During the justices questioning of John Sauer, lawyer for former President Trump, Chief Justice John Roberts raised a crucial point regarding the definition of an 'official act' by a president in the context of a potential bribe for an ambassadorship. Chief Justice Roberts questioned the significance of removing the 'official' aspect from the indictment, likening it to a one-legged stool.
He emphasized that bribery entails receiving something in exchange for money, and in this case, the exchange was the appointment as an ambassador, which falls within the president's prerogatives. Sauer, in response, highlighted that most of the overt conduct in question was official, suggesting that without the official aspect, the case might not proceed.
Sauer pointed out that while the government's brief acknowledged the official nature of certain acts, they sought to link everything together based on an alleged improper private aim. This approach, according to Sauer, contradicted established case law that focuses on the act itself rather than the motivation behind it.
The discussion delved into the complexities of defining official acts and the implications of tying them to alleged improper motivations. The exchange between Chief Justice Roberts and Sauer underscored the nuanced legal arguments at play in the case, shedding light on the challenges of interpreting the law in such contexts.
