck with that argument when Justice Barrett already said n her opinion it is not an official act of the presidency."

Another added, "No that’s treason."

This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.