joining me now to discuss, cnn legal analyst, norm eisen. you recall that he was the house judiciary special counsel in trump's first impeachment trial. norm, let's start at the beginning. a very good place to start. we're hearing a lot about target letters. what does it mean to be definitional-y a target? >> it has a technical definition. the practical meaning is, donald trump is very shortly going to face charges as a defendant. if you look at the definition here, the elements are, is a person who the prosecutor or the grand jury has substantial evidence, a lot of evidence, that they have committed a crime. in the pot has come up to such a high boil that there are punitive defendant in the case. what >> does that term mean to people? >> it means they are extremely likely to be charged. they are currently considered as charges being imminent. so, it's a default, hey, you're gonna get charged now. very rarely, laura, i practice defense law, as you know, for 30 years. before i was impeachment counsel, the lawyer will come in and talk to govern

senior justice correspondent evan perez and legal analyst norm eisen.auren fox on capitol hill. and kristen holmes not far from bedminster, new jersey, were donald trump spends a chunk of his summer. evan, first to you, what was discussed, what was not? >> we know this is a meeting that went about an hour, kaitlan collins was told by sources that the goal here was for the trump team to argue the effect that an indictment like this would have on the country. the argument, the larger argument here, being that this would be, obviously, detrimental, obviously given the campaign. this is something you've heard from the president, the former president, already, on the campaign trail. the larger goal here, though, was to try to find a way to delay this. their view was, you know, try to not have it happen today. and then perhaps by some additional weeks, have the special counsel at least wait a few more weeks. now, we all know that the strategy, the legal and political strategy of the former president has been the delay tactic. right. and certainly, you push th

jim. >> back to norm eisen and evan perez, norm eisen, from the outside, who's responsible? did prosecution lawyers and defense lawyers not tie up the loose ends? or is in your view is the judge getting unusually involved in this case, in this deal? >> probably all of the above, jim. you know, this was an issue about the scope, you know, was this a free pass in perpetuity if hundred hunter took the stance -- that's been revolve. >> this lawyer, mr. clarke, it was clear that we looked at the terms of the plea agreement that this was not going to foreclose everything. and the justice department spokespeople had said that was an open matter. so i view that as posturing, okay, the judge wants to nail it down in the plea agreement. but now to introduce these kinds of fundamental or existential questions about a plea agreement, that's very unusual. we'll see how that plays out. there's a tension between her position, because first she says, i don't want to be a rubber stamp. you're making me a rubber stamp. and then a few minutes later, she turns around and says, you're plopping m

norm eisen, joshua school, thank you for the time. appreciate it. >>> following this indictment, donald trump will be on the campaign trail tonight in iowa, as well nearly a dozen of his rivals in the 2024 race. will any of them challenge the president on these charges? we'll be watching. and we're live on capitol hill with how lawmakers are reacting to the new charges former president trump is facing. how the house speaker is deflecting by attack president biden. explosions reported inside russia once again, including near the border with ukraine. what we're learning about what is behind those explosions ahead on "cnn news central." my name is brian delallo. i teach ap and honors economics in pittsburgh, pennsylvania. financial well-being to me is knowing that i cabe free to do the things that i love to do. i hope when i retire someday, th say, that guy made this place a special place to come tochool and gave as much as he could to help the community. from prom dresses to workouts and new adventures you hope the more you give the les

norm eisen, let me start with you first. what do you make of this trial date of next year? paula was saying it'll be surprising if it happens on that timetable but that's pretty far off. >> jim, having tried federal cases for more than three decades, a year is more than enough to try this case. the am prosecution narrowed from the hundreds of potential classified documents down to a little bit over 30 in the complaint. they've already provided a road map to the defense, someone unusually hear's the key documents, they're rushing through. i think those 30 steps can be met if the doj works hard and if the judge is serious about it. that's the big question here. if there's slippage, will there be a little bit of slippage or a lot? we'll know when we start jumping these 30 hurdles whether people are keeping up with the pace or not. and we'll find out if this judge is serious about it. some judges will hold you to it. >> right. >> i disagree with you. what i saw in court on tuesday, for example, she asked the defense attorneys she said, look, how long is it going to take you to

see george conway, thank, you norm eisen as well. i'm joined now for a reaction from the charges by someone who was badly hurt trying to defend the u.s. capital and those in it, michael fanone, former washington d. c. police officer. michael, good to have you on the program. this is obviously deeply personal for you and for so many of the law enforcement personnel who were there that day, risking their lives. i'm wondering what you make of what we have seen in the last day or so in terms of these charges or potential charges. >> what better late than never. i'm grateful for the commitment of the members of the department of justice to pursue justice in this case and seek what appears to be an indictment against the former president. what >> a lot of congressional publications as you know are using line that this is the weaponization of the justice department. earlier today, kevin mccarthy was pressed by cnn if you would expect the dull results of the special counsel's investigation. i want to play what he said. what >> was i don't se

george conway, thank, you norm eisen as well. joined now for a reaction of these charges by somebody who is badly hurt trying to defend the u.s. capitol and those in it in january 6th. michael fanone, now a cnn legal law enforcement analyst. good to have you on the program. this is obviously deeply personal for you and for so many, the law enforcement personnel who are there that they're risking their lives. i'm wondering what you make of what we've seen in the last day or so in terms of these charges, or potential charges. >> better late than never. i am grateful for the commitment of the members of the department of justice to pursue justice in this case, and to seek what appears to be an indictment against the former president. >> a lot of coke republicans are using the line that this is just the weaponization of the justice department. earlier today, kevin mccarthy was impressed by cnn if he would respect the results of the investigation. i want to play for you what he said. >> i don't see how he could be found criminally res

norm, ambassador eisen, great to see you. let me ask you what mike pence was just saying there a few moments ago about intent. is that accurate that that's the whole ball game? there is a lot more from what i understand that could be going into all this, what the prosecutors might be looking at? >> jim, he was a good vice president on january 6th. but he is not a very good criminal law expert. >> okay. >> he's focusing on the wrong thing. it's not donald trump's words on the ellipse that day that create the criminal liability, according to the target letter that jack smith has sent. donald trump oversaw starting in november of 2020 an alleged nationwide scheme to procure false election certificates. that has nothing to do with the words on january 6th. and then he squeezed mike pence to betray his duty on that day. again, that's irrespective of what donald trump did on the ellipse. and then finally, it's not the words of his speech so much. it's that 187 minutes of inaction. former president trump had a legal duty to act, and

norm eisen with us, as well. i'm reading this document, the super ceding indictment that came out with a lot of new information. one line that jumped out at me, i want to get your thought -- trump was not authorized to possess or retain those classified documents. he keeps insisting he was authorized as president of the united states, even though he removed those documents after he left office. he was authorized to retain those kinds of documents. what do you say? >> wolf, i worked on these issues when i was in government, and he absolutely was not authorized to handle them. we have statutes and regulations and executive orders that set up the system for handling this. we know he's admitted limitations on his power. some of those conversations happened after he left the presidency where he admitted once i had the power, now i do not. so that is not going to avail him when it comes to defending his conduct. it's very important in looking now at mr. de la vera, the third defendant, to reflect that neither he nor mr

we're joined by norm eisen and evan perez. uestions are fairly in the weeds, as i can read them. norm, maybe i can ask you given you've got a j.d. somewhere in your past. one of the issue is the assurances that no other charges be pursued on tax or filing as a foreign agent was part of the gun case, not the tax case, and that's a complication that the judge took issue with? >> jim, the issue here is that the judge wants to make sure that the plea agreement is the entire agreement between the parties. and here the question was, had the parties agreed that this would resolve everything? or would there be some lingering exposure? and when we started there was some confusion about that. >> yeah. >> i do want to say having been mostly a defense lawyer for my career, it's not unusual to get some questions from the judge. that is the job of the judge, to make sure that the plea agreement is on track. this judge perhaps reflecting that it is an exceptionally high-profile plea agreement leaned in a little bit more. typically, if the par

shan wu and norm eisen. shan, let me start with you. we know prosecutors are honing in on this trump meeting in february of 2020 in which he insisted at least to its closest associates there was no election fraud or anything along those lines. why do you think this has all of a sudden become a focus of the special counsel's investigation? >> i think it adds, wolf, to this notion of whether or not trump knew his position was illegal. meaning he already understood there was good security in the election and he was actually happy with it, bragging to people about it, maybe wanted to publicize that. the issue is no matter how much evidence of that exists, he can always say i changed my mind later or in my heart i didn't really trust that. i think the key for prosecutors is going to be showing his intent as to committing the illegal actions. someone might believe someone walking down the street is possessed. it doesn't give them the right to kill them. ultimately that subjective believe can be overcome by him taking actions that were illegal

barbara mcquaid did one a while ago, and some others including norm eisen and myself and others were involved in one a year or so ago, actually -- more than a year ago, back before the hearings. i think the goal mainly is focused on the public. i think there's a lot of feeling that -- of overwhelming. the overwhelming nature of the evidence. how in the world can you bring a case like this? so this is an effort to say, you can do it. you break it into bite-sized pieces, and you sort of recognize the phases of what trump was involved in, and you prove that case, and then there are specific acts. we're focusing significantly on the phony elector schemes in seven states and people involved in those and trump's key role in all of that, and that becomes, you know, the basis for false claim allegations. >> right, and let me just ask you on that in particular, and on the question of state of mind, because, you know, his -- just trying to channel what his lawyers would argue. they would argue that, no, actually my client did believe that the election was stolen from him. now of course, there

there is an elaborate memorandum, almost 300 pages on norm, eisen, and a group of others, experts, formerrosecutors. laying out in great detail what the charges are likely to be. they are likely to focus on the fake electors, the attempt to say that the election was stolen when the former president knew that it was not. they're likely to include a second pressure on various people, and including the former vice president. finally, they are likely to include aiding and abetting an insurrection. if the president were to be convicted of that, he would be ineligible to run again. of course, he always claims that he's the victim. he's going to claim that the only reason this is happening is because he's running for president. that is getting it backwards. the main reason that he's running for president is that that is the only way he thinks he can stay out of jail. he wants to be president so that he can pardon himself, or maybe declare himself unfit for a while under the 25th amendment so that whoever he has as vice president can pardon him. just in case there's any legal doubt about the abil

. >> katie, you know, norm eisen, often talking publicly about these issues but also worked on some ofgations on capitol hill, long-time attorney on these issues had a piece where he hit at an interesting element of this when i saw this all play out yesterday i was trying to figure out. he says in this op-ed, by cussing solely on the figures undertook, ms. nestle is insulating her case she overreached exceeding r jurisdiction also leaves a clear lane for mr. jack smith if ms. nestle can move against these individuals in michigan, mr. smith can and should do against the ring leaders. what i was trying to figure out yesterday, this is all connected, right? it's easy to view these things in isolation or view them in a vacuum. all of these things are connected to some degree. do you agree that this either kind of leaves space for the special counsel but also almost kind of, puts the spurs in to bring his own cases against these same individuals across seven states. >> i think these actual charges are discreet in terms of submitting false signatures. any criminal defendant is going to look

there's a lawyer with white house experience, norm eisen. he's saying when you look at the fraudulent electoral certificates and when you look at what we're learning with the target letter, it shows trump -- in other words eisen thinks jack smith will use that evidence for that specific charge. the elector scheme was a potentially criminal act and it was carried out with advanced knowledge and advanced planning, premeditated in public with trump aides admitting it. >> today an alternate state of electors in the contested states is going to vote, and we're going to send those results up to congress. >> something that rudy and the team have worked on -- the trump slate of electors are showing up today in the state capitols. >> we fought to seat the electors. the trump campaign asked us to do that. >> there has been an alternate state of electors voted upon that congress will decide in january. >> yes, i was part of the process to make sure there were alternate electors. >> that's a lot of different examples, and you heard them saying, we're go

from is exactly right, that this was a lawless attempt, and there's a new prosecution memo that norm eisenhave drafted that's come out today which really demonstrates in convincing detail just how much donald trump did here. he wasn't just a cheater, he was criminal. there was a set play that he had before the election and he was even told during the election it was illegal. he was told after the election it was illegal by his own lawyers, and he did it anyway. i think that's what smith is looking at, is all of those different things, what did donald trump want to do and what was he told at the time about his plans, and any lawyer, it requires not even a law degree. it requires like three days in law school, perhaps not even that, to know that what trump was doing was obviously illegal. >> you know, neal, of the crimes that the committee referred, do you have any sense of -- based on what has become public and the folks we have access to and are able to talk to like the secretary of state, do you have any censor would you dare to sort of read the tea leaves of which ones jack smith is purs