would be a change that no president has had or has needed. i think we have also had a perfectly functioning system that has seen occasional episodes of presidential misconduct. the nixon era is a paradigmatic one. the indictment in this case alleges another. for the most part, i believe that the legal regime and the constitutional regime that we have works, and to alter it poses more risks. >> thank you. rebuttal? >> i have nothing further, y use details about today's oral arguments is jimmy hoover. they see national law journal's supreme court reporter. jimmy hoover was at the court today. what is former president trump's legal team arguing here? >> former president trump's

legal team is arguing that he is absolutely immune from criminal conversation over anything that can be considered his official actions while taken in office. it is a fairly sweeping argument to say the least. it was fully rejected by the d.c. circuit below. as we saw today at the supreme court, there is more receptiveness to the immunity claims that trump was making than perhaps many court watchers had anticipated, but basically it boils down to the idea that presidents can't operate if they are looking over their shoulder thinking about prosecutors coming down the road and charging them with criminal conspiracies after they leave office for continue controversial actions is essentially what it boils down to. a separation of powers and that the president is a unique office

that should be cloak dmd this type of immunity so the president can make the the tough decisions that the president needs to make. >> how is the government responding? what are they saying? >> the special council's office led by jack smith, his counselor and deputy made the argument in the supreme court today, this morning, that they are essentially asking the supreme court to -- that the president is above the law, to make up the idea this is there is this blanket immunity for the president over any actions they take in office. bribery, murder, treason, all manner of horrible things, would essentially be shielded by the type of broad immunity that president trump is claiming. that is the argument that michael made no to the supreme court to uphold the federal court of appeals ruling against

the former president. >> it was michael who argued, not jack smith. why not? >> because jack smith is a prosecutor by trade and michael dreeben is an appellate specialistly trade. he has around three decades of experience working with the department of justice where he has argued over 100 cases before the u.s. supreme court which is a distinction that only a few people in the country actually have. he was brought in to jack smith's team because he is considered one of the foremost i didn't mean law perfect ises in country and he is a familiar presence at the supreme court lectern. smith needed anyone to make thoas arguments it was going to be mike dreeben. >> was jack smith there today? >> he was at the counsel table today. >> you said some justices appeared open to this idea, the

argument being made by the former president's legal team. which justices? >> there were a few, actually. two of trump's own appointees seemed more receptive to the arguments than perhaps anyone else on the court. particularly justice brett kavanaugh was very concerned about the idea of letting criminal prosecutions go forward over actions taken by the president. he continually floated this idea, this rule that would say that unless a statute specifically mentions the president, that then it can't be applied against hem. that is a slight variation on the whole question of immunity but it would get their via a different rout and would essentially mean the end of jack smith's case. neil gorsuch moated the possibility of this situation, he said would lead to just every president pardoning themselves

on the way out of office which is a novel and kind of dangerous situation for the court to be in which has never had to consider to thelegality of whether presis can do that. we also saw that justice samuel alito. another republican appointeee to the court. a conservative one albeit not a trump appointed justice. this would lead presidents to essentially try to stay in office unlawfully. to hole on to power. he said that would put america in a dangerous cycle of undermining democracy. so there were quite a bit of concerns. i don't want to overstate the case and say a majority of the court is going to reulg rule in trump's favor. i think you heard quite a bit of skepticism of the degree of

immunity that former president trump is seeking. but i think -- i think that a majority of the court is probably going to coalesce around some form of legal protection for presidents over their official act and the question is what does that do to this prosecution and what what is that going to do to prosecutions down the line? >> a majority would ko legislation around some protections for the former president. which justices do you think would be part of that group and why? >> well, the justices that i just mentioned obviously thinking that there is a high degree of immunity but also there were -- what we call the ideological center of the court. the median justices whose votes tend to be very influential in cases like this, in particular, distant mention trump's third appointee to the supreme court, who happens to be amy coney barrett. she was pretty skeptical of some

of the arguments that trump's collin was making, but at the same time, she seemed to at least be open to the idea that there should be some form of immunity that would apply, that would prevent a former president having to go all the way through trial and stand in front of a jury in a case that has to do with their official actions. at one upon the, chief justice roberts, chief justice john roberts, he is one of the more -- he is one of the court's institutionist judges talking about the stature over the supreme court, he too seemed to be a bit concerned with the ruling over the d.c. circuit below him. he read from a portion of the opinion at one point and said that is not the law. we should send this case back to d.c. circuit. i think whatever iteration you get, however you get there, it may well just be a narrower form

of immunity or some other rational. when you get lower court proceedings that jeopardize if not make it down right impossible idea that former president trump could face trial on this election interference case before this upcoming november election. >> then what could happen with jack smith's case? >> well, i suppose it would depend on what happened in the election. attorneys that i have spoke on the have suggested that smith would be reluctant to put on a trial very close to the election and that potentially if trump wins the election, that the spector of trump coming into office and then essentially having smith fired by anytiming an attorney general of his choosing. remember, smith, although he is the special counsel, his office is still housed within the department of justice and can be

dismissed by the attorney general of the united states. so president trump returns to power and returns to the white house and he hasn't yet been convicted and potentially even if he had, then, you can pretty much guarantee that he is going to make sure that this prosecution or these charges do not go forward. that's just the power innernt the presidency. that is why the timing issue is so important here is because when the court took up this case, it did so on expedited basis but at the same time, these are complicated issues. a ruling could take until the end of june which might not leave enough runway to actually hold the trial before the election, especially if there is this kind of further proceeding issue where the lower court has to us is it, it has to apply the test that the supreme court adopts in this particular case. >> all right. jimmy hoover, supreme talked abe

argument at the supreme court today.