one of the unnamed coconspirator who cbs news identified as jeffrey clark, a trump loyalist within the, has been taken out of the new indictment. trump has long claimed he did nothing wrong. >> this is a persecution of a political opponent. this was never supposed to happen in america. >> reporter: but still intact in the indictment, the charge he engaged in a conspiracy against the right to vote and have one's vote counted. trump led sweeping efforts in the court and then when that failed began to pressure officials in congress added states to help him, including georgia's republican secretary of state brad raffensperger after trump lost the state. >> i just want to find 11,780 votes. >> reporter: raffensperger spoke to 60 minutes and 2021. >> he was asking us to recalibrate or recalculate, i believe, some of the different answer. >> reporter: trump's lawyers are excited to fight this. >> president trump lawyers are going to say there is no indictment you could bring that does not involved official actions because former president trump was in office at the time. >> norah: this is suc

and in particular for a lawyer named jeffrey clark, who was in the justice department, had to be stricken from this indictment. and so that fury along with the identity of jeffrey clark as an indicted co conspirator, there was stricken from the indictment. right. so a lot of legal ends announced that, but what about the why the political uptake solve this then as america hits to the election? so the political optics should not be dramatic. this should not be seen as rescuing the indictment from the jaws of the supreme court. most of the case really stands intact. as i wrote with a co author in bloomberg. as some weeks ago, the supreme court really left open to tanya check in the trial judge to determine what constitutes the fit to conduct and what constitutes personal capacity, conduct the supreme court. i think really money that and saying that any contact between the president and the attorney general constitutes official conduct. you can imagine that if the president were to call up the attorney general and say, vote for me. does he be acting as a candidate, not in his capacity as pres

when if and when this case goes to trial, there's not going to be anything about jeffrey clark that senior official. what the justice department was doing and saying to interact with donald trump, none of that will be presented before a jury. it's no longer in this indictment or in the allegations against him also, nothing about what the intelligence agencies were doing, either to tell donald trump that he was wrong about election fraud, and that is something the prosecutors need to prove in other ways to show he knew he was lying to the american public that's a core piece of the case. the where the way they're going to do that, alex is that they are going to show that he was working with coconspirators who were all private people. this is what they write in this version of the indictment. the defendant enlisted coconspirators to assist him in his criminal efforts to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election and retain power. these coconspirators included the following individuals. none of whom were government officials during the conspiracies and all of whom were a

. >> and then the entirety of his conversations with jeffrey clark, who previously was a coconspirator no longer is here. >> that's he was a top justice department official. all of that idea of trying to pressure the justice department. that's not there, but everything where trump was a candidate, an acting in the justice department's view as a personal pr entity and directing private lawyers around him to bring together fake electors to pressure for the vote and even to pressure mike pence as president of the senate. and that's all still here. >> yeah, carrie, what stands out to you in this new indictment? i mean, kaitlan points out that the justice department, it appears he's trying very hard to hear to delineate these are the personal political actions that the foreign president took that go outside of the actions of what would take place inside the office of the president. >> the presidency. and that's what the immunity decision from the supreme court requires that it did. i think the key part is now this case is really whittled down to the pressure that was placed on the state's.

so, this dynamic with the jeffrey clark and justice department officials that may have gotten that scene knocked out of the indictment doesn't seem to have any impact on a very similar scene of donald trump talking to mike pence trying to get him to overturn the election. >> what donald trump would argue on that point is that is true. what you are saying about the vice president independent function is true. when donald trump is acting as president in trying to convince his vice president to do something, as long as he is acting in an official capacity, the supreme court has decided that that would, at the very least, be presumptively immune. if it is within his core powers, it is absolutely immune. to be clear, i think that is, to use a technical term, bonkers. that is an outrageous decision. ketanji brown jackson was unbelievably polite in the clip you played in terms of what this means for the country. to be sure, everyone understands the supreme court set even though donald trump is alleged in the prior indictment to have start schama criminal investigations of his opponents, he is a

and removed jeffrey clark, a trump ally at the doj who was listed.u might see down there doj sbr feerns. it's one of the things that happened later third to the bottom in december 2020. now the doj following the supreme court's orders is stating this is an official act. you can see the doj interference we'll put that back up may have still occurred. that is to say there was a plot, if we can get the arrow up i'm going to show you again. there it is. the plot to get the doj to interfere still occurred. what's different now this is why the supreme court is powerful you can see we changed it to green because they're saying that's official, not eligible to be charged as a federal crime. smith also has been busy appealing a ruling to try to keep alive the classified documents case in florida. the supreme court's immunity ruling relates to that as well. >> that momentous decision by the supreme court ruling former president donald trump is entitled to some immunity from prosecution. >> justice clarence thomas took things a step further and said we're not s

claims that the election was rigged, one of the unnamed co-conspirators who cbs news identified as jeffrey clark, a trump ally within the dodge, has also been taken out. >> this is a persecution of a political opponent. >> reporter: trump has repeatedly denied all wrongdoing and last night again accused the special counsel of election interference. his 2024 running mate, j.d. vance, called the indictment putting lipstick on a pig. >> i don't think it changes anything legally. >> reporter: trump's lawyers are expected to fight it. now the timing of this indictment is also interesting. the doj has this policy not to take new public steps in any politically related cases 60 days before an election. that would kick in nine days from now. as far the timing of the trial goes, that's up in the air. >> uh-huh. really interesting. thank you. >>> well in a broadcast exclusive, norah o'donnell spoke with supreme court justice ketanji brown jackson about her blistering dissent in that landmark immunity case. in her first tv interview since joining the nation's highest court, this is what she said worries he

now the jeffrey clark is that because he was only government official who was actually in the original 90s, no longer in this indictment. so all the all the coconspirators were acting in their private capacity. i think this threads a needle and i if i'm, if i'm trump's lawyers, i'm surprised. i'm i'm scratching my head at that because this was this was the reasonable approach to take, you. no reason to go through a series of hearings before judge chutkan enforced the task of editing the indictment on her. when you put forward a forceful case it's like this and do the work for her. >> alright. so then what happens? she gets this case as evan was laying out next week, what happens then and does i mean, i guess then does it eventually just go back to the supreme court? where is this fast or slow from here? >> so it'll be slow from here. >> not, not merely because of the superseding indictment whatever the indictment was going to look like after it went through whatever hearings the judge chutkin is going to have that she still will have a hearing on the adequacy of this indictment yeah it

jury if it had gone to trial, there would have been a lot of information about that official, jeffrey clark. he's not one of the coconspirators any more. he was justice department official now, it is six different private people, five private attorneys plus a private political consultant. those are the people that are called coconspirators here before the grand jury. and now in this indictment against donald trump, kaitlan, you kind of walk through the process how we got here on some level. i think my biggest question given how closely you follow this did you expect this when you're i know you're still going through it right now. you've just started reading through a pretty lengthy document what about this is surprising based on what we've known coming up to this point. >> well, what's surprising is the timing here. we are right before the election were not in that window where the justice department doesn't want to do anything that disrupts the election. the 60 day period, but we're nearing the end of august. and at the end of this week, we are expecting fill the justice department to tell

jef jeffrey clark has been taken out of the indictment.g claimed he did nothing wrong. >> this was a percent cushion of a political opponent, not supposed to happen in america. >> reporter: but the indictment is he was engaged in a conspiracy against the right to vote and have one's vote counted. in congress and states to help him, including georgia's republican secretary of tate, brett raffensperger after he left the state. >> i just want to find 11,780 votes. >> reporter: raffensperger spoke in 2021. sf he was asking us to recalibrate and get another answer. >> reporter: his lawyers are expected to fight this. >> they're going to say no indictment doesn't involve official action because president trump was in office at the time. >> reporter: this was quote, not a surprise. this is what the government is supposed to do based on what the supreme court did. it doesn't change our position that we believe the case is flawed and should be dismissed. trump's lawyers will soon ask for more time to brief his case and could put off a start to the

as one of the co-conspirators, and jeffrey clark who was elevated by donald trump before the events of january 6, 2021 and was on board about his strategy. all of that is now gone and later in the indictment, there is more language that describes trump as acting as a person seeking office as a candidate as opposed to a candidate as using the powers of the presidency. geoff: what is next for this case, how might the judge receive this? >> the judge has already asked both sides to condition fer and present her with a plan to go forward on friday. we may have more details later on the week. it doesn't demand that donald trump be in person in court, he can do it through his lawyers. the november election. if trump prevails, he is in line to order the justice department to drop this case and that would be likely be legal that the supreme court has said that the president can do in office. if trump does not win, all the legal wrangling is much more important with one of the questions is how quickly can the trial go forward and will they add more new defendants, some alleged co-conspirators l

speculation is that person who is now out of the case was jeffrey clark who was a justice department official who came close to being the acting attorney general. he is out because they conduct is official conduct. the others remain. speculation being rudy giuliani and john eastman and some of the others. those five unindicted co- conspirators are still there. i speculated that the reason they were not named as defendants and were referred to as unindicted co-conspirators was to streamline the case or perhaps it could go to trial before the election. now we know that's not possible, it's a little curious that they still have not included and named them as defendants. i don't know the reason. perhaps some are cooperating or perhaps they want to keep their focus on donald trump. i don't know the reason. the prior reason to streamline the case and get it on the calendar quickly no longer seems to be what's driving it. >> glenn, let's talk next steps in the process. a lot of us were waiting for an evidentiary hearing are hearing of sorts to be ordered by judge chutkan in advance of any t

this dynamic with jeffrey clark that may have gotten that scene knocked out of the indictment, doesn't seem to have any impact on a similar scene of donald trump talking and trying to get him to overturn the election. >> what he would argue is it is true what you are saying. when donald trump is acting as president and trying to convince his vice president to do something, as long as he is acting in an official capacity, supreme court decided that would at the very least the presumptively immune. if it is within his core powers it is absolutely immune. to be clear, that is bonkers. >> >> in that clip that you played in terms of what this means for the country. the idea that everyone understands, the supreme court said even though donald trump is alleged in the prior indictment, it was sham criminal investigations of opponents, he is absolutely immune to do that. that is the supreme court decision. sham doj investigations, absolutely immune. that is considered a core presidential function, seeking sham investigations. just to say it is to refute it. >> what do you see as a timetable in

because of the supreme court's decision, jack smith jack smith had to remove charges including jeffrey clarkhose out because the supreme court made it clear that those communications with the doj, those are official acts and, therefore, subject to immunity. >> brian: the grand jury looked at this and said yeah, we have to indict him on this. so then it goes up. what is the exact next step? what kind of timing are we looking at? >> well, we know grand jury will indict a' ham sand witch the fact that smith got an indictment isn't surprising. none of this was going to happen before the election anyway. now that we have a superseding indictment and arraignment. the former president isn't going to likely have to appear in court to plead not guilty to this new indictment. this is going to push everything back well past the election. we know the wheels of justice are slow. they are even slower when we are dealing with novel legal issues like this that will certainly be litigated again to the court of appeals and to the supreme court. >> steve: timing shouldn't surprise us because trump side and jac

all of that is out of the indictment, as is one of the co-conspirators, amen we believe to be jeffrey clarkas elevated by donald trump inside the justice department shortly before the events of january 6, 2021, a man who appeared to have been on board with trump's strategy about the election. all of that is now gone and later in the indictment there's more language that describes trump as acting as a person seeking office, a candidate as opposed to a president, using the formal powers of a presidency. that, too, is in line with what the supreme court had to say. geoff: what is next for this case? how might the judge received this? >> the judge has already asked both sides to confer and present her with a plan -- a plan to go forward. the justice department says it does not demand that donald trump be in court in d.c. in person to respond to the new charges so he can do that through his lawyers. the big question is the november election. if trump prevails, he is fully in line to order the justice department to drop this case against him and that would likely be legal, under the things the su

indictment, that occurred in the oval office and they removed former assistant attorney general jeffrey clarkicted co- conspirator. but one thing that hasn't changed, the charges. the new indictment charges donald trump with the same criminal counts as the original. so what is different? joining me now is former acting assistant attorney general for national security at the department of justice and co- host of "prosecuting donald trump" podcast. good to see you. i need you to tell me, what is different, what has happened? >> as you were just indicating, what the department of justice has done now through special counsel jack smith is really trying to bring this indictment into conformity with what they can glean from the supreme court decision on immunity. focused on the areas where the supreme court provided some guidance. for example they got rid of any kind of allegations involving former president trump's communications with his own justice department or executive branch, because the supreme court said that is within his constitutional authority. other areas such as his pressure on vice

charges stay here related to donald trump, of the man and the candidate, some of the officials like jeffrey clarkeen taken out and this is a much more focused indictment. also want to point out, neil, that this is dealing with a new grand jury so this grand jury did not hear anything about the other enactment from last august 1st of plenty plenty three, the only heard the facts in this case. what the this all mean. likely were not good to see any kind of trial before the election, derek smyth the special council and donald trump's lawyers will be in court next week here in washington dc to talk about the path foreword but really there would be no password unless jack smith did this today and really tightened up that indictment and that is why we are where we are, neil. >> neil: david, thank you about that. i apologize, david, i was thinking about a difference correspondent coming up later in our show from tel aviv. >> no worries. >> neil: in the meantime mark jack concerning facebook and other entities coverage and treatments regarding covi covid-19. it looked like a little bit of strong arm a lo

and they remove former assist attorney general jeffrey clark as an unindicted coconspiratorter all together. one tg thing that hasn't changed, the charges. so what's different? joining me now is mary mccord and co-host of msnbc "prosecuting donald trump" podcast. mary, good to see you. and i need you to tell me what's different, what's the same, what's happened? >> well, as you were just indicating what the department of justice has done now through special counsel jack smith has really tried to bring this indictment into conformity to what they can glean from the supreme court's decision on immunity. and so they focused on the areas where the supreme court provided some guidance. for example, obviously they got rid of any kind of allegations involving former president trump's communications with his own justice department or his own executive branch because the supreme court said that's within his constitutional authority, he's absolutely immune for that. but for other areas such as his pressure on vice president pence, his pressure on state legislatures and state legislators, and his stat

and particularly jeffrey clark, who was an official in the justice department, the supreme court. and it's very vague ruling did to kids on that particular point, saying that interaction with the justice department is part of the presidential, the constitutional capacity. so all of that is taken off, but the charges that remain and what is quite startling in this is that these charges were presented to a new grand jury, which had not heard any of the previous charges. the grand jury then goes ahead with the indictment. now the indictment will go to the sitting judge tanya, chuck and who has to decide where to go next out. she was due to the side with it. oh, how the supreme court decision to fix the charges. now she's got a different thing to decide on whether these charges are valid now within the restrictions imposed by the supreme code code. and what she next decides to do is whether she cannot proceed to trial on the basis of these charges. trends. lawyers are going to object, they may well try to get back to the supreme court. but what has happened here is that the prosecute

he wanted to install jeffrey clark to be the acting ag, to be the acting ag, and he only didn't do sof the 2020 election. i'm just curious why are you -- you seem so sanguine about the possibility of another trump administration, and i'm just wondering how you can be so sanguine. >> i'm not sanguine about anything these days, believe me. what i'm looking at is when you look at the comparison in politics, and of course we're talking about character and personality, and how important that is, and it is important, and i write about it extensively in the book. but, you know, how did it make sense to cancel the canadian pipeline and green light nord stream 2, you know, how did it make sense to relax sanctions enforcement on iran, you know, and allow about the transfer of about a hundred billion dollars, you know, into iran's coffers to intensify its proxy wars? how did it make sense to undesignate the houthis, and alleviate sanctions on the maduro regime? it didn't make sense to pull our ships out of the black sea and lay out red lines with putin in held helsinki, i could go on, right, so

allegations trump tried to weaponize the department of justice and references to coconspirator for jeffrey clark a trump appointee to the doj, who embraced the lies about voter fraud, as well as trump's conversations with white house officials because it's believed these actions could now be deemed official. and therefore protected under presidential immunity. >> earlier, supreme court justice ketanji brown, jackson told cbs news that she's concerned about that immunity ruling i was concerned about a system that appeared to provide immunity for one individual under one set of circumstances. >> when we have a criminal justice system that had ordinarily treated everyone the same trump has slammed the new indictment saying it was filed too close to the november vote. it called it election interference and said all of these comrade camila biden hoaxes should be immediately dismissed. soon as katelyn polantz picks up the story the justice department has rewritten the charges against donald trump related to the 2020 election, focusing around his role as a candidate, as he tried to spread lies of elect

threatened to do something, pressure them and they threatened to resign if you do this thing, appoint jeffrey clarkctly what justice brown jackson said, you know, our system right now appears to at least to provide immunity for one individual under one set of circumstances. that, you know, is where we are. thank you so much. again, mary, for being with us, we feel the cut right here. -- fill that cup folks right here. we have another big hour of "the weekend" coming up. we will be right back after this. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ like what is your glucose and can you have more carbs? before you decide with the freestyle libre 3 system know your glucose and where it's heading no fingersticks needed. now the world's smallest and thinnest sensor sends your glucose levels directly to your smartphone. manage your diabetes with more confidence and lower your a1c. the #1 cgm prescribed in the u.s. try it for free at freestylelibre.us i still love to surf, snowboard, the #1 cgm prescribed in the u.s. and, of course, skate. so, i take qunol magnesium to support my muscle and bone health. qunol's extra strength, high absorptio

the department of justice from making any references to conduct conversations, engagement with jeffrey clark, who was a member of the department of justice this is at the time you look at the original indictment, there are about 30 references to the department of justice in this superseding indictment, there are zero references to the department of justice. so clearly, the justice department, jack smith has a very difficult task moving forward, trying to this case alive given this unity shield, i would trump soap, be able to use presidential immunity on the basis that he was president absolutely. max, i think we're going to see this case litigated further. and no matter what determination this trial court makes we should expect to see this court, case litigated all the way back to the supreme court in those six very conservative justices that made this initial determined nation about presidential immunity. no indication that they would rule any differently. so it's not clear that jack smith will ever achieved the desired outcome in terms of holding donald trump accountable for the actions of

about donald trump's interactions with the justice department with a top person, they're named jeffrey clark, who he was trying to help use spread the idea of election fraud. that's out. they also wanted initially to talk to the jury about things that trump was saying or hearing inside the white house is president intel briefings he was getting things he was saying to aides in the oval office. that's not here anymore. and then crucially, anderson, the other thing that's missing is a bunch of things about mike pence, but not everything. there still is a lot about mike pence in this document and it still is something that puts pence at the center of looking at immunity around the presidency going forward. >> so what happens next? >> well, anderson, next, there's going to be a filing on friday where the justice department says this is what we want to do, how we want to figure this out, because there is stuff in this indictment that the judge is still going to need to look at potentially appeals courts will look at as well. there's a hearing plan for next thursday and back to mike pence again as

made an effort to characterize the other coconspirators not the coconspirator who we believe was jeffrey clark. he's been notably left out. >> but the other coconspirators, he is characterized them as private attorneys are consultants really trying to cabin people often to these non-official, nongovernment roles, which i think is accurate remarkable to me that he's left in the 15 12, c2 count that was the count that the supreme court addressed in the fischer case that came out just before the immunity decision. >> many people thought that he might have some trouble keeping that count in. clearly, jack smith believes that the indictment is built around enough pieces of evidence, specifically the fraudulent elector ballots that will that will help that count survive. so he's really not taken a lot out. he's brought the same very strong case will see what happens after it goes through this process with judge chutkan and the trump attorneys to detroit firm and specifically, what evidence remains at play. >> so jennifer rodgers, it appears that what smith is trying to do here is to take a lot and p

and replace that acting attorney general, jeffrey clark is one of those core duties that the president has the right to do even if it's done for a corrupt purpose, which is what bothers me the most about the opinion. they didn't make that exception. things that can be perceived as being his duties those things which he has some qualified immunity from depending upon how it was done and when those things like going down and speaking to people down but at the mall and those things that were done to solely for the purpose of his campaign will remain in the indictment. and i think chutkan going to let him stay in the indictment and then he's going to have to face that a trial. the issue on all of that is going to be is trump entitled to an interlocutory appeal? is he going to be able to delay the trial by trying to go to the circuit to review whatever decisions that chunk and may make. i don't think that the circuit is going to take it. i see at that point. you're going to say, well, handle it on a direct appeal if you're convicted so just so we understand. so so jack and by the way, jack

that in our committee process, the select committee process, highlighted this attempt to install jeffrey clarkhat. he believes, though, that there are enough other portions of the story, other chapters, which constitute a conspiracy, an intentional effort to prevent the transfer of power. and believes that the evidence is showing even with that one story and other small things removed, survives the supreme court's decisions and is persuasive enough to prove these allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. >> where does this go next legally? >> the judge still has to decide whether she agrees. my guess is that we'll soon see her issue an order, essentially asking for the former president's team to make arguments as to why the things that are remaining in this superseing indictment are immune. do not survive the supreme court's ruling. then she'll have to make some decisions. she may have an evidentiary hearing. my guess is that jack smith will say you can decide this essentially on the papers, on the superseding indictment, our argument as to why it's outside of the scope of immunity, and the presi

he basically cut out the entire back and forth of jeffrey clark and the justice department, and he hasrstand it, because of the immunity decision. does it -- you know, obviously, that's a decision he had to make given the circumstances. does it weaken the case writ large or how do you see it from that perspective? >> he's saying it doesn't weaken the case and i can prove my entire case, all four charges as you noted, and not use the evidence the supreme court says is off limits. but as you say, he's really emphasizes the way in which trump is a candidate, nothing official about that. the presidency, yes, but a candidate is a citizen. that's not only trump but the conspirators with him. he stresses our private attorneys and the conduct wherever he can, he recharacterizes it as something that trump does as a citizen. that also goes for some of the conduct of other people. mark meadows is a really good example. he has a paragraph saying meadows, chief of staff, but sometimes he helps candidate trump, citizen trump. those things aren't official actions. anything he can characterize thak wa

whether donald trump tried to remove the acting attorney general, tried to influence and work with jeffrey clarkoj. that part is falling under official acts. it's completely imimmunized, bu other things it's game on. the big question for me is how long do they need for a delay? because the longer you wait, the less likely it is to have a mini trial, which is important. that would provide the evidence to the public of donald trump's involvement before, during, and after january 6th. it's an evidentiary hearing that was sanctioned by the supreme court, and judge chutkan's ready to go with it. >> we heard not surprisingly donald trump praised judge cannon yesterday during his unhinged mar-a-lago news conference. this mini trial, when do you think that could occur? would that be something before the election or does trump's team have the ability to push it beyond that? >> trump's team wants to postpone it as far back as possible they want it to occur half past never, and when the special counsel's office offered the three-week delay to trump's legal team. they took it like my dog takes a piece of st