A brand new filing that we are just getting our hands on tonight. The special counsel, Jack Smith, is calling on the Supreme Court to reject Trump's claim of absolute immunity. Prosecutors are going to be making their case about this in person, face to face with the justices in just over two weeks from tonight. But right now, Smith is giving us a preview of his argument. He says, and I'm quoting him here, The closest historical analog is President Nixon's official conduct in Watergate, and his acceptance of a pardon implied his and President Ford's recognition that a foreign President was subject to prosecution. Few people are really more qualified to talk about the parallels here between these two cases than the guest who joins me now, Richard Nixon's former White House Council, John Dean. And as usual, John Dean, it's great to have you. And just as you're reading through Jack Smith's argument, I wonder what stood out to you, given your experience.

Well, first, I thought it was an elegant brief. I made a very fast trip through it. At this stage. He really relies on two core arguments. One is the historical argument you mentioned, but before that, he also relies on the basic separation of powers, that if Trump had his way, there'd be no check on a president. That's so contrary to our system, and it's unprecedented just in asking and even suggesting as a possibility. But you're right, the core of the argument is the historical argument.

Yeah, they argue at one point that if Trump's argument stood that presidents could commit bribery and treason and sedition, and they list all of this in saying that that's not how it works. But what part of it seems to be getting at is this idea of official acts versus private acts in some parts of immunity. Where the ball game really seems to be is where they argue that even if Donald Trump can make the argument that some presidents do enjoy immunity, that they said this is a private scheme with private actors to achieve a private end, his effort to remain in power by fraud.

Well, you're right. This business of the official or non-official acts is that Trump is really trying to stretch a civil case into a criminal situation. That's the Fitzgerald case. And this brief very clearly knocks that down. First, that a criminal case is so much more weighty and important in the greater scheme of things than a civil case. So they argue you You cannot take the same principles and apply them. Secondly, they go on to argue that, again, in a historical context, you cannot take that case and take it the distance. It just won't stretch that far. So it's a good job of knocking down Trump's brief in total. It eclipsed it as the metaphor for the day.

I picked that up. John Dean, that was very clever. But when you look at this in and of itself, One thing that I had heard could be successful from people in Trump's orbit recently was in Trump's filing, he and his attorneys floated this option of sending the case back down to lower courts until other issues are decided here. But the special counsel seems to be basically rejecting that, saying that that's not an option here. If you do take up on that premise that a lower court needs to decide this, they can decide that later on, and this case can get moving forward again.

The special counsel goes head-on on that argument and says that what this court, the Supreme Court, should do, if they find any reason that there is any immunity that they suggest is potentially applicable here, that the record has to be established during the trial, and it can be done by the judge at the lower court. The trial can go forward, and an appropriate instruction can be given to the jury as well as the judge protects the evidence that comes in and controls it during the trial. So there's no read reason for a separate hearing to send this back down to the lower court, to the district court, to have a trial on that issue as to whether these are official acts or even that would be applicable or not. They say, Let's just get on with a trial, and I think they make the argument that will carry the day.

You think that it'll carry the day? We will see if it does. Those arguments are starting very soon. John Dean will bring you back when that happens. Thank you for that. From one Trump legal case to his Hush Money trial that is actually scheduled to start here in New York City, one week from today, a judge has ruled it will stay in Manhattan after Trump was shut down in his latest, but I should note, probably not his last, based on what we've been hearing from our sources, attempt to keep this trial from starting as it is scheduled to. We've also just obtained the questions that are going to go into picking the 12 men and women who are going to hold the fate of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee in their hands. We'll share those with you in a moment. Jennifer Rogers is a CNN legal analyst and former federal prosecutor. What Trump is trying to do here was to get the case moved out of New York, saying that essentially his team is arguing that there's been so much publicity around this, that people already have a negative view of Trump and that he can't get a fair trial.

The judge today said no.

Yeah, this is to move from one theme, the Eclipse, to another theme of this month, the NCAA tournament. This is garbage time, right? This is the very last minute throwing everything at the wall to see what will stick. This is them doing their his own polling and saying, Well, our polling shows that people here aren't fair, and so we need to move this trial out of Manhattan, and we need to do it now. This is just one of many attempts that is not going to work at the very last minute. Actually, there's three motions pending now, all really just designed to try to stop it.

They are so desperate to delay this trial from starting.

Yeah. Well, once it starts, it's not going to stop. So really, their last chance is to get some judge to intervene and say, Okay, this might not have merit, but we do want to resolve all of these questions before we start. He's really hoping that they've been bending over backwards to resolve all of his issues, right? And that's what he's trying to do. Keep throwing them out, hoping that a judge will say, Let's just book it back a week, two weeks, whatever, anything to stop it from starting.

Okay, but it does seem like it is going forward right now. Knock on wood, we'll see what happens. But With the jury selection beginning, and we're getting a look at what they want to ask these prospective jurors. Some of these questions are really interesting to me. Have you ever considered yourself a supporter or belonged to the QAnon movement, Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, 3%ers, Antifa? Do you have any strong opinions or firmly held beliefs about whether a former president may be criminally charged in a state court? Do you have any strong opinions or firmly held beliefs about former President Donald Trump or the fact that he's a current candidate, or would that be able to interfere with you being a bare and impartial juror. What does it say to you based on what these questions are going to look like?

Well, both parties want to know what these jurors think of Trump, right? So they're trying to get at it without asking directly, Are you Are you a Republican? Do you support Trump? Did you vote for Trump? You're not supposed to ask things like who jurors voted for. So these are proxy questions for that. If people are QAnon supporters, if they have strong beliefs about the Proud Boys, etc, that doesn't to dramatically get them off the jury. But that gives the party's guidance because they have these preemptory challenges where they don't have to give reasons. And so both sides want to know the answers to these questions. By the way, they ask also, do you have any strong anti-Trump views? And have you participated in any of those movements as well. So both sides want to know that so that they know who to strike.

How does it work with the question, though, do you have any strong opinions or firmly held beliefs about former President Donald Trump? I mean, wouldn't that apply to basically everybody?

Yeah, and if they all say yes, then it doesn't really get anywhere. It doesn't help them at all. So a lot of these are going to be not super helpful, but they just dig through and they try to rank their jurors and then decide accordingly.

I mean, and this really matters if you're, regardless of which side you're on and who's looking at this because one juror could throw off Alvin Bragg's entire effort to prosecute Donald Trump here.

That's all it would take. It has to be unanimous. So both sides spend a lot of time on this. I'm sure Trump's spending a lot of money on jury consultants and the like. They both want to make sure that no one is going to be-How long do you think it'll take to get a jury?

They're going to be looking this carefully.

Yeah, about a week, they're saying. It takes longer in state court because the parties get to ask questions. There will be follow-up questions after these questionnaires. So would say about a week, maybe a little more.

Jennifer Rogers, we will be marking our calendars. Thank you so much.