along with analysts chuck rosenberg and lisa rubin. what can we expect based on arguments put forward in advance by both sides? reporter: to set the scene, because donald trump is here in person the security has really been ramped up. there s a much greater police presence. in terms of in the courtroom, this is a long shot for donald trump, this idea that a former president can t be prosecuted for any acts whited while serving in offense, it s belied by the fact that gerald ford pardoned richard nixon. this three-judge panel is an all-female panel with two judges appointed by president biden and one appointed by former president george h.w. bush. in addition to arguing immunity, trump lawyers are also making the argument that this produce is improper under double jeopardy. ken, i need to interrupt you because the hearing is starting. let s listen in right now. our jurisdiction was challenged by an amicus. you are not questioning our collateral order jurisdiction? [indis
approximately 140 police officers were injured on january 6th when a violent mob stormed the capitol. one of those officers was james blasting game, a 17 year veteran of the capitol police. this is how he described that day to pbs news hour. you just hear just noise and people running at me, as far as i can see, from the crypt all the way to the north side, center side of the capital, is running at us. as bad as it looks on film, believe me, it was much worse, they can stitch together as much footage as they want to, and i m telling you, and anybody that was in that scrum will tell you, there was much worse in person than anything you will see on film. officer blassingname and another fellow officer became the first members of the capitol police force to sue the person they say is responsible for that attack, not any of the individual rioters and not the far right groups that helped organize the riot. those officers sued the man at the very top, donald trump, who urge
acts and frankly as i think judge pan s hypothetical described, what kind of world are we living in if as i understood my friend on the other side to say here, a president orders his s.e.a.l. team to assassinate a political rival and resigns before an impeachment, not a criminal act. i think that is extraordinarily frightening future, and that is the kind of if we re talking about a balancing and weighing of the interests, i think that should weigh extraordinarily heavily in the court s consideration. let me ask you about the effect of blasting game. how does it either bind us, how is it persuasive? i think formerly it has no application at all because, of course, very early on in the opinion the court says we re not dealing with any questions of immunity in the criminal context.
it in that opinion as determining whether it was office seeker versus office holder. do we use blasting game for that? so, if this court decides the case the way the district court does, did, pardon me, then i don t think blasting game has any role to play at all. because there is no question of whether, you know, is this act official or were these sets of allegations official. the question is, based on a fitzgerald analysis history precedent et cetera, you know, is there any quantum of immunity for a former president? we think the answer to that question is no. there is no reason as to the district court also found to turn to the indictment and consider this outer perimeter. this civil outer perimeter standard. how about the way the district court did? if you don t, i mean, i suppose blasting game. so, there are different ways the court could not decide it that way. i think to pick up on my response to judge childs, we
but, looking and thinking about your answer about potentially not looking at motive and intent, when there is a criminal prosecution, that mens rea is part of the actual statute charged criminally. yes, precisely. that s why it wouldn t make sense to then come in and use this nonmotive intent. as i understand how fitzgerald outer perimeter standard might work, it could say those types of official acts, official conduct are that is something from which the president is immune. you don t ever get to that second question of, well, did that person act then with mens rea. can we prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? it is at least under a theory where it is not available at trial, then there is no way to reach that conduct. whether we re looking at this indictment, back to judge henderson s question about the use of blasting game, some of the acts are same or similar and there was direct discussion of