We were following new developments in two investigations of Donald
Trump's efforts to overturn the results of the 2024 presidential election.
That includes exclusive new CNN reporting of the probe
by special counsel Jack Smith.
Let's begin with CNN's senior legal affairs correspondent Paula.
Paula, break down this new reporting for us
and what it says about the scope of the special counsel's investigation.
This is important.
Yeah, it's incredibly important reporting by our colleagues
that Cohen, who has learned the secretaries of state in Pennsylvania
and New Mexico have full spectrum working with investigators in the special counsel
probe.
Now, those were two of the seven states where we know the former president
and his allies were really focused on trying to upend Biden's victory.
What's so interesting to me, though,
in this new report is that when they were talking
to the Pennsylvania secretary of state, he was specifically asked about his time
as the Philadelphia city commissioner and about how misinformation
impacted the election and especially election workers.
And that's notable because we know an official in another state in Michigan
was also asked about the impact of disinformation on election workers.
So this is clearly a new focus for the special counsel in recent months.
And, Paula, separately, as potential indictments loom down in Fulton
County, Georgia, related to Donald Trump's conduct after the 2020 election,
his lawyers took new action today. What happened?
Yeah, they're trying once again
to basically kill this state level investigation.
We know the district attorney they're finding, Willis,
has been looking into efforts by the former president and his allies
to try to overturn that state's election results.
And Willis used a special grand jury to conduct most of this investigation.
Speaking to well over 70 witnesses.
And here Trump's lawyers are arguing that that was unconstitutional.
They're trying to have it thrown out.
And as you noted, you know, it's possible there's a new grand jury
that's been seated down there.
It's possible an indictment could be handed up any time now.
And, Jim, if you'll just indulge the legal scholar in me,
one of the quotes that really stuck out from the filing
is Trump's lawyers say, quote, It is one thing to indict a ham sandwich.
Right. They always say you can indict anything, including a ham sandwich.
But to indict the mustard stained napkin
that it once sat on is quite another.
We'll see if that's a compelling legal argument.
All right.
We'll find that out as well.
All right.
Stay with us as we bring in our legal and political experts.
Elliott, let me go to you first. Great to see you.
Give us the 30,000 foot view you heard about the mustard stained napkin there,
but also these newly
revealed testimonies in the special counsel's election probe.
What do they reveal about the wide focus of this investigation?
I mean, it is broadening.
It seems like almost every day.
It is broadening almost every day.
And it's certain that, look, it's nationwide the evidence
that they're gathering.
You know, I can't count how many states they've now
interviewed either secretaries of state or senior government officials.
So it's clear that it's comprehensive.
Now, certainly that doesn't mean
that the president himself is getting charged with the crime.
I would think charges were coming
against someone at some point.
And it's it's hard to know exactly who, but no, it is comprehensive,
as comprehensive as any investigation any of us have seen, quite possibly.
So we'll just have to wait and see as to where the charges go.
And, Ali, how far will all of this testimony
go and the special counsel focus in determining Trump's intent?
Because that seems to be something that they're they're very much focused on.
It's something that we've seen develop just this week on several fronts.
Yeah, Jim, I think that's the key issue.
It's the most difficult issue for prosecutors to prove.
And I think the earlier news that we had this week
that DOJ has spoken with Jared Kushner, with Hope Hicks,
that really tells us that they're drilling in on that exact issue.
They want to figure out what was in Donald Trump's mind.
You know, judges will sometimes instruct the jury.
Science has not yet developed
some sort of technology that can allow you to read someone's mind.
That's the instruction.
But to come back to that is the way you get inside someone's
head as you talk to the people who are closest to them.
And it's clear DOJ is trying to drill into that and get proof
that Donald Trump either knew he had lost the election or reasonably
should have known that if Apollo were also getting new information
in the classified documents, case, which seems to develop every day as well.
What can you tell us about that?
So we're learning
just how many warrants that investigators had as they conducted this investigation.
Of course, we know they had a search warrant for Mar
a Lago, which they executed back in August.
But we've learned
they also had several other warrants for both devices and accounts.
And that's been really critical in gathering evidence in this investigation.
Because remember, for something
like recordings of all those interviews the former president did with journalists,
all of those were recorded by his staff were then uploaded to the cloud.
So that's just one example of the various ways that investigators
were trying to access information through devices, through account.
And then, of course, with a physical search of something like Mar-A-Lago.
Yes, a lot of ground to cover in Elliott, the first hearing
in this classified documents, cases on Tuesday.
How much is at stake there or what are we going to learn?
Are we going to learn much from that proceeding, do you think?
I well, there's always plenty at stake now.
To be clear,
the just members asked for a trial as early as December.
Which would actually be quite ambitious under any circumstance
for any federal case, let alone one involving classified procedures.
I would think that incrementally the date of the trial gets moved
forward in the next year or beyond, but we'll just have to wait and see.
But obviously, every hearing is significant.
Look, people will pick apart everything, Judge
can the judge overseeing the case does.
Given her history in the matter,
she ruled once before in a matter that was widely criticized
and widely criticized by, frankly, virtually everybody
having this conversation as we talk to you right now.
So we will be watching to see what she does and how she rules.
And as we go from there and hear the political calendar
next year is front of mind for this trial date, it's it's rapidly approaching.
That's right.
And six months will be in the Iowa caucuses.
And voters are going to the polls and then figure out who they want to be
the nominee.
If you're Donald Trump, you can see that he's already trying to push this trial
as far off into the future.
As he can.
And Jake Smith obviously wants a speedy trial.
It's one of the first things that he said when he announced this indictment.
And you see, you differing sides about what these trial date will mean.
Listen, if you're Donald Trump, you're essentially
banking on you'll become the GOP nominee and you'll win the presidency.
And then he can pretty much squash this investigation.
That's something we obviously haven't seen in American history before.
And if you're Jack Smith, you kind of
want it wrapped up as quickly as possible so that it's not a tangled up
in the political process there and voters going to the polls.
But listen, no matter what, it's going to be seen as political, certainly
by people who are going to the polls in the GOP primary.
So we'll see when the date finally comes.
The other complicating factor is that there are there
there's another trial in New York. Right.
And that trial date is probably likely in the spring or something.
So there is a lot for this president or the former president
to juggle with the special counsel saying, listen, they want this done
as quickly as possible.
Yeah, the calendar is filling up.
No question about it.
L.A., How do you assess the Trump team's case
to throw out evidence and disqualify the Fulton County D.A.
finding Willis?
I mean, this is something that they've talked about for a long time.
Does it have any merit
Legally and procedurally, they're not going to win on this, Jim.
The thing they're asking for here is not a thing legally.
There's basically no way that a judge can prevent a grand jury
from taking action, can stop a grand jury ahead of time from indicting.
But it's important to note, Donald
Trump does have some legitimate points that he makes in this brief
about the way that the D.A., Fani Willis, has injected politics in to this case.
She's already been disqualified from a piece of this case
and chastised by the judge for a political conflict of interest
She's used pieces of this case to fundraise and to ask
for more Twitter followers.
She's made public statements that may cross a line.
So Donald Trump's team is not going to win this motion.
But there are issues that are going to crop up as we move along
about the way finally Willis has handled this case and the whole week of Henderson.
How do you see it?
I mean, does the district attorney's political background complicate
this case down in Georgia? What do you think?
It certainly does.
And you
can see what Donald Trump is doing here to try to make this all about politics.
It's something he's done
with all of the folks who are bringing these cases, whether,
you know, Alvin Bragg in New York as well as Derek Smith as well.
So, you know, definitely, I think when you think about a juror, you know,
who's looking at some of the evidence, if this case goes to trial.
Sure.
I imagine all the sort of political background
will certainly come up and be top of mind for some jurors there.
So you see Donald Trump and his team really playing that up.
All right, guys, great conversation.
I'm sure there's going to be a lot to watch
next week as all of these cases develop.
I really appreciate it.