Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Special Grand Jury in Georgia Recommended Charges Against 39 People; Graham, Perdue, and Loeffler Recommended for Charges by Special Grand Jury; Interview with Former Federal Prosecutor and January 6th Committee Former Lead Investigator Tim Heaphy; Special Grand Jury in Georgia Recommended Charging More Trump Supporters. Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired September 08, 2023 - 10:30   ET



WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: I just want to be clear on this, Mr. Secretary, you say Senator Graham wanted you to find ways to get rid of legally cast ballots? Because CNN asked him about these allegations. He denied them. He says that's ridiculous. His words, that's ridiculous.

BRAD RAFFENSPERGER (R), GEORGIA SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, just an implication that look hard and see how many ballots you could throw out. And I think that they are looking at that as part of a court case. And one actually was subsequently filed, wasn't it?


SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: I mean, that is from the Georgia secretary of state and how he felt at the time and what he heard on that phone call. Dana, what is the fallout of this? Is there going to be any? Because charges have not been made against Graham and the other two former senators.

DANA BASH, CNN ANCHOR: One of the things that I find interesting in looking at this report, Sara, is that as Michael Moore said, we're kind of seeing the outside of the car and not the engine. But one very important, sort of, mechanical, to keep the metaphor going, data point is that we do have the way these special grand jurors voted. And I'm looking at this long list, and everybody who was indicted from Rudy Giuliani to John Eastman to Donald Trump himself, 20 said yes, and only one said no, and you know it was very, very lopsided.

Going down to Lindsey Graham, Sara, 13 said yes, seven said no. So, it was more split for him. Same goes for the other two now former U.S. senators, Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue. That David Perdue got 17 yeses, Kelly Loeffler 14 yeses.

So, that to me is very, perhaps, instructive, indicative of one of the reasons, perhaps, why Fani Willis decided, you know what, I'm not going to go there on those. It's not -- even with regard to this special jury, how they viewed the case and how strong the case is on those particular individuals, perhaps it's not as strong. The other way to look at it and we're not really going to get the answer until we talk to Fani Willis and to the people who were in her office, is that she might not have wanted to have that constitutional fight.

It's already a very big fight that she is having with -- starting with Mark Meadows. The question of whether or not she even has jurisdiction to be prosecuting a -- Mark Meadows who worked for the federal government. And it is likely she's going to have to have that same fight with Donald Trump. Having that fight with a sitting U.S. senator, who is going to claim that she has absolutely no reason and no ability, no jurisdiction to indict a sitting U.S. senator is probably something that I would guess she saw a bit of a distraction which is why she decided not to go for the indictment there.

SIDNER: Yes, Dana. It's really interesting in light of what's happening with Jim Jordan going after her, which she says is trying to obstruct and interfere in her job as a D.A. But she made a decision, it seems, not to indict these folks, one of whom is a city senator. There is so much to get into, but I really enjoyed the way you looked through this and found some of those details. Those are -- no, it's important. I know you had to do it fast.

BASH: Yes.

SIDNER: But it's important to look at the numbers, because the numbers do matter.

BASH: Yes.

SIDNER: They do matter to prosecutors as to whether or not they can --

BASH: He got the fewest.

SIDNER: -- prove a case. Yes.

BASH: He got the fewest yeses except for the alternate slate of so- called fake electors. They were -- they only got nine. Nine special grand jurors said that they should be indicted and none of them, it looks like, was indicted.

SIDNER: Dana Bash, I appreciate you. Thank you so much. I appreciate it.


KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: In this list of those that this special grand jury recommended charging includes additional Trump aides that have not been charged so far.

Let's go over to Evan Perez, because I know Evan, you've been look looking at that. Talk to me about the other Trump aides that you're seeing in here and what -- that you're seeing in the special grand jury report.

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, that right, Kate. There was a lot focus on some of the big names, the former aides of the former president who were very, very involved. Hands on. Very instrumental in some of the efforts, not only to try to overturn the election results, but also to try to find these -- to try to seat these fake electors, the electors that they would cast votes for Donald Trump even though he had lost the elections.

And the names have stick out, again, on this list of 39, including the slate of fake electors. 39 that the grand jury recommended charges under the RICO statute, the racketeering statute, according to this report. One of them is Cleta Mitchell, I mentioned her last I was up. She was a lawyer who got involved very early on after the election to try to help the former president. She went to -- she was sent down to Georgia to try to pressure officials there. Again, to try to find as many votes as possible to throw out and to try to toss the election results to Donald Trump.


She was recommended here, overwhelmingly by the grand jury, 20 votes in favor of her being indicted under the racketeering statute.

Another name, Michael Flynn. Obviously, he was the former national security advisor, fired early on in Donald Trump's presidency but found his way back in. He was very, very much involved. He was pushing for the military to actually becoming involved to seize voting machines and try to prove the falsehood that there had been fraud in the election results. And another name, Boris Epshteyn. He was very, very instrumental. He was one of the people who engineered the whole effort to get these fake electors seated.

Again, the grand jury found that these people, Boris Epshteyn, Michael Flynn, Cleta Mitchell, close aides of the former president, aides who were very much instrumental in trying to divide -- devise this multi- tiered plan to get Donald Trump back into the White House. All of them were recommended to be charged under the racketeering statute. And in the end, none of them were charged by the grand -- by the district attorney.

And so, one of the questions, obviously, we -- that emerges from this is why is that? It appears that the grand jury believe very strongly. And each one of these, they got 20 votes in favor of some kind of charge against them under this racketeering statute, and in the end, the D.A. and her team decided not to pursue those charges.

Now, we do know these people. Some of these people provided testimony. And it may well be that in the end, she found that their testimony was compelling enough or helpful enough that they did not deserve to be charged. Again, those are questions that we're going to have to figure out later. But, you know, it is very interesting to see these names pop-up. Ones that we had speculated about. Certainly, also in the federal investigation whether they may face some charges, those are big questions also.

BOLDUAN: Those are big questions. And speaking about those who came before, I was just, kind of, trying to jog my memory. Michael Flynn had gone before the grand jury to testify in Georgia. Boris Epshteyn had done the same, so just exactly to your point about some of these people who were recommend -- recommended to face charges did go before this grand jury. Evan, keep going through it. Thank you so much. We'll get back to you.

Let me get over to Paula Reid. Paula had a time -- had some time to look through this as well. Paula, what are you picking up?

PAULA REID, CNN SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: What's so interesting, Kate, is when you look at the map, the way the special grand jury voted on each of these individuals, I think there are going to be a lot of questions for the district attorney about some of the decisions that she made here. You can see why this is such a valuable tool for prosecutors to, kind of, test their case and see how it's viewed by a jury in the same district.

And when you look at the lawmakers, when you look at Former Senator Kelly Loeffler, Former Senator Perdue, or the current Senator Lindsey Graham, you can see the way they voted. You can see multiple people voted no to charging them. That would throw up a red flag to any prosecutor. You can see maybe why she chose not to follow through with charging them. I mean, this special grand jury recommendation even suggested they could have trouble proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt.

When it comes to the Trump advisers, and Evan touched on this, the map is different. You see the vote breakdown for Cleta Mitchell, for Boris Epshteyn, for Mike Flynn is actually identical to many of the people they charged. You see only one person voting no.

So, it really does beg the question why the district attorney, why Fani Willis made the decision not to pursue charges against those Trump advisers, though we have identified Boris Epshteyn as one of the unnamed, unindicted co-conspirators. So, I think this is going to raise a lot of questions about exactly how she made these decisions. Who to charge like when it comes to Rudy Giuliani or John Eastman, the special grand jury voted the same way they did for Cleta Mitchell. So, was it that Mitchell provided something incredible useful to her? Will she be called at trial? What was her gameplan here? What was her strategy?

BOLDUAN: Yes. I'm getting at -- kind of, we're talking about in the lead up to this is this prosecutorial discretion and what the D.A. decides to do with the recommendations coming from the special grand jury. Paula is going to get back to it. Look through some more, and also look at, kind of, what the implications of this could be going forward.


JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Thanks, Kate.

Joining us now, once again, attorneys Michael Moore and Tim Heaphy. I've been going through this, and Lindsey Graham, Kelly Loeffler, and David Perdue. The current Senator Lindsey Graham, the former senators, Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue.

The count that the grand jury recommended charges on, as you pointed out, Michael Moore, let me read this. This is number seven, with respect to the national effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election, focused on efforts in Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia, the grand jury recommends that the district attorney seek indictments of the following persons. And then they included the votes.


And just to reiterate what people had been saying, Lindsey Graham, it was 13 yea, seven no. Seven no votes on indicting Lindsey Graham. David Perdue, 17 yes, four no. Kelly Loeffler, 14 yes, six no.

You both have been prosecutors. If a special grand jury, I mean, the old saying is, you know, grand jury will indict a ham sandwich. But if a special grand jury is -- if seven, you know, a full third is telling you, uh-uh. Is that reason enough for Fani Willis to say, this is not a road that we should go down?

MICHAEL MOORE, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY AND PARTNER, MOORE HALL IN ATLANTA: It is. You're exactly right. The, sort of, the old adage is a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich. You certainly don't want after eight months of work end up with half a sandwich. And that's really what they did as it related to the sitting senator and the two former senators at the time.

And so, that risk going forward to her, just wasn't worth it. It is not worth it if you think that you are going to put a bunch of defendants in a RICO case, but you're going to put people in there that already have folks that are supposed to be on your side or at least you have the ability to influence more readily, now that would be in the special purpose grand jury. They only hear your side of the case as a prosecutor. That's -- they're already not so sure that you can even prove that.

Remember, they not have been cross-examined. They've seen no defense case. They've had no jury charges about what reasonable doubt is or anything else, but they're already voting that they should not be charged, that's got to give you pause as the same -- because you just -- you don't need half a sandwich after eight months of work with the special purpose grand jury.

BERMAN: And Tim, in terms of Lindsey Graham, specifically, again, the only -- and I don't know if you're supposed to call it a count in a special grand jury report here, but it's number seven. The only one where they recommended charges was that broad issue that I just brought up of overturning the 2020 election. It was not specifically for the phone call that Lindsey Graham made.

Now, Donald Trump, the phone call is listed, and it is one of the counts that they voted on for Donald Trump and some others involved. But Lindsey Graham's phone call is not mentioned here at all specifically. Is there anything we can read into that, Tim?

TIM HEAPHY, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, FORMER LEAD INVESTIGATOR, JANUARY 6TH COMMITTEE: Yes, first of all, the select committee didn't speak to Senator Graham nor Ms. Loeffler or Mr. Perdue. So, other than what's been reported, it's not really clear what their role was. I think for Loeffler and Perdue, they were repeating these false claims of election fraud, and that given their position was arguably part of the scheme to prevent the transfer of power, to undercut confidence in the election.

Senator Graham with the direct conversation with Secretary Raffensperger. There's evidence of actual, you know, taking a step further beyond public statements. But the clip you played earlier of his explanation was an inquiry rather than pressurized, you know, attempt to get Secretary Raffensperger to do something.

So, I could see why the prosecutor would, based on that potential defense and the, sort of, lack of granular evidence of anything beyond public statements would stop short of charging them. And as Dana said earlier, you are avoiding a huge distraction in litigation over whether this is speech and debate protected. And prosecutors always make these hard discretionary calls about who to include in an indictment. It doesn't mean that there isn't some evidence that would support their inclusion. But for lots of reason, cooperation, avoidance of issues, they're not included.

So, absent scene (ph) what they really actually saw or what the evidence is against them that the grand jury considered is really hard to look beyond her decision.

BERMAN: Yes, and absent that is really the big issue as we thumb through this report, Michael, because as you point out, we've got some names of people who were not charged. We have the vote counts of the special grand jury itself. But other than that, I think the legal term is bupkis. I mean, that's -- there's nothing in here in terms of witness testimony or transcripts, or really anything that I see in here that could be instructive for either a prosecution or a defense. What about you?

MOORE: I think that's right. I mean, sort of to put it in perspective for the viewers that have not seen the report or don't have a copy of it. There's -- the report is about 26 pages long, double-spaced. But only nine pages contain information about recommended charges, and that's usually just a list of names with a vote tally out by the side. So, there's just not a lot of information.

The rest of the report is, sort of, a recitation of the law and the statutes that may be implicated by the report. There's just not much information to go on. So, that's just -- I will tell you practically, I am a little relieved by that, if I were the prosecutor, because that tells me I feel like I've got less information out there that might come back on that somehow try to influence the jury pool or something. There's just not a lot of information out there.

At the same time, I think it gives the defense attorneys, sort of, a good look at other people to talk to, at least these other names as we've talked about that people who were not charged. It gives them, sort of, the witness thoughts. It gives them the grand jurors thoughts.

[10:45:00] They'll have experts look at this and say, why -- wonder why they didn't -- won't recommend so and so, or wonder why the vote was different on, you know, Mr. X and -- than it was on Ms. Y. They'll go through that process in deciding it. So, I mean, there's some good useful analytics to be done by both sides. But when it comes to having much hand in the sandwich, there's just not much meat in this report.

BERMAN: So, Tim, what do you do with that information and --

HEAPHY: Yes, and John --

BERMAN: Go ahead, Tim. Go ahead.

HEAPHY: Yes. To Michael's point, look this is precisely why we have in the federal system a grand jury secrecy rule. It's really important, rule 6c precludes the release of grand jury information because it's really prejudicial, right? Like to have it out there now, that a grand jury recommended charges against certain people who weren't charged, tars them or affects them without then any corresponding subsequent opportunity to, sort of, clear their name, right?

This is why the grand jury proceedings should be secret. This is a weird process. It's a special grand jury. But it puts people like Kelly Loeffler, and Lindsey Graham, and David Perdue, and Michael Flynn in a hard situation because they've now been, sort of, accused in this report. But there isn't a proceeding at which they will be able to defend themselves. So, to me, it sort of reinforces why we typically keep grand jury proceedings separate because the very fact that someone's implicated, somehow, in an investigation has a prejudicial effect.

BERMAN: I get that. And Michael, to further your point -- OK. So, what do you do with Cleta Mitchell or Lin Wood or David Perdue or Kelly Loeffler if you're a defense attorney? If you could call them to ask them, I mean, what kind of stuff could you find out from them?

MOORE: Well, you might find out if they've had any discussions with prosecutors. You'll find out if they're willing to talk to you. What those discussions were? What areas of inquiry were made of them? You know, was a prosecutor interested in a meeting on a certain day? Were they interested in e-mails between you and somebody else?

I mean, you'll get as much information as you can because it's -- if they're not actually cooperating with the state. If they turn around and say, look, I cannot talk to you. You'll have to talk to my lawyer. You can pretty much, you know, read into that, you know, without a Rosetta Stone, you don't need that to interpret the fact that they are probably cooperating with the government at this point.

So, you'll get some information like that. I do think again, you may, sort of, look at their role. Look at how their role may have been publicly defined and think about what information the grand jury had before would have made a decision one way or another, and especially as you are count up the votes. But, you know, this is a lot of speculation on a pretty skeletal report. And you know, try to analyze it if you are one of the lawyers representing one of the defendants to see what you can glean from it. And you'll also look to see if there -- are there inconsistencies? Are there irregularities in the process? And I think, probably having looked at this report now, it strikes me that one of the greatest avenues that we'll likely see or most likely avenues we'll see from a defense bar will be to challenge the irregularity of the process and the use of some of these information, ultimately in the indictment.

And again, that motion, I think, is likely pending already. But clearly, there was information before it. And we now see that the D.A. is treating some people differently despite the recommendation. And it just, sort of, adds to the overall uniqueness of this particular case.

BERMAN: I got to let you go, but I just want to follow up very quickly. In 20 seconds or less, when you say irregularity here, are you talking about the fact that some people on this list were charged and some weren't, that's what's irregular?

MOORE: I think it's bot the use of the special purpose grand jury. As well as the fact that then the recommendations were not followed. And so, that's be something, I think -- whether it bears out or not, that'll be a motion, I think you'll see.

BERMAN: All right. Michael Moore, Tim Heaphy, thank you both very much.


SIDNER: All right. Let's get straight over to Kristen Holmes to tell us what you're hearing from the Trump camp. Certainly, we will probably hear something on social media at some point, but what are you hearing as you comb through your contacts and make those contacts with them about this?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN U.S. NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That's right. So, we're still waiting for an official statement. Instead, Donald Trump has been ranting on social media all morning about another advisor who was caught up of another investigation to the former president. Peter Navarro who was found in contempt of Congress yesterday. But one thing, as somebody who covers Trump day in and day out, that really struck me about this list of people who weren't ultimately charged is how close many of them still are to Former President Trump.

You look at Senator Lindsey Graham. He still talks to Trump regularly. He was with him by his side at his first campaign stop in 2023 in South Carolina. He has said he's throwing his support behind him. You know, Boris Epshteyn is still Trump's lawyer and still his advisor on that campaign.


And the other person I'll point out, Michael Flynn. They still have a relationship. We know that Michael Flynn and Trump had spent time together at Mar-a-Lago. He's been spotted there on multiple occasions. The other thing I want to know here is David Perdue, because we talked about -- and I know Manu mentioned this meeting that he had with Governor Kemp at the time and Senator Loeffler trying to urge him to call the special session to help Donald Trump with this effort to overturn the 2020 election.

But the other thing we haven't noticed, we haven't mentioned is the fact that he ran an entire failed gubernatorial campaign on those election lies in 2022. He was backed by Donald Trump. The whole entire reason he ran was because Donald Trump was still mad that Brian Kemp was -- had not overturned that election. And that was entire messaging of Senator Perdue's governor campaign, that again, he lost. But that's interesting into context, it's not just these, you know, lies that we know happened during the election in 2020. Perdue is someone who knew or continuing to spread these conspiracies and falsehoods for years after that.

SIDNER: Kristen, having covered him, do you see him coming out very strongly to talk about Senator Graham and those he is still quite close with being that they're not going to be charged at this point. The grand jury did recommend it, and there are 21 people that are not charged in the indictment. So, the argument can't be made that Fani Willis was just throwing the spaghetti out the wall and seeing what stuck. This was very surgical if you look at the number of people who weren't indicted.

HOLMES: That's right. And I think what we usually hear from Donald Trump is the same kind of thing. He says that, can you believe they're doing this to these people who are close to me? These patriots. Can you believe that they're putting them through this right now? Of course, it's a horrible thing. And it's honestly what he's saying about Peter Navarro right now as well.

And this is the entirety of Trump's 2024 campaign. It is political. He is saying that this is election interference. That they're doing these to his allies, to people who support him because he is running for president. And the more that this happens, the more you're going to continue to hear that rhetoric.

I cannot say this enough, Sara, there is no legal and political. It is one thing right now because Trump is using this legal for his political gain. And they do believe, at least in the short term, that it will help him.

SIDNER: I do want to ask you just overall. I mean, this is -- we sometimes get into the weeds and forget how important this case is to American democracy. And I'm curious from you if you think that there are people around Donald Trump that are concerned with some of his rhetoric because these judges are looking at this and watching what he is saying, and worrying about those who are being threatened by people who are trolls for Donald Trump, whether it be online or whether it be on the phone call. Is there any concern about how he attacks and what he does on the social media as well?

HOLMES: Absolutely. But his aides and advisers do not feel like they have any control over what he puts on social media. And I talk to them all of the time, and whenever we see one of these inflammatory posts, I often hear from advisers that they didn't know that he was going to put it out there. They do not have control over what he puts out onto the internet.

We also know that several of his lawyers at various times, at various investigations have essentially begged him to not put anything inflammatory in writing. To not post anything. To not talk about the cases. But yet, he still does. This is the way that he feels, like he is communicating with his supporters, with his voters.

But I do want to note one thing, you talked about the importance of this case. When I have spoken to the former president, interviewed him, asked him questions, when I talked to aides around him, they know how serious this case is. And this case really angers and agitates the former president. He has been no -- after his arrest in Georgia, he was very upset, we know that. He was very angry. He was lashing out.

This is a case that has continually plagued him. Now, he maintains that he did nothing wrong. When it comes to this case, that he has every right to say that the election was stolen, to question the election. But again, we know specifically this case is one that makes him particularly angry and agitated when he looks at his legal landscape.

SIDNER: Kristen Holmes, thank you for all of that and going through it with us. And we will, of course, be coming back to you if you get any new information as to what the Trump camp is up to right now.

BOLDUAN: The breaking news this morning, a final unredacted report, it's right here, from the Fulton County special grand jury has just been released. Jurors listing a total of 39 people they said should face charges for efforts to overturn the election results, that's 20 plus additional people than what the district attorney eventually sought charges against.

Among those in this full report, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, and two former senators from Georgia, David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler. The special grand jury recommended that they face charges. The district attorney did not end up charging them.


There -- these are the 19 people that the district attorney has charged -- has alleged has taken part in a criminal enterprise led by Donald Trump to overturn the 2020 election. These are the mug shots. These are the 19 charged.

What is the difference between this report and what we are dealing -- what we are looking at with these -- with the eventual indictment? CNN's Evan Perez, Paula Reid, they're standing by with details on this.

Paula, let me start with you. What are your major takeaways from this?

REID: Well, Kate, I want to think about these in two groups, in terms of the people who were not charged. Let's first start with the lawmakers, Senator Lindsey Graham and Former Georgia senators, Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue. Now, these are probably going to create the biggest headlines here, particularly Senator Lindsey Graham because he's a sitting senator.

But when you look at the vote count, sort of, how the members of the special grand jury came back, it's clear they were divided on whether these individuals should be charged. There was a recommendation, but it was not unanimous and it wasn't just one person voting no.

So, it's pretty clear why the district attorney would not proceed with charges, because this is the most friendly environment possible for her case, right? You don't have lawyers in the room with witnesses. You don't have a defense presentation. There isn't a high bar. You can indict a ham sandwich, is of course the famous saying. This is not beyond a reasonable doubt. So, if you have problems with a case in -- before a grand jury, you're going to have big problems in a real courtroom. It's pretty clear why she would not proceed against these three individuals.

When it comes to the other group that we're all talking about, which is a group of Trump advisers, Cleta Mitchell, Michael Flynn, and Boris Epshteyn. Well, Flynn and Epshteyn tend to advise Trump at the national level, after the election. Where Cleta Mitchell was actually on the ground in Georgia.

But here, these recommendations, the math, the votes from the special grand jury, mirror those of people who are actually charged like Rudy Giuliani or Former President Trump. So, that's going to actually raise a lot of questions about exactly why they were not charged.

But, Kate, I think another big question that's going to be out there is whether we should have access to all of this. Of course, CNN was one of the media outlets that pushed to have this historic document unsealed. But usually, grand jury proceedings are done in secret to protect witnesses. To give them the freedom and the sense of security to speak freely, and also to protect people who are not ultimately charged.

Because now we have all these names out there. We have the math for how they voted in terms of recommending them to be charged, but they don't actually have a mechanism or a process to clear their name besides that fact that they weren't charged.

So far in the state of Georgia, what we've seen is consistently they have erred far on the side of transparency. We have cameras in the courtroom, so anyone can watch these proceedings, even the mundane scheduling and logistics proceedings. We also saw the members of the special grand jury. Their names were published with this indictment, and many of them have been doxxed online and faced threats. And now, we get access, again, to this historic document. Its' something CNN and other outlets pushed for. But there is a balance when it comes to transparency, I think that's going to be part of the conversation going forward as well.

BOLDUAN: All right. Paul, thank you for that.

Evan, let me bring you on in this. What are you picking up about the other officials that are not charged here that we're learning about?

PEREZ: Well -- right. There are 21 names that are listed on this list of 39 names, people who were recommended that they were -- that they be brought charges against that ended up not being charged. And of course, the names, some of them Paula just pointed out, the names officials, right? People in very high-level positions who were very, very much involved in trying to either pressure state officials, to try to find this -- the alleged fraud that Donald Trump and his allies said existed, and of course didn't.

And of course, some of them went to extraordinary means. Some of them we saw in public, of course. But Lindsey Graham, obviously, the fact that he is a sitting senator, the one that certainly has spoken a lot. You've seen him talk to reporters about what he thought was going on. The idea that the grand jury ended up voting 20 votes to one to bring charges, and then the district attorney decided not those bring the charges, obviously is a big question that, I think, will persist after today.

The other thing that obviously will come from this is, you know, what exactly did turn up in this investigation? Is there something else that might come out in some of the discovery that we might see later on? Again, those are big questions that are going to be going forward in the weeks and months as this case goes forward.

Of course, there is -- there's also David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler, two former senators. Both of them lost their seats in the end partly because of their efforts, associating themselves with the former president's claims of fraud, which turned out not to be.