Trump flack and candidate for Attorney General in Missouri wants us to believe that their attempt to steal the election with the fake slate of electors was somehow an "official act of the presidency." CNN's Kaitlan Collins did a decent job pushing back at least some of Scharf's nonsense. I'd have liked to see her ask him more specifics on why the majority of what we've seen Trump charged with in any of these cases could ever be considered "official acts.
Here's how the exchange started with Scharf pretending anything Trump posted to Twitter while he was president should also be considered an "official act" and should not have been allowed to be used as evidence at any of his trials.
COLLINS: You know, for for what's happening tonight with this news and Trump's legal team trying to overturn that conviction, you're not representing him in that case, but you were there in the courtroom for parts of that that trial as it was going on. Does anything in the New York case pass the test in your view that the Supreme Court established today in this ruling?
SCHARF: Yeah, absolutely, Kaitlan. The Supreme Court was very clear that for acts that fall within the outer perimeter of the president's official responsibilities, acts that are presumptively immune from prosecution, that evidence of those acts cannot be used in to try essentially private act.
