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
okay. hello everyone, thanks for tuning in to this hour where we bring you tomorrow s news tonight. we have our great lineup for portis. we have harry enten, kara scannell, jeff zeleny joins us tonight, and eva mckend. great have all you guys hear. let s start with former president donald trump. he was found liable in the e. jean carroll defamation and battery case. the jury awarded carroll nearly $5 million in damages, that donald trump must pay, related to sexual abuse and defamation. e. jean carroll responded today, saying, quote, i filed this lawsuit against donald trump to clear my name, and to get my life back. today, the world finally knows the truth. this victory is not just for me, but for every woman who has ever suffered because she was not believed. cnn s kara scannell has been at the courthouse since the start of this case. she s here with us tonight. so, kara, tell us what it was like in the courtroom when that verdict was read. so, the judge told everyone t
it s nice to see you after a long time of not seeing you. it s wonderful to see you as well. thank you, chris. i appreciate it, my friend. and thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. we re really happy to have you here. do you want to see a cute picture? cuteness is in the eye of the beholder, of course. and this is a picture of a guy, and i m not saying the guy in the picture is himself cute. honestly, what would i know? not my area of expertise. but i think just as a picture, regardless of the guy, i think i think as a picture, this is kind of cute. just in terms of composition. in part because it s got kind of a swirl effect. like on the upper left side of the image, we ve got his eye that s looking kind of winky, kind of headed downstream. but then on the lower right side of the image he has the big smirk heading straight up toward his ear. so the whole thing is kind of a swirl, you know? just as a picture, as a mug shot in particular, i think that s not bad
the picture is himself cute. honestly, what would i know?ur not my area of expertise. but i think just as a picture, regardless of the guy, i think i think as a picture, this is kind of cute. just in terms of composition. in part because it s got kind of a swirl effect. like on the upper left side of the image, we ve got his eye that s looking kind of winky, kind of headed downstream. but then on the lower right side of the image he has the big smirk heading straight up towara his ear. so the whole thing is kind of a swirl, you know? just as a picture, as a mug shot in particular, i think that s not bad. that person is the attorney general of the great state of texas, and that is in fact his mug shot. his name is ken. he was indicted and booked into the collin county jail in texas on felony securities fraud charges a few years ago. those felony charges are still pending against him.lo he is still under indictment on multiple felony counts, but it hasn t held him back. since
On a collateral order theory is possible. there are other circuits, i think 1st, 2nd and 10th that keep following that line of thinking and it requires an explicit constitutional or statutory language that says you cannot be tried. so, two responses. one, i think in cases like sas cisneros, this court has spoken. i think the only one there is the 1st circuit discussion in joseph, a court was raising an immunity defense to a criminal prosecution. as this court acknowledged this both rostenkowski and durenburger, didn t acknowledge that, but the court there talked about claiborne and hastings, which are 9th circuit and 11th circuit cases. i think judge easterbrook in his shock opinion noted when it deals with a personal immunity like that, it is different than the kind of transactional immunities that were considered in the 10th and 2nd circuit