[Keilar:] President Trump is now ready to go to the Supreme Court in his effort to keep his tax returns private. An appeals court ruled today that an accounting firm used by Trump must turn over eight years of returns to a grand jury in New York. And President Trump fought the release with the argument that, as president, he enjoys absolute immunity from any criminal process. Joining me now to discuss, we have CNN Supreme Court Analyst, Joan Biskupic. And Kim Wehle back with us as well. The president is going to appeal this ruling today with the Supreme Court. This decision has to do with New York's criminal investigation of the Trump family real estate business. What was the court's rationale here, Kim?
[Kim Wehle, Professor Of Law, University Of Baltimore School Of Law:] The court's rationale is that there's no such thing as this kind of sweeping absolute immunity from any process whatsoever by anyone during the presidency. Now, keep in mind here, we have a state process, we have a state prosecutor seeking information from a third-party accountant firm. We don't have Congress getting information from the White House. We don't even have information being sought from the White House about official business while he's president. These are his personal tax returns from a third party. And the court said, wait a minute, there's no basis in the law for this massive umbrella, basically bullet-proof process for the president while he's in office. It just doesn't exist. And the 75-page very compelling lower court decision explains in no uncertain terms to the dangers of the destruction of democracy and the Constitution if the president were to be immune from any type of judicial oversight while in office.
[Keilar:] Now you have lower courts who said what Kim said, basically this doesn't exist, you don't have this protection. How would the Supreme Court see this, Joan?
[Joan Biskupic, Cnn Supreme Court Analyst:] This is not a decision at the margins. It's not a fringe decision. It's by a very respected chief judge, Robert Katsun, in the Second Circuit, relying deeply on Supreme Court precedent in a Clinton case and, more importantly, from a 1974 U.S. v. Nixon case in the Watergate tape case. If the Supreme Court were to go in another direction here, it would be startling just because how this decision is so in the main. Some of you might remember, when this case was argued by Trump's lawyers at the Second Circuit recently, this was a case where a lawyer said, if President Trump shot someone on Fifth Avenue, there would be nothing to do here. So the claim from the Trump administration is awfully bold, audacious, even. And I think it would be a big deal if the Supreme Court would go in another direction. But we just don't know. Obviously, they said they would appeal.
[Keilar:] All right, we'll keep our eye on it. Joan, Kim, thank you so much. As transcripts in the testimony of two key witnesses in the impeachment probe are released this hour, the president is stepping up his demands for the whistleblower to be revealed. We'll discuss that, next.