say bigger legal implications from all of this? >> well, one of the interesting things that we, that this presents us with, right, is that, you know, there is still ongoing investigations in various parts in the feds as well as in the states. and it is, you know, one of the unusual things is that, you know, you have the georgia investigation, the georgia grand jury, and special grand jury, and they have heard testimony of a number of people, including people who did not and have not spoken to jack smith's investigation for example, and one of the things that i know that is going to present itself in coming months, kate is that federal prosecutors are going to want to see some of the work that went into the investigation, and into the fani willis investigation is that they are getting ready for their own trial, and there might be additional defendants named in the jack smith investigationcom things that i am looking at is if there is anybody here or something here that might be of interest to others who are doing some of the similar investigations, and again, the feds are doing their own, but also some of the investigators in some of the other states that are looking at the various efforts to overturn the election results in those states. again, some of that stuff could be indicative of what we are seeing the georgia grand jury produced in their work. >> so interesting. evan, paula, thank you so much. stay close. john? >> with us now is cnn legal analyst michael more and tim lathe from the january 6th committee, and we will soon get this grand jury report, and go through it, and the first thing is a simple math equation. there were 19 people charged in georgia. does the special grand jury report recommend charging more than that. if they do, michael, what is the significance? >> well, i'm glad to be with both of you. remember, it is an advisory body, and it is unusual to use a grand jury in a criminal case, so we do not see this often. you will see it in administrative type investigations, but this is different. and probably in addition to the number of defendants or the recommendations for indictment, what may be troubling, and may at the end of the day provide good fodder for defense attorneys is whether or not the judge releases those portions of the report where the special grand jurors found some of the witnesses to not be credible. that really may pose a problem when we are talking about the influence of the potential jurors in the criminal trial, and what is that like to have a ju judicial body to determine that you are not telling the truth. it is subject to motions pending in fulton county, and interesting to see how they are playing out. we will be looking at the number of defendants and those defendants who the grand jury may have found not truthful and how it plays out in criminal case. >> tim, counselor, isn't the why or should i ask it differently, isn't the why, why fani willis and the grand jury and not the special grand jury, but people who were not charged ultimately, a why she decided it is not worth bringing the charges if the special grand jury had recommended it? >> yeah, it would be interesting, but that won't be in the report. look, at any large scale criminal investigation involving a conspiracy, the decision as to who to charge isn't who is involved, but it is practically what is the shape of the case sort of most making sense to portray to the jury, and there are practical considerations of the number of defendants, and already sort of stretching the outer edge of it by charging the 19 people, ab that does not mean that the conspiracy is limited to the 19, and there is prosecutorial discretion that informs that. so, look, as michael said, there is maybe some things that bears on credibility, and additional evidence that gives defense and the world better sense owhat is going to happen when this case is tried, but we won't get, no question, we won't get in the report a window into the exercise of her discretion. >> tim, every attorney that we have spoken to over the last several hour, and particularly in the defense attorneys, they are in a way salivating over this, because they feel like getting this special grand jury report might give them helpful information to stage their defenses in georgia, and why? >> yeah, absolutely. it is a roadmap of the evidence that informed the d.a.'s decision to make, to bring her case. you don't often get that. you will get discovery from the evidence, but a report with conclusions and findings by a grand jury is kind of an unusual preview of sorts that the defense will absolutely mine for intelligence and practical information of who might be showing up on the witness stand, and also, the theory of the case. so it is significant and as michael said, unusual that you get this preview. >> michael, what and how much will we learn about the possible cooperators and the people who may have been granted immunity as part of the process? >> well, you'll have a chance to really just line upside by side those people who ended up in the original indictment and those people who were discussed in front of the special grand jury, and if in the final indictment you see 19 and in the discussions of the special grand jury you see recommendations for 25, you have to wonder about the six people, and it won't take ta rocket science to ferret through who the people may be. and so the defense bar is going to be digging into that, and digging into the background, and figuring out who said what, and who may have a deal. nothing stops them once they determine who those individuals may be, and if they are named going straight to them, and say, hey, we want to talk to you about the case, and you will find out real quick if they clam up or send you to the lawyer what their intentions may be as far as cooperation with the state. again, this is not normal in a criminal case in georgia and especially in a superior court case, we do not have investigative grand jury powers for criminal grand juries, and this a little bit new, and you can tell from some of the motions filed by the defense attorneys that they intend to use this fully to their advantage. >> okay. so, tim, take it a little bit further, and this report is coming out, and i can keep checking my computer, in minutes at 10:00, and it drops and you are going to do what with it when you are an attorney? >> it is meat on the bones. the bones here are evident to everyone, to world for months that the core story on the committee that i worked told that has been amply reported is there, and this is additional detail, and specific manifestations of the multi part plan to disrupt the joint session, and who was contact and who did what. so there is detail in there that the defense lawyers will want to mine for investigative leads to help shape their potential response. but to be clear, i don't believe there is any bombshell here, and there is no bombshell or shoe left to drop, and the core story here of intentional disruption in an attempt to circumvent the peaceful transfer of power has been clear for a long time. >> michael, how quickly could we see something in this special grand jury report in a courtroom? could it play in any of the various hearings that are going to take place or will take place in the severance or anything like that? >> well, maybe as early as next week. because the judge in fulton county said that he will hear hearings every week, and as well as he is under the gun by ms. powell and mr. chesebro and there is a motion pending from the two defendants right now, and as it relates to the releasing of this report. so i think that you will hear something about it. if there if there is any information in it that is prejudicial or unfairly paints a defendant, then you will hear about it, and filed next week, and then it will be if a case should stand. you will have motions to dismiss the criminal indictment because of some irregularity that happened before the grand jury, and it is coming, and whether it is next week or a few weeks down the road. >> and so, we are waiting for report to come out any moment, so please standby. sara? a scathing response from d.a. fani willis after the house chair of judicial jim jordan looked into her office saying that the obvious purpose to disrupt a georgia criminal proceeding and obvious partisan misrepresentations is her message after the congressman wrote to willis telling her, you did not bring charges until 2 1/2 years later at a time when the presidential nomination was in full swing. the chief congressional reporter manu raju is with us. and she has filled the request for the documents, and what is the power in this house judicial committee? >> well, it is unclear what jim jordan, the chairman, is going to be doing with the blistering letter from fani willis, and the committee is declining to do about her response, and unclear if he going to be taking steps to subpoena fani willis or subpoena documents, and certainly something under the purview they could do. when they step back into session in the house going forward and fani willis made it clear what she was doing was unconstitutional, and it would step on the state's rights, and they had no business in fanni wi willis' views, that just because donald trump is a political candidate, he is not above the law. and she rejected that because of when the charges were brought in the election season, that is the intent, that it is not the intent, because the investigation had concluded. and she went on the say this in the blistering response to the judicial definition does not include law enforcement nor a specific criminal trial, because you believe so will promote your partisan political objectives. fani willis, and the judicial committee is trying to figure out if she in any way coordinated with justice department, jack smith's office who of course has brought separate charges on the federal level against the former president. she went on to say that her office did receive $12 million in other grants for other issues like dealing with crime on the streets, and dealing with sexual assault, and going after people acuted of the funds, but the fight between the two sides is intensifying, and we will see if the chairman pushes back or decides to move on. >> the letter is clear, because she is slapping him with cases that went to the supreme court, and base the power is not unchecked, and there has to be checks and balances. it is going to be fascinating as the cases go forward. thank you, manu. kate? >> coming up, donald trump is trying to pitch in and raise money for rudy giuliani, and the amount of legal bills that he is facing. we have new details on that. we are also here in the control room telling me in my ear right now, we have the full report, and the unredacted report from fulton county has been released. with that we go to paula reid, and what are you learning? >> i have not seen it yet, kate, but why we are seeing the report today and seeing potentially any difference of what the grand jury has recommended and what the district attorney fani willis has done. it is not a usual course of action for the grand jury reports to be released to the public, but at the indictment and cnn and other outlets wanted to know how this was released to the public. and the judge said now that the release is out, he did not see this to be redacted. so we are going to be pouring over this, and to see where the district attorney deviated from what was recommended by the special grand jury. kate, the grand jury was used for seven months to investigate this. they heard from dozens and dozens of witnesses in the case. but the recommendations were not binding upon the district attorney. and this is before moving to the district of the recommendations made by the grand jury were supported by enough evidence to successfully convict somebody in court. and were there any recommendations of any one high profile for anyone to be opted to follow through with. and that is the number one thing that they are going to be looking for, and this is the grand jury report that they are not going to have available to the public. >> and paula, standby, and you will get your hands on the report, and while you are talking, evan is going through it. evan, what are you seeing? >> yeah, look, i mean, there are a number of recommendation, and some of them line up exactly with what the district attorney and her team ended up deciding that they had enough evidence to be able to bring. one of the things that is interesting is that there is a section 7 of the report where they mention, and they say with respect to the national effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and focused on georgia, arizona, and michigan and pennsylvania and the district of columbia, the special grand jury seeks indictments of the following persons, and one of the names standing out beyond rudy giuliani, and kenneth chesebro and the former president donald trump, we also see the name number 11 listed here, lindsey graham who is sitting senator who is still the senator obviously from south carolina who was very much involved in some of the efforts to talk to georgia officials trying to find ways for them to say that there was fraud in the election, and one of the things that right off of the bat that the grand jury finds, one of the initial findings is that there was no widespread fraud in the state of georgia n the 2020 elections. so one of the names again sticking is the out here in one of these recommendations, again, and this is under section 7 of the report, page 6, you can see the list of names. rudy giuliani, john eastman, kenneth chesebro, and cleta mitchell, and jena ellis, and mark meadows who has also been charged and david schaffer, and ray smith, lynn wood, and someone who was not charged in the end, and lindsey graham, and sidney powell, and they list a total of 30 people who they believe should have been charged. this is the special purpose grand jury that they believe should have been charged of the national scheme by the former president and some of his allies to overturn the election results. so, again, the grand jury was saying that it was beyond just the state of georgia, but it is an effort that went to all of the other states, including wisconsin, arizona, michigan and the s the s the state of pennsylvania. so we know of 19 of course and they have listed 30. so we have to read through it why they made that decision, and what is the purpose of what they believe were the findings. kate? >> absolutely. i will give you time to continue reading through it, and i am looking through it as well. importantly, one of the big questions has been is the number in the full report different than the number of people that fani willis previously indicted, and the answer is yes, john. they have recommended 30 names to be charged and that is 11 more than the 19 that fani willis is now seeking to prosecute. >> 11, and three of them u.s. senators, and one of them is a sitting is u.s. senator, lindsey graham of south carolina. and they also recommend charges against then georgia senators ke ke ke ke kelly lawfler and david perdue. so now, tell me about the difficulties of bringing something like this against a sitting senator, and two former senators, and what would make fani willis not want to bring those charges? >> well, one thing that is in the report that we will have to look at more closely, it deals with the number of people who voted to charge versus those who voted not to charge or abstain from the charge, and i notice some individuals who were not in the 19 who had votes against them, and one of them is lindsey graham, and his was not a unanimous vote to include him in the indictment. and so you have the look at the speech and debate claus, and lindsey graham challenged the subpoenas, and they went to court about that, and certain issues surrounding whether the state could get information, and maybe it is simply be that the d.a. looked at it, and said, look, we are not at a place where we have been able to convince all of the special purpose grand jurors that we need to move the indictment. and so, maybe it is going to be more of a political case than necessarily a criminal case if we try to overreach into the every sitting leader in the state of georgia. so they dealt with the information that they could get as the special purpose grand jury went forward and whether or not those individuals contributed specifically to the narrative of the efforts to overturn the election that went on from the day after the vote through january. whether or not those specific individuals were tied in some way, and whether they had evidence about them in a trial jury. this is not a transcript for the viewers and something that we are getting to read for every word in the special grand jury and see the specific details of the evidence, but it is a summary-type form that we can see the conclusions that they reached, and we will draw our on inferences from those conclusions. >> yeah, i am thumbing through it right now, and this is exactly right. in terms of the actual details what jumps out are the names, and not necessarily the action or the testimony to that end of what the actions were. to what extent does this indicate that fani willis wanted a somewhat narrow case, because she brought charges against 19 people which is a lot, but it is not 30, and it is not against the sitting u.s. senators, and did this indicate that she wanted to keep it narrow where appropriate? >> i don't think that there is any way to call her case narrow, and even the case that she has ended up with. once she used the word rico, you have woven one of the biggest fishing nets that you can weave and trying to catch as many fish as you can catch. that why rico is such a powerful tool for prosecutors to allow them to dirty up everybody else with the other people's conduct. so, i don't see that the 19 would be that she tried to narrow the case, but at the end of the day, she probably looked at it, and making some decisions about whether this is going be even more labeled a case of politics, or labeled a case of some criminal conduct, and had she included the two highest ranking officials in the state at the time in the indictment, at some point, the stench of politics can come over the entire criminal case, and that is some of what the defense is trying to do now, but it would have added to that if she had included two senators of which she may not have had enough information about. you recall the call that lindsey graham made to the secretary as he is trying to talk about can you do something about the votes, and where are the votes, and his explanations after may have answered that question how he was calling for the senate and everything. but that is to me, you know, that is a case that she had to use her own discretion on. i don't know what information she had available to her on perdue and loeffler and we are not seeing the engine of what went on in the special purpose of the grand jury, and just the exterior of the car. so we are not seeing it run, and the specific allegations, statements and testimony of the witnesses, but sort of the finished products in looking at it, and then we saw what spart she wanted to take. that is kind of what we have known at this point. >> to be clear, as we are looking through it, and charges of 39 which is ultimately more than they did bring charges against which is 19. we go to sara. >> this is incredible when you are looking at the names. former senator david perdue of georgia and former senator kelly loeffler of georgia and sitting senator of south carolina lindsey graham. let me go to manu raju, and they are not charged. fani willis did not decide to go forward to charge them, but the grand jury said they should be charged. what is this politically, and what is happening on