Firmer President Trump has until tomorrow to find nearly half a billion dollars for an appeal bond in a New York civil fraud case. Otherwise, he runs the risk the state of New York will start seizing assets. Joining us to survey the legal landscape of former federal prosecutor Andrew Torkowski and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John U. Andrew, the justice system is different, should be different, used to be different, and that even opponents are entitled to due process and fundamental fairness. Half a billion dollar judgment in a case with no financial loss and no real victim to some of us seems personal and punitive. Are we missing something? Is there something that justifies that amount, which is really amount to the business death penalty for Donald Trump?

There is not. The Appellate division's credibility ultimately depends on how they act on the stay that Trump's team has filed with it right now, looking for some stay or relief from this astronomical judgment and the requirement to pay it by Monday. The defense team has actually gone forward and given the Appellate Court all the rationale they need. First of all, the state allows for exceptions to be made. The courts have made those exceptions in the past, and they've made it in cases of far less gravity or amounts than we have in this case. They talk about the likelihood of success on appeal. They go through all sorts of issues with the calculations and accounting that Judge Engaron did. Then finally, they hit on the eighth Amendment and the fact that this amount of fines, this amount of penalty from a state is so astronomically higher than any calculation that you can put forward to show actual damages here, where there are factually no actual damages. So I think that there are very solid grounds for the appellate court to give relief, and I think that they have to do it. And I hope that they don't do that right down to the wire.

Professor, the news was a little better for the former President in Georgia. Nathan Wade is off the case. The judge is allowing the defense to appeal his decision to leave Fannie Willis on the case. What do you think will happen on appeal? And is the timing of this trial definitely pushed beyond November because of this?

It's hard to see how this case gets to a verdict before November, given that we haven't even started any real proceedings in front of a jury. But the more important thing is we're all Justice Department former employees, and we all know that the Department prosecutors have to have the highest integrity, and they've got to have even higher integrity if they're going to go after a president for the first time in history and bring massive RICO charges against a presidential re-election campaign, which is an exercise of First Amendment rights, because ultimately, prosecutors and the legal system can't succeed, can't maintain law and order unless they have the confidence and the cooperation of the public. If the public sees prosecutors engaging in hanky-panky and monkey business and sometimes seem to be lying to the court on TV in front of everybody, then we have to be worried whether the prosecutors have the integrity necessary.

All right, this is for both of you. We'll start with you, Professor, and then Andrew. The presidential immunity case is pending before the Supreme Court. He won the Colorado case. He did the impossible. It was 9 to nothing. What do you think is going to happen with the presidential immunity case? Because I doubt that's going to be nine to zip. We'll start with you, Professor, and then you, Andrew.

Actually, Trey, I wouldn't bet against you. You have a good track record. I actually think it might be nine to zip, but it might be nine to zip against President Trump. The reason I say that is all the precedents, all the past decisions seem to run against Trump. I don't think the courts are likely to say presidents have immunity from federal criminal prosecution. But people should keep in mind, immunity just means Trump doesn't even have to show up and appear. He still has a lot lot of arguments he can make against the charges themselves about whether this is really fraud. I don't think it is. Whether this is really interfering with a Congressional process. I'm not sure it is. Whether Trump took away everyone's voting rights in the whole country. That I definitely don't think this is. He'll still be able to make those important constitutional legal arguments, even if when he loses immunity.

Andrew, what do you think? Look, the line between an official act and a personal act, I didn't think the oral I know this argument went well for Trump's lawyers in the DC Court of Appeals, but what do you think?

Well, I've got to disagree with John on this one. I actually think that there is a good case for the Supreme Court to grant at least some degree of immunity here. This is a case of first impression. No president has ever been prosecuted criminally before. We do have some precedent that talks about the outer perimeter of the presidency, and that being a guideline for the idea of immunity. Now, the DC Circuit Court totally ignored that and just straight said that the President doesn't enjoy immunity. That seems to suggest the opposite of what we see all the time that government actors have a certain degree of immunity. If the court gives the outer perimeter standard to Donald Trump, then how do you define what that looks like? That's going to be the difficulty for the Supreme Court because this decision is going to go forward for hundreds of years as precedent on how to prosecute presidents. How that line is drawn, I think it's very tricky to say that the engagement of a president in the legitimacy or the the safety of voting doesn't have to do with foreign interactions or foreign policies, which is an Article 1 function of the presidency.

It's very difficult to say. I actually think the Supreme Court is going to set a guideline for what the immunity looks like, and I think it's going to be relatively far down the line, and they're not going to get into the politics of deciding what is and is not a presidential act versus a personal act.

Members of Congress should listen to both of you, two highly esteemed lawyers drawing different conclusions, but doing so with such civility and grace. Thank you for doing that on a Sunday night. Thank you for loaning us your expertise. I have a feeling we'll be talking again real soon.

Hey, Sean Hannity here. Hey, click here to subscribe to Fox News YouTube page and catch our hottest interviews and most compelling analysis. You will not get it anywhere else.