the appeals court hearing on donald trump's immunity hearing has wrapped up. the three-judge appellant panel facing this big question -- can the former president be held criminally responsible for actions that he took while in office to overturn the 2020 election loss. >> we heard a remarkable argument from trump's team who heard the argument that prosecuting a former president would open up a pandora's box as john sauer said that working in the capacity as alleged in the indictment by jack smith, the special counsel's office pushing back on that. >> this notion that we are all of the sudden going to be seeing a floodgate, i think that, again, the careful investigations in the clinton

era didn't result in any charges. the fact that this investigation did doesn't reflect that we are going to see a sea change of vindictive tit-for-tat prosecutions in the future. i think it reflects fundamentally unprecedented nature of the criminal charges here. >> cnn's evan perez joins us now. evan, you were inside of that courtroom, and i have to understand what were your key takeaways and what was the climate like in the actual atmosphere in that room. what did you see? >> well, once the former president finally got into the courtroom, that is when all of the noise in the room stopped. everybody obviously turned their attention to the former president. he was very subdued, and walked in kind of like a saunter and he took the seat at the defense table with alongside his lawyer john sawuer and one of the thins

that is noteworthy and unlike some of the previous times that we have seen him in court, he had boris epstein in his corner and a couple of rows behind where the former president was sitting, and also, walt nada was with the former president again, and that is something that we don't normally see in these cases. and so, he was subdued for most of it, and while jack smith just sat about 20 feet away from him, and they did not look at each other, unlike some of the previous times they have been in court together, and this is obviously a proceeding where the former president did not have to attend, but he chose to attend it, and paying rapt attention, and he was listening to the opening arguments by his attorney john sauer, and when the opening presentation was when you could see more activity from him, and leaning forward and taking notes, and passing

notes to john sauer, and he was very, very attentive when a couple of the judges spoke s and when the judge childs was asking questions, and he seemed very, very focused on her. one of the things that i thought, or what i found very interesting is that there are times where, you know, he seemed very, very much trying to portray how much he agreed with his side of the case being presented. he looked over and he nodded strongly when sauer was talking about how the fact that the former president was not, and there was no allegation against him that any of the crimes that are being alleged him happened outside of office. they all happened while he was sitting in office. so, he nodded very strongly to that argument from john sauer. again, you know, the room was quite focused on the former

president and even james pearce, the government attorney for the justice department who was making presentation, his parents were sitting a couple of rows back in the courtroom. apparently, they have come to some of the previous appellant court arguments, including one that pearce argued on the gag order a couple of months ago. so, everybody in the room waited of course until the judges walked out and the former president stood up and walked out slowly outside of the room. obviously, this is a very momentous court proceeding today and obviously the constitutional questions are looming very, very large and not only over this trial, but over future presidents, and so, certainly i think that he seemed to be very animated when pearce was talking about the idea that there would

be floodgates and the one sound that you just played a minute ago when pearce said that he does not believe that there would a tit-for-tat, and again, the president was taking notes and handing them off to john sauer, his attorneys, and fascinating couple of hours there. i thought that it might go even longer based on the previous proceeding, but it was absolutely fascinating to watch the former president sitting there watching his fate being decided by this court. >> evan, first of all, the mom in me is not going to allow any parent showing up in the consequential matter in the d.c. court, and kudos to the parent, but you say that he was passing notes to his attorney who was arguing and were there particular moments that you saw president trump particularly animated and handing the notes over or certain argument times and immunity for example or

official acts and what were those moments? >> yeah. well, yeah, absolutely. he, the idea that for example when judge pan was asking about this idea that he has to be impeach and he has to be convicted, and trump was taking furious notes during that part of it, and again, when pearce was making the point that in the future there is going to be similar prosecutions, trump was furiously making notes and he leaned over to talk to his lawyer when for example judge henderson raised the idea that, you know, the take care clause that you were just discussing a few moments ago where the idea that the former president when he took office obviously he took an oath to take care and to make

sure that the laws are executed in this country, and she said it was paradoxical that he then would be immune from being prosecuted if he broke those very law. and he leaned over and spoke to his attorneys again during that bit of questioning. so clearly, he was listening very, very closely, and everybody in the room was eyes focused on him. you know, obviously to see what the reactions would be. very unusual to have a defendant coming to one of these proceedings. in reference to mr. pearce's mom, i asked her, you know, i asked why are you here today, and she said, you could not keep me away from here today [ laughter ] so mom is very much, very much invested in the proceedings here today. >> moms everywhere are like, you have got that right, thank you very much. >> i am so glad that you asked the question about the notes,

because it caught my interest, when evan said that trump was passing notes to the attorney, and evan, a few moments here when the judges had to repeatedly follow up on the questions and rephrase them for trump's attorneys and what were their facial expressions and body language during this? >> well, certainly, i think that they were trying to hue very close to the arguments and make sure they were not straying very far from the arguments and one of the things that the government points out is that trump and the legal team have evolved in some of the arguments, and so certainly, i think that for mr. sauer as soon as he hit the podium, he started to getting questions from judge childs and judge henderson, and so he didn't even have a minute, really to do his presentation, and it is always very fascinating to watch the lawyers who come to prepare for days and days and weeks, right, to do

this presentation, and then they come in here, and it is rapid fire questions from the judges who don't have that much patience and don't really pay attention to the clock either. so that was a, i think that always unnerving for any lawyer, but these guys were rolling with the punches. >> and there was a part in the conversation and it was judge pan, and she asked about a quote from donald trump in the congressional record, and put it up on the screen, and she says, "sorry, but there is a quote in the congressional record in which your client said through counsel no former office holder is immune from investigation or prosecution." i am wondering what donald trump was doing when receipts were provided in the courtroom. >> those were one of the -- that is one of the few moments where i saw him just look, and stare straight at the judge, and he did not have much of a physical reaction. and you know, there are times

when he purses the lips and one of the mannerisms especially when he does not like something, and looks straight ahead, and that is one of the moment, and very characteristic of the former president, and you know, you know when there is something being said that he doesn't like, and that is one of the tells. >> and i am guessing that jack smith was pretty stoic throughout? >> right. jack smith was sitting just a couple of rows behind pearce and the government table and he came in with a large entourage, and about 20 people of justice lawyers and staffers and fbi people who are working with the part of the investigation and he walks in, and, you know, for a while, as we are waiting for the proceedings to wait to begin, smith was looking around at some of the portraits and that one room, that one courtroom has portraits of some of the judges who have sat on this appeals court in the past, and so, he

sort of familiarized with some of the people on the walls there. he did stop to talk to the pearces, the mom and dad sitting a few rows back, and he had a chat with them, but stoic, and he did not look at the former president unlike previous times where we saw them sort of exchange glances shortly and briefly, and that did not seem to happen today that i could see. >> evan perez, from what you did see, it is quite a lot, and quite interesting, and thank you for sharing that to us, and to break down what we heard from the actual arguments we have the legal panel back with us, and joining us, cnn senior legal attorney from the new york district attorney elie honig, and with us from the southern district office karen and also

laura laura, what is being said here, that presidents could very much be prosecuted, but today, they were saying they could not unless they were convicted by the senate. >> clearly, trump's arguments in other forums are coming back to haunt him. and the judges are listening to each other, right. they are seeing what is happening in other cases or forums, and you cannot be inconsistent and disingenuous when you are speaking to the court. so what is excellent and they did a good job of is narrowing issues. there were several issues that were outstanding going into the oral argument, and number one, are the presidents immune from criminal prosecution generally, number one. number two, could double e jeopardy apply, because he was impeached by the house and

acquitted by the senate. and does the appellant court have jurisdiction to hear it at all right now, because you have to normally wait until after you are convicted. and number four, do you have to be impeached and then convicted in order to be prosecuted, and this is the impeachment judgment clause. what i thought that the appellant court did a really excellent job here is narrowing the issues down and at the end judge pan got mr. sauer who represents trump to concede there is no absolute immunity here. and that if, what she said is if trump is impeached, and then concon vi conviblg v-- convicted by the senate, would immunity be e entirely proper by the impeachment clause and by getting him to say yes, she got him to concede there is no double jeopardy and there is no

absolute presidential doimmunit and so does the presidential immunity clause need to be addressed, too. and there is one other area to fine tune the ministerial and congressional acts, but they honed them down beautifully. >> and there is a point there that i am so glad that you raised it, because we were chartering about it in the middle of the oral argument when he did not want, and this is the counsel for trump, he did not want the immunity questions to be resolved after a trial, which is normal. you go through the whole criminal trial and then you never sort of lose this ability to make or claim the case on appeal, and elie, you said, this is it. this is the crux of issue. >> this is about the calendar and the timing which is so important. ordinarily, a criminal defendant like donald trump is now, does

not get to appeal or have this argument until after the trial, after it has been a conviction and sentencing. >> which is feeling odd to people. >> yes, you have to go through the whole thing and then you can attack it except in very narrow circumstances where a defendant is allowed to take what we call the interlocutory appeal meaning the appeal before your trial. now, both, interestingly, donald trump's team and jack smith's team agree, yes, he is allowed to take the interlocutory appeal, and this is the kind of the case that you can do that. >> so we have to pause, but we are hearing from democratic senator bob menendez on the latest indictment against him. >> and since the beginning of this process. and for that, at least a year prior to the bringing of this indictment which therefore begs question, why did the government not proceed with all of these accusations from the beginning?

the answer is clear to me. by filing three indictments one in late september, a second one a few weeks later in mid-october and a third one last week in early january, it allows government to keep the sensational story in the press, it poisons the jury pool, and it is seeking to convict me in the court of public opinion. and in so doing, the government's tactics harm not just me, but each of you, my colleagues, the political establishment and most importantly the electorate of new jersey. the sensationalized allegations are now creating a rising call for my resignation, despite my innocence, and before a single piece of evidence has even been p introduced in a court of law. the united states attorney's law is engaged in not a prosecution

but a persecution. we have seen this with other public officers. remember what happened to senator ted stevens or governor bob mcdonald, and numerous other examples. it is unfortunate reality, but prosecutors are sometimes shooting first before they even know all of the facts. it would be a shame of this venerable body does same. so having set the stage for why this process has unfolded this way, let me deal with some of issues starting with the latest accusation. i have received nothing, absolutely nothing from the government of qatar or on behalf of the government of qatar to promote their image or their issues. the government's principle allegation of what i supposedly did for qatar was to support a senate resolution. this resolution was sponsored and introduced by senator

graham. cosponsored by 11 other partisan senators posted on the senate foreign relations agenda and passed by voice vote. what was that about? it was sponsored by senator graham and sponsored by 12 of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to thank the qatari government for evacuating our american citizens and refugees from taliban rule. and then they referenced some press release i made. well, the press release says in one sentence -- "i am glad to see our friends and allies in qatar to be moral exemplars by accepting afghanistan's ultimately seeking the united states after being forced to escape their lives." that is the one thing about qatar. and the rest is a call for

international cooperation to help seek help of journalists and others freedom. something others have called for. and the largest air base is the large nest st in the middle eas call for natural gas in the conflict in the middle east and call for afghans in the middle east after the united states was seeking to evacuate in the middle east and recently played a role -- you are listening to senator bob menendez speaking on the senate floor after they unveiled a superseding indictment against him following the charges already that he had used the position as a sitting senator and i should note the chair formerly of the senate relations committee and lauren fox is tracking comments. lauren, it is notable that one

of the things that the senator came out that lauren and i both looked at each other is that he asked why the justice department had not brought all of the charges against him at a sooner date. >> yeah, and he is with his argument, kaitlan, that this is a maneuver by the government in order to keep this story in the spotlight. of course, as you know, the justice department doesn't always bring all of the charges at once. it is not unusual for a superseding indictment to come later. that is what happened in the case of bob menendez, but he is furiously defending himself right now on the senate floor showing no signs up to this point that he is expected to step aside, and instead, he is just defending himself, and this is going to come as there are likely going to be more and more calls for him to step aside. i think that is really notable at this moment right now given the fact that we have a number of his colleagues who have made it clear that they are uncomfortable with the charges

against him, and they believe he no longer should be a sitting u.s. senator, but ultimately that is a decision that is up to senator bob menendez, and he is make it clear this morning that nothing in this superseding indictment is changing his belief that he belongs in the united states senate. >> we will see how the senate colleagues continue to respond to that. lauren fox on capitol hill, thank you for that. for the rest of you, coming up, former president trump is expected to be determined once the votes are cast to be the 2024 republican president nominee, but there are major questions about the political implications of the argument that we heard this morning. his push for presidential immunity we will discuss with our experts right after a quick break.

this morning former president donald trump was inside of a federal appellant courtroom as his lawyers argued that he should be immune for prosecution for any crimes that he may have committed while he was president. trump chose to trade the campaign trail for the courtroom with less than a week to go until the iowa caucuses. cnn's alanna treen joining us for what is a very complicated legal calendar for what he has to do with the complicated political campaign? >> yes, laura and kaitlan, this

is a preview of what we can expect for the months to come with the lead up of the 2024 presidential election with how he is trying to juggle the campaign and the legal battles. we should point out that it is donald trump's choice the take himself off of the trail to be in court today for the immunity claim argument and it is something that he cares deeply about and he is choosing to show up. i think that if you are looking at the rest of the week, i wanted to point out the schedule, because it is again, a great example of him flitting between the courtroom and the trail today where he is obviously in d.c. attending team's arguments in the immunity claim trial, but he is also going to be back in iowa tomorrow for a fox news town hall, and then thursday, he is going in a totally different courtroom, and totally different case, and he is going to be sitting in on the arguments in the new york civil fraud trial which is another case that is deeply personal for donald trump, and kind of strikes to the core of who he is. if we are taking a step back and look at all of this, i think

that as i said, these are both issues that donald trump definitely and personally believes in. but there is also a political strategy to this. his team and this is according to conversations with many of donald trump's advisers, they think that some of the best ways to suck the oxygen out of the race is to have donald trump personally and directly to being involved in his legal battles. they know that it is coming at a time when his rivals are really trying to get as much last-minute traction as they can in lead-up to iowa monday, and this is a great way to turn all of the attention to the former president, and have him do as we have seen him do many times in the past, try to control the media narrative around a lot of the legal issues. >> alayna treene, thank you so much, and i don't know much oxygen is left in the room. >> and we tbd, and we will see how much that is. and we will see if he responds,

and obviously, he did not speak in court today. and with us is strategist david urban and senior political strategist david avalon, and i am curious that we are seeing trump in court and not speaking and letting the attorneys doing the talking, but he is the one posting videos on social media arguing that he has presidential immunity and saying that if he returns to the white house, joe biden is going to be the one who is indicted. >> yeah, and the argument does not hold water there, kaitlan, in terms of kind of the i am elected president watch out. what it illustrates is that the biden administration has opened up a pandora box here with the prosecutions, and persecutions, and kind of what senator menendez just said on the floor, this is not a prosecution, but a persecution, and president trump and the team beliefs same thing

that he is being persecute and if you are keeping down this path, you heard the attorneys make this argument, any president could be held liable, and be dragged into court for legal actions. now, obviously, the judges on the panel, and the d.c. circuit court are pushing back on that, but president trump is using pandora's box, if you open it, you can't close it. >> and john avalon, one of the things that seems to be if you are opening up pandora's box is the argument, jack smith team is saying that they are trying the close pandora's box, and making sure that a president does not have a carte blanche to do what he or eventually she will choose to do. and how do you make that argument? >> i think that it makes good common sense consistent with the oath of office in which the president promises to faithfully execute the office of president and protect and defend the u.s. constitution. as one of the judges pointed out, it is hard to imagine how overturning an election on the basis of a lie to stay in power

that leads to an attack on the u.s. capitol is consistent with uphold office of president or protecting and defending the u.s. constitution, and it is directly assaulting it. so the argument that trump's lawyers were trying to make of the pandora's box and using examples of president bush and president obama to come under scrutiny they took while actions of war and peace do not track with this unprecedented action of president trump. especially given that trump's own lawyers as judge pan pointed out in the first impeachment and republican senators in the second impeachment pointed out that someone does not have to be convicted on their actions later. it does not hold water, and trump is just threats and threats of retributions to further degrade the promise to faithfully execute the office of president. >> and michael, what are you

seeing that the arguments in court that john sauer is saying that presidential immunity does not exist would be shocking and you would allow president biden maybe to be indicted in west texas to have a texas jury and judge as to how he has been handling the border, and this is not an argument that we are seeing being made by other figures and secretaries of state and other attorneys as well saying that it is essentially something that could be flipped in the future on a democratic president or something. >> kaitlan, it is a good question and i can understand it through the political lens, but i am not certainly sure it would hold legal water, and laura and david could better answer it, but this is my assumptions here. it is one thing to have the belief that the president should have some level of immunity to take actions without fear of

criminal action once they leave office. especially if some random attorney said, this is a terrible action and it is a crime. so should there be no limitations that a president is unfettered in the power or authority? most americans and etven conservatives would say, president biden could do anything, and if he wanted to arrest president trump and put him in jail and throw away the key, and under that presumption he could do that, and the conservatives would say absolutely not. and that is the argument that the three judges that we saw believe that, and even if it is going to supreme court, i am hesitant that the supreme court would rule that in the sense that the president is essentially a king with unilateral authority do what they want, and that congress says with checks and balances that it is too far, and the court says too far, and the president overrules the two

entities, but i don't agree with that, and again, most americans if you ask the simple question, should the president be able to do whatever they want without any ability to be charged with the potential crime if they break the law, and most people would say no, the president is not above the law, and i think that is true. >> shermichael, and john and david, stick around and we will come back on the political aspect of this and unpacking it, for people saying, what is official and what is not. what can a president do in office and when is it campaigning and political and when it is just criminal. more in a moment.

the power goes out and we still have wifi to do our homework. and that's a good thing? great in my book! who are you? no power? no problem. introducing storm-ready wifi. now you can stay reliably connected through power outages with unlimited cellular data and up to 4 hours of battery back-up to keep you online. only from xfinity. home of the xfinity 10g network.

you are looking live now at pictures from washington, d.c., where we are expecting former president trump to speak any moment now after he just attended quite a lengthy argument and discussion back and forth in the hearing between the three judges in the appeals court in washington over his claims of presidential immunity. we are waiting for him, and we will be monitoring this and the panel is back here with us, including shermichael, michael, david and john and also karen is standing by. i wanted to know, john avalon, if you could talk about the bigger argument of with the deep skepticism of the three judges

of the arguments made by trump's attorney john sauer over whether he does have presidential immunity and the point to which he made and articulated over the back and forth with the judges that former president cannot be prosecuted unless they have been impeached and convicted by the senate. >> look, i think that argument in particular has been blown out of the water by the arguments made by president trump's own attorneys in the first impeachment, and republican senators in the second impeachment who said that criminal prosecution has been in the courts with the proper arena to try the president in the specific circumstance, and what you will hear president trump say in a press conference in waiting is that it will be consistent with what he has argued in previous days he was searching for election fraud, and this is what is with the

faithful execution of the presidential powers and what is that there are no legitimate execution of overturning the election, and this is venal power, and we have heard this in testimony subsequently, and he ignored it. so, that argument is flimsy at best. and the arguments put forward by the lawyer were effectively dismantled by the judges including a disturbing exchange of whether a president could use seal team six to kill a political rival and then avoid impeachment if he would be liable for impeachment. it is surreal stuff, but it is important. >> and david, i think that surreal is the right word and also, surreal to see it, but i have to point it out, and hold out, because we have the picture of where he is going to talk, and are you kidding? it is looking like the west wing, and is that intentional? i have to point out the obvious in what i am seeing. thank you very much.

>> and trump team has a great advance team. >> they do. it is right out of central casting. >> laura, i want to say that i am sure that you have heard, and this is elie when they were talking about this, and the judge said that use seal six team to kill a political opponent and that is never going to happen that it is an unlawful order of the military and when i heard her say that, do you not know the law yourself, because that is puzzling, but to john's point, it is what john is going to say, he was in search of the truth, and, right, and truth in his mind, and then this is the pandora's box again that is going to be made here in that setting that you just alluded to, that presidential-like setting, laura. >> but, david on that point, one of the reasons that the judge was asking the hypothetical and more than the seal team six, but could you sell pardons or sell military secrets and the point of the exchange was to suggest

that those different things touch on official duties and pardon power, the president, and commander in chief, and national security clearance, and military secrets and the idea of ordering a military operation of any kind, and all under the umbrella of what one expects a president to do, and her point was that the response would have been of course they could not do that, but it is not the answer. >> i understand, but look, there is a huge distinction here of whether what is an official duty, and what is the definition of an official duty is the nub of this case is about, and where does it fall, and what is falling inside and outside of that, and the trump team is making argument that what he is doing falls inside of his official duty, and that the department of justice is saying, no, clearly what happened on january 6th fell far outside of that. >> so shermichael, look, the former president trump, he has every right to be able to test his legal theories in court, and every right to do so, and every

right to raise his appeals on nonfrivolous grounds and as a nation to know whether a president or nonpresident can enjoy immunity, but the political backdrop here is six days before the iowa caucus, and he knows that he does not have to be physically in the room to have all nofof this going down,d what is the political calculus that trump knows is going on -- and wait. he is actually coming into the room to get ready to speak, and we will get there in a second, and shermichael who is there? >> that is his attorney john lauro getting ready to speak. >> it is whether or not a president of the united states could be prosecuted for carrying out his responsibilities, doing his job as president. we can't have a country where every four years there is a cycle of political recrimination where one administration attacks

a prior administration when in fact that candidate is leading in the polls and will be the next president of the united states. as our legal team, and our appellant team made clear, that would be a disaster for our country, and direct attack on democracy and that cannot happen. what was very significant today, and i am sure that you all caught it is the special counsel conceded that if it was president obama who was being prosecuted for a drone strike, then they'd have to consider immunity. but when it is not, when it is president trump, then they are taking the position that there's no immunity for presidential acts required when a president is carrying out his job responsibilities. if we adopt what the special counsel wants and adopt what president biden wants, then we open up the pandora's box to political prosecution after

political prosecution after political prosecution. in fact, joe biden could be prosecuted for trying to stop this man from becoming the next president of the united states. we don't need political prosecutions, we need political process. i'd like to introduce president trump. >> well, i wanted to thank you all, and we had a, and i have had a very momentous day in terms owhat was learn and what they have conceded. they conceded two major points that were, that were right in doing it. i don't think they had much of a choice, but they are very, very powerful points, and i think that we are doing very well. it is very unfair when an opponent, a political opponent is prosecuted by the doj by biden's doj, so, they are losing in every poll. they are losing in almost every demographic, and numbers came out today that are really very

mind boggling if you happen to be joe biden. i think that they feel that this is the way to try and win. it is not the way that it goes, and it is going to be bed lamb -- bedlam in the country, and as we said it is the opening of a pandora's box, and it is a very sad thing that has happened with this whole situation. when they are talking about the threat to democracy, and that is the real threat to democracy. i feel that as a president, you have to have immunity, and very simple. if you don't, as an example, if this case were lost on immunity and i did nothing wrong, absolutely nothing wrong, i am working for the country. i worked on very hard on voter fraud, because we have to have free election and strong borders and free elections and those two things almost above all, and we have found tremendous voter fraud, and we have a list of it

and findings of it, and the pres d press does not like to report on it, but we have found determinative voter fraud. that is president trump speaking alongside two of his attorneys at least, and attending hearing with the three-judge panel, and there is no evidence of voter fraud, and many courts have found no evidence of it that trump has been able to make, and despite what he is continuing to make there, and it is a notable comment coming six days before the iowa caucuses, before the 2024 elections. and elie honig is here and what he is saying before john lauro, and this is president biden who is indicted here, but it is not. and as we heard from the democratic senator who has also been indicted and the president's son, and the

argument itself and the takeaways and what happened inside of that courtroom. >> well, a couple of things. donald trump told us that doj made these remarkable sort of shocking concessions. i don't think so. i think that the doj is remarkable in the concessions that a former president can be indicted outside of the scope. they didn't give anything away, and it is surprising to hear donald trump's lawyers go in there to say that a former president can be prosecuted. we do have to address this point of the constant refrain that this is joe biden going after the president. you have to understand, that the president nominates the attorney general who is confirmed by the senate. and merrick garland put in jack smith as special counsel, and there is no evidence of>> bill not believe the indictment in washington, he believes it's a sound legal argument. he does not believe it's

politically motivated. that's trump's attorney general. >> the last is this pandora's box floodgates concern. that's a legitimate point. where would this end? the response from doj which was quite effective is there are safeguards in place. this isn't as simple as president doesn't like someone, boom, they're indicted. there are prosecutors who have a duty to only indict when they have evidence. you have grand juries, you have then a trial, trial juries of course review for proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and finally, a court of appeals. so it's a fair argument. i get where they're going with it. you have to be concerns, will this open up a new chapter we don't like. >> i will say, there were moments when john laura was speaking about needing to have political process, not persecution. trump largely echoed his speech over the weekend in response to president biden talking about a threat to democracy. he obviously takes great offense to this discussion. but there was a moment when

lauro said, look, every four years, we could potentially be seeing a recrimination of a political opponent. the concern of trying to instill the fear that this could happen again unless we put these guardrails up, but what did you make, karen, of the comparicomp? they seem to suggest, john lauro, that the court of appeals was saying that if it had been obama, this would have been immunity, talking about a drone strike. when it was far more nuanced. they were actually talking about official actions of a president versus those that are so-called rogue and unofficial. why does that feel disinn ingen to say if it's a bouma, it's immunity. >> there's a distinction between acts as president versus personal acts. if you were to engage in sexual assault, nobody would say because you're president, you're

immune if you're out of office and you're a former president, for that personal conduct. and that's very an extreme version of what it would be. here, he was candidate trump, although he says that the election was long over, he was trying to make it so that he could be put back into office, that he could change the outcome of that election, acting as a candidate, not as president. so it's not within his official duties. >> we distinguish that all the time, what you can do as a campaign and a candidate versus even if you're an incumbent, there is a bright line rule between the two actions. >> absolutely, and there are laws in place that specifically separate political conduct from official conduct, the hatch act, for example, is one that is often mentioned, when you work for a government, i worked for a state government employee when i worked for the manhattan d.a.'s office, also an elected office. i couldn't have anything to do with his campaign.

that would have been totally inappropriate, not in my job description, yet he was able to do that as the candidate, and there was very clear distinction between what he did as a candidate versus what he did as the elected district attorney and the rest of us as employees. it's clear with donald trump as well, he was acting as a candidate, not as a president at the time. >> the waters are a little muddied. i wonder for people listening and thinking about this, we heard nixon say if the president does it, it's not illegal. we all watched west wing, where they said we can't do this right now. i'm not that old. but this idea of whether what you're doing, if you're the incumbent president, he is saying that no, no, i was not just a candidate. i was trying to insure that voter fraud was not happening. that's under the laws, under my umbrella purview. i was trying to take care of the laws as written, and that what i was doing. is it clear for a court to look

at this and say candidate, president, head of executive branch? >> let me give you this analysis. there have been other people who have raised similar claims. they said what i was doing in the run-up to january 6th was part of my official job. for example, mark meadows has made the same argument. it's basically the same test. meadows said, well, what i was doing as white house chief of staff, that was part of my job. rejected. jeffrey clark, same thing. part of my official federal job at doj, rejected. donald trump himself in a different case, he's being sued for over january 6th by police officers who were there at the scene. civil case. and this argument about whether donald trump is civilly immune was within the job of president, that went to this same court we just heard, different panel of judges but the court of appeals in d.c., and they rejected. they said, no, what you were doing was outside the scope of the presidency. it's not as clear cut as if there's a traffic accident as

opposed to signing legislation. those would be something outside and inside the scope of presidency, but so far it's unanimous, all this activity leading up to january 6th, outside of the scope. >> as the judges are dealing with this, and we're waiting to hear their decision, how much has to do with what was filed in the briefs and what was said today? if you notice in the briefs and what i had been expecting the focus today to be on, trump saying i knew the election was over, those were my official duties as president. this was me being president to make sure the laws were faithfully executed. but that is not the direction that the judges took it in today, which was this carte blanche look at presidential immunity. which one holds more weight? >> i think the written briefs will hold more weight. what the judges were doing were stress testing the arguments. what they are is they're trying to test the principles set

forth. in the case of this complexity where it's clear they're going to rule quickly. i think we'll certainly have a ruling by the end of this month, i promise those opinions are largely written maybe with a couple fill-in here type of things, oral argument is not just for show. it's meant to give the parties a chance to make their arguments and to challenge some of the arguments. but i think the briefs are what's going to rule here. >> what do you think, karen? >> well, i think it will be quicker than the end of the month. i think they'll rule very quickly. there's a line in the special counsel's brief at the very end asking for a mandate to basically enter the mandate within five days. that's kind of a signal that jack smith's office is asking the d.c. circuit to say, hey, look, i want this to go back and go back quickly because in addition to the substance here, as we know, donald trump doesn't ever want this to go at all. he doesn't want this to happen at all, because the end game is to delay this, hopefully not

have a trial at all, and then hopefully get elected and then make the case go away and try to pardon himself, et cetera. i think there's also this question, if you look at the brief, about speed and get it to go quicker. i think the d.c. circuit is going to do that. i agree that the decision is probably written already. >> there was a really important line, every oral argument ends essentially with a judge asking what do you want us to do? what your prayer for relief. trump's attorney says either allow immunity or allow us the time to appeal higher. in other words, chief justice roberts, get your pen ready. >> we know that's exactly what the trump legal team has wanted. then it becomes the question of how quickly do they move. it's a question of timing, everything we have been talking about. >> so much more to get tod toda and talk about. this was a hugely significant day in our courts. >> thank you for joining us for a wild three hours. so glad to have laura to break down the legalesese.

insidede politics s is up nextx.