shan, i want to ask you about the judges here in this case. you actually have a history in front of all three of them, i suppose, right? what is your understanding of how they may be weighing in on this, and what do you think of the judges themselves the? these are very sharp judges, and i have argued in front of a couple. two biden appointees, one george h.w. bush appointee. i would say probably the star of the questioning today was probably judge florence pan, who full disclosure is a friend of mine and my family s, but she really cut to the heart of the matter with these hypotheticals and just as jennifer was saying, hypotheticals are meant to explore the outer bounds of what the arguments are, so it puts a stress test on what the crux of the arguments are, and when you look at what the judges were asking about today, they very clearly get the idea that if you argue for absolute broad presidential immunity, there is
criminal prosecution. if not they would face endless partisan prosecutions. the three judges hearing the issue, one a george h.w. bush pointy and the two others biden appointees expressed skepticism. it s paradoxical to say his constitutional duty that the laws be faithefully executed allows him to violate criminal laws. though judge henderson she also worried about opening the floodgates of prosecuting former presidents. special counsel jack smith east office argued there has never been a case from weather a president conspired with private individuals to stay in office after losing an election. james pierce argued for the special counsel s office saying that type of sweeping immunity would lead to a very frightening
president. reporter: now, a judge who is appointed by former president george h.w. bush, republican, also asking questions and that judge was asking, well, how do we avoid the slippery slope that president trump s lawyers were talking about? james pearce, a lawyer for special counsel jack smith, he pushed back on this theory of a pandora s box. he said that we need to live in a nation where presidents cannot do things by killing their political rivals or sell pardons or sell military excrete s or sell militaryecrets. he said it would be a frightening future if that was the kind of country we were living in. the arguments took a little bit more than an hour. now we re waiting for an answer. once we get an answer, it is sure to go to the supreme court where that where the justices there are going to then take their stances on what this means. overall, former president trump is saying this is all wrong, that he should not be in court, that this is really all a sort of witch-hunt, some
they have been led away from slavery. certainly, the credit for that. they also know that it is not time to have a history lesson on what happened in the past. we have learned from that. let s talk about what we can do for the future. make sure that we can work on race relations moving forward. this is in regards to our economy, and securing the border and inflation. we have issues such as crime and safety in their own neighborhood. the record of the modern republican party, speaks for itself. george h.w. bush adds, that ronald reagan started his campaign in accounting. civil rights workers were murdered. why would you go there? the republican party has had a political problem. chris christie four, cannot even answer the question. she understood and misspoke. she corrected it. voters were seeing and
selected randomly from the 15 judges on the circuit. one of the judges is a george h.w. bush, the father nominee from 1990 and the other are biden nominees. the lawyers will be in the courtroom and trump will be, too. the lawyers will stand at the podium. the terrorism side will get to minutes to argue their case and then jack smith s side, not jack smith himself and doj and those time limits go out the window pretty quickly and it will sound a lot like a law school classroom, a q&a on the law of the matter. relatively quick though as far as these things go and a lot of what will be argued is in briefings and papers that the judges will have to look at the next few days. when i say the next few days will be the timing which is most important of this. jack smith will probably win this, but how much time will it take to win this? in ordinary course let s assume donald trump loses tomorrow