playing out today, i heard something today that i had never heard from your team before, which was john sauer saying that yes, some of the allegations and jack smith's indictment are indeed private good x what led to the change from your team? >> well, i think we've always conceded, first of all, that there is no presidential immunity for president's private acts in office. i think we've also conceded that obviously president trump engaged in many private acts during the time period in question. i thought in many respects the much more damning concession, if you could call what we did a concession at all? oh was michael dreeben essentially admitting the attorney for the special counsel's office essentially admitting that these facts were so inextricably intertwined in a colloquy with justice barrett, that it would be very difficult to separate them out on remand. that's how i interpreted his statements. please to translate that for people watching, that means that basically, if it wasn't official act, they would not be able to use that potentially at trial. >> he was arguing they should be ab

sauer said what he has in the past it depends.er's argument rests on the idea that there is a difference between public and official acts and private acts that private acts by the president can be prosecuted, official acts cannot no matter how extreme the hypothetical like selling nuclear secrets to the enemy. trump's lawyers say a president must have total freedom to take bold and fearless action, they call it. this had associate justice katanji brown jackson. >> if someone with those kind of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority could go into office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes, i'm trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the oval office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country. >> several justices point out if the framers of the constitution wanted the president to be above the law they would have written that specifically into the constitution and indeed, they point out the very creation of the united

and john sauer said yes of course. then you go to the other justice, and then you open the possibility of further proceedings. and that is for people who bought a potentially remanding, but there's also the possibility of allowing litigation to play with the official acts and allowing jack smith to continue forward on the private acts. all of this is to say why is this so important? the issue of remanding to a lower court. there was a case called the vance versus trump, trying to get documents for the stormy daniels case and trump said he had immunity but the court said no but they were mandated to a lower court for further proceedings, july and 2020, and the outcome did not come until eight months later february of 2021. so if you get a remanned, you could g get a smart delay. >> of course a delay as a defeat for the political chase that this has been for democrats. >> emily: so much. there is two things that stuck out to me, and i want to break it down for the viewers. number one is about intent, a few of the justice

because john sauer did make a big concession today and saying that some of that in the indictment is private x i've never heard them say that before. >> well, you know, he's conceding the flavoring of the private acts provided by coney barrett. questions which he said girls shimming the criminal intent within the actions which gets you down to very minute factual issues of like did it did did an elector, a replacement? i liked her feel like they were defrauding or were they actually thinking this is the backup plan if we went in court, which has a lot of things that have been said by that other side. so look, the reality and what we're kind of struggling with. i think collectively is the court is likely to try to create a line for that line is going to be a difficult line to define precisely. so when you talk about an official act, is it this particular minute action or comment or conversation, or is it within the broader category of defending the country or safeguarding elections? we're not going to really know where they come out on that until they do, but that's going to that's go

i thought i thought john sauer did a great job in making that case at the supreme court so i think that was that was clear that the court has been clear in the past that they want to make sure a president, i think the words they used and the nixon case was fearlessly and in be able to conduct the duties of his office. and you can't have this idea that you're going to get charged with some, some decision you make in your official capacity as president and so i think that is clear. president trump was president. he was engaged in his official conduct. his official duties, i think it's real clear what congressman on that point, and i think that was raised there is this dynamic at play on the one hand, we can be free to do what you'd like to do as the president without thing you're gonna get prosecuted by your successor. and the flip side of that coin though, is feeling so embolden that you don't think if there is any criminal liability ahead of you. so you might go beyond what your otherwise able to do. do you have that concern as a member of another and coequal branch of government that a

since 2014; to organize work in amsterdam , the legal entity tvr studios was registered, with derk sauerherlands, listed as director. natalya sendeeva is listed as the sole shareholder. derksaur is the director of a foundation recognized as an foreign agent media, as well as the owner of publications recognized as foreign agents in russia, the moscow times and v times. this fund is open on its website. indicates that the dozhd tv channel is one from priority projects. the financial report of the foundation for 2022 indicates the amount of project expenses of 2,691,415 euros. according to information on the official website of the stiting to october foundation, another project, which is also supported by this foundation, is the project of the so-called coalition of russian independent media, consisting of the publication of foreign agents: rain, jellyfish, i am from ukraine, i was born in odessa, it is a large, very port city, old, one of the most beautiful cities in ukraine, absolutely russian-speaking, in my childhood, let's just say, on the border of the soviet union and the new russia

amy coney barrett trying to suss out and pin down john sauer with respect to the actual allegations in this indictment were both helpful and surprising, nobody had her on the bingo card as the swing vote here.>> i certainly didn't, it sounds like most of you didn't either. i'm going to play a moment from justice alito.>> if an incumbent loses a very close, hotly contested election and knows a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement, but the president will be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a duck democracy and he seems to be arguing in plain english that immunity is necessary, because otherwise presidents will feel fear prosecution and be incentivized to hold onto power unlawfully. would you make of that statement?>> i thought it missed two really important things, one, the over 200 year history of this country in which that's and literally never happened even though we've always thought that presid

amy coney barrett trying to suss out and pin down john sauer with respect to the actual allegations in this indictment were both helpful and surprising because no one had amy coney barrett on their bingo card as the swing vote. >> i didn't and it sounded like most of you didn't, either. let me play a moment from justice alito. >> if an incumbent, who loses a very close, hotly contested election, knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into peaceful retirement, but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponents, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy? >> he seems to be arguing in plain english that immunity is necessary because otherwise, presidents fear prosecution and will be incentivized to attempt to hold power unlawfully. what did you make of that statement? >> i thought it missed two important things. in the 200 year history of this country, it's never happened because we always thought that presidents were subject to crimi

it. >> for 234 years of american history, no president was ever prosecuted for his official acts, sauer claimed donald trump's actions were official when trump tried to switch the 2020 election results to his favor, trump's attorney argued that a former president should qualify for immunity from prosecution for official acts while in office. >> but the government's attorney, michael dreeben, said such presidential immunity has no foundation in the constitution or the supreme court's history. >> this court has never recognized absolute criminal immunity for any public official. his novel theory would immunize former presidents for criminal liability, for bribery, treason, sedition, murder, and here conspiring to use fraud to overturn the results of an election and perpetuate himself in power. >> the supreme court justices acknowledged the magnitude of the hearing, and for more than 2.5 hours wednesday, they grilled attorneys on both sides. >> do you differentiate between the president acting as president and the president acting as candidate? >> trump's attorney said immunity should not

sauer's argument, right? >> that is correct. and let me turn then to why -- >> well, what about to unpack it a little more, do you agree that there is some aspects of article 2 presidential power that are exclusive and that congress cannot regulate and therefore cannot criminalize? >> absolutely. >> okay. for other official acts that the president may take that are not within that exclusive power, assume for the sake of argument this question that there is not blanket immunity for those official acts, but that to preserve the separation of powers, to provide fair notice, to make sure congress thought about this, that congress has to speak clearly to criminalize official acts of the president by a specific reference. that seems to be what the olc opinion suggests. you have a little bit of a disagreement of that and what this court's case also suggests. >> justice kavanaugh, i would like to take all of those in certain because i don't think this court's cases speak that broadly. i definitely don't think the office of legal counsel

. >> for 234 years of american history, no president was ever prosecuted for his official acts. >> sauer claimed donald trump's actions were official when trump tried to switch the 2020 election results to his favor. trump's attorney argued that a former president should qualify for immunity from prosecution for official acts while in office, but the government's attorney, michael dreeben, said such presidential immunity has no foundation in the constitution or the supreme court's history. >> this court has never recognized absolute criminal immunity for any public official . his novel theory would immunize former presidents for criminal liability for bribery, treason, sedition, murder, and here conspiring to use fraud to overturn the results of an election and perpetuate himself in power. >> the supreme court justices acknowledged the magnitude of the hearing, and for more than 2.5 hours wednesday, they grilled attorneys on both sides in assessing the official acts of a president. >> do you differentiate between the president acting as president and the president acting as candidate? >>

. >> for 234 years of american history, no president was ever prosecuted for his official acts. >> sauer claimed donald trump's actions were official when trump tried to switch the 2020 election results to his favor, trump's attorney argued that a former president should qualify for immunity from prosecution for official acts while in office. but the government's attorney, michael dreeben, said such presidential immunity has no foundation in the constitution or the supreme court's history. >> this court has never recognized absolute criminal immunity for any public official. his novel theory would immunize former presidents for criminal liability for bribery, treason, sedition, murder, and here conspiring to use fraud to overturn the results of an election and perpetuate himself in power. >> the supreme court justices acknowledged the magnitude of the hearing, and for more than 2.5 hours wednesday, they grilled attorneys on both sides. >> do you differentiate between the president acting as president and the president acting as candidate? >> trump's attorney said immunity should not cove

sauer's argument, right? >> that's correct. let me turn then to why -- >> what about to unpack it a little more, do you agree there are some aspects of article ii presidential power that are exclusive and congress cannot regulate and cannot criminalize? >> absolutely. >> for other official acts that the president may take that are not within that exclusive power, assume for the sake of argument this question. there is not blanket immunity for those official acts, but that to preserve the separation of powers, to provide fair notice, to make sure congress has thought about this, that congress has to speak clearly to criminalize official acts of the president by a specific reference. that seems to be what the opinions suggest. you have a disagreement with that and what this court's case also suggests. >> i would like to take all of those in turn because i don't think this court's cases speak that broadly. i definitely don't think the office of legal counsel opinions stand for this broad proposition that unless the president is sp

john sauer at the trump attorney who argued before the court today hack here he is talking about thel framework for this. >> could present obama be charged with murder for killing u.s. citizens abroad by drone strike? could president biden someday be charged with unlawfully inducing immigrants to enter the country illegally for his border policies? the answer to all these questions is no. prosecuting the president for his official acts is an innovation with no foothold in history or tradition and incompatible with our constitutional structure. >> to those strike you as parallel to a president trump is accused of doing in terms of -- >> i mean i understand why the argument was made martha but again listen to what he said, he said these official acts can't be prosecuted for his official acts. the justices kept coming back to that across the spectrum. natasha jackson said she was acutely aware of the repercussions of this. brett cavanagh was on the historic nature and the effects of this decision which are going to be what our children and grandchildren are reading about years and years

anyway, john sauer, because the way that sauer has set up his legal theory, he really can't answer otherwisew just in, kagan pointed out the whole point of the american revolution was to fight between americans who thought it was all self-evident that all men were created equal and a king who thought he was above the law. justice jackson said. a president who could do anything would be dangerous if someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority, could go into office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes. i'm trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the oval office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country. we're hoping for a decision in the summer. defense secretary austin will announce the purchase plan for new weapons to ukraine today, including new patriot batteries, along with other weapons that will be built here in america. there are two types of weapons that go to ukraine. one come from the drawdown. those are weapons that can be loaded on planes imme

. >> for 234 years of american history, no president was ever prosecuted for his official acts. >> sauer were official when trump tried to switch the 2020 election results to his favor, trump's attorney argued that a former president should qualify for immunity from prosecution for official acts while in office, but the government's attorney, michael dreeben, said such presidential immunity has no foundation in the constitution or the supreme court's history. >> this court has never recognized absolute criminal immunity for any public official . his novel theory would immunize former presidents for criminal liability for bribery, treason, sedition, murder, and here conspiring to use fraud to overturn the results of an election and perpetuate himself in power. >> the supreme court justices acknowledged the magnitude of the hearing, and for more than 2.5 hours wednesday, they grilled attorneys on both sides. >> do you differentiate between the president acting as president and the president acting as candidate? >> trump's attorney said immunity should not cover private acts, but should cov

. >> hunter sauer shows us it didn't come as a surprise to the people who knew him the best. >> withck in the 2024 nfl draft, the indianapolis colts select laiatu latu. >> reporter: dreams come true. with his family by his side at the draft in detroit, it's thousands of miles west where you'll find a team of former coaches cheering from the gym of jesuit high school. >> just wow, an amazing feeling. >> reporter: cheering for not just the player, but the person. >> off the field, phenomenal human being and what i really appreciate most about him is his care and love for his family. >> reporter: coach marlin blanton knows it hasn't been an easy path to the national stage. >> i'm thrilled for him and what he overcame to get where he is. >> it was just a few years ago when he was at the university of washington, he had to medically retire from the sport. >> belief, belief in himself, belief in god. >> reporter: even after a devastating neck injury, latu never lost hope or support from those who loved him. >> i mean i told all the doctors that told me otherwise i'll be at this point in ti

now, in terms of that concession of yes, we understand john sauer saying there are private acts here i think that's really just an acknowledgment of what judge chutkan, the trial court judge, had already said. and frankly, what we can all see, which is not everything that forms the basis of this indictment can possibly be seen as an official act all right. >> professor jessica, 11s and thanks so much for your insight there. we appreciate it thank you protests that began at new york's columbia university of quickly expanded to more schools across the country with some closing their campuses to prevent anymore or unsafe conditions. and the cnn newsroom the sinking of the titanic. how would really happen, especially to our premier r0 would nine on cnn amelia turn off alarm. emilia, whether reason send emilia unlocked the door. >> i'm afraid i can't do that. can why not? did you forget sampling i approaching shake? the future isn't scary. >> not investing in it is. >> so dramatic. emilia by jim, 100 innovative companies, one etf before invested carefully read and consider fund investment

sauer there, representing donald trump.ng that we are even suggesting that. what was your read of the way things played out yesterday, and what we may hear next? >> well, as mr. sauer said to that question, that hypothetical, it would depend on the situation. wow, e gads, that is terrifying. my read is that there are several justices, the women justices, who are ready to go, that they think that the idea that, perhaps there is some presidential immunity for some official act, but that the acts alleged in this indictment are not those acts and let's go already. in fact, justices barrett and kagan were really pinning down john sauer on trying to say, this is a private act right? you would agree this is a private act? using allegations in the indictment. i think they couldn't pin him down to avoid further delay. certainly, there are some justices, who think further delay is necessary. i think the real linchpin here will be chief justice, roberts, who, on one hand, did suggest this idea that it would be a one legged stool to al

with themselves than their son's mental health and accused them of gross negligence for buying a sig sauer a present for ethan four days before the shooting and then failing to secure it. today craig shilling, the father of justin, said the families have been waiting for this moment. >> i feel that there was some justice here today for sure. the sentence was appropriate, and i'm glad that we received that. >> reporter: criminal defense attorney joe tamburino predicts this historic case will set a precedent for other parents. >> if your child is expressing the same type of behavior, the same type of mental state attitude that ethan crumbley was expressing, you must do something about it. >> reporter: and in handing down her sentencing today, the judge said she hopes her decision will act as a deterrent to prevent future school shootings. the crumbleys will be eligible for parole in under eight years. norah. >> andres gutierrez, thank you very much. >>> tonight, severe weather is causing havoc across the south. strong winds knocked down trees in shreveport, louisiana. this one crashed into a

. >> here's conservative justice amy coney barrett questioning the president's attorney, john sauer youvate acts don't get immunity. we do. okay. i want to know if you agree or disagree about the characterization of these acts is private. petitioner turned to a private attorney, was willing to spread knowingly false claims of election fraud to spearhead is challenges to the election results private, dining, we dispute the allegation but private two sounds but petitioner conspired with another private attorney who caused the filing and court of a verification signed by petitioner that contain false allegations to support a challenge. >> sounds private three private actors to attorneys, including those mentioned above, and a political consultant helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding and petitioner and a coconspirator attorney directed that effort you ready to quickly i believe that's private so of today's arguments also focused on for president richard nixon and his legal entanglements and held that precedent

justice kagan with trump counsel john sauer. what he is saying there is the idea of anyone actually trying a coup to stay in power, that's crazy. that is crazy. that is so extreme, we don't have to worry about a hypothetical like that. it is really partisan strife. it is really conflict between political parties. that's the biggest risk to the country. not this crazy idea of a potential coup. justice kagan responding by saying yeah, okay, also, but maybe tyranny. maybe a tyrant unbound by law running the country with immunity. maybe that would be bad for us too, maybe that is why we were actually formed as a constitutional republic. >>> as a general matter, it is folly to extrapolate from oral arguments and say you know how the ruling will come down based on the comments by the justices when the case was heard. with that caveat though, it seemed clear today that the most conservative justices were inclined to side with trump, not just on a technicality but possibly on the substance. justice clarence thomas suggesting today that

with themselves than their son's mental health and accused them of gross negligence for buying a sig sauerdgun as a present for ethan four days before the shooting and then failing to secure it. today, craig shilling, the father of justin, said the families have been waiting for this moment. >> i feel there was injustice here today, for sure. the sentence was appropriate, and i'm glad that we received that. >> reporter: criminal defense attorney joe tamburino predicts this historic case will set a precedent for other parents. >> if your child is expressing the same type of behavior, the same type of mental state, attitude, that ethan crumbley was expressing, you must do something about it. >> reporter: and in handing down her sentencing today, the judge said she hopes her decision will act as a deterrent to prevent future school shootings. the crumbleys will be eligible for parole in under eight years. >> norah: andres gutierrez, thank you very much. tonight, severe weather is wreaking havoc across the south. severe wind knocked down trees in shreveport, louisiana. this one knocked down a

you know, the normal process what john sauer it -- if we decided there was some official acts of immunity and to let that be sorted out below. another option for the special counsel to just proceed based on the private contact and drop the official conduct? >> is it an option to proceed just on some of the stuff trump did and not all the stuff he did. the lawyer for special counsel jack smith said in response that they would rather try him on everything. thank you very much. he did also concede that if they had to follow this approach she was suggesting, there might be ways to try trump enters the purportedly private acts and not the other stuff. maybe.'s lawyer said oh, no, the whole case would have to be thrown out. we couldn't possibly proceed like that. they would have to be a long, long, long, very long, very long , deliberate sequence of litigation and he rings and test in proceedings before anything like that could get near trial. many further proceedings. how about we schedule that for the 45th of december 150 years from now. [ laughter ] her justices like alito or kavanaugh and d

telling john sauer the framers did not put an immunity clause into the constitution.hey were reacting against a monarchy who claimed to be above the law adding, wasn't the whole point that the president was not a monarch and that the president was not supposed to be above the law? the president's team says there should be immunity. a sitting president or former president should not be prosecuted. what takeaway do you have of these justices' comments on immunity? >> well, i think, julie, they pinned down dreeben, making the argument for jack smith team. they pinned him down to a concession there is a bit of presidential immunity that goes around the core of the president's duties. justice kagan is correct they didn't use the word immunity. trump's team pushes back the vesting of executive power in the president itself imply indicates immunity because congress cannot enact a law that criminalizes the president's performance with his core responsibilities. so i think what will happen here is two-fold. one is you have to decide how far outside the core of the president's

lax in that house because there were there was more than one lacquer was not just the cable luck sig sauer. there was there was more than one >> there were not more than one sound. >> but whatever ethan crumbley did the cable luck from the six he >> did all of the other designs. i will obviously go i don't think they have to show that she had no problem with the gun >> and i'm not saying go about. >> i >> said she supported good gotten sheets and object to the gun but when it came down to it provision breaks in your narrative that she not one >> there's no evidence >> you have been listening to very emotional testimony earlier from the parents of students, teenagers who were murdered by ethan crumbley back in 2021 >> and >> what they're discussing is the sentencing for his parents who were already convicted earlier. this year of involuntary manslaughter. now the question is, how long? >> will they >> be in prison i want to go straight to jean casarez, who has been following this trial since the beginning, and jeanne, these four students killed at oxford high school not just for students, b

no one is above the law, but john sauer's answer was it depends on whether he was impeached and convicted. at that point, my jaw is on the floor. that's like an insane reading of the impeachment clause, but it's also like a very, very weird, you know, response that goes right to the right most edge of political extremism. i thought he's going to clean it up when he gets to the supreme court. he's going to practice this over and over again. justice sotomayor asked exactly the same question of what happens and he said, you know, the same answer. like the president would have to be impeached and convicted first. basically, at that point, we were talking about this before. i thought this guy has made a bet. he's made a bet that if he just survives in the district court and the appellate court, he's going to be in front of a much more friendly audience and he can make that argument and they'll buy it or/or throw him a life line. justice alito says that hypothetical is complicated biez s.e.a.l. team six has to obey the law. so that was what was alarming to me, you have the highest court in the

sauer was talking about other acts that could possibly be implicated, possible wrongs by barack obama or by president biden where he suggested that down at the border crossings could be prosecuteable. justice sotomayor said the difference is what donald trump did is for personal gain. >> yeah. >> what the other presidents did was to lead the country. unfortunately that distinction got no traction during this argument. perhaps it will but that which could have been a bright line could have been today. >> chay, we try to think about who we go to. sometimes we talk about who we think of as sources, meaning not the expert but involved, when we talk about cases we go to all lawyers to teach us about the law. you are here sir because it doesn't looked like having watched the argument which joyce and i said was far more meager in dealing with the actual coup and threats to the country than one might have thought especially to the lower court, you're here because i'm not sure we can understand this without understanding the politics of the justices. people who have to practice before the cour

sauer, you began by explaining why you believe that immunity from criminal prosecution is essential for the proper functioning of the presidency. but my question is whether the very robust form of immunity that you are advocating is really necessary in order to achieve that result? just to take one possible alternative. suppose the rule were that a former president cannot be prosecuted for official acts unless no plausible justification could be imagined for what the president did, taking into account history and legal precedent and the information that was provided to the president at the time when the act was taken. would that be sufficient or if it is insufficient, why would it be insufficient? >> that might be a much better rule than what emerged in the lower courts here. we believe it would be inefficient. using the president's motives and intrusive consideration of the president's motives as official and unofficial would come into play. of course, once you can make that allegation, all of a sudden you have opened the door and no longer have a per se clear rule, you have a determin

sauer said to that question, that hypothetical, it would depend under the situation.s that there are several justices, the women justices who are ready to go that they think that the idea that perhaps there is some presidential immunity for some official acts, but that the acts alleged in this indictment are not those acts, and let's go already. justices barrett and kagan were really pinning down john sauer on trying to say, you would agree this is a private act, right? and you would agree this is a private act, right? uing allegations in the indictment, and i think to pin him down to afford further delay, there are some justices who think further delay is necessary. i think the real lynch pin here is going to be chief justice roberts who on the one hand did suggest this idea that it would be a one-legged stool to allow only the private acts and not have any reference to the official acts. so there's a little room, i think, for arguing that the crimes here are not official acts, but you need some evidence of official acts to understand the context, and the example chi

but there is this chance that when you legitimize everything and all sorts of behavior, like john sauero was a solicitor general of one of our states. by putting these hypotheticals forward, you cause supreme court justices to discuss them and you cause us to cover them. they are outrageous ideas. >> yeah and i'm looking at this from the point of view of threats to democracy and information warfare. because republicans are waging legal warfare on our democracy, but they are waging a parallel information warfare. what that does is try to change the way that people think, but also move the needle on what they will accept as possible in society. so you introduce extremist ideas and give them legitimacy and you have discussions on things that should be settled. and i believe that is what the supreme court did in hearing this case. we heard it in your clips. they took the most prestigious platform, the most legitimate platform, the supreme court, and had hearings and aired arguments that should be settled in a democracy. of course the head of state should not be immune from prosecution in as

justice barrett in particular made clear her questioning of john sauer, counsel for donald trump, thatconstitution that prevents prosecuting the president for those private acts, but when it comes to the pressure he put on the vice president and his communications to congress, there seems to be a view on the part of four justices -- we don't know if it's five -- but there seems to be a view on the part of four justices that that information either can only be used as evidence to round out the picture or can't be used at all, and as mr. dreeben who represented the special counsel made clear, that turns the constitution upside down. what made donald trump's actions at the end of his presidency so dangerous that and indeed the most serious of possible crimes against the constitution is that he was using the powers of the presidency, his power to lean on congress and other powers in order to violate the constitution's provisions for ending the term when you lose the election. it's the hallmark of emperor's and dictators and kings and monarchs that they don't have to listen to the people wh

hanikra around the bullets spot by you, jennifer crumbley which were fired by the nine millimeter sig sauer that you james gifted to your son both used to murder hanna, justin tate, and madison the fact is no matter what you try to make yourself believe jennifer, are you did feel as a parent, both of you to love and to be loved. that is the human experience. >> it >> was up to you guys to show you some that instead of getting quality time and compassion, you give your son a gun, a gun you knew cause an extraordinary damage. there's a reason your kid didn't use the other two firearms or the 0.22 ammunition you own? i believe your actions can even be confined into the word failure. your mistakes created our everlasting nightmare. so yes, you are still danger to society because even after serving two years, you have yet to admit to you the wrongdoings. and we know that when we did not learn from our mistakes, you repeat history you call yourself a victim >> the difference >> between you and honig just and tate and madison you and my family you and all the students there that day is that we did

john sauer made before the court. take a listen. >> the implications of the court's decision here, extend far beyond the facts of this case could president george w bush have been sent to prison for obstructing an official proceeding or allegedly lying to congress to induce war in iraq could president obama be charged with murder for killing us citizens abroad by drone strike? could president biden someday be charged with unlawfully inducing immigrants to enter the country illegally for his border policies the answer to all these questions is no prosecuting the president for his official acts is an innovation with no foothold in history or tradition. and incompatible with our constitutional structure. >> so joshua, what's your reaction to that argument maria x of his own case. >> and that he's really trying to paint the picture of some kind of dystopian future where former presidents or prosecuted with abandoned for all sorts of partisan reasons. the problem with his example is that i kind of agree with him. know, tho

. >> but they also sounded skeptical about trump's blanket immunity defense trump lawyer john sauer, argued that trump's actions were official acts of the office. >> but in one exchange, that trump appointed to justice amy coney barrett. question was actually wasn't official act and what was a private act to benefit trump? >> petitioner turn to a private attorney, was willing to spread knowingly false claims of election fraud to spearhead is challenges to the election results. private, as i want to jamming, we do speed the allegation, but sounds private. >> sounds private petitioner conspired with another private attorney who caused the filing and court of a verification signed by petitioner that contain false allegations this is support a challenge. so sounds brian three private actors to attorneys including those mentioned above, and a political consultant helped to implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding and petitioner and a coconspirator attorney directed that effort you ready quickly. i believe that private w

from these protesters or how to diffuse this but are we will continue to monitor here as the minutes sauer is progress. >> so ed, i know we just saw that young man behind you who appeared to have been hit by the pepper spray or whatever sort of chemical agent it was that they were they were spraying that law enforcement. but when you look behind you, when you talk about a standoff, can you describe for us i mean how. many people are there and how many police officers and what i mean, i guess, you know where they in riot gear. can you describe exactly what this face off looks like actually, the officers that are just on the other side of that crowd from what i could tell him last time was able to get it better vantage point. >> it was officers on bicycles and those are the officers there have actually been used to kind of create barriers to keep people away from the other officers, either taking people into custody or moving people around the campus so those officers are not object out in helmets and protective gear, like we have seen from the state troopers, that were here earlier. in fact

neal, let me ask you a question about sauer, donald trump's attorney.i noticed that he didn't rebut. he said he had nothing more to add. what was the significance of that? he didn't go for another round. >> yeah, there was an audible gasp in the courtroom because that is like the kind of theatrics that i guess maybe sometimes play out in a criminal trial in, you know, state court or something. those theatrics do not work in the united states supreme court, and they didn't work in the room. i mean, you know, regardless of whether you think you're right or wrong, michael dreeben made an incredible number of good points. it's actually one of the very best arguments i've ever seen at the supreme court, not because he was, you know, so strident, but actually because he was the reverse. he really just acknowledged the harm from his position, the harm from the other side's position, the long-standing traditions of the justice department and said, look, here's where i think that all comes out. not in some beautiful winston churchillian way, but in an analytic w

. >> and i talk about the first clip that you play, the idea that as what did sauer say, the official to be expunged, we need to have a separation between the private acts and the official acts. i think it is quite clearly a delay tactic but it does have me worried if this is the most likely outcome here, remanded back to the district court, a whole new series of tests arises about what part of this is official, what part of it is private, i worry about the integrity of the case that the prosecution has put forward. they sort of articulated that in court today to make. michael dreeben for the prosecution basically says this is an integrated conspiracy here. it has different components. and, you know, it is donald trump working with private lawyers to achieve the goals of the fraud. once you start to unwind that arbitrarily, i guess, if the district court must and separating private and official conduct, assuming any of it is official, i do worry about what that means for the case with large. >> it slows it down for sure and may kill it altogether. >> if lawrence is right and is a very

sauer, to your last point koba could you be more precise? -- your point. could you be more precise? >> it's rooted in the vesting clause. >> how does that happen? >> the source of it is that the executive vesting clause does not include only executive powers laid out there and but encompasses the powers originally understood to be included therein and marbury agnsmadison itself provides evidence this meant communit -- this kind ofmmunity that protects the president's official acts from scrutiny sitting in judgme othe articles. that matches the original understanding of the executive de >> how exactly would we determine what an official act is? >> i point theou to two cases for that. fitzgera ainst nixon is the best guidance the court gives, the outer perimeter test and the court engaged in alis that look at the level of specificity at which t as are described and that case which was a civil case. >> let's say the official act is appointing ambas in the -- and the president appoints a particular individual to the country but it'in exchange for a bribe and somebody says i will give yo

jack smith is sitting there at the same table as michael driven, who was defending his position john sauer, defending president trump. jane roberts, one, chief justices, wife, their patrick jackson, husband newest judges justice ketanji brown, jackson room was filled with many dignitaries just trying to hear all this. and what they heard was an argument from the justices that went more in the favor of donald trump than i think some people were anticipating. he he might have to win on the whole shebang of absolute immunity here. but the questions really showed how sympathetic they were to his position and how skeptical they were to jack smith's sayyed as articulated by government lawyer michael driven. and i'll tell you the surest sign of that nature of the questions and then the fact that john sour didn't even not even offer a rebuttal. i mean, he had a free five minutes at the end or close to that to reinforce his points. and i thinking heard most of the justices themselves make those points first of all, the kinds of, i wouldn't call them quite off ramps, but detours before& trial would

the other side can say this delay is influenced so again yeah, it's going to be a notable and john sauer will be the one jake inside that courtroom are inside the supreme court arguing on trump's behalf. some of his allies didn't think that he did a great job arguing before the dc appeals court. we'll see what they make of how he argues this case today. >> all right, caitlin, thanks so much out. let's break down the key elements of the trump immunity fight with cnn senior legal analyst elie honig le how did the case reach the nation's highest court? >> jake, it's a split-screen de this supreme court argument comes out of jack smith's federal 2020 election interference case. here in washington dc. now, as you said, we've had to go through several for all steps of the legal process to reach the supreme court. it started in the federal district court, the trial court, donald trump claimed he was immune based on his status as a former president. the district court judge judge tanya chutkan, she quickly and swiftly rejected that. she ruled that there is no divine right of kings in this countr