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
being accountable by either one. jack smith s legal team called the trump team s argument frightening. if, as i understood my friend on the other side to say here, a president orders his seal team to assassinate a political rival and resigns, for example, before an impeachment, not a criminal act. the president sells a pardon, resigns, or is not impeached, not a crime. i think that is extraordinarily frightening future. whereas trump s lawyers argued allowing a president to be prosecuted for actions taken while in office would open up a pandora s box. the notion criminal immunity for a president is a shocking holding and would authorize the indictment of president biden in the western district of texas after he leaves office for mismanaging the border allegedly. let s talk about this with retired u.s. district judge for the southern districts of new york judge cher shenlin.
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? [indiscernible] also, you have either abandoned or not made the fifth
acts, or are we looking for a standard on a motion to dismiss to take those as true. [indiscernible] no such thing as criminal immunity for a former president. we have strong arguments on both of those things. the notion criminal immunity for a president doesn t exist. it would allow the indictment of president biden in western texas after he leaves office for mismanaging the border and let a texas judge sit in judgment over the validity when there were pardons or people were not prosecuted, not everybody goes through an impeachment proceeding before they get prosecuted. only for subordinate officers. the founders, the framers
jurisdiction. on the issue of immunity, midland at fault still applies, that s what you re making your distinction. right. it says most separation of powers claims may not be subject to interlocutory view, but there are some that may. it expressly contemplates interlocutory jurisdiction in this claim. in situations where the court said, look, there s a speech and debate claim and another claim that is closely akin to such a claim. again, about explicit, because in the double jeopardy trial scenario you have twice put in jeopardy, so you cannot be tried again in that regard. then in the speech and debate,