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
office seeker versus office holder. what is your position would we have to remand it? would the district judge to decide in the first instance whether these various the four points that the defense has made against imposing criminal liability hinge on whether the acts are ministerial, discretionary, official, private, or however you want to characterize it? i would use the phrase clinton against jones, purely private conduct is what can be subject to judicial process after a president leaves office. in response to your question, our principle position is you can look at this indictment and it alleges official acts and it can be dismissed. we acknowledge the district court didn t reach that issue and the court has the discretion to remand to the district court for the application of the doctrine of criminal immunity in the first instance and we admit that would be a natural thing
you could have an expedited a case, especially i think since the president in light of the case i argued and lost, clinton against jones, bill clinton was required to sit for a day-long deposition in a civil case. and the u.s. versus nixon, where nixon was required to turn over the tape records he had made of private conversations in the oval office. the slaw entitled to every man s evidence. and i think they are blustery when rudy giuliani acts as if it is his decision rather than that of the supreme court. and i don t think you say every man s evidence. you know, i object to the terminology. i would say every man or thug. right. well you know, look. i think the supreme court is not necessarily going to break down on any sort of ideological or party lines. with institutional credibility at stake. absolutely correct. while i have you.
don. the most important one is that we lost clinton 9-0. the court rejected the position we argued. so the law is established by clinton against jones that you can actually make a president go through a civil trial while he s in office. and so and sets a very high standard for exempting or immuneizing a president from the ordinary criminal processes. but moreover, i argued in clinton against jones that an actual civil trial ought to be postponed. not that the complaint should be dismissed. and clinton s personal lawyers in that case were willing to stipulate that they would not argue that any expiration of time barred her suit. if the case were postponed. so in both cases, i believe that a civil trial and a criminal trial should be postponed. but that a civil complaint should be allowed to go forward, at least to be issued, and that an indictment could be issued, which would make sure that the
actually taking care of the statute of limitations problem that a president could go free if the time expired for criminal charges while he was in office. let me ask you this, because mr. dellinger, you argued the clinton v. jones case before the supreme court, making the case that indicting president clinton would keep him from doing the job of running the country, and that turned out to be a losing argument. so why are you arguing the other side when it comes to this president, to president trump? well, a couple of reasons, don. the most important one is that we lost clinton against jones 9-0. the court rejected the position we argued. so the law is established by clinton against jones that you can actually make a president go through a civil trial while he s in office, and so and sets a very high standard for exempting or immunizing a president from the ordinary criminal processes. but moreover, i argued in clinton against jones that an actual civil trial ought to be