In a recent court session, Chief Justice John Roberts raised a crucial question regarding the extent of presidential immunity in cases involving official acts. The scenario presented was whether a president could claim immunity if they appointed an ambassador in exchange for a bribe.
Chief Justice Roberts pointed out that a bribe does not seem to qualify as an official act, indicating potential skepticism towards Trump's argument that his post-election actions were protected under official capacity.
Trump's attorney, D. John Sauer, contended that any official act performed by the president falls under the umbrella of presidential immunity.
Roberts further elaborated on the hypothetical situation by illustrating a scenario where a president appoints an ambassador to a country in return for a bribe. He questioned how such a transaction should be analyzed in the context of presidential immunity.
The exchange between Chief Justice Roberts and Trump's attorney sheds light on the ongoing legal debate surrounding the scope of presidential immunity and the definition of official acts. This dialogue underscores the complexity of the legal arguments being presented in the case.
