duty to take care that the laws to be faithfully executed allows him to violate criminal laws. >> yes, judge, respectfully, i agree. i do think it's paradoxical. the lawyer for special counsel jack smith's office did an admirable job, both outlining the ever shifting legal argument, and again, to reiterate the very dire consequences that could follow from this preposterous argument of presidential immunity if adopted. >> in the defendants theory over the course of this litigation, before this court, i understand the arguments to be principally sort of a principle submission to be, as you just described, what we call in our brief the precedent argument, that there is only liability, criminal liability, for our former president if that president has been impeached and convicted. and that is wrong for textual, structural, historical reasons and a host of practical ones,