Trump's attorney argues that fake elector scheme falls under 'official acts' of president – USA TODAY

A chronicle of Donald Trump's Crimes or Allegations

Trump's attorney argues that fake elector scheme falls under 'official acts' of president – USA TODAY

A lawyer for former President Donald Trump has moved to challenge the former president’s conviction in a New York election interference trial, arguing that the evidence used to convict Trump now constitutes “official acts” that fall under the umbrella of presidential immunity.
In an interview with CNN, the attorney, Will Scharf, also argued that Trump’s attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election qualify as official acts, which would shield the former president from prosecution. 
The CNN interview occurred hours after a Supreme Court ruling declared Trump at least partially immune from crimes he committed while in office. In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that presidents “may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers,” adding that Trump “is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts.” 
Though he didn’t represent Trump during the New York trial, Scharf said he believes the Supreme Court ruling should result in Trump’s conviction being overturned. 
“What we have in New York is a situation where a substantial number of official acts of the presidency — things that we believe are official acts — were used as evidence to support the charges in that New York trial,” Scharf said. “We believe that that corrupts that trial.”  
Prep for the polls: See who is running for president and compare where they stand on key issues in our Voter Guide
“At the very least, we deserve a new trial where those immune acts will not come into evidence,” he said. 
Trump’s legal team has reportedly submitted a letter to Judge Juan Merchan asking to file a motion to challenge the verdict, which could delay Trump’s sentencing in the case. The sentencing date is currently set for July 11, four days before the Republican National Convention begins. 
The ruling also has implications for Trump’s other criminal cases, including charges of attempting to overturn the 2020 election through a fake elector scheme. Scharf argued that key pieces of evidence should no longer be admissible at trial. 
More:What is presumptive immunity? Here’s what the Supreme Court ruling could mean for Trump
“We believe the assembly of those alternate slates of electors was an official act of the presidency,” Scharf said, according to the Hill. Without the evidence now covered under presidential immunity, he added, special counsel Jack Smith “doesn’t have a case.” 
Maya Homan is a 2024 election fellow at USA TODAY, focusing on Georgia politics. Follow her on X, formerly Twitter, as @MayaHoman. 

source