Argument arguing here alternative arguments, one is that criminal immunity simply doesn t apply. in other words, there is simply no doctrine of presidential immunity for former presidents when it comes to a criminal case, no matter what happens in the civil arena, it s not for a criminal case. i m gonna see whether the court adopts that broad sweep that judge chuck and did. their backup argument is that even if it applies to what s called the outer perimeter of the president functions, this case does not involve conduct that is within the president s functions. but i m gonna be interested in whether they go down the route of what judge chutkan said, which i think is the more correct view of what has been ruled on, obviously by the supreme court, or the court of appeals. the second issue i m gonna be really focused on is whether
Glenn will be in the room for the oral arguments to more morning in washington, d. c. in the appeals court. andrew weissmann, what will you be listening keenly for in this argument? two things. the government is going to be arguing here alternative arguments, one is that criminal immunity simply doesn t apply. in other words, there is simply no doctrine of presidential immunity for former presidents when it comes to a criminal case, no matter what happens in the civil arena, it s not for a criminal case. i m gonna be intersted to see whether the court adopts that broad sweep that judge chuck did. their backup argument is that even if it applies to what s called the outer perimeter of the president functions, this case does not involve conduct that is within the president s functions.
Complicated issue. but i want you to answer. he should be listening to the democrats, his party, who has been putting forward solutions. whether it s congresswoman escobar, she put forward a bipartisan bill up on the table. and also the fact that, you know, i think he has to keep listening to secretary mayorkas. and it s no secret that secretary mayorkas has the most qualified secretary of homeland security the agencies ever had. he s showing up in person every day with republicans right now to try to reach a deal. and it s very concerning that republicans would rather impeach him then work with the presidents liaison on this issue who, i have not seen since 2013 a secretary so the dedicated to reach a compromise. that is significant. but the president needs republican party willing to solve this problem with him. it s really gonna be on them if the border looks the exact same way months from now and going into the election. reporter: andrea, chuck, thank you so much, as usual, for helping us understand this issue. we have an update on the israel-hamas war and the ongoing quest for peace and accountability.
Administration as solely responsible for the immigration issue in this country. where more than 2 million people whose lives are heading in the balance after making asylum claims. but then after two decades of failed immigration forms in this country joining us as chuck, broker founder of he s a democratic strategist. i thank you so much for joining me today, i appreciate it. chuck, let s start with you. republicans can barely pass any legislation, they can barely govern. it s highly unlikely that they will sort of get their act together and really do this trial with mayorkas. so i guess the question, is how likely is the gop to really follow through on this impeachment, or, are we really just looking at a show? at a performance? look, it s like when your mom and dad used to take you to the movie theater when you are a little. one is just going to the movies, it s just it s the act tricks, it s all these things. we re moving into an election
That s where the debate needs to go. but as long as they can do the photo ops, i think voters are gonna start to see through it because they are not coming up with solutions either. so democrats have to get more aggressive about talking about the policies that will fix this. reporter: so, andrea, you led me to the next question, to you, chuck, are democrats being serious enough? are they doing enough to not simply be on defense, not just simply react as andrea said, chuck, are they putting forward a cohesive message and strategy that is resonating with voters? what do you think? this is a super complicated issue but, paulo, you ve known me a long time and i am as aggressive as democratic consultants can be sometimes. my mouth and my anger gets me in trouble because i think we should be doing more to protect our community. and really, the most vulnerable folks are risking their lives to get here. there s a right way to do, this even republicans under reagan can figure it out how to do this. and it s really important for viewers to understand this. there is not a simple solution, democrats are gonna have to