we are on social media, face book.com and x. welcome. we will show you some of those portions from yesterday's oral arguments. here's an article from axios with the headline trump could get partial victory after supreme court hears immunity case. it says he seems likely to win at least partial victory from the supreme court if his effort to avoid prosecution -- in his effort to avoid prosecution. a clear rejection of his theory of immunity would allow the january 6 trial to resume but it seemed to be the least likely outcome. a majority of justices seemed inclined to rule that presidents must have at least some protection from criminal charges but not necessarily the absolute immunity trump is seeking. the most likely outcome might be for the high court to punt, perhaps kicking the case back to lower courts. that would still be a victory for trump, who has sought to delay trial until after inauguration day in 2025. his lawyer, john sawyer, told the justices a former president could...

host: let's take a look at a portion of the hearing. this is an exchange between justice barrett and trump's attorney, john sawyer, on this issue of private acts versus official acts. [video clip] >> you can see that private acts -- you concede that private acts do not get immunity. >> we do. >> in the special counsel's brief, he urges us, even if we were to decide or assume there was some immunity for official acts, there was sufficient private acts in the indictment for the trial to go back and i want to know if you disagree or agree about the characterization of these acts as private. he turned to a private attorney. he was willing to spread false claims of election results. private? >> we dispute the allegation but that sounds private. >> a verification signed by a petitioner that contained false statements. >> private. >> three private actors and a consultant helped implement a plan to submit private slates of presidential electors. >> i believe that is private. >> so those acts...

the day, you will suffer no matter what side you are on. host: let's take a look at this exchange between mr. trump's lawyer and justice kagan about legal scenarios should a former president stage a coup. [video clip] >> how about if the president orders the military to stage a coup? >> i think that, as the chief justice pointed out earlier where there's a series of guidelines against that, so to speak, like the uc mj prohibits the military from following a plainly illegal act, that would fall outside. if you want to adopt the fitzgerald test that we advance that may well be an official act and i would have to say it has to be impeached and convicted before criminally prosecuted. >> he is gone, let's say, this president who ordered the military to stage an. he was not impeached. he could not be impeached. but he ordered the military to stage a coup. you are saying that's an official act? >> it would depend on the circumstances. if it were an official act -- >> what does that mean? he...

a pass. host: all right. let's take a look at this portion from the hearings. just a soda mayor raised a hypothetical question of whether a president should be able to assassinate a political rival. [video clip] >> it could be alleged but it has to be proven. the concept is long viewed inappropriate in law that there are some things that are so fundamentally evil that they have to be protected against. now, i think -- and your answer below, i will give you a chance to say if you stand by it. if the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts? >> that could well be an official act. >> and why? because he's doing it for personal reasons. he's not doing it like president obama's alleged to have done it, to protect the country from a terrorist. he's doing it for personal gain. is that not the nature of the allegations here, that he's not doing them -- doing these acts in furtherance...