negative -- mecca, big mistake. host: here is more of that exchange at the d.c. court yesterday. this was between special counsel pierce on the question of immunity forhe president. [video clip] >>an you answer the question i posed earlier about are we to look at the broader question. with -- question dlt with i regards to presidential immunity fo no prosecution of official acts versus looking at this indictment at looking as true at the indictment -- at the act there. >> we have a preference that the court adopts the former view and looks at the question as the district court d wch is to sayas on questions of seraons of powers, nstitutional texts, presidents , tre immunity for a former president. we think the answer to that is no for reasons i'm happy to address here. if the court gives to the second question, there are hard questions about e ture of official acts. i think the judge's hypotheca , what kind of worldree living in if a president orders a seal team to aassinate...

202-748-8001 for republicans. independents, 202-748-8002. yesterday in washington, d.c. that warriors 40 former president argued in ddc circuit court on this question if the president enjoins -- president enjoys immunity. one of the judges hearing the cases and mr. trump's moyer on the question of absolute immunity. here is that segment. [video clip] >> can i explore the operations of what you are arguing? i understand your position to be a presidt ismmune for any official act he takes as president, even if that is taken for an unlawful or unconstitutional purpose? >> if the president is impeached by the u.s. sate in a proceeding that includes consensus, that would authorize the prosecution under the plain langge of the clause. yes, with that exception. >> it seems to me that there are a lot of things that might not go through that process because it is a cumbersome process that requires t action of a whole bridge of government that has a lot of -- a lot of different people...