buckeye broadbrand supporters c-span as a public service along with thesether television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> without presidential immunity from criminal prosecution there can be no presidency as we know it. >> this would immunize rmer presidents from criminal liability forribery, murder. conspiring fraud. to overturn the results of an election and perpetuate himself in power. >> it was an historic day at the supreme court. where all nine justices today heard oral arguments on the question of whether a former president is immune to criminal

prosecution for prior actions that were taken while serving in office. former president trump is making that claim as he faces a federal inindictmentment for the left's role in trying to overturn the 2020 election. the justices have until grown reach a decision in this case which will have implications for former president trump's ongoing legal battles and the office of the presidency. in about 30 minutes we will show you the entire oral argument from today. before that, we want your take on this question. do you think a former president is immune from criminal prosecution? if you say yes, dial in. if you say no,

>> how did get to ts int? in august, the former president was indted on four counts in federal court. at the beginning of october, former president trump's atrns filed a motion to dismiss the charges in in december, a u.s. district judge es this request to dismiss the s and then following a few days later, the former president filed an appeal with s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit and then in february, the d.c. circuit court animous ruled against the formerdent's claim of presidential immunity and i february, the supreme court agreed to consider this case whether a former president, this ident is immune from prosecution. joining us to give us more

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 s 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 court reporter with the national law journal. thank you for all of that. we appreciating it. >> thank you. >> now on thu indictment by jack smith, four indictments. let's go through those quickly before we get to your calls. a conspiracy to defraud the united states is the one. conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. anbstruction or an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding and ait conspiracy against right to vote as well as have one's vote counted. vicky and in ohio, democratic caller. you say no on this question. whether or not a former

president is immune from criminal prosecution. you say no. why? >> he is not immune from it. he is guilty as sin. it's pathetic. he should have never got elected the first time. he is ruining -- he has ruined the world. he is ruining our democracy. all he cares about is helms. h -- himself. how y the world can someone look up to somebody like that with what he has done? he is nobody to look up to. these people are brainwashed. this is like a cult. he is not above the law. it is disgraceful. >> is it setting a dangerous precedent for future presidents that they would have to worry about actions taken in office? >> absolutely, my dear. absolutely. that's just common sense. just common sense. we never had these problems until he got elected to begin with. >> ok. elsa in scottsdale, arizona.

republican. and you say yes. elsa. >> yes. >> tell us why you think he is immune? >> tell you why he is immune? >> yes. why is the former president you believe he can claim immunity. >> he can claim immunity. because otherwise he would not be able to do the businesses that he needs to do to protect america. because they would have fear of making the wrong decisions and they can't make the right decisions so they are going to get crucified and we're going to be paying the price. >> ok. >> for making the wrong decision because they fear being persecuted. >> gail, columbus, ohio. good evening to you. what do you say on this question? >> good evening. no, no man should be above the law. he should never have full

immunity. if he has full immunity, what would happen to our democracy? he would throw our country into -- wld be a third world country, if he has full immunity. all of the things that he has already done to our country. >> ok. gail, i want you to hang on the line. you and others and listen to the former president. he was in new york today for the hush money trial. he came out after precedings today and spoke to reporters about today's oral arguments in washington. here's what he had to say. >> i think the supreme court has very important arguments before it today. i would have loved to have been there but this judge would not allow it. i should be there. he would not allow it to happen. i think he puts himself above the supreme court, which is unfortunate, isn't it? arguments on immunity is very important.

a president has to have immunity in has nothing to do with me. this has to do with a president in future 100 years from now. if you don't have immunity you're not going to do anything. you're going to become a ceremonial president. you're going to be doing nothing. you're not going to take any of the risks. you're going to make some great decisions and save the country and you're going to make some decisions that are unfortunate, but that is the way it is. imrowr not going to do anything if you don't have immunity. otherwise you're going to be prosecuted after you leave office for doing something like going into an area, going into a country, doing lots of things that you wouldn't be doing. we don't want a ceremonial president. we have to have a real president. >> the former president in new york city today making the argument similar to his lawyers before the nine justices, that presidents need immunity. what do you say on that question? gail, were you listening to him

and how he responded? >> we have had presidents ha have had to make decisions, that we have a group of people that go in and they sit down and make these decisions together. so when he leaves office, he has -- they are not going to take -- charge him with anything he did, but the things that mr. trump has done, since he has been in office, -- >> you think he is guilty of the charges against him and the role that he played in trying to overturn the election? >> he is very guilty. if anybody listens to the cases, if anybody lks at what he has done, and how he has done it, you can't say he is nothing but guilty. i mean i just -- i pray to god that he does not get back in office. he should not be allowed to run for president.

>> gail in columbus, ohio. barry, you're next. oklahoma. and you say no. why? >> well, because i think he is guilty. >> you think he is guilty? >> yeah. of all charges. >> ok. why? what do you think he did that day or in the effort overall? >> he led a group of thugs through the capitol and praised them and then comes back and makes comments is that they were not tearing up the capitol. they were just parading. he is so full of it, it is not funny. >> ok. let's go back to the indictment and the charges that we listed for youarer. a conspiracy to defraud the uned states bysing dishonesty, fraud, deceit t impair, obstruct, defeat the

lawful federal government's function which by result the president's election are counted and certified by the federal government. that is the first conspiracy to defraud. a conspiracy to corruptly obstruct and impede the january 6 conesonal preceding which the result ofhe presidential eleconre counted and certified. that is the second indictment listed there. of the third, it alleges that the former president attempted to and did corruptly otrt and impede the certificaonf that official preceding andhe the final, the fourtcopiracy against the righto te and to have one's votesounted, this is the casting of false votes in -- for in an election for federal office. mary, democratic caller. you say no. what state are you in, mary?

mary, we're talking to you. what state are you in? >> i'm in connecticut. >> ok. you say no, on this question. >> absolutely not. this man is -- oh, my god. it is disgraceful what he is gettg away with. what he thinks he is getting away with. it is absolutely disgraceful. he is beyond guilty of all of this stuff. i agree with the other caller. i believe her name was gail. no salesman above the law. none. it doesn't matter what office you hold or anything. this -- if this is not your mom and dad's old fashioned politics that we used to scurksz this is disgraceful and what he what he has done with the supreme court, it is just disgraceful. >> what if the court decides there is not absolute immunity for the president but there should be some protections for a president. if if they were to decide that

or decide that the lower court needs to define what is official conduct, what is private conduct, and that the lower court needs to put limitations, put limitations on immunity. would you be satisfied with that? >> the hearing today at supreme court, they discussed that. a state court that said that he should not have presidential immunity and they appealed it and it went to the supreme court. first off, supreme court justice thomas should behind anything near anything like this. we all know his wife backed the insurrection and it is just disgraceful. but that court, the lower court said that he is not -- that he cannot get presidential immunity. >> there is not absolute immunity. >> absolutely not.

and there shouldn't be absolute immunity when they were discussing how it is personal or presidential. nothing he is doing is presidential. there is -- i keep hearing the word unprecedented. everything is unprecedented. i'm really tired of hearing that word. to me, that is an excuse, and there is no excuse for anything this man has done. he has treated the united states like it's his own personal bank account. i am so tired of hearing from anything from him and i told my husband, my worst nightmare is when he does not get elected this time because he still didn't get a second term, is he still going to run his mouth for the next four years, four more years of campaigning until gets in in 2028. >> go ahead, mary, finish your thought. >> he is absolutely evil and should be nowhere near any

office and i pray to god that hopefully the democrats take control of the house in november and thigh put all of these people, especially the insurrectiists that are still in the house and put them up and they should all be in freaking jail for what they did. i can guarantee you this. most people that support donald trump haven't watched one, not one of the january 6 hearings. >> ok. let's hear from mike. he says yes to this question of whether or not a former president should have immunity from prosecution. hi, mike. >> good evening. i think he has full immunity. i think the charges they have against him are very thin veiled charges because he is in the middle of getting re-elected. so you have got a cross between presidential duty and a

re-election campaign at the same time. on the other hand, or i should say at the same time, there was no coup. the person -- president biden got sworn in. there were no issues. nobody at all has been charged with any insurrection. everybody keeps using that word, insurrection and evil and hitler against this man and it's just those are extremists. >> ok. >> they could have avoided -- they could have avoided the riots at the cap talk toll if nancy pelosi would have let them call out the national guard. donald trump asked her to do it and she refused. trying to put this off on donald trump just because people are only watching the news channels that show half the news. >> all right. mike in illinois. paul in richmond, virginia. an independent. paul? good evening.

>> yes, i'm here. can you hear me? >> yes, we can. we're listening to you. >> ok. i feel like we have been living in a never-ending nightmare for going on nine years now. i have never seen anything like this. and i'm in my 60's. i consider myself an independent because i don't trust any of them anymore. how anyone could know the truth at this point, there is no way to know the truth. about any of this. because of a -- a media that is so corrupt! and tells like the last caller said, hassle truths, they twist the truth. there is no way to know what the truth is and o more thing while i'm at it. is this covid situation -- which trump took credit for operation warp speed. operation warp speed. >> i'm going to stoic the topic

tonight. in about five minutes we are going to show you the oral argument in its entirety and you can listen for yourself how these justices -- the questions that they asked and answers that they received from the lawyers. it went over two hours, over 2 1/2 hours. so we will show you that in about five minutes. if you don't have over 2 1/2 hours to sit and listen to the oral argument tonight, you can listen to a short take version of it. if you go to youtube, tiktok, x and other social media platforms, you'll find c-span's short take. we summarize the precedings in about 10 minutes. you can find it again on youtube, tiktok and other social media platforms. judy in bishop ks texas. a republican and you say yes. >> yes, i do. all these cases brought against

trump has been bogus. we are finding out that the d.a.'s, attorneys generals, everybody meeting at the white house. there was no insurrection. he was still president when he is running for presidents. yes, he should have immunity. he did not commit any crimes. all these crimes have been made up so they can stop him from running for president again. >> woodrow in he shouldo, florida. democratic caller and you say no. hi. >> hello. tell us why. >> why? because i just personally believe he is guilty as sin. and he is not different from most of the rest of them and our country has gone to -- i won't say, but i don't believe he is

entitled the to any consideration in my opinion. >> is any president -- is any president or former president -- should they -- are any of them open to prosecution? or is it just the former president? in this case? >> well, i believe it is -- we're talking about the former president. >> right. >> but -- but there are former presidents before him that were probably just as bad as he is. >> and should they under the law, should they be prosecuted? >> should they be prosecuted? i don't know.

if they were not at the timing, and it's been years and years, i don't know that that would really do any good. >> ok. i'm going leave it there woodrow and go on to john. piny flats, tennessee. what do you say? >> i believe that the president should have immunity. the reason i based my beliefs upon is in our past history, rose velts, when he interned all the japanese people during world war ii, he could -- he would have been prosecuted for that as a crime against americans. truman when he dropped the bomb. there are so many issues that keep going down and none of these people were prosecuted in the past. this

this president, i hate to say it because i really don't like, i believe he is bombastic, but i really don't, i really believe that the media and it's political prosecution. >> john, so you think all presidents should be immune to protect them when they conduct acts, examples you just gave? caller: yes, on presidential acts, absolutely. that is why our constitution has the impeachment process. to remove a president from office. and i believe when the constitution was enacted back 200 some years ago, uh, none of the people thought that we would ever get to this point.