all right. what happened in donald trump's immunity hearing? it comes down to one word. i'll tell you what it is. tonight, on "laura coates live." today is worded, the day from webster's, is concede. believing something is through after first denying or resisting it. why is that the word of the day? the court of appeals heard a concession, see what i did there? from the lawyer from a former

president that refuses to concede that he lost the election. and he did lose that election. before today, trump's lawyers were absolutely -- what's the word ---e eadamant. that the president had immunity for his conduct while in office. they wouldn't budge on this point. at first they wouldn't budge. right out of the gate, from questioning of one of the judges, they were forced to make a powerful confession, that of course, there is not absolute immunity, meaning you can never charge a former president for action taken while in office, if it was criminal or otherwise. they could -- you can. you can prosecute under certain circumstances. and they only admitted that, after the judge gave him a whole string of hypotheticals that can really only have one legitimate, truthful answer. >> could a president who ordered

s.e.a.l. team 6, be subject to prosecution? >> if he were impeached and convicted first. >> the answer is no? >> my answer is qualified yes. >> a qualified what? a qualified yes. now, look. sometimes a judge throws you a softball, right? a moment for you to answer the question in a yes or no. they know what they're working with. are you a delusional attorney who can keep a straight face on any argument? no matter how absurd the argument may be. or are you listereasonable? one and one equals two? instead, a qualified yes. over a mere thought of a president of the united states. we call our president the leader of the free world, where they can assassinate a political rival. that was the hemming and the

hawing. is that worth the credibility of the other arguments you want to raise? common sense has to come into play. you call on lawyers for a lot of things. but some things require the common sense. to admit the obvious, like, if you do not do that, you will lose your credibility forever in front of the court. but donald trump, he refuses to concede, that which is obvious to his advisers and obvious if you hear jack smith tell you, but he refuses to concede, he refuses to concede and admit that he lost the election. and the conduct taken problematic. >> i did nothing wrong. absolutely nothing wrong. >> i use the word problematic. you can go to a jury if it was criminal or otherwise.

but it's jack smith that opened pandora's box. >> to authorize the prosecution of a president for his acts, would open a pandora's box from which this nation would never recover. it would indict president biden for mismanaging the border, allegedly. >> let's stay with the theme of pandora's box. i like greek mythology. jack smith believes he is closing pandora's box because if you give a president carte blanche democracy dies. why now? the court of appeals had an oral argument today. why now? why does donald trump double and triple and quadruple and next it ration, is it quintuple? i don't know. does it again. is it six days away from the

iowa caucuses? he knows that taking his campaign to court makes his polls go up. quite the inverse relationship. now, remember how he raised off of his mug shot in georgia. does he believe he's entitled? he's entitled to knowing what the court will find here and decide. does every member of the electorate deserve to have an answer, as well. i want to bring in two brilliant legal minds to game out the arguments we heard today and the ones we did not hear today. norm eisen. and harry litman, former prosecutor. i'm glad you're both here. they will help us understand what is in play by making the case for both sides. yes, gentlemen. it's time for you to do devil's advocacy in my mind. we heard the arguments today. i will have both of you walk me

through and the audience, what the best arguments ought to have been. the strong points and the weaknesses, as well. i'll have you flip. i like a little game-playing at night. norm, i begin with you. i want you to take the side -- i know it might pain you a little bit, trump's lawyers. how do you respond to this d.o.j. argument on what presidential immunity would mean. listen to this. >> it would mean that if a former president engages in assassination, selling pardons, these kind of things and isn't impeached and convicted, there is no accountability for that, for that individual. and that's frightening. >> that's the d.o.j. argument. what is the response from the trump team? what ought should it be? >> the government is distorting the well-established rules that the united states supreme court has articulated in the case of

nixon v. fitzgerald. it's already the law, your honor, that a president is not immune for these wild hypotheticals we've been hearing today. no. the united states supreme court has said that a president is immune for their official acts. well, if there was an assassination or all these things, that's not an official act. that's what we call beyond the bounds. we want to take this well-establish rule that works, your honor. it's in civil cases. it should apply more in criminal cases. the danger to the normal functioning of our country is greater. we don't want bush prosecuted. we don't want biden prosecuted. we don't want president trump prosecuted, either. let's not apply the rule -- the district court even refused to

apply this rule. please remand to district court so they can follow common sense. >> you play that role. you have been u.s. attorney before. what's the argument? >> with respect, my friend's st lack confidence. the presidents haven't broken the law before. but the difference between a republic that punishes its highest officials after they have left office -- this is not while he or she is in office. but after they have left office, not only is there no reason to withhold the criminal process from them, there's every reason. that's the delineation between a rule of law and a person of person, a rule of autocracy. >> you want a rebuttal? >> your honor, we don't object to that. there is a rule. the supreme court has said, official acts protected. unofficial acts, not protected.

i want the law to have the balance for the normal functioning of the presidency. >> now, tell me what you believe. >> i believe my position. norm believes my position. he is talking about the civil law. now, we're talking about something very grave on the other side, a criminal violation. that's the standard for the civil law. >> talk about double jeopardy. can you take a call from the president? can i give them your number? >> you know, i practice law with john. as criminal defense lawyers we have to make the impossible arguments. i thought they did not do service to the president.

but i'm the president's new lawyer. >> okay. you're going to play trump's lawyers for the issue of double-jeopardy. the concept that you cannot be prosecuted twice for the same time. they are arguing that the impeachment qualified as the first instance of a prosecution. and now, this prosecution by jack smith is the second it ration. make your case, government. >> it's the impeachment clause, your honor. it's specific. if you have been impeached and convicted, then you can be tried criminally. it's not a wooden distinction. you have political judgment across the whole spectrum of american life. what you have without that kind of protection is exactly president biden indicting president trump, the very parade we're worried about. you need that decision by

congress as a whole, for a grave action of prosecuting a former i high official. >> what is your response? we have heard from mitch mcconnell after the impeachment, the second impeachment, he was expecting there to be a criminal backstop. here, trump's lawyers say anything different. what's your statement? >> your honor, i have my pocket constitution right here with me. and it does not say what my distinguished friend says it does. it says a party convicted in an impeachment trial should nevertheless be prosecuted. not only if. as is so often the case -- and it saddens me. as it's so often the case, that the counsel for president -- former president trump, is turning the facts and in this case, the law, upside-down.

there's no such thing. it is frivolous. and it's not worthy to try to make this argument. >> rebuttal? >> rebuttal. >> you misconstrued what i was saying. it's not the logical point. it's the political policy of having a threshold judgment. it's a serious thing to indict a president. it's not the nevertheless argument that i believe somebody did make today. >> it takes a great and brilliant mind to do what you've done. devil's advocacy. we did this because there's reasons to know the legitimacy of the other argument. you don't have to dismiss it outright. what did you take away today, knowing the concession has been made and they are doing it under review? >> two points. the concession was atrocious. he was dead man walk after that. it destroys his claim.

at the top level, trump is losing. i did see where the judges were talking among themselves, trying to figure out the right stance here. they might remand. and my concern is it could find occasion after the judge applies what they tell her to do, a new round and more delays. >> remand means going back to the lower court judge. what is your take away from today? >> donald trump's conduct here is so extreme in attempting to keep a hold of the oval office after he lost an election, that his lawyers were forced to back away from the reasonable, common

sense answers and defend an untenable position. only by distorting american law can you justify what donald trump is alleged to have done and what i believe there is strong proof of. they couldn't take a reasonable position because it would come back to concession. they would be in front of the trial judge and the jury. >> gentlemen, i will take it under review. i love being called your honor. thank you so much. quite a pleasure. you heard donald trump's lawyers say, this could open what? pandora's box. isn't the box open? i'll talk to democratic congressmen and ask what are the political consequences of all of this? and believe me, there are plenty.

pandora's box. floodgates. a few of the terms to argue the implication of what it would mean if you have absolute presidential immunimmunity. >> to authorize the prosecution of a president for his official acts would open a pandora's box from which this nation may never recover. >> this notion that we're going to see a floodgate, i think, again, the careful investigations in the clinton era, didn't result in any charges. the fact this investigation did, doesn't reflect that we're going to see a sea change of vindictive tit for tat prosecutions in the future. it reflects the fundamentally

unprecedented nature of the criminal charges here. >> so, the real question -- could this case unleash political prosecution? persecution, as john argues. he served as counsel to sarbanes during the whitewater investigations, as well. always glad to have you here, congressman. i hate to exhaust this term pandora's box. i want to ask you about it. one side says it will open up pandora's box. the other said saying you have to close it for actions that aren't criminal. who is right here? >> you have to make sure you have some criminal responsibility. the arguments that trump's lawyers made today were farther than they needed to go and hit

the bit of being ridiculous, frankly. that's why they were vulnerable to extreme scenarios. s.e.a.l. team 6 killing the rival. i think there's going to be -- continue to be some level of immunity for president and every other public official. including police officers who are doing things in official duties, as long as they are acting in the proper capacity and the proper role. in the trump scenario, you just have conduct after conduct after conduct that is way beyond the scope of, frankly, anything any other presidency has presented to the country. that's why he has 91 criminal charges over his head. there's a couple civil verdicts against him, as well. he's a bad case to try to set limits on presidential immunity, i think. >> i like your example in law enforcement.

you are right to point out where most of the conversations has been umimmunity of a law enforcement official or the executive branch. you talk about qualified immunity. there's times when official acts should never be prosecuted. then, times when someone has gone rogue. and trying to decipher when it's official and when it's not is the crux of this issue. is this something that you think is clear to the courts or the rules in terms of what is presidential and what is campaigning behavior? and as he says, i'm just trying to faithfully execute the laws and uphold them because i think there's voter fraud. >> it's something that all elected officials deal with. we have lines we can't cross. for campaign conduct or political activities. those are separate from official activities. a member of congress, the

governor, the dog catcher, you have to keep it separated out. the presidency, i think should be easier to do. you have staffs around the campaigns and the presidential office. to help you draw those lines to make sure you don't cross them. in the case of president trump, i think he wanted to cross those lines and didn't think about them in any instances. that's why he's in the deep trouble he's in. >> you mentioned the former president. there's the current president, biden, and a member of his cab innocent, that can think of impeachment. you have impeachment inquiry, when it comes to biden. you have impeachment over secretary mayorcas, as well. they think that democrats opened up two impeachments in trump. in an area we never had them for longer periods of time.

when you look at what trump is saying. be careful of what you wish for, it could be biden next. do you have concerns that if immunity is not granted here and the election goes trump's way, what is next is biden under the microscope? >> i don't think it matters for donald trump. he will do whatever he wants to do, regardless of the president. he saw he was willing to break with history, tradition, norms and the law repeatedly. i don't think that's the right way to try to draw the line. i think the difference is, if you're -- for example, the mayorcas case. they don't agree with his policies at the border. there's no allegation that he's committed bribery, treason, high crime and misdemeanors. same thing with president biden. they don't like what hunter biden has done and they keep trying to tag the president with

those. and they've been unsuccessful. the impeachment hearings, with president trump, they brought experts. all three experts said you don't have enough here to impeach. one of the same experts, jonathan turley, sent a letter today for the mayorcas hearing. you don't have enough evidence. there's just not evidence to do it in these cases. the misconduct to president trump is clear-cut. could it be more clear-cut than january 6th? what else could you think? >> you, me or your lying eyes. that's what it comes down to. jonathan turley, a professor who has been relied on in a number of circles to flush out these issue. do they have the votes to impeach him? >> we'll see. they have moderate republicans

in president biden districts. districts that president biden won. they are worried about losing those guys. if they do, we will take the house. that's how they have to decide it. when it gets to the senate, they're not going to impeach -- they're not going to remove him any way. >> a lot of reverse engineering. i remember a time it had to come first, the horse then the cart. glenn ivey, thank you so much. donald trump's courtroom and campaign calendars looking similar. is there a difference? we'll talk about it next.

we're in the final sprint to the first actual votes. can you believe that? the first actual votes in the race for the g.o.p. presidential nomination. the iowa caucuses are six days away. the republican defenders are all over the state. they are trying to win over caucusgoers. everyone except for the person you see on the far right, in the center of my screen, donald trump. today, he was in the campaign -- on the campaign, but in a courtroom, instead, in washington, d.c. of course, choosing to attend this very consequential court hearing. and stumping across the campaign trail. maybe he was on the campaign trail. the courtroom shows a bit of his political currency. does it not?

look at these numbers. look at the numbers. according to a knowledge poll, his legal troubles has not damaged his status as a g.o.p. front-runner. the indictments have strengthened his position. i want to dive in with tia mitchell, washington correspondent for "the atlanta journal-co journal-constitution." . can we look at the numbers here? look at the numbers before and after. preindictment, 47%. now, 63%. that's striking for a lot of reasons. what do you make of that, charlie? >> what i think about the numbers is, trump has successfully portrayed himself as a victim. it's turned this thing into a partisan issue. his opponents have not torn the

bark off him for his behavior or his misconduct. they would defend him, in the new york case, when he was indicted over the hush money payments to stormy daniels. they decided him. chris christie is the only one that takes him on on his conduct. that's contributed to trump's separation from desantis and other candidates. his two biggest fund-raising nights are april 4th, when he was arraigned. and august 24th, when he was booked into fulton county jail. there's the mug shot. he fund raised off of that. the idea that people are seeing him as a victim of the deep state, or he is defiant. and he is against this what people perceive as political

persecution. the fact he's fund-raising, significant. >> both of the states you mentioned are huge spectacles. i was in new york, outside of the courtroom. it was chaotic and pandemonium. and people lined -- trump knows how to harness the spectacle for campaign and political purposes. normally, we think about that in terms of rallies or public events. these court cases, the hearings, are part of the spectacle. it's why he would leave a campaign trail to go to a court date he didn't have to be in person for. the fund-raising, it's not only the victimhood of himself that he is fund-raising on. he tells his supporters, you're being persecuted. your rights are taken away by these cases.

that's part of his messaging and it's working. republican voters became more resolute in support of trump that they are defiance they consider themselves partners with himself on. >> what do you think of nikki haley slimming the lead for trump? we have a great debate coming up this week. what do you make of nikki haley slimming that lead? >> i think she has real momentum. iowa does not determine much of anything. >> don't tell iowa that. they don't want to hear that. >> it does determine evangelical support for a g.o.p. candidate. if it could determine presidents, we would talk about s santorum, huckabee and cruz. when iowa zigs, new hampshire zags. it's a better bellwether.

haley cutting the lead, she is starting to look at the trump vote. she comes out of iowa and new hampshire, she has a shot of winning. >> she is doing well with undeclared, independent voters. everyone wants that. >> right. that bodes well, should nikki haley become the candidate of choice in a general election. but we're talking about a primary. and not all states run their primaries like new hampshire. the polls show her struggling in her home state of south carolina, in a more traditional primary. i agree. she has momentum. particularly, if she gets her other competitors to bow out. chris christie, ron desantis.

one-on-one against trump would benefit nikki haley greatly. trump is the one -- nikki haley has the momentum. trump is the front-runner. >> important to think about and what's going to happen next. charlie, tia, thank you so much. the fact of the matter is, nikki haley is on the rise. is it close to ran desantis' swan song. somebody was out there campaigning with him, thomas massey joins me next.

tonight, donald trump wracking up more endorsements. senator john barrasso of wyoming, becoming the highest ranking republican to support trump's re-election bid. my next guest is defying the former president and hitting the campaign trail for ron desantis. congressman, thank you for joining us right now. you heard a number of top republicans in the house and beyond, endorsing trump. you are not taking that path. is it a problem in terms of your own political ambitions and career? >> i was against the president before. i made everybody come to congress and vote. he called up very not happy with me at that time. called me a third-rate grandstand er and said i should be thrown out of the party. i got 81% from the re-election.

i survived an attack and we're fully immune. >> in the past, he endorsed you. >> and he endorsed me last time. i'm backing desantis because i think he's the best candidate. i would like somebody who grew up in the '80s, than somebody in their 80s for president. >> donald trump, according to polls is the true front runner. desantis is not where he is. do you have concerns about supporting ron desantis over somebody who is thought to be someone who will secure the nomination? >> i like an opponent who is overconfident. i've been on the ground twice, two different weeks for ron desantis, just recently, this last weekend. on the ground in iowa, it feels different than what the polls say.

the support is organizic. there was stops there were there supposed to be 50 people and 200 showed up. what i saw on the ground is ron desantis is doing better than the polls say in iowa. >> he talked about going to so many different counties. he contrasted himself with donald trump, who has not invested in iowa. there's the endorsement of the governor there. it seems like he's all-in for iowa. what if he doesn't fare as expected? will you support him to new hampshire? >> i think he should stay in through the convention. a lot of things can happen between now and then. he's the best candidate. donald trump is running on his issues. nikki haley is running on her donors' issues and ron desantis is running on the people's issues.

under trump, we saw the deficit, our debt, go up $8 trillion. in florida, in that same period of time, ron desantis brought their debt down 25%. if you look at where you're sitting, the bar, right above it. there you go. move that thing there. he has this little tabulation going. u.s. national debt. and by the millisecond. >> i designed a debt clock so my colleagues to have look at it all the dime. i gave one to ron desantis. he wants me to re-engineer florida's debt. i don't know if it will count down. his debt went down 25% since he was there. >> speaking of the house mike johnson concerned about this issue, it seems.

do you have confidence he will get the job done? do your peers believe in him? we had more than one speaker recently. >> his margins are thinner than when cech mccarthy was speaker. we got promises to reduce spending when we voted to increase the debt limit. i'm worried they will go back on the promises or the cuts. >> if not desantis, who? >> i am staying with desantis the whole way. >> if he leaves the race, you are going to stay with desantis? >> we'll see what happens at the convention. >> we'll see. a little countdown clock is very, very interesting. tune into cnn tomorrow night, just five days before the iowa caucuses. a make-or-break night for

republican presidential hopefuls. the cnn presidential debate is live from iowa, moderated by jake tapper and dan to bash tomorrow night at 9:00 p.m. eastern. up next, all-hands safety meeting at boeing tonight. and the company is acknowledging what they're calling a mistake over the door plug that blew out of an alaska airlines flight. what is that mistake?

tonight, boeing ceo david calhoun publicly speaking out,

acknowledging what he calls, quote, our mistake. >> we're going to approach this, number one, acknowledging our mistake. we're going to approach it with 100% complete transparency every step of the way. we're going to work with the ntsb, who is investigating the accident, to find out what the root cause is. >> this comes as the 737 max 9 inspections are delayed after regulators told them how airlines should independence the jet. technicians have found loose hardware on some of the max 9s. authorities have grounded most of those planes. after the alaska airlines mid flight blowout that left a gaping hole on the side of the

fuselage. there's hundreds of max 9s around the world but most operate here in the united states. miles o'brien has been following every twist and turn of this story. he joins me now. miles, every time i hear about this case, the statements make me more nervous teach and every time. there's a source inside the safety meeting saying this mistake happened in the aircraft's manufacturing supply chain. how would quality checks miss something like this? >> i'm stunned, laura. they keep saying mistake singular, it's mistakes, plural. boeing, not too long ago, was warning operators of loose nuts in the tail section of the 737. they had problem with the pressure bulkhead.

and notoriously, two stfatal crashes from software to keep the aircraft flying properly. these are a series of mistakes from once the gold standard of manufacturing in the world. it's mind-boggling to anyone in aviation that the bolts would not be turned to the right torques. as far as we know, there weren't any bolts on the door that was ejected from that aircraft. and that's stunning. >> a 3-year-old can tell you righty tighty, lefty loosey. the ntsb says the alaska plane that lost the fuselage, code for a side door flew out of an airplane, it was not being used over water because a pressurization warning light had

gone off during three recent flights. i don't understand how the conditions can be, fly it, just not over water. how does that possibly make sense? >> well, what you have in that scenario is, you have a pressurization system that's tri triply redundant. and the first layer was blinking, saying it's a problem. it's likely as we look back on this, some sort of leak developed in the door that was causing that light to go off. they couldn't figure out what it was. alaska airlines has a policy that if you didn't have triply redundant pressurizaation syste you don't do the long flight over water. that's the longest flight over water on the planet. that was the airline's decision out of abundance of caution not to do that. why they flew over land is they

could. they have two more systems to ensure the airplane stay pressurized. what was happening, possibly, is the door was causing a leak and the airplane was screaming to do something about it, but they didn't know because they didn't have a sensor there telling them it was a problem. >> there's a lot more to learn about what's going on here and gives a lot of people cause. we need your expertise for this. thank you all for watching. our coverage continues.