Special counsel attorney James Pearce delivered a fiery response to questions about the implications of Trump's indictment, calling it an "extraordinarily frightening future" if a president were to be granted complete presidential immunity.

"I mean, what kind of world are we living in?" Pearce said. "If, as I understood my friend on the other side to say here, a president orders a SEAL team to assassinate a political rival and resigned, for example before an impeachment, it's not a criminal act. I think that is extraordinarily frightening future."

Judge Karen Henderson asked Pearce how the court could rule regarding presidential immunity in a way that "would stop the floodgates?"

"I want to push back a little bit against this idea of a floodgate." Pearce responded, arguing that Smith's indictment of Trump was not risking a continuation of "tit-for-tat" prosecutions that could cascade into the future.

"The various 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 seachange of vindictive tit-for-tat prosecutions in the future. I think it reflects the fundamentally unprecedented nature of the criminal charges here," he said.

"Never before has there been allegations that a sitting president has, with private individuals and using the levers of power, sought to fundamentally subvert the democratic republic and the electoral system. And frankly, it's that kind of fact pattern arises again, I think it would be awfully scary if there weren't some sort of mechanism by which to reach that," he argued.

James Pearce, an attorney with special counsel Jack Smith's team, began his argument by reiterating that Donald Trump is "not above the law."

"Never in our nation's history has the president claimed that immunity from criminal prosecution extends beyond his time in office," Pearce said. "The president has a unique constitutional role, but he is not above the law."

Pearce argued that separation of powers, history, legal precedent, and the Constitution fail to provide a former president immunity from criminal prosecution. While a novel theory to support the idea of immunity might exist, the example of a former president attempting to overturn the election is not a reasonable application of immunity, according to Pearce.

Judge Pan asked Pearce why they weren't taking the position that Trump's appeal should be dismissed on the basis that the Circuit Court lacks jurisdiction at this stage in the proceedings.

Pearce responded their interests were in "doing justice" and "to move promptly to satisfy and vindicate the public's and the defendant's interest in a proper resolution of this trial."

"But doing justice means getting the law right," he added.

In a notable exchange, Judge Henderson pressed Trump attorney D. John Sauer over his position that the actions detailed in Trump's indictment are related to his official duties to ensure that the laws of the U.S. are being "faithfully executed."

"I think it's paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty to take care of the laws be faithfully executed, allows him to violate federal laws," Henderson said.

She noted further that at this stage in the criminal process, where Trump is urging the court to dismiss the case before the trial begins, the law demands they assume the allegations in Smith's indictment are true.

The prosecution will next present arguments.

Judge Florence Pan pressed Trump attorney D. John Sauer over his argument that a president could only be criminally prosecuted if they were to be impeached and convicted first.

"But you're conceding that presidents can be criminally prosecuted under certain circumstances. Specifically, if they're impeached and convicted?" Pan pushed Sauer, saying that his arguments "fall away if you concede that a president can be criminally prosecuted under some circumstances."

Suaer said he disagreed, arguing that the "Constitution makes a carefully balanced, explicit exception to that principle in the impeachment judgment clause."

In another exchange with Judge J. Michelle Childs, Sauer grew animated as he declared "the current incumbent of presidency is prosecuting his No. 1 political opponent and his greatest electoral threat," repeating the baseless claim that President Joe Biden has personally directed special counsel Jack Smith's prosecutions.

Judge Pan then pressed Sauer over a position Trump's legal team had taken during his impeachment proceedings, while still in office, that there would be the opportunity for criminal prosecution of his actions after the fact -- regardless of conviction.

Sauer said that statements made during those proceedings should be considered unrelated and not relevant to the current issue of criminal immunity for actions taken by a sitting president.