andrew mccabe, jennifer rogers, thank you very much. >>> the u.s.sia lays eyes on the detained evan gersing wits. >>> we'll go live to paris where the riots are continuing tonight. [music playing] subject 1: cancer is a long journey. it's overwhelming, but you just have to put your mind to it subject 2: it doesn't feel good because yocan't play outside with other children. subject 3: as a parent, it is your job to protect your family. but here is something that i cannot do. i cannot fix this. i don't know if my daughter is going to be able to walk. i don't know if she's going to make it till tomorrow. [music playing] interviewer: you can join the battle to save lives by supporting st. jude children's research hospital. families never receive a bill from st. jude for treatment, travel, housing, or food so they can focus on helping their child live. subject 4: childhood cancer, there's no escaping it. but st. jude is doing the work, continually researching towards cures, giving more than just my child a chance at life. interviewer: please, call or go

. >>> and now, joining us is legal analyst, and former prosecutor jennifer rogers, and it is interestingplaintiffs that we were talking to in the affirmative action cases came out against the legacy admissions as well. they said that, you know what, that is unfair, too, and why is that important for them to say. >> well, it is only going to make sense if you are going to argue for ameritocracy, you have to be color blind to some constituencies, then you should be for those who are giving money, and we have to give it to them. >> and where would it run up to the constitution, because it is not merely the constitution in this case, right? >> that is right. talking about the private colleges, and univerities, and they are claiming that it applies to private colleges as well. they are not suing harvard directly, but filing a complaint with the department of education saying that the civil rights act requires you the treat the groups the same, and the protected groups the same, and unprotected groups, and so on, and saying that it is systemic ly different. and so overwhelmingly white applican

. >> paula and kstand by, i want o bring in jennifer rogers, how much of a window can prosecutors getn trump's intent, keyword intent, on his inlaws like jared kushner, his son-in-law. >> they can get a lot. also hope hicks. these are two of the people who were around him most in those days following the election and leading up to january 6th. there were others as well, mark meadows and others, but these are two people that were often in the room. what to do now about the election, the fact that he lost, how they're going to move forward with the court cases and the other steps they ended up taking. they would be two of the people there listening to the back and forth. really critical evidence about what the former president knew when they were making all of those plans. >> key questions deed, jennifer rogers, paula reid, kaitlan collins. . will be back with more on "the source" 9:00 p.m. eastern on cnn. >>> defense secretary lloyd austin shares his concerns about republican senator tommy tuberville's one-man hold on u.s. military promotions . more of my exclusive interview with the p

we have jennifer rogers, former assistant u.s. attorney. and john miller, our chief law enforcement officer and analyst. how likely is it that former president trump is indicted tomorrow? >> i don't know if he'll be indicted tomorrow. maybe tomorrow. maybe next week. as we were talking about, there's folks coming before the grand jury in the coming weeks. two or three weeks out. >> you happen to know there's people who are going to be going for the grand jury. >> there are witnesses under subpoena to the grand jury, through mid-august. i doubt we see an indictment tomorrow. the target better, you may know better. but to me, it's unusual to send a target letter and schedule when you want to talk the grand jury. at the same time, and the same piece of paper. >> does that tell you they are not ready to indict? >> we're reading smoke signals here. you're a target, expect to be indicted, is the clue. if you're going to say something in your defense, we're availing you of that opportunity. you have four days to tell us. >> let's talk about the cr

. >> jennifer rogers is with us on this, yes, this involves highly sensitive government documents, ofonder, do you think this is valid over the amount of discovery here? >> well, it's valid to request some measure of delay. i think december is an aggressive date, at the same time saying you ability possibly try it before the 2024 election is unreasonable. i think the judge will likely split the difference and will set a trial date probably after december. >> does the court normally give the defendant leeway here? . >> judges usually do that. when a defendant says i don't have time, they listen carefully to the arguments, but at the same time we know what the game is here. the former president is trying to delay this, so saying they need that much time is unreasonable. i also think it's really dangerous for them to mislead the court about what is in the discovery and how much time they need to review it. this is the very beginning of this case, if you get on the bad side of the judge, it would be a long, tough road. >> if what trump is trying to do is to get this delayed past being pot

. >> good to see you, jennifer rogers, and the trump team is trying to glean what other evidence or witnesses and information that they are surprised by the target letter. do you think that is noteworthy in and of itself to suggesting how different this case is, and why? >> well, most defendants don't know what the case is or that they have been indicted, and the fact that the january 6th e investigation and the reporting of the investigation, and the fact that the people are paid by trump's super pac, and the lawyers, and so he has so much more information about this fact than a normal defendant would, and maybe a false confidence and where it was headed, and surprised by the charges. >> one thing that paula told us is that this is the third time behind the grand jury, but they have their witnesses scheduled into august to come before the grand jury. do you hand up an indictment with witnesses still out there that you are lingering out there that you need to hear from, and i am trying to find out the grand jury. >> and once the grand jury hands out an indictment, that work is stopped. then y

attorney jennifer rogers, cnn senior political analyst john avlon, editor at large in reason matt, welch new york gop cigarette -- columnist -- so, jen, this affidavit, what did they know? what does this less redacted affidavit reveal? >> well not a whole heck of a lot, still heavily redacted. at least we know they knew about some of the shenanigans in the storage space, and that not only forms the basis of the cost of our documents, the trump reviewing now humans, hiding all, of them new lawyer at the time evan corcoran. so it is really important evidence, we did not know how early doj was on to. that that ended up being one of the big building blocks here. we have to wait to see more of, course trump and his team will have access to the unredacted version, and they will break their challenges to -- maced on that. the rest of us will have to wait and see as the litigation proceeds. >> and does it, look jen, to, you as if -- donald trump spotty, man meaning he was helping him at all times, sort of an aid and he was apparently caught on tape moving the boxes. did he seem and more trouble

former legal prosecutor jennifer rogers joins us with more. ry to unpack the fact from the fiction here. clearly, it's unusual that a u.s. attorney to send a letter like this. what was he trying to do? >> well, i think he was trying to tamp down upon this narrative that's coming out and you can tell that this is a manufactured controversy, because every one who would know about whether there is interference or pressure on david weiss, merrick garland, and anyone else in that chain of command and all saying the same thing, which was there was no interference and he would have the authority to make the charging decisions and he actually made the charging decisions. so while it's unusual because there doesn't seem to be any actual evidence of interference here, i think mr. weiss is just trying to get out ahead of this, tamp down on it, say that everyone's on the same page, we're telling you the truth, and hopefully get them to move on. >> and as i pointed out, david weiss was appointed by former president trump. he's a trump-appointed u.s. attorne

here to help us understand what's happening, we have jennifer rogers, former assistant u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york, and john miller, our chief line for smith and intelligence analyst. great to have you guys. jennifer, how likely is it that former president trump is indicted tomorrow? >> i don't know if you will be indicted tomorrow, but i don't think there's any reason to send him a target letter unless he will be indicted, and probably soon, so, tomorrow, next week, although as john and i were talking about, there were folks coming before the grand jury in the coming weeks. could be two or three weeks out. >> if you happen to know there are people who are still going to be going before the grand jury, so that means he would not be indicted before that, correct? >> there are witnesses who are under subpoena to that grand jury through mid august. so, i doubt we will see enigma and tomorrow, but the target letter, which is really, i mean, you may know better, but to me, it's unusual to send a target letter and a schedule for when you want to come in to t

with us now, cnn legal analyst jennifer rogers and senior political analyst david gergen.avid, let me start with you here. where would a call like this or how might a call like this to governor ducey cross a line if it did? >> well, john, it's not so much that this particular call would be illegal or cross statutory line. but this special counsel, jack smith, charges trump and others with a broad ranging conspiracy to overturn the election -- really just a conspiracy against the united states -- this would be one of many, many strong pieces of evidence. so, it's really more of a building block than a chargeable event in and of itself. but just like the raffensperger call, i mean, you have testimony in this case about trump saying, we need this many votes. so, all of this just goes into the pot of evidence showing they have this illegal motive and that they, meaning trump and his allies, conspired to overturn the election. >> because it's part of a pattern? >> well, just because it goes to the conspiracy. so, conspiracy is an agreement between two people or more to do some