Donald Trump is arguing that lobbying election officials to overturn the 2020 election was within his official responsibilities as President. That argument was part of a brief filed last night in which attorneys for the former President asked an appeals court to dismiss his criminal election subversion case one day after the Supreme Court refused to decide for now whether he is protected from prosecution. In the filing, Trump's attorneys argue that, President Trump has absolute immunity, adding that, Under our system of separated powers, the judicial branch cannot sit in judgment over a president's official acts. That doctrine is not controversial, according to his attorneys. We should note, as the question of immunity is being decided by an appeals court, it's clear the scope of presidential immunity is in fact quite controversial. Cnn's Marshall Cohen is following all of these developments. The Trump attorneys, they're trying to make this case for absolute immunity. What chances does that stand to have in the courts? That's going to be a tough argument to make.

It's a tough argument, Jim, because no President in our history has ever been granted this level of sweeping immunity. You just mentioned one of the key arguments from Trump's attorneys that everything he's accused of doing in this election subversion indictment actually was an official action that he took as part of his responsibilities to the nation. Some of Trump's allies like Mark Meadows and Jeffrey Clark at the Justice Department, have made similar arguments in other cases, and they have been rejected. And it will be interesting to see if Trump can somehow convince the judges on the DC Circuit Court of appeals that these were part of his official duties to overturn an election. Let me read for you another quote from their filing, and it came in very late last night, quote, In the 234 year tradition of not prosecuting presidents for official acts despite ample motive and opportunity to do so, provides powerful evidence that the power to do so does not exist. They're saying that because no one's ever done this before, you can't do it now. Of course, that same argument could be turned on Donald Trump because no one's ever tried to overturn an election before.

And also, Jim, another part of their argument is that because of impeachment and specifically his acquittal in his second impeachment, that that closed the door to any prosecution. Let me read for you another quote from this filing. Trump's lawyers said, Before any single prosecutor can ask a court to sit in judgment of the president's conduct, Congress must have approved of it by impeaching and convicting the President. That did not happen here. Look, Jim, these are novel arguments. We are in a novel situation, and it will be up to the DC Circuit Court of appeals to decide.

Quite a novel situation indeed. All right, Marshall Cohen, thank you very much. Really appreciate the reporting today. Let's discuss with CNN legal analyst Norm Isen, who served as special counsel of the hashed judiciary committee during Donald Trump's first impeachment trial. Norm, great to see you, as always. Trump claims he has absolute immunity. That legal argument so far has not convinced the courts. I mean, if presidents have absolute immunity, I suppose why did Ford ever pardon Nixon? I don't know. How is it that they can just argue they have absolute immunity?

Jim, it's an astonishing proposition. Of course, I practice law with John Laureau, both criminal defense lawyers, Trump's lead counsel, and he's an audacious defender. But John has outdone even himself here. If presidents had absolute immunity, Jim, presidential election would become a stampede for the criminally-minded so they can get to the Oval Office. It's not just election overturn. Where would it stop they could do bank robberies, kidnapping, murders? That is inimical to American law. There is no hint of such absolute immunity anywhere in our constitution, our history, the prior cases of the Supreme Court. As you point out, if Trump's arguments were correct, Richard Nixon would have refused to resign because he wanted to take advantage of his absolute immunity and take his chances that Congress would acquit him. So it is not going to work. But, Jim, it's not about winning. It's about running out the clock.

Right. They throw another filing at the judges and say, Okay, let's talk about absolute immunity. It eats up more time, which is always key to Donald Trump. Norm, Trump's lawyers also claim he can't be prosecuted for election interference because he was never convicted by the Senate. Let's parse that out and talk about that. The impeachment process has nothing to do with the legal process. Those are two separate things. I'm old enough to remember when Mitch McConnell said he wasn't going to vote for conviction during the second impeachment because he said, well, there's this whole legal process that could take place. Let the courts decide if Donald Trump did something. It can't be both.

Well, if the absolute immunity argument is a loser, the impeachment argument is frivolous. I mean, it's not even colorable, Jim. I checked the Constitution this morning, and what the Constitution actually says is that if a President is convicted, he or she shall, quote, Nevertheless, be liable for criminal proceedings. Nevertheless, is not the same as only if they're convicted are they're liable. So they're turningwe're leaning the Constitution upside down here.

And there's this new recording. We haven't heard it yet, but apparently it shows Trump pressuring election officials in Michigan to rescind their vote to certify the 2020 election results. This is an astonishing pre-holiday news bomb that came in the Detroit news the other day. But we asked Michigan Secretary of State about this, and here's what she told me yesterday.

That really underscores the vast conspiracy, for lack of a better word, that was at play, a really coordinated effort in all the battleground states to delay certification, create enough confusion about the validity of the election results. Because if you have people block or refuse to certify, that gives you another reason, or him another reason to say, See, there's something wrong. Even though there is no evidence there is anything wrong.

Norm, what do you make of the prospect that the special counsel, Jack Smith, is really compiling evidence of a larger conspiracy and more detailed conspiracy than the public really had a sense of in the immediate aftermath of the 2020 election on January sixth.

I think Jack Smith is going to present a sweeping nationwide conspiracy. We already knew that Donald Trump, we've heard the tape, pressured Georgia election officials to recognize him as the winner, even though he lost the election, and to block the recognition of the actual winner. Now there's reports... I'm sorry, I'm recording that there's a tape of the same in Michigan. So this is powerful evidence. That is the essence of what Smith has said, that crimes of Donald Trump are an elaborate set of nationwide alleged acts to frustrate the legal winner from taking office, Joe Biden, and instead for Donald Trump to hang on to power even though he lost. There could not be a more serious allegation of criminal behavior than that, and the evidence seems to be piling up. No wonder Trump doesn't want this case to go to trial and is trying to delay with these silly, absolute immunity and impeachment arguments.

Right. If you're claiming you have absolute immunity, it doesn't matter how big the case gets, how large the mountain of evidence gets. If you have absolute immunity, it's absolute. Amazing stuff. Aarad, Normison, thank you so much for coming up on this Christmas Eve. We really appreciate it.

Good to see you. Have a wonderful holiday, Jim.

You as well.