You concede that private acts don't get immunity.
We do. OK, so in the special counsels brief on
pages 46 and 47,
he urges us. Even if we assume that there's even
if we were to decide or assume that there was
some sort of immunity for official X,
that there were sufficient private acts in the indictment for
the trial to go,
for the case to go back in the trial,
that began immediately. And I want to know if you
agree or disagree about the characterization of these acts as
private petitioner turned to a private attorney was willing to
spread knowingly false claims of election fraud to spearhead his
challenges to the election results.
As at lunch, I mean,
we dispute the allegation, but that sounds private to me.
Sounds private. Petitioner conspired with another private attorney who caused
the filing in court of a verification signed by petitioner
that contained false allegations to support a challenge that also
sounds private.