jessica roth, i cut you off. fill me in. how does all of that strike you. >> i anticipated we would hearing from him after the indictment was unsealed. again after the indictment was unsealed, i thought the remarks were propria. relay laying out a sick allegations. and how important it was to bring these charges and defend democracy. i think it's important that the american people here from the special counsel to acknowledge these charges and remind people that these are allegations in an indictment supported by probable cause. but that this defendant isn't tired to the presumption of innocence until he is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. it will certainly be a challenge given the crowded calendar mr. trump is facing. but i expect we will hear more incoming days about the scheduling of this matter. i'm struck that it is only mr. trump who is named here. even though their other co-conspirators, they are not including them in this initial indictment to keep things streamlined. >> talked to us a little bit more about th

jessica roth, i cut you off, apologies again, as we went to listen to what special counsel had to sayes all of that strike you? >> i anticipated we would be hearing from him after the indictment was unsealed, that is consistent with the practice in florida when the indictment was unsealed that we heard brief remarks from the special counsel. so here after the indictment was unsealed, we heard brief remarks which i thought were appropriate, laying out the basic allegations here and how significant they are and how important essentially it was to bring charges to defend our democracy. it is appropriate he did not take questions, but i think it is important the american people here from the special counsel to acknowledge she's charges and speak about their significance and remind people that these are obligations in and indictment that are supported by probable cause, as determined by the grand jury, but that this defendant like all others is entitled to the presumption of innocence until he's proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. i'm also struck by his emphasis on the fact t

we get the legal view with the former federal prosecutor jessica roth. >>> then, how republicans are presidential candidate joe walsh. >>> and the democratic take, with congressman joe neguse, who served as

thank you, jessica roth and maya wylie. let me remind folks what's coming up. we'll have more on the hurricane headed toward the carolinas. that's one of our news stories. >>> but some republican officials are investigating whether trump is even qualified to be on the ballot. that's coming up later. >>> and next, a special report we have been working on, roger stone, the links and the insurrection eve evidence. we have that report for you when we're back in just 60 seconds. your best defense against erosion and cavities is strong enamel- nothing beats it. new pronamel active shield actively shields the enamel to defend against erosion and cavities. i think that this product is a gamechanger for my patients- it really works. it's easy to get lost in investment research. introducing j.p. morgan personal advisors. hey david. connect with an advisor to create your personalized plan. let's find the right investments for your goals okay, great. j.p. morgan wealth management. my most important kitchen tool? my brain. so i choose new neuriva ultra. unlike some others,

jessica roth and cnn senior legal analyst ellie hoenig. melissa and david have worked for the former president. i want to start with my two attorneys over here. ellie, you have had time to absorb this. it can be hard to wade through but it's fascinating. >> we have been referring to this as january 6th. the january 6th case. the january 6th indictment. this indictment is largely not about the actual events of january 6th, 2021. it's a last chapter, maybe a footnote. really what this indictment is focused on is the fraud scheme that predated this over the prior months and weeks leading up to january 6th. this is a master work prosecutorially. i've read countless indictments. this is remarkably persuasive. what they're getting across is there is such thing as the truth, knowing what the truth is and there is such thing as knowing you are telling a lie. you can only bury your head in the sand and that's crucial. that's going to donald trump's intent and this is going to swing on that. >> jessica? >> the indictment commits to the proposition t

. >>> let's get some legal perspective from jessica roth, former federal prosecutor for the southernnew york. thank you so much for being with us. let's start with the statement from donald trump that he is going to appeal the march 4th trial start date. can he actually do that? >> so he can't. at least not now. a judge has enormous discretion to set the schedule in their courtroom including the trial date. so this is something that is not going to be immediately appealable. i doubt very much that we would see his lawyers actually following up on what trump has said in filing a motion to appeal. it may be that at some future date if there is a conviction, that the early trial date could be part of the grounds for an appeal based on ineffective assistance of counsel or some other reason. but i very much doubt that we'll see even a motion to appeal at this point and certainly if filed i doubt very much that an appellate court would consider that. >> so let's talk about what we saw yesterday in fulton county. evan spoke about mark meadows taking a risk by going on the stand and giving t

. >> thank you, i'm back with elie honig, jessica roth, van jones, alyssa farah griffin, david urban it. we heard a lot from the new attorney. elie, what do you make of his case? >> even if you take it as a given that the first amendment is extremely broad, especially in the arena of political speech, it's simply not true that to quote the largest there, and he said, first memory protects on all speech. that's not true. one of the lines, even if you go all the way up to the margins, is fraud. lying itself is usually protected by the first amendment. but lying to steal something, that is criminal and that is fraud. the theory made in this and i meant is that he loves to steal the election. there are also factual problems. a lot of the statements in this indictment were not made behind a podium, or to the media. therefore might behind the scenes to try to influence people. there is much less of a first amendment concern there. but i think that's a fascinating insight into how they intend to defend the case. >> i think what we heard as a preview of the defense there are going to be maki

. >> back with van jones, jessica roth, elie honig, david urban and geoff duncan.ou heard a lot from the president's -- former president's new attorney, elie, what do you make of his case? >> interesting take. i'm unconvinced by that argument and here's why. even if you take it as a given that it is extremely broad in the realm of political speech it's not true that to quote the lawyer there as he said first amendment protects all speech of the that's not true. one of the lines even if you go all the way out to the margins is fraud. now, lying itself is usually protected by the first amendment but lying to steal something, that is criminal and that is fraud and the theory made in this indictment is that he lied in order to steal the election. there's also factual problems. one being a lot of these statements in the indictment were not made behind a podium or not made to the media. they were made by donald trump and others behind the scenes to try to influence people and so there's much less of a first amendment concern there but i think that's a really fascinating

. >>> perspective from senior law enforcement analyst andrew mccabe, also sarah flak, and jessica roth. andy, let's start with the obvious here. you know, it's a big deal for mark meadows to testify under oath this early in a process. how big of a deal? >> huge deal, john. huge deal. and it's potentially very, very dangerous. he is a defendant in a criminal matter. he has not had the benefit of seeing the government's case. he has not -- in his course of his experience as a defendant, he'll get to see through discovery the government's evidence, any other statements they have of him that they may try to use against him. he hasn't seen any of that stuff yet. so, now he's been under oath on the stand, making statements that will undoubtedly be brought up to him again if he decides to take the stand in his own defense in the criminal matter. so, it's very, very risky move for him, but it shows you how intent he is on trying to get this case out of state court. >> so, jessica, pick up on that. very risky but, to mark meadowss and his attorney, who's very experienced, they think worth it. w

cnn senior law enforcement analysts aaron, mckay also sarah flak, and former federal prosecutor jessica roth. let's start with the obvious here. it's a big deal for mark meadows to testify under oath this early in a process. how big of a deal? >> a huge deal, john. a huge deal. it's potentially very dangerous. he is a defendant and a criminal matter. he has not had the benefit of seeing the government's case. in his course of his experience as a defendant, he will get to see through discovery the governments evidence and any other statements they have of him. they might try to use against. it he has not seen that stuff yet. he has been under oath and on the stand making statements that will undoubtedly be for him again. if he decides to take the stand in his own defense in the criminal matter. it is very risky for him. it shows you how intent he is on trying to get this case out of state court. >> so, jessica, pick up on. that very risky. but to mark meadows and's attorney, who is very experienced, they think it's worth, it why? >> worth it because he has actually a burden to carry in this p

. >> joining us as well is -- former federal prosecutor jessica roth, former federal prosecutor's la hoehne, along with sara griffin, urban, and jeff duncan. jeff duncan is the former republican lieutenant governor of georgia. i want to start with my two attorneys over here. early, you've had time now to absorb this. there's so much detail in this and, yes, it can be hard to wade through but it is fascinating. >> we have been referring to this as a sort of shorthand for two and a half years now as january 6th, january 6th case, the january six indictment. but this indictment is largely not about the actual events of january six, 2021. it is a last chapter, maybe a footnote but really what is focused on is the fraud scheme that predated-less. over the prior months and weeks leading up to january 6th and this is a masterwork, prosecutorial. i have read countless indictments, this is remarkably persuasive and, the fundamental point that they are getting across is that there is such thing as truth and there is such thing as knowing what the truth is and there's such thing as knowing that