States of America versus Donald J. Trump,

Mr. Sour, for the imbalance,

Mr. Sower, for the at balance, Mr. Pierce for the Eppoli.

It's hour, good morning.

Before you get started, can I just get a couple of things on the record. Our jurisdiction was challenged by an amicus, but from

your reply brief, you are not questioning our collateral order jurisdiction.

Correct, we can we defend the collateral or jurisdiction.

That's correct, your honor.

And then also you have either abandoned or not made the Fifth Amendment double jeopardy argument before us.

We have framed the double jeopardy argument as arising principally from the impeachment judgment

clause so we haven't argued that if you go straight to the double jeopardy

clause that that alone would result in reversal we're focusing on the impeachment

judgment clause now that incorporates principles of double jeopardy

but we haven't said a straightforward directly under the double jeopardy clause in this court at this time.

Well, before that occurs then I do want to speak to you a little bit more about jurisdiction because we still have to satisfy ourselves that we have the jurisdiction.

So even though you believe that there's interlocutory jurisdiction with respect to the

collateral order doctrine how do you place that in line with millions

asphalt case which specifically says in a criminal case your jurisdiction needs to stem from the Constitution or be

explicit as well in statutory law. We have three responses to that, if I may, Your Honor.

One is of course that if you look at the language of Midland Asphalt, what Justice Scalia is discussing

in that case is particularly a situation where the right is one,

the legal and practical value of which

...