What Trump’s lawyer conceded at the Supreme Court: From the Politics Desk

Welcome to the online version of From the Politics Desk, an evening newsletter that brings you the NBC News Politics team’s latest reporting and analysis from the campaign trail, the White House and Capitol Hill.

In today’s edition, reporters Lawrence Hurley and Ryan J. Reilly break down what happened in the Supreme Court arguments over Donald Trump's claim of absolute immunity from prosecution for things that happened during his presidency. Plus, reporters Alexandra Marquez and Bridget Bowman walk through Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's moment after the passage of Ukraine aid.

Sign up to receive this newsletter in your inbox every weekday here.

What Trump’s lawyer conceded at the Supreme Court

By Lawrence Hurley and Ryan J. Reilly

Former President Donald Trump has long argued for absolute immunity in his federal election interference case, but on Thursday his lawyer struck a different tone during arguments at the Supreme Court. Indeed, attorney D. John Sauer did something his client rarely does: He made some concessions.

Sauer appeared to agree with special counsel Jack Smith, who is leading the prosecution, that there are some allegations in the indictment that do not involve “official acts” of the president.

Do you have a news tip? Let us know

Sauer’s main argument was that the entire indictment is premised on official acts, which should be protected by immunity in part to ensure that presidents do not have their hands tied over fear of prosecution after leaving office.

But Sauer accepted that Trump can be prosecuted for private acts that were not tied to his official duties as president.

During oral arguments, the justices zeroed in on the public-private distinction. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett