cnn's paula reid and evan perez is standing by. paula, what is expected to hand today? >> well, kate, we are expecting to see who the grand jury recommended to be charged in the case, and what law the special grand jury believes was broken. now that we have of course seen the indictment, we are going to be looking for any light, any daylight between what the special grand jury recommended and what the district attorney ultimately ended up doing. because the special grand jury was used for about seven months to investigate this case and its recommendations are not binding. it is a little unusual in that way. so we will be looking to see if there were any differences, and it is pretty significant that we are getting to see this today, kate. there is no playbook. and this is very unusual to see a special grand jury report. most of them do not have the significant public interest that this one does have, but it is significant that the judge has allowed to us see parts of this today. >> yeah. and evan, what are the -- i'll

say bigger legal implications from all of this? >> well, one of the interesting things that we, that this presents us with, right, is that, you know, there is still ongoing investigations in various parts in the feds as well as in the states. and it is, you know, one of the unusual things is that, you know, you have the georgia investigation, the georgia grand jury, and special grand jury, and they have heard testimony of a number of people, including people who did not and have not spoken to jack smith's investigation for example, and one of the things that i know that is going to present itself in coming months, kate is that federal prosecutors are going to want to see some of the work that went into the investigation, and into the fani willis investigation is that they are getting ready for their

own trial, and there might be additional defendants named in the jack smith investigationcom things that i am looking at is if there is anybody here or something here that might be of interest to others who are doing some of the similar investigations, and again, the feds are doing their own, but also some of the investigators in some of the other states that are looking at the various efforts to overturn the election results in those states. again, some of that stuff could be indicative of what we are seeing the georgia grand jury produced in their work. >> so interesting. evan, paula, thank you so much. stay close. john? >> with us now is cnn legal analyst michael more and tim lathe from the january 6th committee, and we will soon get this grand jury report, and go through it, and the first thing is a simple math equation.

there were 19 people charged in georgia. does the special grand jury report recommend charging more than that. if they do, michael, what is the significance? >> well, i'm glad to be with both of you. remember, it is an advisory body, and it is unusual to use a grand jury in a criminal case, so we do not see this often. you will see it in administrative type investigations, but this is different. and probably in addition to the number of defendants or the recommendations for indictment, what may be troubling, and may at the end of the day provide good fodder for defense attorneys is whether or not the judge releases those portions of the report where the special grand jurors found some of the witnesses to not be credible. that really may pose a problem when we are talking about the influence of the potential jurors in the criminal trial, and what is that like to have a

ju judicial body to determine that you are not telling the truth. it is subject to motions pending in fulton county, and interesting to see how they are playing out. we will be looking at the number of defendants and those defendants who the grand jury may have found not truthful and how it plays out in criminal case. >> tim, counselor, isn't the why or should i ask it differently, isn't the why, why fani willis and the grand jury and not the special grand jury, but people who were not charged ultimately, a why she decided it is not worth bringing the charges if the special grand jury had recommended it? >> yeah, it would be interesting, but that won't be in the report. look, at any large scale criminal investigation involving a conspiracy, the decision as to who to charge isn't who is involved, but it is practically what is the shape of the case sort of most making sense to

portray to the jury, and there are practical considerations of the number of defendants, and already sort of stretching the outer edge of it by charging the 19 people, ab that does not mean that the conspiracy is limited to the 19, and there is prosecutorial discretion that informs that. so, look, as michael said, there is maybe some things that bears on credibility, and additional evidence that gives defense and the world better sense owhat is going to happen when this case is tried, but we won't get, no question, we won't get in the report a window into the exercise of her discretion. >> tim, every attorney that we have spoken to over the last several hour, and particularly in the defense attorneys, they are in a way salivating over this, because they feel like getting this special grand jury report might give them helpful information to stage their defenses in georgia, and why? >> yeah, absolutely. it is a roadmap of the evidence that informed the d.a.'s decision to make, to bring her

case. you don't often get that. you will get discovery from the evidence, but a report with conclusions and findings by a grand jury is kind of an unusual preview of sorts that the defense will absolutely mine for intelligence and practical information of who might be showing up on the witness stand, and also, the theory of the case. so it is significant and as michael said, unusual that you get this preview. >> michael, what and how much will we learn about the possible cooperators and the people who may have been granted immunity as part of the process? >> well, you'll have a chance to really just line upside by side those people who ended up in the original indictment and those people who were discussed in front of the special grand jury, and if in the final indictment you see 19 and in the discussions of the special grand jury you see recommendations for 25, you have to wonder about the six people, and it won't take ta

rocket science to ferret through who the people may be. and so the defense bar is going to be digging into that, and digging into the background, and figuring out who said what, and who may have a deal. nothing stops them once they determine who those individuals may be, and if they are named going straight to them, and say, hey, we want to talk to you about the case, and you will find out real quick if they clam up or send you to the lawyer what their intentions may be as far as cooperation with the state. again, this is not normal in a criminal case in georgia and especially in a superior court case, we do not have investigative grand jury powers for criminal grand juries, and this a little bit new, and you can tell from some of the motions filed by the defense attorneys that they intend to use this fully to their advantage. >> okay. so, tim, take it a little bit further, and this report is coming out, and i can keep checking my computer, in minutes at 10:00, and it drops and you

are going to do what with it when you are an attorney? >> it is meat on the bones. the bones here are evident to everyone, to world for months that the core story on the committee that i worked told that has been amply reported is there, and this is additional detail, and specific manifestations of the multi part plan to disrupt the joint session, and who was contact and who did what. so there is detail in there that the defense lawyers will want to mine for investigative leads to help shape their potential response. but to be clear, i don't believe there is any bombshell here, and there is no bombshell or shoe left to drop, and the core story here of intentional disruption in an attempt to circumvent the peaceful transfer of power has been clear for a long time. >> michael, how quickly could we see something in this special grand jury report in a courtroom? could it play in any of the

various hearings that are going to take place or will take place in the severance or anything like that? >> well, maybe as early as next week. because the judge in fulton county said that he will hear hearings every week, and as well as he is under the gun by ms. powell and mr. chesebro and there is a motion pending from the two defendants right now, and as it relates to the releasing of this report. so i think that you will hear something about it. if there if there is any information in it that is prejudicial or unfairly paints a defendant, then you will hear about it, and filed next week, and then it will be if a case should stand. you will have motions to dismiss

the criminal indictment because of some irregularity that happened before the grand jury, and it is coming, and whether it is next week or a few weeks down the road. >> and so, we are waiting for report to come out any moment, so please standby. sara? a scathing response from d.a. fani willis after the house chair of judicial jim jordan looked into her office saying that the obvious purpose to disrupt a georgia criminal proceeding and obvious partisan misrepresentations is her message after the congressman wrote to willis telling her, you did not bring charges until 2 1/2 years later at a time when the presidential nomination was in full swing. the chief congressional reporter manu raju is with us.

and she has filled the request for the documents, and what is the power in this house judicial committee? >> well, it is unclear what jim jordan, the chairman, is going to be doing with the blistering letter from fani willis, and the committee is declining to do about her response, and unclear if he going to be taking steps to subpoena fani willis or subpoena documents, and certainly something under the purview they could do. when they step back into session in the house going forward and fani willis made it clear what she was doing was unconstitutional, and it would step on the state's rights, and they had no business in fanni wi willis' views, that just because donald trump is a political candidate, he is not above the law. and she rejected that because of when the charges were brought in

the election season, that is the intent, that it is not the intent, because the investigation had concluded. and she went on the say this in the blistering response to the judicial definition does not include law enforcement nor a specific criminal trial, because you believe so will promote your partisan political objectives. fani willis, and the judicial committee is trying to figure out if she in any way coordinated with justice department, jack smith's office who of course has brought separate charges on the federal level against the former president. she went on to say that her office did receive $12 million in other grants for other issues like dealing with crime on the streets, and dealing with sexual

assault, and going after people acuted of the funds, but the fight between the two sides is intensifying, and we will see if the chairman pushes back or decides to move on. >> the letter is clear, because she is slapping him with cases that went to the supreme court, and base the power is not unchecked, and there has to be checks and balances. it is going to be fascinating as the cases go forward. thank you, manu. kate? >> coming up, donald trump is trying to pitch in and raise money for rudy giuliani, and the amount of legal bills that he is facing. we have new details on that. we are also here in the control room telling me in my ear right now, we have the full report, and the unredacted

report from fulton county has been released. with that we go to paula reid, and what are you learning? >> i have not seen it yet, kate, but why we are seeing the report today and seeing potentially any difference of what the grand jury has recommended and what the district attorney fani willis has done. it is not a usual course of action for the grand jury reports to be released to the public, but at the indictment and cnn and other outlets wanted to know how this was released to the public. and the judge said now that the release is out, he did not see this to be redacted. so we are going to be pouring over this, and to see where the district attorney deviated from what was recommended by the special grand jury. kate, the grand jury was used for seven months to investigate this. they heard from dozens and

dozens of witnesses in the case. but the recommendations were not binding upon the district attorney. and this is before moving to the district of the recommendations made by the grand jury were supported by enough evidence to successfully convict somebody in court. and were there any recommendations of any one high profile for anyone to be opted to follow through with. and that is the number one thing that they are going to be looking for, and this is the grand jury report that they are not going to have available to the public. >> and paula, standby, and you will get your hands on the report, and while you are talking, evan is going through it. evan, what are you seeing? >> yeah, look, i mean, there are a number of recommendation, and some of them line up exactly with what the district attorney and her team ended up deciding that they had enough evidence to

be able to bring. one of the things that is interesting is that there is a section 7 of the report where they mention, and they say with respect to the national effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and focused on georgia, arizona, and michigan and pennsylvania and the district of columbia, the special grand jury seeks indictments of the following persons, and one of the names standing out beyond rudy giuliani, and kenneth chesebro and the former president donald trump, we also see the name number 11 listed here, lindsey graham who is sitting senator who is still the senator obviously from south carolina who was very much involved in some of the efforts to talk to georgia officials trying to find ways for them to say that there was fraud in the election, and one of the things that right off of the bat that the grand jury

finds, one of the initial findings is that there was no widespread fraud in the state of georgia n the 2020 elections. so one of the names again sticking is the out here in one of these recommendations, again, and this is under section 7 of the report, page 6, you can see the list of names. rudy giuliani, john eastman, kenneth chesebro, and cleta mitchell, and jena ellis, and mark meadows who has also been charged and david schaffer, and ray smith, lynn wood, and someone who was not charged in the end, and lindsey graham, and sidney powell, and they list a total of 30 people who they believe should have been charged. this is the special purpose

grand jury that they believe should have been charged of the national scheme by the former president and some of his allies to overturn the election results. so, again, the grand jury was saying that it was beyond just the state of georgia, but it is an effort that went to all of the other states, including wisconsin, arizona, michigan and the s the s the state of pennsylvania. so we know of 19 of course and they have listed 30. so we have to read through it why they made that decision, and what is the purpose of what they believe were the findings. kate? >> absolutely. i will give you time to continue reading through it, and i am looking through it as well. importantly, one of the big questions has been is the number in the full report different

than the number of people that fani willis previously indicted, and the answer is yes, john. they have recommended 30 names to be charged and that is 11 more than the 19 that fani willis is now seeking to prosecute. >> 11, and three of them u.s. senators, and one of them is a sitting is u.s. senator, lindsey graham of south carolina. and they also recommend charges against then georgia senators ke ke ke ke kelly lawfler and david perdue. so now, tell me about the

difficulties of bringing something like this against a sitting senator, and two former senators, and what would make fani willis not want to bring those charges? >> well, one thing that is in the report that we will have to look at more closely, it deals with the number of people who voted to charge versus those who voted not to charge or abstain from the charge, and i notice some individuals who were not in the 19 who had votes against them, and one of them is lindsey graham, and his was not a unanimous vote to include him in the indictment. and so you have the look at the speech and debate claus, and lindsey graham challenged the subpoenas, and they went to court about that, and certain issues surrounding whether the state could get information, and maybe it is simply be that the d.a. looked at it, and said, look, we are not at a place where we have been able to convince all of the special purpose grand jurors that we

need to move the indictment. and so, maybe it is going to be more of a political case than necessarily a criminal case if we try to overreach into the every sitting leader in the state of georgia. so they dealt with the information that they could get as the special purpose grand jury went forward and whether or not those individuals contributed specifically to the narrative of the efforts to overturn the election that went on from the day after the vote through january. whether or not those specific individuals were tied in some way, and whether they had evidence about them in a trial jury. this is not a transcript for the viewers and something that we are getting to read for every word in the special grand jury

and see the specific details of the evidence, but it is a summary-type form that we can see the conclusions that they reached, and we will draw our on inferences from those conclusions. >> yeah, i am thumbing through it right now, and this is exactly right. in terms of the actual details what jumps out are the names, and not necessarily the action or the testimony to that end of what the actions were. to what extent does this indicate that fani willis wanted a somewhat narrow case, because she brought charges against 19 people which is a lot, but it is not 30, and it is not against the sitting u.s. senators, and did this indicate that she wanted to keep it narrow where appropriate? >> i don't think that there is any way to call her case narrow, and even the case that she has ended up with. once she used the word rico, you have woven one of the biggest fishing nets that you can weave and trying to catch as many fish as you can catch. that why rico is such a powerful

tool for prosecutors to allow them to dirty up everybody else with the other people's conduct. so, i don't see that the 19 would be that she tried to narrow the case, but at the end of the day, she probably looked at it, and making some decisions about whether this is going be even more labeled a case of politics, or labeled a case of some criminal conduct, and had she included the two highest ranking officials in the state at the time in the indictment, at some point, the stench of politics can come over the entire criminal case, and that is some of what the defense is trying to do now, but it would have added to that if she had included two senators of which she may not have had enough information about. you recall the call that lindsey graham made to the secretary as he is trying to talk about can

you do something about the votes, and where are the votes, and his explanations after may have answered that question how he was calling for the senate and everything. but that is to me, you know, that is a case that she had to use her own discretion on. i don't know what information she had available to her on perdue and loeffler and we are not seeing the engine of what went on in the special purpose of the grand jury, and just the exterior of the car. so we are not seeing it run, and the specific allegations, statements and testimony of the witnesses, but sort of the finished products in looking at it, and then we saw what spart she wanted to take. that is kind of what we have known at this point. >> to be clear, as we are looking through it, and charges

of 39 which is ultimately more than they did bring charges against which is 19. we go to sara. >> this is incredible when you are looking at the names. former senator david perdue of georgia and former senator kelly loeffler of georgia and sitting senator of south carolina lindsey graham. let me go to manu raju, and they are not charged. fani willis did not decide to go forward to charge them, but the grand jury said they should be charged. what is this politically, and what is happening on the hill right now? >> well, look, senator lindsey graham is gone, and other senators are not in session today, but it is focused on the conversation that lindsey graham had with brad raffensperger with the secretary of state in the aftermath of the election, and he said that he felt intimidated

and by that local of the allies to get rid of votes, and when this all happened in 2020, i had conversation with lindsey graham ant all of this, and he denied that he tried to pressure or strong arm brad raffensperger, because he said that he tried to ask about the mail system, and the signature verification system, and he was not trying to discard ballots, but he said that he was trying to get more attention about the senate races in january and the two runoffs that would control the senate races, and that was the focus, and he denied all of the implication that he was trying to force brad raffensperger to do something illegal. listen.

>> what i am very concerned about is if you are going to continue to vote by mail, we need to know what systems work and what don't, and it is up to the people of georgia, but i think that i have every right in the world the reach out to ask what worked. i did, and it was a good conversation. >> he takes it as a implicit threat. >> no, that is something i categorically reject. we are talking about ballots of races that we have not yet. i asked how to verify the signatures of the senate race coming up, and how do we make it better? >> you are concerned about the senate race? >> yes, and they have a process, and you can't change the law retroa retroactively, and there is no new system, because whatever system we had in place is the system we have to live with. >> reporter: ultimately, lindsey graham did testify in georgia to

fight the subpoena that he did not want to testify, and what he said that differs in any way, when i talked to him afterwards, he would not comment about the grand jury and he was not expected to be charged. the senator who had charges recommended with him, and he did urge brian kem to convene the 2020 election, and the false claims of fraud. also at that same meet pg was kelly loeffler after the 2020 election, and it is unknown if it is part of the potential recommendations that the individuals be charged here and that is one effort as well. but from the conversation that i had there, sara, with senator

graham that it was not trying to get rid of the ballots, but it is interesting that the grand jury may have viewed it differently. >> we will have to look through here, and try to find some answers there, and it is interesting to hear from lindsey graham on his thoughts from this. i wanted to go to our dana bash who is standing by and pouring through this. i wanted to start with listening to this important moment when wolf blitzer spoke with georgia attorney general brad raffensperger on the issues on this unredacted grand jury special report. listen. >> you described to the washington post, a conversation that you had with lindsey graham on friday, and you came away with the impression that he wanted you to essentially toss out mail-in ballots, and what exactly did he say to you? >> he asked if the ballots could be matched back to the voters,

and then i got the sense that he would throw them out in the counties with the highest signatures. >> i wanted to be clear. senator graham wanted you the find ways of getting rid of illegally cast ballots, and he said to cnn that he denied that and his words that's ridiculous. >> just the implication that look hard and see how many ballots that you could throw out. and i think that they are looking at that as part of the court case, and one of them was subsequently followed, wasn't it? >> that is from the georgia secretary of state and how he felt at the time, and what he heard on that phone call. dana, what is the fallout of this? is there going to be any? because charges have not been made against graham and the other two senators.

>> one thing that is interesting in this report, sara, as michael moore said, we are seeing the outside of the car and not the engine. one very important sort of mechanical to keep the metaphor going, data point is that we do have the way that these special grand jurors voted. so i am looking at the long list, and everybody who was indicted from rudy giuliani to john eastman to donald trump himself, 20 said yes, and only one said no. you know, it was very, very lopsided. going down to lindsey graham, sara, 13 said yes, 7 said no. so it was more split for him. same goes for the other two now former u.s. senators, kelly

loeffle and so, maybe that is why fani willis did not want to go forward with them, in how they viewed the case, and how strong the case is on those two individuals, and perhaps not as strong, and we won't really get the answer until we talk to have that constitutional fight given the fights that she was already having, and prosecuting mark meadows who worked for the federal government, and likely to have the same fight with donald trump, and -- having that fight with a sitting u.s. senator who is going to claim that she has absolutely no reason and no ability, no

jurisdiction to indict a sitting u.s. senator is probably something that i would guess is a little bit of a distraction, and that why she decided not to go for the indictment there. >> danny, interesting in what is happening in light of what he is saying is going after her job as and there is so much to get into, but i enjoy the way you looked through this and found some of the details. it is important, and i know that you had to do it fast, but looking at the number, because they do matter, and matter to prosecutors. >> he got the fewest. >> yeah. >> he got the fewest yeses except for the alternate slate of so-call fake elector, and they only got nine special grand jurors said that they should be indicted, and none of them, it looks like was indicted.

>> dana bash, thank you. kate? >> in the list of the special grand jury recommended charging includes trump aides not charged so far. evan perez, you have been l looking at that, and talk about the aides that were not charged. >> well, focus on the big names of the aides of the former president who were very, very involved, and hanhands on and v instrumental in turning over the election results, but trying to seat the fake electors that they would cast the votes for donald trump, even though he had lost the elections, and slate of fake e leker to, and the rico statute and the racketeering stature, and one of them was rita

mitchell who was a lawyer who got involved early on after the election to try to help the former president, and she was sent down the georgia to try to pressure the officials there, and again, to find as many votes as possible to throw out and to try to toss the election results to donald trump. she was recommended here overwhelmingly by the grand jury and 20 votes in favor of her being indicted under the racketeering statue. and another name, michael flynn, fired early on in the donald trump presidency, but found his way back in. he was very, very much involved, and pushing for the military to actually becoming involved to seize voting machines, and try to prove that the falsehood that there had been fraud in the election results, and another name, boris epstein who was very, very instrumental, and one of the people who engineered the

whole effort to get the fake electors seated. again, the grand jury found that these people, boris epstein, michael flynn, and cleta mitchell who were instrumental to devising this plan to get donald trump back in the white house, and in the end, none of them charged by the district attorney. all of them had some sort of vote against them in the racketeering statue, and in the end, the d.a. and the team decided not to pursue the charges. we know these people, and they provided testimony. it may well be that in the end, she found that their testimony

was compelling enough or helpful enough that they did not deserve to be charged. again, these are the questions that we have to figure out later. but it is interesting to see the names pop up, and ones that we speculated about and also in the federal investigation whether they are going to be facing charges. those are more questions. >> and i was trying to jog my memory, michael flynn had gone before the grand jury to testify, an d boris epshteyn. and now, paula reid having time to read through it, and what are you picking up? >> well, kate, looking at the map here, and you can see why this is a valuable tool for the

prosecutors to see how this is viewed by a jury in the same district. when you are looking at former senator kelly loeffler, and maybe you can see why she decided not the follow through to charge them, and this special recommendation said they could have trouble proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt, and when it came to the trump advisers you can see that the votes are 4-4 for many of the people that they charged. you can see one person vote no. so it is going to beg the question of why the district attorney, and why fani willis decided to not pursue charges against the trump advisers and we have identified boris

epshteyn as one of the co-conspirators who was not charged. so who to charge when it is rudy giuliani and john eastman and they voted same for cleta mitchell, and did he provide something useful at trial, and what was the game plan here, and what was the strategy. >> and getting at what we are talking about in the lead up to this is the prosecutorial discretion, and what the d.a. is going to do with the recommendations coming from the special grand jury. and paula is going the look through some more, and also look at the implications of this going forward. john? >> thank you, kate. joining us is attorneys michael more and tim haefey. and now, looking at former senators kelly loeffler and

michael purdue, and with respect to the overturning of the 2020 presidential election, and we are spect to the overturning of the presidential election it was 13 yay and 7 no for lindsey graham indictment. and david purdue, 17 yes and 4 no. and kelly loeffler, 7 yes and 14 no. and so you have known that the grand jury will indict a ham sandwich, but seven, a full third is telling you, no. is that reason enough for fani willis to say, this is not a road that we should go down? >> it is and the old adage is that a prosecutor can indict a

ham sandwich and you don't want half a sandwich and this is what they did with sitting senator, and former senators, and it is not a risk worth it to put a bunch of defendants in a rico case, and put people in there that have folks who are supposed to be on your side or input more readily with the special purpose grand jury, and so they are not so sure that you could prove that. and remember, they have been cross-examined, and no defense case or jury charges of what reasonable doubt is or anything else, but they have voted that they should not be charged, and that has to give you pause, because you don't need half a sandwich after eight months' work. >> and now, lindsey graham specifically, and i don't know if you call it a count in the special grand jury report, but the broad issue that i brought

up overturning 2020 election, but it was not specifically for the phone call that lindsey graham made. and now, donald trump, the phone call is listed, and it is one of the counts that they voted on for donald trump, and some others involved, but lindsey graham's phone call is not mentioned at all in here specifically, and anything to read into that, tim? >> yeah, first of all, the select committee did not speak to senator graham nor loeffler or perdue, and other than what is reported, it is not clear about the report. for loeffler and perdue, it is election fraud and given the position is arguably part of the scheme to prevent the transfer of power to undercut confidence in the election. senator graham with the direct conversation with raffensperger, there is oefd of a step further beyond public statements, but the clip earlier of the public

statements was inquiry rather than pressurized intent to get him to do something. so i see why the prosecutor would based on that potential defense and the lack of the granular evidence of anything beyond public statements would stop short of charging him, and as dana said earlier, you are avoiding a huge distraction in the litigation of whether it is speech and debate protected and they make difficult callsf who to include in the indictment, and it is not to say that there is not some evidence, but for cooperation, and avoids the issues not included, so absent of what they saw or what the evidence is against them at the grand jury considered, it is hard to look beyond the decision. >> and absent that is the big issue thumbing through it, michael, because we have names of people who were not charged.

and the legal term is bumpkis. because there is nothing in here that is instructive for a prosecution or the defense. what about you? >> i think that is right. sort of to put it in perspective for the viewers who have not seen the report or don't have a copy of it, the report is about 26 pages long and double-spaced, but nine pages contain information about recommended charges. that is a list of names with a vote callie out by the side. -- vote tally out by the side. the rest of the report is a recitation of the law and the statues that may be implicated by the report. there is not much information to go on. so i will tell you practically, i am a little relieved by that, if i were the prosecutor, because it is going to tell me that i feel like i have gotten less information out there that might come back on me as to

influence the jury pool or something, because there is not a lot of information out there, but at the same time, the defense attorneys is giving a good look at the people to talk to, and list of names of people who were not charge and sort of gives them the witness's thoughts and the grand jurors thoughts and why they did not recommend so and so, and the vote was different on mr. x than ms. y, and going through the process to deciding that. and there is some good useful analytics to be done by both sides, but when it is coming to having the ham in the sandwich, it is not much meat in this report. >> so, tim, what do you do with that information -- go ahead, tim. >> yeah. >> to michael's point, this is why in the grand jury system in the federal system, that is

prejudicial, and to have it out there that the grand jury recommended charges against certain people, and it tars them or affects them without then any corresponding any subsequent opportunity to clear their name. right? that is why the grand jury proceedings should be be secret. this is a weird process, and it is a special grand jury, and it could put people like kelly loeffler and michael perdue in a grand jury proceeding report that they cannot defend themselves, and that why we keep them separate as far as proceedings, because how someone is implicated has a prejudicial effect. >> i get that. and michael, to further your report, and what do you do with cleta wood or kelly loeffler or

others? >> well, you talk to them to see what areas of inquiry were made of them, and was the prosecutor interested in a meeting on a certain day or emails between you and somebody else? i mean, you can get as much information as you can if they are not cooperating with the state. if they turn around, and say, look, i cannot talk to you, and you will have to talk to my lawyer, you can pretty much read into that, that, you know, without a rosetta stone, that you don't need that to interpret the fact that they are probably cooperating with the government at this point. so you will get some information like that, and again, you may look at the role, and look at how their role may have been publicly defined and think about what information the grand jury had that went into the decision one way or another.

and especially as you are counting up the votes. but, you know, this is a lot of speculation on a pretty skeletal report. you know, try to analyze it if you are one of the lawyers to represent one of the defendants to see what you can glean from it, and look to see if there are inconsistencies or the irregularities in the process, and probably having looked at this report now, it strikes me that one of the greatest avenues that we will see or most likely avenues that we will see from the defense bar is to challenge the irregularity of the process and ultimately in the indictment. again, that motion is likely pending already. but, clearly, there was information before it, and we now see that the d.a.t is is treating other people differently, and it is adding to the uniqueness of this particular case. >> i have to let you go, but

following up in 20 seconds or less, irregularity, and are you talk about the fact that some people on the list were charge and some aren't, and that is what is irregular? >> it is the use of the special purpose grand jury as well as the fact that then the recommendations were not followed, and so that is going to be something that whether it bears out or not, that is going to be a motion that you will see. >> michael moore and tim heaphy. thank you very much. over to kristen holmes to hear from the trump camp, and certainly from the social media at some point, and what are you hearing from the contacts that you are combing through about this? >> well, that is right. with res we are still waiting for another adviser who is caught up in the investigation peter navarro who was found in contempt of congress yesterday, but as someone who covers trump day in,

day out, and another person in the list of people who are not charged is how close they are to president trump, such as lindsey graham who was with him in the trump stop, and saying he is throwing the support behind him, and boris epstein is still his attorney. and now, we know that others have been spotted at mar-a-lago, and david perdue who had a meeting with david kemp to call this special session to help donald trump with the effort to overturn the 2020 election, and also, what we know is that he ran an entire failed gubernatorial campaign on those lie, and he was backed by donald trump, and the reason he ran is because he was mad that brian

kemp had not overturned the campaign, and this is the entire message there of his campaign, and this is interesting in the context, because it is not just the lies that we know that happened in the election in 2020, but purdue is someone who was spreading falsehoods for years after that. >> kristen, after having covered him, coming out strongly with those who have been close to him, and knowing that they have not been charged, and including senator graham, and 21 people in the indictment, and the argument can't be that fani willis is throwing the spaghetti at the wall to see what stuck, because it is surgical of the number of people who were indicted. >> that is right. what we will hear from donald trump is the same kind of thing, and he says, can you believe that they are doing it to the people close to me, the patriots, and can you believe they are putting them through this right now, and of course,

it is a horrible thing, and this is what he is saying is about peter navarro right now, and the entirety of the 2024 campaign. it is political, and he is saying that it is election interference, and he is doing it to the allies and the people who support him, because he is running for president, and the more it happens, the more you will continue to hear the rhetoric. i cannot it is a enough, sara, there is no legal and political, because it is one thing right now, because trump is using legal for his political gain, and they do believe at least in the short term, it will help him. >> i wanted to ask you overall, and getting into the weeds and forget how important this case is to american democracy, and i'm curious from you if you believe that there are people around donald trump concerned with some of the rhetoric, because these judges are looking at this, and watching what he is saying and worrying about those who are being threatened by people who are trolls for donald trump whether it is online or on the phone call, and is there any

concern about how he attacks and what he does on the social media as well? >> absolutely. but his aides an advisers do not feel like they have any control over what he puts on the social media, and i talk to them all of the time, and when we see the inflammatory posts, they hear from the advisers that they didn't know he was going to put it out there, and they do not have control what he puts out there on the internet, and many of the lawyers have essentially begged him to not put anything inflammatory in wright and to not post anything, and talk about the cases, but yet, he still does, because he feels like he is communicating with his supporters, with his voters, but i do want to note one thing, you talked about the importance of this case. when i have spoken to the former president, interviewed him and asked him questions and talked to the aides around him, they know how serious this case is, and this case angers and agitates the former president. he has been after the arrest in georgia, he was upset, and we

know that, and angry and lashing out. this is case that has continually plagued him. now he maintains that he did nothing wrong with when it comes to this case, and he has every right to say that the election was stolen, and to question the election, but again, we know specifically this case is one that makes him particularly angry and agitated when he is looking at the legal landscape. >> kristen holmes, thank you for all of that and going through it with us, and of course, we will come back to you if you get any new information as to what the trump camp is up to right now. the breaking news this morning, a final unredacted report right here from the fulton county special grand jury has just been released. jurors listing a total of 39 people they said should face charges for efforts to overturn

the election results, and this is 20-plus additional people than what the district attorney sought charges against. among those in the full report, south carolina senator lindsey graham, and two former senators from georgia dave perdue and ke ke ke ke kelly loeffler. and these are the people who are charged with the overturning of the election plan. now, paula, what are the major takeaways from this? >> well, kate, i want to think about these in two groups. the people who were not charged,

lawmakers senator lindsey graham, and senator kelly loeffler and purdue and how the grand jury came back, there was a recommendation, but it was not unanimous, and not one person voting no. so, it is clear why the district attorney would not proceed with charges, because this is the most friendly environment possible for her case. you don't have lawyers in the room with the witnesses, and you don't have a defense presentation, and there is not a high bar to indict a ham sandwich is the famous saying. this is not beyond a reasonable doubt. so if you are a problems with a case before a grand jury, you have big problems in a real courtroom, and it is clear why she would not proceed beyond these three individuals.

and when it comes to michael flynn and cleta mitchell who was on the ground in georgia and attorney boris epshteyn. and they were not charged, but attorney rudy giuliani was. so another question is should we have access to this? cnn is one of the outlets to have this historic document unsealed, but usually the grand jury proceedings are done to protect the witnesses and give them the security and freedom to speak freely and protect the people who are not ultimately charged. because we have the names out there and the math of how they voted to recommend them for being charged, but they don't have a mechanism or process to

clear their name besides that they were not charged. so far in the state of georgia, they have erred far on the side of transparency. we have cameras in the courtroom, so anyone can watch these proceedings and even the mundane scheduling and logistics proceedings, and we saw the members of the special grand jury, and their names were published with this indictment, and many of them have been doxxed on line and faced threats, and now we have access to this historic document, and something that cnn has pushed for, but there is a balance when it is coming to transparency, and that is part of the conversation going forward as well. >> thank you, paula. evan, what are you seeing about the other individuals that are not charged that we know about? >> right. 21 names are on the list of 39 names of people who were recommended that they were brought charges against that ended up not being charged. of course, the names are that paula pointed out, and the names

officials, right. and people of high level positions very much involved in trying to pressure the state officials and trying to find the alleged fraud that donald trump and his allies said existed and of course didn't, and of course some of them went to extraordinary means and some of them we saw in public, of course, but lindsey graham, and the fact that he is a sitting senator, and he has spoken a lot. you have seen him speak to reporters about what he thought was going on, and the idea that the grand jury ended up voting 20 votes to 1 to bring charges, and the district attorney decided not the bring the charges is obviously a big question that is going to persist after today. the other thing that obviously will come from this is that what exactly did turn up in this investigation, if there is something else that might come out in some of the discovery that we might see later, and

again, those are questions going forward in the weeks and months as the case goes forward. of course there is also david perdue and kelly loeffler who lost their seats from associating themselves with the former president's claims of fraud which turned out not to be. in the case of perdue, he pushed for the governor to have a special session, and something that the former president was pushing for, and he wanted to make sure that the legislature intervened to throw the votes, the election results in the state, and then make way for the slate of false electors which are also named by the way, kate, in this document that is the false electors that were named by the grand jury. it was a closer vote, and only nine votes to indict them in the end, but i