Return to Transcripts main page

One World with Zain Asher

Washington, D.C. Court Hears Arguments From Trump Lawyers; Heavy Israeli Airstrikes Continue In Central Gaza; Alaska Airlines Plane Accident Still Under Investigation; Trump's Legal Struggles Continue; Pope Francis Calls For A Universal Ban On Surrogacy; Gabriel Attal Becomes France New Prime Minister. Aired 12-1p ET

Aired January 09, 2024 - 12:00   ET



BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: Hello everyone. Live from New York, I'm Bianna Golodryga.

ZAIN ASHER, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: And I'm Zain Asher. You are indeed watching "One World". This is a monumental day in U.S. presidential

history. You really cannot overstate that. We are watching history unfold here and that is because an Appeals Court is considering a crucial question

-- is a President -- is a President above the law?

GOLODRYGA: Yeah, just short time ago, the court in Washington, D.C. heard arguments from lawyers from Donald Trump and for special prosecutor Jack

Smith over whether Trump is immune from prosecution. Now, if Trump's arguments are ultimately ruled successful, it could instantly end the

election interference case against him. Here's just a little bit of what each side had to say before the judges.


D. JOHN SAUER, ATTORNEY FOR FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: If a President has to look over his shoulder or her shoulder every time he hears she has

to make a controversial decision where after I leave office, am I going to jail for this? My political opponents take power that inevitably dampens

the ability of the President.

JAMES PEARCE, ASSISTANT SPECIAL COUNSEL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: Never in our nation's history until this case has the President claimed that

immunity and criminal prosecution extends beyond his time of office. The President has a unique constitutional role but he is not above the law.


ASHER: And the importance of this moment was certainly not lost on Donald Trump himself. He took time off from campaigning. Remember that six days to

go ago until Iowa -- he took time off from the campaign trail in order to attend the hearing in person. Note that he was not required to be there. He

chose to be. Obviously, this is a political moment for him, as well.

And just moments ago, he spoke to the media saying that he did absolutely nothing wrong. And if his side loses, it will open up all future presidents

up to prosecution by their rival, something that his lawyers were arguing, as well. It is unknown how quickly the Appeals Court might rule in this

case, but whatever they find, I think we can all agree that this issue is likely to appeal again, be appealed again rather to the U.S. Supreme Court.

GOLODRYGA: So, let's go live to CNN's Senior Crime and Justice Reporter, Katelyn Polantz. She's outside the Appeals Court in Washington. Quite

stunning to see the events unfold the last few hours. Katelyn, I think it's safe to say that the arguments made before the judges by Trump's attorney

was met with a heavy dose of skepticism.

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Some skepticism. But these judges today did not really show their cards in a lot of ways

because this is such a complex topic. There are so many different arguments here and so many issues to be addressing in this court.

So, the way I sat inside and was able to watch a closed circuit video feed of the courtroom, as well as listen to the arguments. And there essentially

were three things that the judges really were trying to put a point on. The first is can they do this now? Is this even a case that should be before

them right now?

Before Trump goes to trial, very few things can actually be addressed by an Appeals Court before a trial takes place and a criminal defendant faces a

jury. So, that was one of the questions. That's what they started with. They wanted the lawyers on both sides to tell them why they should have

this case now.

The second thing is, where's the line around the presidency? That is the big question here. Is there some sort of protection around the presidency?

Where do you draw that line? Where is it in the Constitution? Where is it in the duties of the president versus the duties of somebody who's running

for president, somebody who's campaigning, and what sort of standards should this court adopt for that?

On top of that, the third thing that they were doing is they were trying to figure out what to do, how to do it. And one of the questions from Judge

Karen Henderson was about how do we write an opinion here that doesn't open the floodgates to political prosecution, that thing that John Sauer,

Trump's attorney, James Pearce, other attorney in court, we're just going after one after another. Here is what James Pearce -- I'm sorry, he's with

the Justice Department, what James Pearce had to say about it's not going to open the floodgates.


PEARCE: This notion that we're all of a sudden going to see a floodgate, I think the you know, again, the careful investigations in the Clinton era

didn't result in any charges. The fact that this investigation did doesn't reflect that we are going to see a sea change of vindictive tit-for-tat

prosecutions in the future.


I think it reflects the fundamentally, unprecedented nature of the criminal charges here.


POLANTZ: So, we didn't get an opinion today as we didn't expect to, but we will be waiting to see how fast this panel of three judges makes a decision

here, how quickly they issue their opinion, and if they split in some way.

If Judge Henderson, for instance, were to split from the other two judges on the panel, the two judges, Michelle Childs and Florence Pan, both Biden

appointees, whereas Judge Henderson, who has been on the bench for quite a long time, she's a Republican appointee and often does something slightly

different to say than her colleagues about the executive branch and the separation of powers and the constitution.

GOLODRYGA: And a reminder, this was just a luck of the draw in terms of how these judges were selected. It just happened to be that these three were

selected to hear these arguments today in this appellate motion. And Katelyn Polantz, thank you.

GOLODRYGA: All right, let's sort of break down even further some of the legal arguments at play here. I want to bring in Criminal Defense Attorney

Misty Marris. Misty, thank you so much for being with us. I mean, this idea that impeachment and conviction should be the principal way to address

criminal conduct by a President and that it would open up essentially a Pandora's block, just give us your take on that argument.

MISTY MARRIS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: What I found interesting about that argument, this all stems from an act called the Impeachment Judgment Act.

And essentially what it says is that if a President is to break the law while in office, the consequence is the removal from office through the

impeachment process.

Now, it has been raised by the defense to say that in addition to this immunity argument, that it's improper for Donald Trump to face any criminal

charges because the impeachment was ultimately unsuccessful. He was not convicted.

But what I find interesting about that argument is that it ended up being at odds with this idea of absolute immunity, which is the other argument

raised by Donald Trump's defense. So much so that in the course of answering questions from the justices, it was ultimately conceded by

Trump's team that had Donald Trump been impeached successfully at the time, then it would be proper to face prosecution.

So, that really is at odds with the idea of absolute immunity, which was raised as an argument that he cannot be charged in any criminal capacity

while for anything that happened during the time that he was the President because that would qualify as an official act.

So, it's a very complicated legal structure. But I found that concession by Trump's team to be interesting. And it was a lot of what the justices were

getting at, proposing hypothetical scenarios. And, ultimately, his team did concede on that point.

GOLODRYGA: So, was that an unforced error in your view on Trump's attorney's part by justice really honing in on this issue of the

impeachment clause there and specifically the role that Congress would play, which he then ultimately conceded to, that if a president were indeed

tried and convicted by Congress and found guilty, that, in essence, they're not immune.

POLANTZ: Right. So, I think that I don't think it was an unforced error because I think it was quite foreseeable that this would come up. And one

reason I say that is because of Richard Nixon. This is something that was also brought up during the course of the arguments it was raised in the

papers that Nixon, obviously he left office, he resigned. After he resigned, he was pardoned. Right.

So presumably, had he gone through the impeachment process, that would have been successful. But since he left office on his own accord, he was

pardoned, which would imply that there was the possibility of criminal charges.

So, I do think the argument was likely to come up, and I'm sure Trump's team knew that. It just was addressed so blatantly and so on point by the

justices that I do think from the perspective of watching these arguments unfold, I foresee that the judges are really, really paying attention to

that aspect when ultimately making their decision on this case.

ASHER: And you know, one thing that seems to be quite clear is that for Donald Trump, it is, yes, of course, it is about winning this argument, but

it's also about running out the clock for as long as possible to really delay and postpone this trial.

My question to you is, of course, we are an election year. If Donald Trump wins the election, if he does become President, what happens to these

charges? Can he order them to be dropped or does he try to pardon himself? What are your thoughts on that?

MARRIS: Well, that's a great question. If he's convicted prior -- if the trial forward and say that there's a conviction prior to the election, well

then there's a bit more of a question of what happens.


However, if the trial doesn't happen until after, remember, president oversees the DOJ, so I imagine that these cases would not move forward. But

you know they are very, very complicated issues and as the reporting flagged, it's likely no matter what happens in this particular appeal, it's

going to go to the Supreme Court.

Because we've been talking about the merits, about the parameters of immunity for a President, and the impeachment judgment, a clause and what

that means. But there's also a threshold procedural issue about whether or not it's even the proper timing for the appellate court to get involved.

Because typically in a criminal case, an appeal would happen after everything has concluded. There's been a conviction, there's been a

sentencing and then an appeal. This is what's called an interlocutory appeal, meaning it happens before all that.

And there's a question about whether this is one of the few instances that actually falls under that umbrella. That's a question to watch for in the

decision. Both sides actually conceded that this is the type of case that should fall under that umbrella, but the court is ultimately going to make

that determination.

So, the procedural plus the merit issue, we're going to see this play out even further. This particular appeal was expedited, but the next step could

be the Supreme Court, and that could be a more lengthy process. Only time will tell here.

ASHER: All right, Misty Marris, thank you so much. I appreciate you being with us on this very important day in history in terms of U.S. presidential

politics and legal implications, as well.

GOLODRYGA: It was stunning to be able to listen in to this process. Fascinating.

ASHER: Misty, thank you.

GOLODRYGA: Well, the top U.S. diplomat is in Israel today with one primary goal, keeping the war in Gaza from spreading into a full-scale regional


ASHER: All right. Tensions along Israel's northern border have been soaring, really skyrocketing these past few weeks. Earlier on Tuesday,

Hezbollah struck drones. Drones rather struck an Israeli command center. It said the attack was in retaliation for the Israeli killing of a Hezbollah

commander in Lebanon on Monday, as well as an earlier strike that killed a senior Hamas leader in southern Beirut.

Amid heightening tensions, Israel's Defense Minister told "The Wall Street Journal" that Israel's priority is not war with Hezbollah, but he warned it

can, quote, "copy and paste" the Gaza assault to Beirut, if necessary.

GOLODRYGA: Meantime, in central Gaza, heavy Israeli airstrikes continue, even as Israel says that it is entering a new phase in the war. The Al-Aqsa

hospital reports 57 people were killed overnight, that as the U.S. steps up pressure on Israel to minimize civilian casualties. We expect the U.S.

Secretary of State to speak about this in the coming hours.

Jeremy Diamond joins us now from Tel Aviv with the details. Jeremy, as the Israeli, the IDF and their spokesman say that Israel is now launching a

different phase, a new phase, a less, say, less intense phase of this war, you spent some time embedded with them. What did you find? What did you


JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, that's right. We were embedded with Israeli forces inside Gaza just yesterday. And first off, I

should note that we reported under Israeli escort at all times, and we had to submit our footage as a condition for participating in this embed for a

security review. But the Israeli military did not screen our final report, and we retained full editorial control.

But when we went inside Gaza with Israeli forces, what we saw was the scale of the destruction that is being wrought all across Gaza right now. We, of

course know that over the last three months, of course, this war has been going on. There have been airstrikes, but over the last two weeks or so,

the Israeli military has moved in on the ground in central Gaza.

And so, what we saw was the results of that ground offensive, both in terms of the civilian impact, the destruction of residential buildings in that

area, but also what the Israeli military is uncovering in terms of Hamas' underground infrastructure.


DIAMOND (voice-over): After three months of war, this is a glimpse of central Gaza. Buildings flattened or partially collapsed, others riddled

with bullets or scarred by smoke, civilians nowhere to be found. The outskirts of Al-Buraish now under Israeli military control.

DIAMOND: The Israeli military has now been fighting on the grounds here in central Gaza over the last two weeks. And you can see all around me the

results of that military campaign. Destroyed buildings, smoke still billowing from parts of central Gaza.

DIAMOND (voice-over): As the fighting rages, the Israeli military is also uncovering the scale of Hamas' underground infrastructure, inviting CNN

into central Gaza for the first time to show what they are uncovering.


The Israeli military is also uncovering the scale of Hamas' underground infrastructure, inviting CNN into central Gaza for the first time to show

what they are uncovering. Alongside now bulldozed farmlands and inside a non-descript building, the opening to a tunnel system.

UNKNOWN: We are standing in one of the main entrances to the manufacturing terror center.

DIAMOND (voice-over): Which the Israeli military says Hamas used to manufacture and transport weapons.

DIAMOND: So this is the entrance to a tunnel that the Israeli military found in central Gaza. You can walk through here and they say that if you

follow this tunnel all the way down, you get eventually to what is a weapons manufacturing facility that Hamas has been using throughout the


DIAMOND (voice-over): Inside that facility, Israeli commanders say Hamas built rockets and mortar shells like these and then filled them with

explosive material like fertilizer below ground. The military did not allow reporters underground, saying the chemicals made it too dangerous.

But it provided this video, it says, was filmed inside that underground facility. Steps away in a warehouse alongside a residential building, long-

range rockets capable of reaching Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.

DANIEL HAGARI, REAR ADMIRAL, IDF SPOKEMAN: What we're seeing is using the embedded civilian industries to build a rocket industry.

DIAMOND: But some would say that you are making this point, that Hamas and civilians are embedded, that it's all happening in the same places, to

justify the enormous civilian casualties that we have seen in Gaza, so far.

HAGARI: We are focusing on Hamas. We're focusing on a war on Hamas, not fighting the people of Gaza.

DIAMOND: When you look at the numbers of thousands of children who have been killed in Gaza, are you doing enough to distinguish between Hamas

fighters and civilians?

HAGARI: Every death of every child is a tragedy. We didn't want this war.

DIAMOND (voice-over): More than 9000 children have been killed, so far, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health. Like this girl pulled from

the rubble in central Gaza. Tens of thousands of civilians who fled the fighting in the north now at risk here.

In Al-Buraish, the Israeli military dropped these warning flyers days ago, urging civilians to flee to nearby Daryl Bala (ph), but the fighting is now

raging there, too.


DIAMOND (on-camera): And amid questions about the next phases of this war, Admiral Daniel Hagari, the IDF spokesman you saw there, told me while we

were in Gaza that the Israeli military is already operating at a lower intensity in central Gaza in the fighting there than it was in northern

Gaza at the beginning of the war.

But the United States is still pressing Israel to dial down its military campaign. That was certainly a focus and has been a focus throughout the

day of Secretary of State Tony Blinken's meetings with Israeli officials. Also on the agenda, of course, is what happens in Gaza after the war is

over, thoughts towards post-war governance and reconstruction, and of course those broader regional tensions to be addressed.

GOLODRYGA: And we expect to hear from the Secretary any moment now. We'll bring you those comments live when they happen. Jeremy Diamond, thank you.

ASHER: All right, still to come here on "One World", a terrifying journey, destination unknown.


STEPHANIE KING, PASSENGER ON ALASKA AIRLINES 1282: I thought, you know, we might be going down. What I sent to my mother was, the plane has exploded

and I'm not sure what's going on, but I love you.


GOLODRYGA: Terrifying. Ahead, we'll have the latest on the investigation into Friday's Alaska Airlines ordeal and what may be another public

relations disaster for Boeing.

ASHER: It looks so bad for Boeing, but it could be good P.R. for a mobile phone maker. Their phone survived a 16,000-foot fall out of that Alaska

Airlines plane and was still actually working. It was still working when a passerby found it.


SEAN BATES, FOUND FALLEN PHONE: They were still looking for the door. And I found a phone sitting on the side of the road that had apparently fallen

16,000 feet.




ASHER: All right, we are learning new details about that absolutely terrifying incident that took place on Friday. We've been talking about it

ever since when a refrigerator sized section of an Alaska Airlines jet simply blew off mid-flight. We are still trying to work out what exactly

caused it. Y

GOLODRYGA: Yeah, the panel, also known as a door plug on the Boeing 737 Max- 9, detached shortly after takeoff from Portland, Oregon, leaving, as

you can see from this horrific video, a gaping hole in the plane, ripping headrests off the seats, even tearing the shirt off of one passenger's


Now, that door plug has since been found in somebody's backyard, but investigators are now looking for the bolts that were supposed to hold it

in place. For the people on board, the fear, understandably, was palpable. One of them spoke about it to CNN earlier.


KING: I thought, you know, we might be going down. What I sent to my mother was, "The plane has exploded and I'm not sure what's going on but I love

you." And it was horrifying. It was really traumatic. I'm so glad we made it, but I think that there definitely needs to be some more investigation

to figure out why this happened and how to prevent it from happening because next time it might not go so well.


ASHER: The company that is under the microscope right now is, of course, Boeing. It has been a tumultuous few years for the company, the most

glaring issues involved. Two fatal crashes of Boeing 737 jets in Indonesia and Ethiopia starting in 2018.

Three hundred and forty six people died in those tragedies. So, this company has really been under the spotlight now for quite some time. And

our technicians at both Alaska Airlines and United say they have found loose hardware, right? Loose hardware, including bolts on some of their

Boeing aircraft.

Time now for The Exchange and our conversation with Mark J. Peirotti. He's an aeronautical, excuse me, engineer and the author of Aviation Leadership,

the accountable manager. He joins us live now from Abu Dhabi.

And when you're talking about loose bolts, right? Loose bolts. I mean, this is not loose bolts on the door to your kitchen. This is loose bolts on an

aircraft that is perhaps 16,000 feet in the air. Just talk to us about passenger safety. Walk us through the risks that are involved here for the

flying public.

MARK J. PIEROTTI, AERONOTICAL ENGINEER: Well, remember this is an aircraft that's been around since 1966. There's been over 11,000 of these aircraft

manufactured. There's 264 million hours of flying done by this aircraft. It's a very reliable aircraft. It's a very safe aircraft.

The thing is that they've stretched this aircraft as far as they can with regards to engineering technology. And it's using the same type

certificate, which is design certificate as it did in the 1960s.


So, they're really trying to get everything they can out of this aircraft. So, what we have now is perhaps a quality issue, maybe not a failure or a

structural issue. So, where these bolts installed and manufactured, were they not installed or installed but not tightened? Were they tightened


So, these are the questions now that the safety investigation board, the NTSB are trying to discover.

GOLODRYGA: So, just for our viewers' perspective, as we're seeing that image of that door plug, that gaping hole now where a door plug once sat,

those are put in place of emergency exits. So, when you would get on a plane and you would see an emergency exit door, that is where that would

be. This plane, the 737, the MAX, does not have that, or at least this particular plane does not and so instead you see that door plug.

And my question is, the plug itself was installed by Spirit Aero Systems which makes the body of the 737 MAX, another aircraft. So, does the issue

lie with Boeing itself or does it lie with this contractor which makes the body of the plane?

MARK PIEROTTI, AERONAUTICAL ENGINEER: Well, first of all, we've got to find out who is the last to touch those bolts. Was it Boeing? Was it

Aerosystems? Was it the operator? So, the last person to touch those bolts. Now, we don't know yet. Does Boeing subcontract the installation of the

plug to Aerosystems, Spirit Aerosystems, or do Boeing install it themselves later on after manufacturing?

But you're absolutely correct. In some aircraft, there is an emergency exit door. In some aircraft, that exit door is deactivated and tight and closed.

In this aircraft, it's a plug, it is not a door, it fills the aperture and the frame where a door would be. So, we have to find out who installed it

and who touched it last.

ASHER: You know, what I think is really scary is that this particular aircraft was somewhat new. I think that's what terrifies me the most, that

it was somewhat new. It wasn't a plane that had been around for, I'm talking about the specific plane. It hadn't been around for years or so. It

was very new. And so my question to you is, when a plane is that new, when it simply comes off the line, how frequently does maintenance occur? Does

it occur every month, every two months, every three months?

PIEROTTI: So, I've accepted many new aircraft from Boeing and from other manufacturers. A new aircraft is a sensitive time. It's a delicate time.

You have to make sure that aircraft has been manufactured well. You have to make sure that it's been assembled well.

So, the acceptance process, the monitoring process, you would hope Boeing have got it sorted. You would hope that they're doing it in accordance with

the proof procedures. But a brand new aircraft isn't necessarily the safest aircraft. This aircraft was two months old, I understand. It was taken

delivery in November. So, it didn't have a lot of flying.

And I also understand it did have some recording of pressurization problems and indication problems, which does suggest that the aircraft might have

been leaking air before this incident happened. Now, that's very interesting. And the NTSB has already spoken about this. Are these related


GOLODRYGA: Yeah, the NTSB said that Alaska Airlines had been warned three times about concerns with cabin pressure on the plane. So, no doubt that

that will be part of this investigation, as well. It also is important to reiterate to people who are understandably frightened by this story that it

is still extremely rare to have an incident like this happen, and air safety, especially in the United States, is among the best, if not the

best, in the world.

ASHER: I need to reassure people. That was for me. Thank you.

GOLODRYGA: I'm reassuring myself, too, when I say that. It's my due diligence. But, the Boeing CEO would be addressing the company today in a

staff meeting to talk about company-wide safety meeting -- to talk about how they are handling this investigation going forward. Mark Pierotti,

thank you so much for you time and expertise. We appreciate it.

ASHER: I was about to say, you know what, I'm done with flying. But I heard you say that. I'm like, you know what, she's actually right. She's actually


GOLODRYGA: It is still statistically the safest mode of transportation.

ASHER: Okay. Okay.

GOLODRYGA: And it's important that a thorough investigation is conducted in this case. Meantime, we have an incredible footnote to this story. I see an

ad in the making here. A cell phone believed to have fallen out of the Alaska Airlines plane was found on the side of a road in Oregon.

ASHER: Yeah, Sean Bates tells CNN he found the phone, which wasn't locked and before he turned it over to investigators, he did some investigating of

his own. He told us exactly what he found on it.


SEAN BATES, FOUND FALLEN PHONE: The NTSB had asked people to go and report anything that looks like it had been fallen out of the recent Alaska

Airlines accident. Thankfully, no one was injured or got sucked out, but they did lose some belongings.


They were still looking for the door and I found a phone sitting on the side of the road that had apparently fallen 16,000 feet. And I was of

course, a little skeptical at first. I was thinking this could just be thrown out of a car, someone dropped it while they were jogging.

But I found it, it was still pretty clean, no scratches on it, sitting under a bush, and it didn't have a screen lock on it. So, I opened it up

and it was an airplane mode with a travel confirmation and baggage claim for Alaska 1282.


GOLODRYGA: Wow, that tells you that is a very sturdy phone and also that the passenger followed instructions to put in an airplane mode. I don't

typically do that.

ASHER: How is it that my phone gets destroyed and my kids throw it across the living room? But that survives 16,000 feet? Incredible. It is


GOLODRYGA: The phone we should note is now in the hands of Alaska Airlines.

ASHER: All right, coming up, can a former president be held criminally responsible for what he did while in office? Any answer may help determine

what happens next.


DONALD TRUMP, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Of course, I was entitled as President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief to immunity. I'm

entitled to immunity. Every President has immunity.


ASHER: All right, welcome back to "One World". I'm Zain Asher.

GOLODRYGA: And I'm Bianna Golodryga.


A defining moment for the 2024 U.S. presidential election unfolded in a Washington, D.C. courtroom earlier. The question of whether the former

president can be held criminally liable for actions he took while in office to overturn his 2020 election loss is now officially in the hands of a

three-judge appellate panel. A short time ago, Trump's lawyer presented this astonishing argument.


UNKNOWN: There's a quote in the congressional record in which your counsel, I'm sorry, your client said through counsel, no former office holder is

immune from investigation and prosecution.

SAUER: Investigation is what? There's no means to? Well, That may be true of subordinate officers, but as to the principal officer, the president, he

is immune unless he is impeached and convicted. Again, it comes back to the point we made.

UNKNOWN: He was president at the time, and his position was that no former officeholder is immune.


ASHER: I want you to listen to what Donald Trump had to say even before this hearing began.

TRUMP: Of course, I was entitled as President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief to immunity. I'm entitled to immunity. Every President

has immunity, especially one that did the job I did. I did a great job. And I wasn't working for myself. I was working for the country. I wasn't

campaigning. The election was long over. Wasn't campaigning. I was looking for voter fraud, something that I have to do under my mandate.


GOLODRYGA: CNN's Senior Political Analyst John Avalon joins us now. So John, if you were to believe the former president, this decision has

already been made and he's been vindicated. And I'm just wondering if you can remind our viewers, compare and contrast what you just heard from the

former president to what we all heard a few years ago in that audio of him telling the Georgia attorney general there that he should have 11,000 votes

or whatever. That's all he needs left. That's all he needs to be counted to overturn the election results.

JOHN AVLON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Yeah. I think that's a perfectly appropriate way of contrasting the president's, the ex-president's

arguments. Look, he is arguing, rather desperately and unconvincingly, judging by the tenor of the judges today, that his attempts to overturn the

election were really about a search for election fraud, voter fraud, that was consistent with his role as President, his responsibilities as

President, the oath to faithfully execute the Office of the President and protect and defend the U.S. Constitution.

As many of the judges pointed out today, that's absurd. It's absurd because trying to overturn an election is not consistent with defending our

constitution. It's utterly inconsistent with anything resembling faithfully executing the office of President, given that we've got a tradition of

peaceful transfer of power that continued from George Washington until January 6, 2021.

I'm glad you also played the clip of the judge pushing back on Trump's counsel in the hearing today, saying that Trump's lawyers argued in the

first impeachment that a President could be prosecuted, that there was limited immunity while someone's President.

That's what Republican Senators argued during his second impeachment. They're, oh, we don't need to impeach him. This can be handled through the

courts. This is simply an attempt to wriggle out of accountability. It's logically inconsistent. But Trump is sticking to his guns and his lawyers

are doing their bidding for their audience of one.

ASHER: What is the political upside here for Trump? I mean remember he didn't have to be present today. He chose to be on his own account. What

does he have to gain politically, especially six days out to the Iowa caucuses?

AVLON: Attention and money. He wants to be the center of conversation. He knows that being in the courtroom, even though there's only an audio

recording, increases his ability to dominate the conversation and to try to convince Republican voters that he is not being prosecuted, he is being

persecuted. That's BS, but that's the argument he'll make.

He'll also fundraise off it effectively. And I think this is where we need to sort of keep these things in mind. This is, to me, less about the

politics and more about remembering that we're watching history in the present tense. This is about precedent.

You know, to hear Donald Trump, Richard Nixon's discredited line that if a president does it it's not illegal, that that's sacrosanct. That's a very

dangerous precedent. I heard another extraordinary argument from his lawyers today in the press conference after the hearing in which his lawyer

John Lauro basically argued that if this were to go forward, if he were not granted immunity.

Then that would be incredibly dangerous for President Biden when President Trump should become President again, basically threatening the current

President and saying that's the Pandora's box, that if you hold Trump accountable, that that's, that'll be really standing in the way of our

healing and reconciliation as a nation. We've heard that argument before. It's self-serving and it ignores everything resembling context around this.

GOLODRYGA: So, no doubt one of the reasons he's doing this is to kick the can down the road and get this case moved back as far as possible before

the election.


It's one of the reasons that Jack Smith tried to circumvent all of this and go directly to the Supreme Court. They said, no, it has to go through the

proper process, through the appellate courts.

So, that much we know. But it also is important in that the President -- the former President and his team are hoping that whatever this decision,

whatever these judges decide will impact the other cases in terms of election subversion that we have been focusing on, that are set to play out

his year, as well.

I mentioned Georgia and I should note that it was the Secretary of State, not the Attorney General who was on the phone with. The former President

has already said that he wants that to be thrown out as well.

AVLON: He wants it all thrown out. He wants it all delayed. Donald Trump, to a large extent, is running for president to stay out of prison. It's an

unprecedented situation where it's totally surreal. But he wants to delay accountability, push back these court cases in the event that he wins


So, he can basically be on ice according to the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel opinion that a sitting President can't be prosecuted

criminally. And that's the larger backdrop here. These are all desperate attempts to wriggle out of accountability. And that's why I do find it, as

someone who cares deeply about finding ways to reunite the nation, thinking about how we apply history to the present tense.

The argument -- they're holding Trump accountable for an unprecedented action, trying to overturn an election on the basis of a lie that led to an

attack on the Capitol, that any accountability for that action, which is utterly outside anything resembling a presidential responsibility, would

itself be divisive and perpetuate rancor. Now it's accountability, but that's what Trump is desperately trying to get out of any way he can, and

delay through the courts is one of his best gambits to do it.

ASHER: All right, John Avlon, live for us there. Thank you so much. History in the present tense, as you say, 100 percent accurate. Trump's legal

struggles continue as he prepares for next week's Iowa caucuses and the key New Hampshire primaries after that.

In a brand new CNN poll shows the New Hampshire is actually getting much closer. Nikki Haley is now just seven points behind Trump in that state.

GOLODRYGA: Perhaps that's why she's putting all her focus, it appears, on that primary, as well. Haley supporters surged in New Hampshire in recent

weeks. And on Monday night, in an appearance on Fox News, Haley attacked Trump in language as strong as any she has used thus far in this campaign.


NIKKI HALEY, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Look, just because President Trump says something, doesn't make it true. Look, I think

President Trump was the right President at the right time. I agree with a lot of his policies. But rightly or wrongly, chaos follows him. And y'all

know I'm right. Chaos follows him. And we can't be a country in disarray and the world on fire and go through four more years of chaos. We won't

survive it.


ASHER: And this quick programming note for you. CNN is going to be hosting tomorrow's Republican Presidential Debate in Des Moines, Iowa. Nikki Haley

and Ron DeSantis will take the stage, 9 o'clock at night, Eastern Time, Wednesday. Donald Trump, who has skipped the first four GOP primary

debates, has again chosen not to appear.

GOLODRYGA: And I will be back at the top of the hour with more of our breaking news coverage of Donald Trump's claims of presidential immunity.

ASHER: "One World" continues next.



ASHER: All right, Pope Francis is calling for a universal ban on surrogacy, calling the practice deplorable. At the Vatican on Monday, the pontiff

described surrogate motherhood as a grave violation of the dignity of the woman and the child. He said that a child is always a gift and never the

basis of a commercial contract.

The Catholic Church has long opposed surrogacy. It is illegal in Italy and in several other countries, as well. And it's also restricted in many

countries, too. CNN Vatican Correspondent Christopher Lamb is just live now from London. The fact that the Pope here referred to surrogacy as the

commercialization of pregnancy, that an unborn child must not be turned into an object of trafficking.

I mean, there are a lot of countries where surrogacy is, of course, legal. For example, where I am here in the U.S., it's legal in several states.

What's been the reaction? What is the potential fallout of those comments from the Pope?

CHRISTOPHER LAMB, CNN VATICAN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Zain, I can imagine there will be people who will feel offended or hurt to some degree by what

Francis has said. However, I think this is consistent with what the Pope has said in the past about surrogacy. And as you mentioned, one of the main

concerns that he has is that it puts childbirth, as his words, subject to commercial contracts.

Now, it may be that he has in mind, places like Ukraine where there are women who feel they need to go down this route for financial reasons. And

in the past, Pope Francis has said that he believes that women who are vulnerable or the poorer women are often the ones exploited in these


So I mean, it's an interesting intervention because it comes after the Pope had authorized blessings for same-sex couples and after the Vatican had

said that the children of same-sex couples can receive baptism and be part of the Church. So, I think it shows how the Pope is both trying to be open

and inclusive and pastoral, but at the same time, he upholds traditional Catholic teaching when it comes to these matters.

ASHER: Certainly very controversial, though, but as you point out, the Pope and the Vatican have long espoused those views. And again, it is illegal in

several European countries. Christopher Lamb, live for us there. Thank you so much.

All right, South Korea's parliament has passed a bill banning the traditional, yet controversial, practice of breeding and slaughtering dogs

for their meat. It also bans the distribution and sale of food that includes dog ingredients. There will not be any punishment for eating dog

meat, just for farming and marketing it.

The bill now heads to President Yoon Seok-yul for final approval. It has received vocal support from the First Lady who owns a number of dogs. All

right, still to come here, a closer look at the growing debate on whether a U.S. President can be criminally indicted for conduct while in office.



ASHER: In France today, as President Emmanuel Macron re-shuffled his cabinet. Attal is also the first openly gay man to become Prime Minister,

as well. He's replacing Elizabeth Bourne, who resigned on Monday after 20 tumultuous months marked by very unpopular moves to shake up retirement



GABRIEL ATTAL, INCOMING FRENCH PRIME MINISTER: This has been said in the past few hours. I was able to read it and hear it, that the youngest

President of the Republic in history has appointed the youngest Prime Minister in history. The only symbol I want to see here is that of audacity

and movement, and the symbol too above all of confidence granted to the youth, a generation which deserves to be fought for tirelessly.

Attal has been Education Minister since July 2023. All right, Donald Trump attended an Appeals Court hearing today over his claim that he should be

immune from prosecution for any crimes committed while he was President. CNN's Brian Todd tells us more about the concept and the history of

presidential immunity.


BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Former President Donald Trump and his lawyers insist that Trump's presidential immunity while he was in

office extends to the criminal justice system. What is presidential immunity?

NICK AKERMAN, FORMER WATERGATE ASSISTANT SPECIAL PROSECUTOR: Presidential immunity basically means that you cannot be sued or criminally prosecuted

for certain acts as President of the United States.

TODD (voice-over): Why is there an idea that a President shouldn't be criminally prosecuted for an act committed during their time in the White


AKERMAN: Philosophically, the heart of the argument on this immunity is that a President has to be able to move forward, make decisions at a pretty

rapid pace, and he can't be subject to lawsuits for any act that he takes, whatever act that is, that he can't be tied up in court rather than being

acting as President.

TODD (voice-over): But Nick Akerman says that applies mainly to civil lawsuits against a sitting president, not criminal charges.

AKERMAN: It's a completely different situation if a President commits a crime. Under no circumstance does a President have the right to commit a


TODD (voice-over): President Richard Nixon tried to invoke limited presidential immunity over judicial orders in 1974 when he tried to avoid

handing over his White House tapes to the special counsel investigating the Watergate scandal. He didn't try to invoke immunity over criminal


TIMOTHY NAFTALI, FORMER DIRECTOR, NIXON PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY: The Supreme Court in the summer of 1974 swept all these arguments away and said that

Richard Nixon had to turn over the tapes.

TODD (voice-over): Nixon did hand over the tapes, which contained evidence that he was involved in the Watergate cover-up. Shortly after that, he was


RICHARD NIXON, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: I shall resign the presidency effective at noon tomorrow.

TODD (voice-over): After leaving the presidency, in his iconic 1977 interviews with journalist David Frost, Nixon seemed to indicate he thought

he was above the law while serving as President.

NIXON: Well, when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.

TODD (voice-over): But historian Tim Naftali says Nixon was not referring to absolute presidential immunity.


NAFTALI: He was talking about a very narrow band of national security and domestic security operations, which for a period of time could be done in

the United States and it not be illegal, but even that narrow ban, which does not include insurrections and it does not include burglarizing the

Democratic National Committee or your opponent's party headquarters, that narrow ban ultimately was removed by Congress and the courts.

TODD: Many legal analysts believe the Supreme Court will weigh in some fashion on whether Donald Trump has presidential immunity. The question is

when. Prosecutors in Georgia have said they want that trial to begin in early August. Special counsel Jack Smith has been pushing for Trump's

federal election interference trial to start in March, but appeals could force those dates to slide. Brian Todd, CNN, Washington.

ASHER: All right, that does it for this hour of "One World". I'm Zain Asher. Thank you so much for watching. For our international viewers,

Amanpour is up next. If you're joining us on Max, Bianna will be right back with the second hour of "One World".