The Appeals Court hearing on Donald TrumpsImmunity Hearing has wrapped up. The threejudge appellant panel facing this big question can the former president be held criminally responsible for actions that he took while in office to overturn the 2020 election loss. We heard a remarkable argument from trumps team who heard the argument that prosecuting a former president would open up a pandoras box as john sauer said that working in the capacity as alleged in the indictment by jack smith, the Special Counsels office pushing back on that. This notion that we are all of the sudden going to be seeing a floodgate, i think that, again, the careful investigations in the clinton era didnt result in any charges. The fact that this investigation did doesnt reflect that we are going to see a sea change of vindictive titfortat prosecutions in the future. I think it reflects fundamentally unprecedented nature of the criminal charges here. Cnns evan perez joins us now. Evan, you were inside of that courtroom, and i have to understand what were your Key Takeaways and what was the climate like in the actual atmosphere in that room. What did you see . Well, once the former president finally got into the courtroom, that is when all of the noise in the room stopped. Everybody obviously turned their attention to the former president. He was very subdued, and walked in kind of like a saunter and he took the seat at the Defense Table with alongside his lawyer john sawuer and one of the thins that is noteworthy and unlike some of the previous times that we have seen him in court, he had Boris Epstein in his corner and a couple of rows behind where the former president was sitting, and also, walt nada was with the former president again, and that is something that we dont normally see in these cases. And so, he was subdued for most of it, and while jack smith just sat about 20 feet away from him, and they did not look at each other, unlike some of the previous times they have been in court together, and this is obviously a proceeding where the former president did not have to attend, but he chose to attend it, and paying rapt attention, and he was listening to the opening arguments by his attorney john sauer, and when the opening presentation was when you could see more activity from him, and leaning forward and taking notes, and passing notes to john sauer, and he was very, very attentive when a couple of the judges spoke s and when the judge childs was asking questions, and he seemed very, very focused on her. One of the things that i thought, or what i found very interesting is that there are times where, you know, he seemed very, very much trying to portray how much he agreed with his side of the case being presented. He looked over and he nodded strongly when sauer was talking about how the fact that the former president was not, and there was no allegation against him that any of the crimes that are being alleged him happened outside of office. They all happened while he was sitting in office. So, he nodded very strongly to that argument from john sauer. Again, you know, the room was quite focused on the former president and even james pearce, the government attorney for the Justice Department who was making presentation, his parents were sitting a couple of rows back in the courtroom. Apparently, they have come to some of the previous Appellant Court arguments, including one that pearce argued on the gag order a couple of months ago. So, everybody in the room waited of course until the judges walked out and the former president stood up and walked out slowly outside of the room. Obviously, this is a very momentous Court Proceeding today and obviously the constitutional questions are looming very, very large and not only over this trial, but over future president s, and so, certainly i think that he seemed to be very animated when pearce was talking about the idea that there would be floodgates and the one sound that you just played a minute ago when pearce said that he does not believe that there would a titfortat, and again, the president was taking notes and handing them off to john sauer, his attorneys, and fascinating couple of hours there. I thought that it might go even longer based on the previous proceeding, but it was absolutely fascinating to watch the former president sitting there watching his fate being decided by this court. Evan, first of all, the mom in me is not going to allow any parent showing up in the consequential matter in the d. C. Court, and kudos to the parent, but you say that he was passing notes to his attorney who was arguing and were there particular moments that you saw President Trump particularly animated and handing the notes over or certain argument times and immunity for example or official acts and what were those moments . Yeah. Well, yeah, absolutely. He, the idea that for example when judge pan was asking about this idea that he has to be impeach and he has to be convicted, and trump was taking furious notes during that part of it, and again, when pearce was making the point that in the future there is going to be similar prosecutions, trump was furiously making notes and he leaned over to talk to his lawyer when for example judge henderson raised the idea that, you know, the Take Care Clause that you were just discussing a few moments ago where the idea that the former president when he took office obviously he took an oath to take care and to make sure that the laws are executed in this country, and she said it was paradoxical that he then would be immune from being prosecuted if he broke those very law. And he leaned over and spoke to his attorneys again during that bit of questioning. So clearly, he was listening very, very closely, and everybody in the room was eyes focused on him. You know, obviously to see what the reactions would be. Very unusual to have a defendant coming to one of these proceedings. In reference to mr. Pearces mom, i asked her, you know, i asked why are you here today, and she said, you could not keep me away from here today [ laughter ] so mom is very much, very much invested in the proceedings here today. Moms everywhere are like, you have got that right, thank you very much. I am so glad that you asked the question about the notes, because it caught my interest, when evan said that trump was passing notes to the attorney, and evan, a few moments here when the judges had to repeatedly follow up on the questions and rephrase them for trumps attorneys and what were their facial expressions and Body Language during this . Well, certainly, i think that they were trying to hue very close to the arguments and make sure they were not straying very far from the arguments and one of the things that the government points out is that trump and the legal team have evolved in some of the arguments, and so certainly, i think that for mr. Sauer as soon as he hit the podium, he started to getting questions from judge childs and judge henderson, and so he didnt even have a minute, really to do his presentation, and it is always very fascinating to watch the lawyers who come to prepare for days and days and weeks, right, to do this presentation, and then they come in here, and it is rapid fire questions from the judges who dont have that much patience and dont really Pay Attention to the clock either. So that was a, i think that always unnerving for any lawyer, but these guys were rolling with the punches. And there was a part in the conversation and it was judge pan, and she asked about a quote from donald trump in the congressional record, and put it up on the screen, and she says, sorry, but there is a quote in the congressional record in which your client said through counsel no former Office Holder is immune from investigation or prosecution. I am wondering what donald trump was doing when receipts were provided in the courtroom. Those were one of the that is one of the few moments where i saw him just look, and stare straight at the judge, and he did not have much of a physical reaction. And you know, there are times when he purses the lips and one of the mannerisms especially when he does not like something, and looks straight ahead, and that is one of the moment, and very characteristic of the former president , and you know, you know when there is something being said that he doesnt like, and that is one of the tells. And i am guessing that jack smith was pretty stoic throughout . Right. Jack smith was sitting just a couple of rows behind pearce and the government table and he came in with a large entourage, and about 20 people of justice lawyers and staffers and fbi people who are working with the part of the investigation and he walks in, and, you know, for a while, as we are waiting for the proceedings to wait to begin, smith was looking around at some of the portraits and that one room, that one courtroom has portraits of some of the judges who have sat on this Appeals Court in the past, and so, he sort of familiarized with some of the people on the walls there. He did stop to talk to the pearces, the mom and dad sitting a few rows back, and he had a chat with them, but stoic, and he did not look at the former president unlike previous times where we saw them sort of Exchange Glances shortly and briefly, and that did not seem to happen today that i could see. Evan perez, from what you did see, it is quite a lot, and quite interesting, and thank you for sharing that to us, and to break down what we heard from the actual arguments we have the legal panel back with us, and joining us, cnn senior legal attorney from the new York District attorney elie honig, and with us from the Southern District office karen and also laura laura, what is being said here, that president s could very much be prosecuted, but today, they were saying they could not unless they were convicted by the senate. Clearly, trumps arguments in other forums are coming back to haunt him. And the judges are listening to each other, right. They are seeing what is happening in other cases or forums, and you cannot be inconsistent and disingenuous when you are speaking to the court. So what is excellent and they did a good job of is narrowing issues. There were several issues that were outstanding going into the Oral Argument, and number one, are the president s immune from criminal prosecution generally, number one. Number two, could double e jeopardy apply, because he was impeached by the house and acquitted by the senate. And does the Appellant Court have jurisdiction to hear it at all right now, because you have to normally wait until after you are convicted. And number four, do you have to be impeached and then convicted in order to be prosecuted, and this is the impeachment judgment clause. What i thought that the Appellant Court did a really excellent job here is narrowing the issues down and at the end judge pan got mr. Sauer who represents trump to concede there is no absolute immunity here. And that if, what she said is if trump is impeached, and then Concon Vi Conviblg V convicted by the senate, would immunity be e entirely proper by the impeachment clause and by getting him to say yes, she got him to concede there is no Double Jeopardy and there is no absolute president ial doimmunit and so does the president ial immunity clause need to be addressed, too. And there is one other area to fine tune the ministerial and congressional acts, but they honed them down beautifully. And there is a point there that i am so glad that you raised it, because we were chartering about it in the middle of the Oral Argument when he did not want, and this is the counsel for trump, he did not want the Immunity Questions to be resolved after a trial, which is normal. You go through the whole criminal trial and then you never sort of lose this ability to make or claim the case on appeal, and elie, you said, this is it. This is the crux of issue. This is about the calendar and the timing which is so important. Ordinarily, a criminal defendant like donald trump is now, does not get to appeal or have this argument until after the trial, after it has been a conviction and sentencing. Which is feeling odd to people. Yes, you have to go through the whole thing and then you can attack it except in very narrow circumstances where a defendant is allowed to take what we call the Interlocutory Appeal meaning the appeal before your trial. Now, both, interestingly, Donald Trumps team and jack smiths team agree, yes, he is allowed to take the Interlocutory Appeal, and this is the kind of the case that you can do that. So we have to pause, but we are hearing from democratic senator bob menendez on the latest indictment against him. And since the beginning of this process. And for that, at least a year prior to the bringing of this indictment which therefore begs question, why did the government not proceed with all of these accusations from the beginning . The answer is clear to me. By filing three indictments one in late september, a second one a few weeks later in midoctober and a third one last week in early january, it allows government to keep the sensational story in the press, it poisons the jury pool, and it is seeking to convict me in the court of public opinion. And in so doing, the governments tactics harm not just me, but each of you, my colleagues, the political establishment and most importantly the electorate of new jersey. The sensationalized allegations are now creating a rising call for my resignation, despite my innocence, and before a single piece of evidence has even been p introduced in a court of law. The United States attorneys law is engaged in not a prosecution but a persecution. We have seen this with other public officers. Remember what happened to senator ted stevens or governor bob mcdonald, and numerous other examples. It is unfortunate reality, but prosecutors are sometimes shooting first before they even know all of the facts. It would be a shame of this venerable body does same. So having set the stage for why this process has unfolded this way, let me deal with some of issues starting with the latest accusation. I have received nothing, absolutely nothing from the government of qatar or on behalf of the government of qatar to promote their image or their issues. The governments principle allegation of what i supposedly did for qatar was to support a senate resolution. This resolution was sponsored and introduced by Senator Graham. Cosponsored by 11 other partisan senators posted on the Senate Foreign relations agenda and passed by voice vote. What was that about . It was sponsored by Senator Graham and sponsored by 12 of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to thank the qatari government for evacuating our american citizens and refugees from taliban rule. And then they referenced some Press Release i made. Well, the Press Release says in one sentence i am glad to see our friends and allies in qatar to be moral exemplars by accepting afghanistans ultimately seeking the United States after being forced to escape their lives. That is the one thing about qatar. And the rest is a call for International Cooperation to help seek help of journalists and others freedom. Something others have called for. And the largest air base is the large nest st in the middle eas call for natural gas in the conflict in the middle east and call for afghans in the middle east after the United States was seeking to evacuate in the middle east and recently played a role you are listening to senator bob menendez speaking on the senate floor after they unveiled a Superseding Indictment against him following the charges already that he had used the position as a sitting senator and i should note the chair formerly of the Senate Relations committee and lauren fox is tracking comments. Lauren, it is notable that one of the things that the senator came out that lauren and i both looked at each other is that he asked why the Justice Department had not brought all of the charges against him at a sooner date. Yeah, and he is with his argument, kaitlan, that this is a maneuver by the government in order to keep this story in the spotlight. Of course, as you know, the Justice Department doesnt always bring all of the charges at once. It is not unusual for a Superseding Indictment to come later. That is what happened in the case of bob menendez, but he is furiously defending himself right now on the senate floor showing no signs up to this point that he is expected to step aside, and instead, he is just defending himself, and this is going to come as there are likely going to be more and more calls for him to step aside. I think that is really notable at this moment right now given the fact that we have a number of his colleagues who have made it clear that they are uncomfortable with the charges against him, and they believe he no longer should be a sitting u. S. Senator, but ultimately that is a decision that is up to senator bob menendez, and he is make it clear this morning that nothing in this Superseding Indictment is changing his belief that he belongs in the United States senate. We will see how the Senate Colleagues continue to respond to that. Lauren fox on capitol hill, thank you for that. For the rest of you, coming u