elie honig is at the table with us this morning. let's begin here. i think your take on this is that prosecutors need to tread carefully here. why? >> there's competing interests. on the one hand, any defendant does have the right to criticize his prosecutors and his prosecution, even the judge. you have broad first amendment rights to stand up for yourself. you don't have to demure if you have been charged. on the other hand, there's a line that can be crossed. the most serious line is when you get into the realm of potentially intimidating witnesses or victims. there's a specific bale term he can't do that. there's another line when you say things that are so inflammatory you might affect the jury pool. they are just regular civilians. it looks like doj is trying to find a way to do something to reign trump in without i object infringing on his first amendment rights. >> you can tell if this makes no sense. is this because they feel like they have to in this moment or because they want something done? >> it's a good question. i think they feel like

white house counsel john dean, axios senior contributor margaret talib and cnn senior contributor elie honig. -- >> it could be very damaging. she's an insider. it's a direct statement from the president, and shows his intent, as does his action with -- making notes on the back of a classified document. so, she will be a valuable witness. and i suspect this is just a sliver of what she has told him and what she knows. >> congressman, when you hear -- there is really nothing that one can be too surprised about, that one here's about the former president. but writing notes on classified documents, and giving them to an aide, if true, is extraordinary. >> yeah. it is. and it's reckless. and it is everything we know about donald trump, which is, the only thing he cares about is himself. so, whether it is classified information or not, if that is the convenient paper to grab and write a note, that is what he is going to do. once again, molly michael -- and you think of people like cassidy hutchinson -- you think of sarah matthews. you have these young women in trump's orbit who actually have the

i want to go to elie honig to talk about how much more these rules matter and who has weighed in on them in the past, elie? >> so, john, there is an interesting history here, and the question is does the house need to vote as the full house on a resolution in order to open up the impeachment inquiry or declared unilaterally for the speaker of the house, and if we look back through history, there because full house vote on the resolution to open up the impeachment inquiry in connection with the nixon and then bill clinton matters, but things changed in 2019 when then speaker pelosi did the same thing that kevin mccarthy is doing, and saying we are not going to take a full house vote and declare an impeachment inquiry and in the time in 2019 as representative raskin said, this legal question was posed to doj which was then under the trump administration, and doj said, that, yes, you do need to take a complete vote before you can open an inquiry, and that proceeded nonetheless, and the house essentially ignored doj's instance, and it is back on record in the trump administration saying that

elie honig is joining us. are you surprised already a guilty plea in the case? >> well, it is quick to get a guilty plea. definitely a win for the fulton county district attorney. but when you charge 19 defendants at once, this is what happens. they start taking care of their own interests. they start taking pleas. they start turning on each other. and i think the big question here, in the course of this deal that he has struck with prosecutors, will he agree to testify. tippic lin you see this kind of consideration given when someone is looking at prison time as scott hull was, that involves testifying. and the person who needs to be most worried about this is sydney powell because scott is charged in the scheme to access voting equipment. and sydney powell is also charged in that count. so if he is providing testimony, then she is going to be implicated. >> and i would think that being the first defendant to agree to a deal with prosecutors has its advantages. >> absolutely. we prosecutors always tell defendants in a multidefendant case like this, first one in

i want to form to elie honig. elie, it is no longer we are imminently waiting for.g to move his trial to federal court. what happened? >> this is one of those friday night specials. a big win for the district attorney and a loss for mark meadows. now, he was trying to get his case moved from state court to federal court. in order to do that under the law, he had to show he was acting under the collar of the federal. mark meadows took the stand. you don't often see defendant take the stand never mind in a pretrial hearing. the judge found that med dose was unable to explain the limits of his own authority as chief of staff. therefore the judge ruled against mark meadows. he said the judge in his ruling, the actions at the heart of the state's charges against meadows were taken on behalf of the trump campaign. meaning not as chief of staff by mark meadows in his official job but really as somebody working for the trump campaign. so the judge has rejected this motion. and for now, mark meadows will remain in state court, fulton county, where he was initially charged. >

joining us is senior legal analyst elie honig, temidayo aganga-williams, political commentator and politicalelcome back. this was a question about whether meadows had any federal authority that would mean this case needs to be moved. is this a significant movement? >> it's a very big deal. watch others try to follow the same path. >> meaning from the trump white house? >> well, it's going to be a lot of people piling on because jeffrey clark, who was a doj federal official, has made the motion. trump may be waiting to see how he fares. they may say we are acting under the authority of the federal government. >> what are they saying? >> we have been talking about it. >> we want to know everything. >> you are exactly right. >> lawyer linkedin is lit. >> it's a coin toss. this one feels really close to me and the judge asked for more briefing. what if some were inside the role of chief of staff. the judge is sort of on the fence, too. >> i think that's right. anytime a judge is asking for a briefing it's not a clear call. i want you to go back, dig deeper into the law and see whether you can gu

here with kaitlan collins and senior legal analyst elie honig. so elie, correct me if i'm wrong. it doesn't seem like peter navarro has much of a chance on about appeal. this is pretty cut and dry, isn't it? >> i don't think you're wrong. he will get to appeal to the intermediate court of appeals. this is not a landmark case. >> i know he is trying to make himself seem more important. >> right. i think he has a little bit of overinflated. >> it's landmark case because it's the first time the alter ego of the president has been charged. that a thing? >> that's not a legal term. alter ego of the president. here's the problem there could have been an interesting constitutional issue here if the question was what happens when congress subpoenas someone from the executive branch and they invoke executive privilege. the problem is here the judge held a pretrial hearing and found there was no invocation of executive privilege. it's something you made up. and there is no face, he could have appeared and plead the fifth. >> 100%. he could have avoided all this by appearing and testifying

jeff duncan, attorney and former georgia state senator jim jordan, and former federal prosecutor elie honiged this remarkable, in the sense of typically this would not be remarkable, hearing play out today. hearing these arguments from these attorneys, getting a sense of what the prosecutor said as well, what were your biggest takeaways? >> so interesting to watch, and impacted my prosecutor days. the biggest takeaway to me is, the people, the defendants who really wanted to get away from each other, got away from each other. now, sydney powell and kenneth chesbrough, who both want their speedy trial, they were not able to get away from one another, but to me that is not a big deal. chesbrough and powell will be tried together. that does not hurt either of them. more importantly, they both got away from trump, because it is 99% certain, the judge made it clear, donald trump and the others will be tried much later than these two. from trump's perspective, really important that he got away from those two, because, a he gets to get tried much much later, which he wants, probably after the elec

. >>> let's talk about it more with cnn's elie honig and karen freedman. you think that today's hearing was a bad day for the prosecutors, a bad day for district attorney fani willis's office, why. >> on balance. the good news is she won the motion to keep chesebro and sidney powell together. that is one trial that she doesn't have to try separately. but she all but lost on the other 17. he seld i'm skeptical of your ability to try all 19 at once and he said i'll give you a couple of days to brief it but he all but signaled he won't keep all together. and there is a bit of hypocrisy is the public rhetoric is we're ready. but here is the reality. fani willis took two and a half plus years to indict this case. she indicted in august and then said i want a trial of everybody two months from now. i take two and a half years to investigate and they get a trial in two months and then she said, well i'm not ready to produce discovery until september 15th. that is half of the time. she should have been ready to produce discovery on day one and then today when the

with me now elie honig, david axelrod, kaitlan collins, also joining us, tony schwartz, the ghost writer for trump's part of the deal, and trump biographer david cay johnston. elie, how where is a ruling like? this >> -- it's extraordinary. -- and so clear that i am deciding, in this case, that i am -- in favor of the internee general. it's not even going to a jury on the question of whether donald trump in the trump organization were engaged in repetitive frauds. that is the judges finding. it is really -- it is a scorching ruling. the judge outright rejects all of the defenses we have heard from donald trump over the years, the main one being subjectivity. your honor, donald trump's team argued, there is always an element of subjectivity and evaluation. -- >> what with the appeal process look like? >> the first thing down trump is going to want to do, and it's, teams get a stay. meaning, okay, judge, we know that, as of now, that business to difficulties suspended. we want you to put that on hold while we appeal. then donald trump will have the right to appeal this up to the intermedia

. >> and now, with us is former trial attorney carolyn polisi and our also top attorney elie honig, and our home attorney, and i just added that in your title. >> you can add that any time. >> and what does this mean? >> well, two groups. first one, chesebro and sidney powell started in october, and i will be put pag question mark if we actually see that, and then another group which is importantly toing to include donald trump. this is two big things. the trial in georgia the one that is televised is way, way, way far out, and likely to be pushed after the 2024 election. and the second thing is that this is a big strategic and tactical advantage for donald trump and the other 16, because now they get to sit in the gallery and watch the whole earlier trial and see every government witness and all of the cross-examination, and the documents and make notes and adjust accordingly, and big positive development for donald trump and the other 16. >> but does it come as a surprise, because even though fani willis wanted to have a sense to lead into this, and they all believed it would happen t

attorney for the southern district of new york, elie honig. good morning. >> good to see you. >> so people are talking about 30 years for tar demoroi? >> i don't think that he will get the 30 year, but i think that he will get the heist single sentence passed on so far. the top sentence is 18 years thus far.entence passed on so f. the top sentence is 18 years thus far. stewart rhodes got 18 years. prosecutors are being very aggressive. >> why? is it because they believe that they did hard organization -- >> it is the organizational aspect r aspect, the fact that there was planning. en enrique is the only one who was not physically present at the capitol of those charged so far, but he might as well have been. he was arrested a couple days before and he essentially engineered the plot. >> so it underlines the idea that it was a riot that got out of control. >> and the others aspect, he was a leader. and if you can prove someone was a leader of organized activity, you can bump the sentence up. so i think that we'll fall between 18 and 33 for him

i'm joined by elie honig, and andrew mccabe.gave an interview to nbc news yesterday where he was very revealing about the decision to falsely claim that the 2020 election was stolen. listen to this. >> were you listening to your lawyers' advice or your own instincts? >> i was listening to different people and when i added tup, the election was rigged. >> were you calling the shots ultimately? >> as to whether or not i believed it was rig, sure, it was my decision. >> so is this statement from trump something that could be very useful to prosecutors? >> sure, wolf. i think donald trump made some fundamental concessions here. the prosecutors are going to be very interested in. in that clip he acknowledges it was his decision to move forward and it was his intend to overturn the results of the election. the rest is consistent with donald trump's defense. i was getting certain piece of advice from some advisers, contradictory advice to other advisers, ultimately i relied on my gut. every time he speaks in public, that's fair game fo

let's bring in cnn's senior legal analyst elie honig, the former assistant u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york. elie, what arguments did the parties, navarro and the prosecutors, make make at trial? >> jake, the prosecution's argument was very straightforward. we served -- congress served a subpoena. peter navarro knew it. and he defied that subpoena. that's it. peter navarro's defenses here were a bit short-handed because the judge cut him off before the trial and said i'm not going to allow you to say the reason i defied that subpoena was because donald trump told me to do so because the judge had a whole hearing on this and said there's just no evidence that that actually happened in a specific detailed way. so peter navarro was left with this sort of hodgepodge of defenses. he said, well, the subpoena didn't specify which room i was supposed to go to within the capitol complex, and the prosecution didn't establish that i knew of the subpoena and knowingly defied it. the jury very quickly rejected both of those defenses. and that's why we got th

senior legal analyst elie honig is with us at the table. us david schoen, one of the attorneys who represented trump during his second impeachment trial. great to have you both here. elie, let me begin with you on significance of yucil taveras cooperating here? >> it's a good win for prosecutors. he was person identified in the indictment as trump employee four. are it's clear that some of the energies in the indictment some of the allegations are based on testimony they got from him. important to know, yucil taveras didn't have direct contact with donald trump. he direct contact wde oliveira. he is going to say this other guy told me that trump wanted me to do this. still useful for prosecutors but not necessarily game over. david, we hear people say, sorry, i can't answer questions, i can't talk, advice of counsel, or i am not going it testimony, right, because of counsel that. is not the case with donald trump who told hugh hewitt that he would testify. i just want people to listen to this sound. >> if you have to go to trial, will you t

joining us now with the analysis, cnn senior analyst, elie honig, airerrol lewis, she tall cot and theington post." welcome all of you to the table. i guess being apart of this process doesn't necessarily mean you are going to get the support of maga financially. is that all that unusual? there are a couple of cases going on. what have we seen so far? >> yeah, i don't think it's unusual from the perspective of this is a trump situation, right. but -- and the lawyers can probably speak to this better than i can in terms of whether it's unusual from the broader perspective, but what i think is interesting is you have several of these co-defendants trying to sever their trials and from my understanding one of the benefits of severing a trial would be that trump's lawyers would not then be at that trial. so anything that comes up that implicates trump, maybe if the trial is severed, the co-defendants aren't going to, you know what i mean? they are not going to argue fence it. >> shelby is right. one of the advantages to a defendant of having a severed trial, meaning two separate trials, th

elie honig, thank you. >> thanks, wolf. >>> cnn's senior justice correspondent evan perez is working story. tell us what you're learning. >> from prosecutors in the justice department is that this railroader from the i.r.s. stole the information not only of donald trump, but also thousands of some of the most wealthy americans, and leaked that information to a couple of different news organizations. in the case of the former president, the tax returns obviously have become a being deal in the last few years. "new york times" has been very prominent is publishing a lot of details. there's no indication, no accusation that the news organizations did anything wrong. propublica has also done some important work, highlighting what they want were i.r.s. tax documents that highlight the lack of payments of taxes by some of the wealthiest people in this country. according to the justice department, this carries a charge up to five years. the name of the contractor is charles littlejohn, from the suburbs of washington. he stole this information while working for the i.r.s. >> we have the docu

joining us now, cnn senior legal analyst, elie honig and cnn senior law enforcement analyst, andrew mccabe. on the breaking news, what's behind trump's decision not to try to move his georgia state case to federal court? >> well, this one was a genuine strategic stunner in my view. there were plenty of good reasons why donald trump would want to be in federal court starting with the fact he would have a more favorable politically jury pool to choose from. that said, there are countervailing considerations here which may underline his decision to stay. the judge, if you look at the filing, it seems donald trump is quite satisfied with the state level judge who has indeed given fair rulings. he's given some that trump's team likes where on the opposite side of it, judge steven jones is an obama nominee. he has firmly rejected prior notions by others to come over into federal court. there's also the uncertainty about timing. it could be trump feared if he went into federal court, he'd be pushed to trial quickly but in state court, those cases seem to be on a much slower track. then there's th

bring in two attorneys, two former federal prosecutors just go rob and cnn senior legal analyst elie honig. jessica, first of all, are you surprised the former president is not going to try and get this georgia casey with federal court? >> i was surprised, but then when i thought it through i thought it made sense. a strategic decision on his lawyers part. they clearly saw the writing on the wall that they were unlikely to prevail and moving to remove the case to federal court. they were following the meadows case, meadows obviously lost and trump in many ways had a weaker claim than meadows did. so, they clearly decided it was better to save or conserve their time and resources and focus on other manners where it could potentially be a better payoff. plus, he would've likely had to testify or have the chance to prevail. that carries significant risks for him in terms of him not being a credible witness, but also his statements being potentially used against him in the case in georgia if it proceeded. also, in the federal case involving january 6th. >> elie, it was fascinating here in the

elie honig is joining our panel. cnn will reair the full interview tonight at 10:00 p.m. eastern. a legal perspective, i'm wondering if you heard anything in the interview we did that could be of legal significance getting the president into even more hot water. especially when she writes in her book that donald trump told meadows about his loss, this is embarrassing, i don't want people to know that we lost. >> for sure. i think she is a uniquely powerful witness for the prosecution for a few reasons. first of all, she had access. she was in the room. she was by mark meadows' side. there for some conversations with trump. which brings me to the second point, if you listen to her, she's very careful. she doesn't overstate things. she says here's what i know, what i witnessed firsthand. the next is the content. that point when she has testimony about donald trump directly acknowledging he knows he lost, that's the whole ball game. then the last thing, this struck me. at one point, you showed her the mug shot. you said what's your reaction. i was sort of taking note here. is she goi

joining the conversation is evan perez and former prosecutor elie honig.start with you. this question of this i.t. manager. he was the trump employee that was in the shadows. we didn't know who he was or what was going on. now we do. the special counsel's court filings said immediately after receiving new counsel, trump employee number four retract ed his prior false testimony and provided information that implicated nauta and trump in efforts to delete security camera footage as set torte in the superseding indictment. >> this was the first explicit acknowledgment of what happened. we all speculated, certainly when we saw the indictment. and we heard similar reports on the story, had heard that there had been someone who had change ed their story under pressure from the prosecution. that's what explains all of what happened and what you see in that indictment, what's also interesting is that when prosecutors keep going around is the idea that there are a number of people who are represented by people who are lawyer who is are paid for by trump's political

. >>> join us to discuss, jamie gangel, and up in new york, former federal prosecutor elie honig. seeing trump's attempted de defense who said he could not have defrauded the banks who are current and with no ernl owe problem. if all of the banks were paid back what trump owed plus interest, does he have a point? or no? >> legally, no, here, jake. it is important to understand first of all, this is a civil lawsuit, the count on which the judge has ruled in favor of the attorney general does not require any showing of loss to any particular party. this is a very favorable rule to the attorney general, this is a very favorable rule to plaintiffs from, as long as the attorney general could show that the defendant, here the trup organization, engaged in fraud and got money they weren't entitled to as a result, then that is good enough to make the claim out. and that is what the judge held here. there are six other counts where the a.g. is going to have to show what we call some sort of materiality, some sort of loss. but for the one count that the judge has ruled in favor of the a.g.,

more on all of these developments that are coming in tonight, even the last-minute ones, we have elie honig and kelly cordero with us. i want to start with you. this was moments before we came on air that we got this filing from jack smith in this fight that's playing out in the gag order. he's using trump's own words against him telling judge chutkan that these attacks and the attacks on people in smith's own office are making it more urgent and they need this gag order. do you think it makes it more likely? >> for sure, kaitlan. i think donald trump's statements about mark milley are and should be the prosecution's exhibit a in the request for this gag order. if you look at doj's original gag order from earlier this week, they asked for a gag order from donald trump saying anything, quote, disparaging about essentially any parties in the case. he's allowed to say disparaging things. you can say disparaging things about a judge or prosecutor. they have to thick skin. but here is where the line is. you can't make a statement that crosses over from disparaging into a threat against a known w

two former federal prosecutors from the southern district of new york, jessica roth and elie honig.f all, are you surprised the former president is not going to try to get this georgia case moved to federal court? >> i was surprised initially. but then when i thought it true, i thought it made sense as a strategic decision on his lawyers' part. they probably saw the writing on the wall that they were unlikely to prevail to move the case to federal court. they were following the meadows case. meadows obviously lost and trump had a weaker claim than meadows did. they clearly decided it was better to conserve their time and resources and focus that on other matters where it could perhaps be a better payoff. plus, he likely would have had to testify to have a chance to prevail, and carried significant risks for him first him not being a credible witness, but his statements being potentially used against him in the case in georgia if it proceeded. and also in the federal case involving january 6th. >> elie, it was fascinating to hear in his lawyers' statement to the court them saying he

cnn senior legal analyst elie honig is with us.iery exchanges, put them aside and actually what happened that was tangible. start not with hunter biden but the indictments of donald trump, special counsel jack smith. what have we learned? >> the t.j. was emphatic. joe biden, he testified, had nothing whatsoever to do with the indictments of donald trump or with any criminal indictment and youer dovrp's purview. look what merrick garland said on that count. >> i reaffirm today i am not the president's lawyer. i will add i am not congress' prosecutor. >> yeah. i am not the president's lawyer. this is an age-old value of doj under administrations of both parties going back generations. here are the facts. of course, the president appoints the attorney general who was then confirmed by the senate. 70-30, in merrick garland's case with substantial republican support. merrick garland appointed jack smith as special counsel. merrick garland made clear, there is that historical wall of separation between the president and doj. garland even

presented it to a special grand jury, and we will have to see what happens, counselor polisi and you, elie honig, we have heard another hearing wednesday? >> possibly. he is free. judge mcafee has it free on the calendar, and obviously a lot going on, and wed will get the fallout from inside of that room, and much more news is straight ahead. ry interesting s on ancestry. this is the uh r registration card for the draft for world war two. and this is his signaturee which blew me away. being g able to... make my grandfather real... not just a memory... is priceless. his legacy...lives on. and mine's unlisted. try boost® high protein with 20 grams of protein for muscle health versus 16 grams ensure® high protein. boost® high protein. now availablin cinnabon® bakery-inspired flavor. learn more at boost.com/tv and never asked for a raise. he didn't wear fancy shoes and never took out a mortgage. his friends didn't belong to a country club and his parents didn't have a will, so he worked hard and invested wisely. not in stocks or bonds, but in others. ♪ each day is a unique blend of going, doing, and

first, i am joined by former governor duncan, and former prosecutor elie honig. we watched these arguments from the attorneys, getting a sense of what the prosecutors said. >> it was so interesting. it brought me back to my prosecutor days. the biggest takeaway, the defendants had a really wanted to get away from each other got away from each other. now, sidney powell and kenneth cheseboro who want their speedy trial, they were not able to get away from one another. to me that's not a big deal. so they'll be tried together. that doesn't really hurt either of them. more importantly, they both got away from donald trump. it is 99% certain, the judge made it clear, donald trump and the others will be tried much later than these two. there donald trump's perspective, really important that he got away from those two. a, he gets to get tried much, much later, which he wants, probably after the election, and b, he gets to watch their trial. the prosecutors today said the case against these two will be the same as the case against all 19 of these defendants. he will get

. >> here to walk us through what happens next is elie honig. not sure when you're sleeping at this point. you were still on tv last night, but it underscores there's been so many moving parts and developments over the course of this week. can you start with where we stand in the probe? >> any time you indict 19 defendants, you're going to have a degree of chaos. every defendant has his own self-interest. now importantly, this week, two of the defendants have invoked their speedy trial rights. their trial has to start before november of this year. now the question this week before the judge was will they be tried together or separately. we call it severance. the arguments we heard gave us clarity about what might be argued at trial. chesebro argued this is a bunch of conspiracies charged together. he denies the charges, but i'm only charged in this piece. sidney powell is only charged in this piece of it. so they said, we're charged with separate things. we need to be tried separate lu. the da's office shot back and said, no, this is all one big

with us now correspondent sara murray and senior legal analyst elie honig, former assistance u.s.torney with the southern district of new york. walk us through meadow's arguments here. >> he's arguing, in this state court, the district attorney team has made clear they want to go to trial quickly in october of 2023 and it would harm my rights if we went to trial and i was convicted in this state court while i have not had a chance to play out this appeal. so he's basically asking the judge who said i'm not going to move this to federal court, you could put that decision on hold in the meantime so i could appeal this and so we could assure that there is not a conviction on my behalf in state court while my appeal is playing out. >> and elie, how long could this realistically take? >> well, jake, in my experience, it takes the foerl court of appeal six to 12 months to get a case argued and briefed and decided. on this circuit that we're in now, the 11th circuit the average case there takes nine months. but it is important to understand this. the cores are in charge of their own dock

. >> david cay johnston, tony schwartz, elie honig, kaitlan collins, special guest michael cohen, very good booking. >>> the state of chaos with the government shutdown coming and house speaker mccarthy still trying to bring his own members in line. >>> and what cassidy hutchinson told jake tapper about the threat her old boss would pose to the country if he's re-elected president. the new book ahead on "360." >>> the senate slowly begins moving legislation to head off a government shutdown with house speaker mccarthy trying to get hard-liners to get him mo move at all. the deadline, sunday morning, 12:01. melanie zanona is at the capitol right now. what do we know about where things stand in the house tonight including the threats to speaker mccarthy's job? >> reporter: house republicans just moved to advance a package of long-term spending bills. this was a routine procedural vote and normally possibly wouldn't talk about it but it is important because last week a similar vote failed twice on the house floor, so speaker kevin mccarthy was under a lot of pressure to show he can govern

attorney in the southern district of new york elie honig.tart with you because you have been so deep in the weeds covering all the different elements of all of the different legal cases here. what stands out to you as you look through this reporting as you've been calling your sources about what this means? >> two things stand out. one, we knew that some of these voting breeches were being looked at on a local level. we knew they were being looked at in georgia where a number of these folks face charges. it's notable the special counsel is looking into them. it's also notable this investigation is continuing. when we saw this indictment against former president donald trump we saw these unindicted coconspirators along them. we were wondering are these people going to face charges at some point. this latest reporting from zach cohen and paula reed still holds out that possibility. it's very clear the special counsel's investigation snot over. it's continuing. and that there could be others who are facing potential legal peril. >> let's turn e

elie honig and michel moore join us. on the federal side of things, what we have seen from prosecutors, it echos a little bit of what they were doing the start of the case. what does it mean? and will it have any seteeth or substance? >> going to the judge to put a clamp on donald trump, a lot of this is under seal. we don't know exactly what they are asking for. they are trying to find a workable middle ground because donald trump is taking to social media and making aggressive, perhaps over-the-line pronouncements. polluters can't let this happen without asking the judge to do something. i think prosecutors understand they can't ask to lock you have donald trump given the reality he is running for president. special treatment, which it would be, i think they have to be aware of that reality. so my best estimate here is they are asking the judge to take a middle ground. one thing judges can do, they can impose financial penalties if you are -- if defendant is violating an order of a court. a judge can say you are in con

elie honig, thanks so much. for more on rudy giuliani's fund raising -- we also have breaking news in his considerable financial troubles. our randi kaye is joining us. what are you learning, randi? >> well anderson, our colleagues on cnn have learned some new reporting, a source familiar with giuliani's finances telling cnn that he owes millions of dollars in legal fees, certainly his fund-raiser in bedminster tonight, that trump is putting on for him is certainly going to cut into that. it is $100,000 at play, he is expected to raise more than 1 million dollars, as one of two fund-raisers, anderson, that trump is expected to sponsor for giuliani. but as you know, there are a lot of other codefendants, and trump does not seem to be holding out a helping hand to all of them. >> i don't know a lot of those people. >> former president donald trump, distancing himself from his 18 codefendants, in the george indictment. all are accused of trying to interfere with the state's 2020 presidential election results, on be

attorney for the southern district of new york, elie honig.gh this case and why this happened. >> so there's a bit of history here. it's really important to understand the bigger picture. this investigation of hunter biden started five years ago in 2018, during the administration of donald trump. the person who was running it was the trump appointed u.s. attorney for the district of delaware, david weiss. now he investigated for two-plus years during the trump administration, during which no charges were filed. january 2021 joe biden takes office. ordinarily the president has the power to and does dismiss all 93 u.s. attorneys across the country. joe biden, however, left david weiss in place to avoid any appearance of interference with this particular case. now, fast forward two plus more years to this past summer, july 2023, doj and hunter biden go into court and they say, judge, we have a deal. or we think we have a deal. now, let's take a second what that original plea deal a couple months ago. hunter biden was going to plead guilty to two

. >> i wan to bring in elie honig into this congress. cheeseboro like trump wants to be tried separately. he said that he should be able to sever his october trial from sidney powell because their actions are like oil and water. do you think that will be successful. >> kenneth cheeseboro is entitled to a speedy trial. and that is why he has a october 23rd trial date. an it is unjustifiabler to the prosecutors to say we need another two weeks to give you discovery. that is about a quarter of the time. between now and when he's entitled to a trial. these prosecutors took over two and a half years to charge the case. they should have had discovery out on day one. on the separate question whether he's entitled to his own individual, he is not. it is up to the judge to decide whether it makes more sense in terms of judicial efficiency and not replicate effort to try him together with sidney powell. on the other hand judges do like to give each defendant a shot at individual justice. so i suspect that prosecutors will oppose this and say you a

elie honig will break down the legal arguments he's making and if they hold any water.th us. the all-new tempur-pedic breeze makes sleep f feel cool. so, no more sweating all night... ...or blasting the air conditioning. because the tempur-breeze feels up to 10° cooler, all night long. for a limited time, save up to $700 on select temp-pedic adjustable mattress sets. ♪ ("drumroll" by nis, little league ) ♪ ( ♪ ) ♪ this just in ♪ ♪ got the keys to what you want and what you need ♪ ♪ something new something sweet ♪ ♪ moving to a different beat ♪ ♪ okay now (what?) ♪ ♪ can i get a (get a) drumroll? (what?) ♪ ♪ can i get a drumroll drumroll? (what?) ♪ ♪ can i get a can i get a drumroll please (oohh) ♪ ♪ that's nice (yahh) ♪ ( ♪ ♪ ) ♪ ya, can i get a drumroll, can i get a drum- ♪ ♪ that's nice ♪ how long have you been tracking the value of our car? should we sell it? we hold... our low mileage is paying off. you think we should... hold... hoooold!!! hooold! now!!!! i'm on it. i'm, on it. already sold to carvana. go to carvana and track your car's value today. [coughing] when

. >> let's bring in cnn political on a list natasha, airline louis, elie honig.t to hunter in a moment. that was really interesting what trump said. i don't know if it's bluster if he would actually testify in that trial. you contrast that with four indictments. now biden's son for the first time in american history has also been indicted. very different charges. it just is sort of this -- can you put this in context? once again never before happened in american history. >> never before, right. look, the indictment of hunter biden is exactly what donald trump wanted. and it is all that donald trump wanted. if you go back to the first impeachment, things that we have heard him say on the record, he was saying he just wanted some rough equivalents, fa neutrali the criminal allegations against him. so now he can go out on the campaign trail and say you are accusing me of wrongdoing? let's talk about the biden crime family and try to impute to the sitting president something that his son might have done five years ago. so that's really all donald trump wanted. it's t

there are many -- tim diawilliams, former investigative counsel for the january 6th committee, and elie honigght now, fani willis is still saying she wants everybody to be tried together. but there are two defendants trying to do it on a faster basis. how do you think this plays out with trump fighting that and saying, i do want to sever my case. >> i think these 19 folks are not going to go to trial together. i think that's incredibly unlikely. i think there's going to be some kind of break here as more folks are filing for their own motions to sever. the court will have to decide what that looks like. frankly, i think fani willis may have her cake and eat it too to some degree. she's been aggressive and assertive to all the defendants. but i think practically 19 defendants is just a monster that is not feasible. i think she gets to maintain the posture of strength that she's had thus far and may get the benefit of having this case broken down in a way that's going to be digestible and actually able to efficiently and persuasively prosecute. >> well, i mean, ray smith, though, is kind of arg

we're expecting to hear from elie honig and karen magniolo. we don't know about the filing by jack smith. but jack smith complaining about comments made by the former president that would prejudice a jury. he is a presidential candidate. there has to be kind of a wide latitude on this, doesn't there? >> there is certainly a lot he can talk about, but he doesn't have to talk about the facts of this particular case. and i think that's the concern. he's not just answering questions from reporters, which he could be allowed to do. he is engaging in this barrage of truth social videos that he is posting where he is going on and on and on, putting his side of the story out there. in one hand he is trying his case in the court of public opinion, but trying to seek delays because he doesn't seem to want to try the case in court in front of an actual jury. things that won't be admissible at trial are things that he is trying to get out there now to prejudice the jury pool in his favor. >> this is a dilemma for prosecutors. i'm trying to picture what i

but elie honig, as you're listening to what kenneth cheseboro's attorneys are arguing and sidney powell's attorneys are arguing for why their cases should be tried separately, known as severing it, what do you make of what cheseboro's attorney was arguing, kind of downplaying his arguments? >> yeah, what he is arguing here, cheseboro and powell both separately, is this is a sprawling indictment spanning really what they argue is three different conspiracies and each of our clients is involved in a relatively small piece of it. essentially what they're arguing is if this was all a movie the two people here, cheseboro and powell, will never be in the same scene of that movie. yes, they're in the same cast. yes, they're in the same movie. but they'll never appear together in the telling of this case. and therefore, they're saying we ought to be tried separately in the interests of fairness. >> and karen, the most significant thing that we heard just there at the end after cheseboro's attorney and powell's attorneys had made their arguments was what we heard from the district attorney's offic