Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

CNN To Hold First Interview With Harris And Gov. Tim Walz (D- MN); Poll Shows Harris Narrows Trump's Advantage On The Economy; Revised Indictment Filed In Trump Election Subversion Case; Justice Jackson: "Concerned" Over Trump Immunity Ruling; Israel Says It Rescued 52-Year-Old Hostage Held By Hamas In Gaza. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired August 27, 2024 - 18:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN ANCHOR: Happening now, breaking news, Vice President Kamala Harris and her running mate, Tim Walz, will sit down right here on CNN for their first interview since becoming the Democratic ticket. Stand by for details.

Also breaking tonight, the revised indictment against Donald Trump, we'll dig into the new filing in the federal election subversion case, now slimmed down in response to the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity.

[18:00:08]

Welcome to our viewers here in the United States and all around the world. Wolf Blitzer is off today. I'm Alex Marquardt and you're in The Situation Room.

First up this hour, the breaking news in the race for the White House, CNN's exclusive interview with Kamala Harris and her running mate, Tim Walz, the new Democratic nominees sitting down to answer questions for the first time since President Joe Biden stepped aside from the ticket.

Let's bring in CNN's Eva McKend. So, Eva, tell us about this interview.

EVA MCKEND, CNN NATIONAL POLITICS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, this is the first time that the vice president and her running mate will sit down for an in-depth interview. She did at the DNC meet with content creators, different social media influencers, but that is, of course, not the same of sitting with an in-depth -- for an in-depth interview, like she will, with our Dana Bash later this week in the battleground state of Georgia to answer some pretty serious policy questions.

She, of course, might be asked about her position now on fracking, because the critical state of Pennsylvania is in play, and also her position on immigration, which has changed dramatically over the years. That is what she might be confronted with. But also she can use this platform, Alex, to try to relate to everyday Americans. She's really been intentional about that throughout this campaign process. She's trying to connect with voters and essentially say, I understand your struggle, I understand your economic pain, and I want to advance policies that will address those issues. MARQUARDT: Yes, certainly a lot for Dana to ask not just the vice president, but her running mate. That interview due to take place tomorrow in Georgia. That is two weeks, Eva, before the scheduled first debate between the vice president and former President Donald Trump. And there's been back and forth about the rules. Where does that stand?

MCKEND: Yes, Alex. Apparently, this is still a live issue. The debate over the debates continue here. In a post today, the former president saying that he has agreed to the terms, and the Harris campaign has as well, where the parameters of this will be similar to the CNN debate, in which mics will be muted when the person that is not supposed to be speaking, you know, speaks out of turn, that those mics will be muted.

But the Harris campaign, they still seem to be trying to litigate this. In a statement to us, they said that they're still negotiating with ABC over this issue. And the reason that they're pressing this, Alex, is because they think that they have a real opportunity here. We know that the vice president is on message. She's a disciplined messenger. The former president is not often. And so they are hoping it seems like for some sort of moment here where he might speak out of turn in a way that might benefit her.

MARQUARDT: Yes, it could really change the dynamic of the debate, so that's why it's so important. Eva McKend, thanks so much for kicking us off. I appreciate it.

Our political experts are joining me now with more. Alex Thompson, I want to go to you first in terms of this first interview, how do you see the stakes for Vice President Kamala Harris?

ALEX THOMPSON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I mean, the stakes are incredibly large. And I'm sure Dana is going to ask all the tough questions that reporters have been trying to ask now for over 30 days. We do have an extraordinary circumstance here where the Democratic nominee of the party hasn't sat for one interview beyond social media influencers. Now, part of that is because it is extraordinary circumstances where she was not a candidate until July 21st for this office.

And as a result, you know, she has really raised the stakes of this interview to a place where now it is huge breaking news that she's even doing one. And what happens, and I don't think that this is going to -- I can tell you from my perspective, I'm still going to keep asking for interviews. I know all my colleagues, I know CNN colleagues are going to also continue to ask for interviews. And the fact that she's doing a joint interview with Tim Walz is also going to be used to say, well, you haven't done a solo interview yet, and I expect that to be the case.

That being said, you know, she is going to be asked obviously, I'm sure, about on issues like Medicare for all, one some of the issues on the border. And it's going to be really fascinating to watch. I'm sure it's going to be a really newsy interview.

MARQUARDT: Yes, it certainly will. Kristen Soltis Anderson, what do you make of what Alex just mentioned about the fact that this is now a joint interview with Tim Walz? And when you watch this tomorrow night, what are you going to be looking for in terms of what she needs to accomplish?

KRISTEN SOLTIS ANDERSON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: What I'm going to be looking for is, is she pressed on the changes that she has made in her policy positions from four years ago to explain why she takes new positions on things like a border wall, why she takes new positions on things like energy exploration and fracking.

[18:05:08]

She may have very good explanations for why her position has changed, but it's time for her to be pressed on those, and I hope and expect that's what Dana Bash will do.

I do think it's great that she's agreed to do this, and I think voters will think so as well. In my polling, we've asked voters, without naming a candidate, do you think it's important for candidates for president to do media interviews? And nine out of ten Republicans and nine out of ten Democrats say yes. So, it was very important that she do this and I'm glad that she has signed up to do it with Dana Bash.

MARQUARDT: And that interview with Danabash taking place in Georgia, I just want to correct myself, that is taking place on Thursday, not tomorrow.

Ashley Allison, when it comes to interviews that Harris has done, she's had some missteps in the past. There is one that stands out, it was with Lester Holt in 2021. The Trump campaign has tried to spotlight that interview. I just want to play a little bit of it. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LESTER HOLT, NBC NEWS ANCHOR: Do you have any plans to visit the border?

KAMALA HARRIS, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT, DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: I'm here in Guatemala today. At some point, you know, we are going to the border. We've been to the border. So, this whole thing about the border, we've been to the border. We've been to the border.

HOLT: You haven't been to the border.

HARRIS: And I haven't been to Europe. And, I mean, I don't understand the point that you're making.

My focus is dealing with the root causes of migration. There may be some who think that that is not important, but it is my firm belief that if we care about what's happening at the border, we better care about the root causes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MARQUARDT: Ashley, the perceived failure of that interview is what adds more importance to this first interview with Harris, since she became a candidate. What does Harris have to do to avoid another misstep like that one?

ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I think the vice president will do a great job in this interview. I think she's going to need to connect with the American voters. She had a great Democratic National Convention where she introduced herself. Many folks still were unclear of who she was as a vice president, as many folks are unclear of who vice presidents are. It's not a job that is always at the front in the spotlight. So, she's going to have an opportunity to talk about the policies that she believes, why she's changed her mind. People are allowed to grow and expand on issues and I think that she will be up to the challenge.

One thing I just want to point out is that everything at this moment is high-stakes. This interview is high-stakes. Every time Donald Trump steps in front of a microphone, it's high-stakes. They're running for the highest office of the land. And so whether it be an interview or a conversation with content creators, we need to hear from the vice president. She agreed to do this interview before the end of the month. She made good on her word. And I'm excited to hear what she has to say and have the conversation with the American people.

MARQUARDT: Yes. No, it's a terrific point. Everything is high-stakes. There's not much time left and the race is neck and neck.

Alex, two weeks from today, so after this interview here on CNN, Harris and Trump are going to be getting on the debate stage together for the first time. Earlier today, the former president posted that the debate will take place with those same rules from the June 25th CNN debate, but the Harris campaign has now just released a statement saying that the muting of the mics, that important issue about whether those mics will be muted when one candidate is speaking, that's still under discussion, Alex. So, what do you think is going on here in terms of this negotiation?

THOMPSON: I mean, it's a tempest in a teapot, really, in terms of a small detail that you're right could have huge effect on this race. You know, one thing, it's not just them getting on the debate stage for the first time, it's actually going to be the first time they've ever met in person. Kamala Harris has been in the same room as Donald Trump during some of his addresses when he was president, but they've actually never met in person. So, that's also going to be interesting.

In terms of this back and forth with the muting of the mics, you know, it's interesting because Joe Biden's campaign was the one that wanted the muted mics in the first place after the 2020 debate that sort of went off the rails. Now that Harris is the nominee, you know, they have different priorities. She also has different strengths. You watch that Mike Pence debate, she was very good at sort of cutting him off and sort of, you know, being able to deliver lines when it wasn't her turn always to speak or when she was speaking and sort of talking over him.

And then, of course, Donald Trump, as you mentioned earlier, is not the most disciplined communicator. Clearly, some people, I've talked to some people in the Harris campaign that think the Biden campaign erred in asking for those muted mics given Donald Trump's lack of discipline at times.

MARQUARDT: And to that point, Kristen, what about the internal contradiction within the Trump campaign? You had the Trump campaign saying that they want the mics to be muted, then their candidate on the campaign trail yesterday saying he didn't mind if they were unmated.

[18:10:02]

But from the campaign's perspective, if they want those mics to be muted, do you think, Kristen, that's an admission that they don't trust their candidate not to interrupt Harris?

ANDERSON: Not necessarily. I mean, I do think, setting aside this debate, it's certainly the case that Donald Trump likes to speak, likes to make his voice heard, but I don't think that the muting of the mics is what helped Donald Trump relative to Joe Biden in that debate, you know, two months ago. I think it was a lot of other factors that made Donald Trump come out victorious in that one.

Certainly, if I'm his campaign, I would think that having the mics muted would make me a little less nervous, but as Ashley said, it's all high-stakes. And whether the mics are muted or not, you're still going to see if his lips are moving, you're still going to see if he's trying to interrupt and vice versa.

So, I think a big deal is being made out of it, but I'm not sure that I think that will be the decisive thing in this debate. I think what will be decisive is which candidate has better answers on issues, like who's going to bring down the cost of living, who's going to deal with what's going on at the border, who's going to deal with energy issues most effectively. Those are the things that voters want to hear about, much more so than a debate about who's mic is on or not.

MARQUARDT: Yes, there is certainly a lot to get to in, in that debate, but, of course, a lot of it is also about, how the candidates are acting and interacting with each other. So, this is a really important issue and conversation to watch.

I want to thank you all for joining me. You can see the exclusive interview in a CNN special, Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, Democratic ticket, they are sitting down with Dana bash this Thursday at 9:00 P.M. Eastern Time, only here on CNN.

And just ahead at Democratic Strategist James Carville will be joining me here in The Situation Room. We have a lot to discuss in this race for the White House, including a new twist in that simmering feud over the upcoming presidential debate. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:15:00]

MARQUARDT: The back and forth over the upcoming presidential debate took just yet another turn after Donald Trump claimed today that he agreed to participate under the original rules, which would include microphone muting. The Harris campaign now says those discussions are still ongoing.

Let's get reaction from Democratic Strategist James Carville. Thanks so much for being with me. I want to get your take on this back and forth over whether these microphones should be muted. Do you think it's smart of the Trump campaign to insist that those microphones be muted when the other is speaking and for the Harris campaign to insist that the microphones be open?

JAMES CARVILLE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I don't think it's that big a deal. Honestly, and Trump needs this debate. He had to take it, right? And he instinctively knows that. And it's going to get an enormous rating. Why? Because there's nothing more that America likes than a train wreck. And they saw one on June 27th. So, they're going to tune in and hope to see another train wreck. People just love train wrecks. They'll line up forever. And, you know, the last one they saw was one, maybe the biggest ever. And they'll be watching anticipation come September 10th.

MARQUARDT: But isn't it less of a train wreck if it's much more disciplined and you impose that discipline by making sure that only one candidate can speak at a time?

CARVILLE: I guess. I mean, I think it would. Actually, I wish they'd let Trump speak over because he's so rude and people don't like it. And she is much better equipped to handle that than, say, President Biden was. So, any chance, any opportunity you give Trump to be rude, I think you should give it to her, but I'm not that hung up on cut microphone or on microphone or anything like that. I don't think that's particularly detractive here. But I've just assumed let him give him every opportunity to be the jerk he is.

MARQUARDT: I assume that's why the Harris campaign is pushing for those mics to be open. But then, sir, on this interview that was just announced by CNN the Democratic ticket, both Harris and Walz sitting down with our Dana Bash on Thursday, this is the first formal interview, not just with the candidate herself, but with this ticket since Biden stepped down. Do you think that there is a mistake that was made by the Harris campaign by waiting so long to schedule this, to make this issue, this interview such an issue?

CARVILLE: Not in the least. First of all, she's had a little over five weeks to put together a campaign, to merge two campaign coaches, to plan a convention, to pick a vice president, to go through all of that. And I'm just -- you know, she's going to sit down and do it. She's going to do it in walks. By the way, Trump and Vance hadn't been in the same state since the Republican Convention.

But I think all of this whining about sitting down and doing a long form interview or a press conference is actually what turns people off. She's sitting down, she's doing it, kudos to CNN. It's a big get. I'm absolutely 100 percent sure that Dana is going to do a good job on it. And thank God I don't have to listen to this garbage in the background anymore, like you got to sit down and do a long form interview, if you don't do it with eyes. Okay, now she's doing it.

MARQUARDT: Well, it will certainly give the voters an opportunity to see her pressed, and Dana will do, no doubt, a great job on pressing on some of these important issues, including on the economy, of course, a central issue of any campaign. Donald Trump has made this a central part of his campaign messaging against Kamala Harris. And then we have this new poll, which is really quite interesting. Trump's advantage over Kamala Harris on the economy is eroding. He had been leading. Now there is no clear leader on who voters prefer to handle the economy. That three-point lead, that is within the margin of error. You can see 43 to 40 right there within the margin of error. But if you go back to late July, so just a month ago, Trump had an 11- point advantage on this issue.

[18:20:03]

So, there's a quite a significant swing. What do you make of that?

CARVILLE: Deals on the economy are not static, right? They change. They're fluid. And I think they'll change even better if what all my financial friends tell me, I don't know, that the Fed cuts rates in mid-September, because people will have some hope that interest rates are coming down. So, it will affect it.

By the way, the Echelon poll, which is the kind of Republican-leaning group with Edward Park (ph), she's tied on strength. That's amazing. That was Trump's biggest advantage. I know people that would poll Trump and it looked strong leader was the most important internal it would look at. Well, she's already matched that, which I think is extraordinarily good news. You remember Bill Clinton says, people would rather lead it as strong and wrong than weak and right. Maybe she can pull off a two for him, do both. I don't know. We'll see. We'll see how she does. It's a big interview that Dana has and people are going to pay attention and watch and this debate's going to be huge.

MARQUARDT: Yes, it is certainly a big interview, 9:00 P.M. right here on CNN on Thursday with Dana Bash. James Carville, as always, I appreciate your perspective. Thanks for coming on.

CARVILLE: Thank you very much.

MARQUARDT: All right. Coming up, breaking news, new reporting on how Donald Trump is reacting to the superseding indictment filed against him in the election subversion case, plus, how Special Counsel Jack Smith revised that indictment against the former president.

Stay with us. You're in The Situation Room.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:25:00]

MARQUARDT: There is breaking news in Donald Trump's federal election subversion case. Prosecutors have just filed a revised indictment slimming down the allegations against Trump while maintaining the original charges.

Let's get more from our Senior Crime and Justice Reporter Katelyn Polantz. So, Katelyn, how is Special Counsel Jack Smith re-tailoring this indictment against Trump?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Well, Alex, they're paring it down so they can keep it alive to try to take this case against Donald Trump to trial. They're focusing on what Donald Trump was doing after the election as a candidate for office, rather than things he was doing when he had his presidential hat on, either getting briefings, speaking within the White House, talking to senior executive branch advisers, and instead, now the case is all about Candidate Trump talking with his campaign, being told by his campaign that there was no fraud in the election, that he should have known that, and then using private people, private attorneys, private advisers, to try and spread election lies and get Mike Pence, then the vice president, to block the certification of the election.

Now, they have to walk a fine line here though because Pence was his Vice President, but he's still part of this case, Alex, and the Justice Department says that Donald Trump had no official responsibilities related to the certification proceeding, but he did have a personal interest as a candidate in being named the winner of the election. All of the conversations between the defendant, Trump, and Vice President Mike Pence, described below, focused on the defendant maintaining power. So, they're trying to put Pence in the different bucket of being the president of the Senate during that certification of the vote rather than somebody in Donald Trump's own administration.

MARQUARDT: So, Katelyn, what comes next? How are you expecting this to unfold?

POLANTZ: Well, everybody's going to have to figure out if what the Justice Department is doing here is in line with what the Supreme Court says about presidential immunity. So, the way they will do it, the next thing we are likely to hear is we're going to hear both from Trump's side and from the special counsel's office laying out what they think the next step should be. There's a filing due on Friday to Judge Tanya Chutkan in the trial court in federal court, Washington, D.C. They'll have to propose some timelines and then there's a hearing before Judge Chutkan scheduled for next Thursday.

Donald Trump will very likely be putting in another not guilty plea. We don't expect him to be there at that hearing, but there is going to be a lot of discussion about how fast should things move forward and what does the court need to do to decide? Can the Pence stuff in this case remain in? Are there going to have to be hearings? Will there have to be witnesses? Will someone like Pence or even Mark Meadows, the chief of staff to Trump, who's cut out of this largely, will they have to take the stand before any trial? A long road ahead and even things in the coming days. Alex?

MARQUARDT: It certainly is. Katelyn Polantz has been wading through this revised indictment by Jack Smith, thanks very much for all that reporting. Let's bring in CNN's Kristen Holmes, who is covering the Trump campaign. So, Kristen, Trump just posted on his social media platform, Truth Social, about the indictment. What did he say?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I mean, it's more like what did he not say. This is a real novel here. He posted on Truth Social probably longer than, or at least the same length, that the indictment himself. But, essentially, he does a lot of the greatest hits. He says that this is an effort to resurrect a dead witch hunt in Washington, D.C. He calls it an act of desperation. He refers to Jack Smith as deranged, something he has done multiple times in the past. He calls it a ridiculous new indictment. And then he goes on to talk about how the Florida case was dismissed.

I think probably the most interesting part about this, but not surprising, is the fact that he has officially moved over to the fact that this is election interference on the side of Kamala Harris. Obviously, we heard for months and months about how this was, quote/unquote, Biden election interference. Now, obviously he has a new opponent and now it is Kamala Harris' election interference.

And I will tell you that he is getting briefed on this by a lot of his own legal advisers, because I spoke to some of them earlier today who said the exact same thing.

[18:30:00]

They are angry at the fact that this was brought so close to the election. I will say this is the one line I'm going to read. This is now Kamala's weaponized system against her political opponent, something we've heard before, Alex.

MARQUARDT: All right. Kristen Holmes with the Trump response to this revised indictment, thanks very much.

Joining me now are our legal experts to break this down even further. Joan Biskupic, I want to go to you first because so much of this comes back to the Supreme Court, the ruling in early July about presidential immunity. How is Jack Smith now with this revised indictment trying to get around what the Supreme Court said?

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SENIOR SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Sure, Alex. And, you know, it's a strong recasting of the original indictment, but there are hurdles ahead simply because of the way Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote for the majority, described official acts. Remember that he drew a line between official and unofficial acts, and said for anything that was official, there would be a presumption, if not absolute immunity. So, that's why it's so important, the distinction. And then he expansively defined what would cover, what would constitute an official act, essentially saying just about anything within the outer perimeter of a president's duties. So, it's a very expansive definition that he writes of official acts.

Now, I should say that one of the individuals in that majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, she wrote a concurring statement that tried to give a path forward and to say, look, this really, when all is said and done, is sort of narrowly construing the kind of immunity that would be here and giving a little bit more of a roadmap. And I think that if that Jack Smith has done all he can to say that so many of these actions that would amount to election subversion, in his mind, actually were taken as Candidate Trump, and is trying to make that case as strong as possible. And I think that someone like Justice Barrett would go for it, maybe the chief in the end would.

But I just want to remind people also what the dissenters said when they saw the chief's standard, Justice Sonia Sotomayor writing for the three liberal dissenters said that the way the chief and the majority had construed the dividing line between unofficial and official acts, it reduced unofficial acts to almost a nullity.

MARQUARDT: Andrew McCabe, what stands out to you looking at this revised indictment? How effective do you think this argument by Jack Smith is going to be?

ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: You know, it's remarkable, Alex. I think this is basically Jack Smith saying, I still got this, right? He's basically sanitized the original indictment a bit. He's taken out those things that Joan mentioned that were clearly called out in the Supreme Court decision as being well within the scope of official acts.

He's dropped the DOJ stuff. He's also made an effort to characterize the other co-conspirators, not co-conspirator who we believe was Jeffrey Clark. He's been notably left out. But the other co- conspirators, he's characterized them as private attorneys or consultants, really kind of trying to cabin people off into these non- official, non-government roles, which I think is accurate.

Remarkable to me that he's left in the 1512 C2 count. That was the count that the Supreme Court addressed in the Fischer case that came out just before the immunity decision. Many people thought that he might have some trouble keeping that count in. Clearly, Jack Smith believes that the indictment is built around enough pieces of evidence, specifically the fraudulent elector ballots that will help that count survive.

So, he's really not taken a lot out. He's brought the same very strong case. We'll see what happens after it goes through this process with Judge Chutkan and the Trump attorneys to determine specifically what evidence remains at play.

MARQUARDT: So, Jennifer Rodgers, it appears that what Smith is trying to do here is to take a lot and put it outside the orbit of the office of the presidency. The special counsel arguing also that the former vice president, former Vice President Mike Pence, that his role in certifying the election results was ceremonial, not part of his duties as vice president. Do you think that's going to work?

JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, that's the big question that to me is the thing that's closest to the line. You know, was he wearing his hat of vice president or was he wearing the hat of the president of the Senate when this pressure campaign was going on? That's where I think Jack Smith may have the most trouble on appeal and even perhaps initially with Judge Chukan in where that conduct falls. Otherwise, I think they've done a good job of kind of laying out the official versus unofficial.

But I agree with your observation, Alex. This really is the thing where I think they might have the most trouble, and, you know, we're at the starting line. So, Judge Chutkan and we'll have the first crack after Donald Trump and his lawyers move to dismiss this indictment at saying, whether this new superseding indictment passes muster or not, they may have to go back to the drawing board on that very issue that you point out.

[18:35:00]

But we're at the starting line and we'll see now again what happens as soon as this is under consideration by the court.

MARQUARDT: In terms of those risks that Jennifer just mentioned, Ankush Khardori, what dangers do you see in this new approach by Jack Smith?

ANKUSH KHARDORI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, look, I think he actually took what I would view as a relatively conservative approach to interpreting the Supreme Court's decision, and I think the right approach in terms of drawing the lines that the Supreme Court has asked them to draw. It remains to be seen, as everyone has noted, how the judge will move forward here.

I mean, look, the risk here is that it originated with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court created an entirely new test. It is a nebulous test, as folks here have already noted. It's hard to sort of wrap your arms around. And they didn't do a particularly good job of explaining to the parties or the judge what types of evidence should be adduced to kind of figure out what sort of conduct is on the official side versus the unofficial line.

So, I think, you know, Jack Smith and his team have done a good job here, but there's still all this uncertainty that emanates from the Supreme Court's decision that has really put this case in limbo sort of mostly between now and November. We'll see if Jack Smith wants to move forward with some evidentiary hearings. I think that would be a good idea because I think the public wants this information.

But I think it's just important as we sort of think about this to recall that, you know, this is a very big year, this is a very important election. This case is at stake in the election because if Trump wins, it's going away. If Trump loses to Harris, this case is going to proceed to some sort of conclusion.

MARQUARDT: And we did just hear part of Trump's outrage, Alyse Adamson, from our Kristen Holmes. He was posted on Truth Social. How do you think the Trump legal team needs to be thinking about this? Is this in some ways a win, or do you see this as a loss for him?

ALYSE ADAMSON, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Look, I think it's kind of yet to be determined, because we have to see how Judge Chutkan ultimately rules on this superseding indictment because after the Trump team moves to a dismissing indictment, which we expect they will, then to Ankush's point, they're going to have evidentiary hearings, or at least a hearing on whether or not the judge agrees with the special counsel's office framing of a lot of these acts as official or unofficial acts.

If Donald Trump prevails on those arguments, then I think it would be considered a win for him. If he loses, well, then clearly he will take that as a loss. Although I think we can expect to see an interlocutory appeal goes back to the Supreme Court and that it might ultimately be a win.

Today, he's thinking of it as a loss because it's making headlines. It's not what he wants during this election season and this case is still alive. But, ultimately, how it pans out, it's yet to be seen.

MARQUARDT: Yes, certainly a lot more to come in this case, a lot of new details in this, a remarkable move by the special counsel. Thank you all for joining me on this breaking news.

MARQUARDT: Coming up, we will get reaction to the breaking news from a former member of the January 6th select committee, Congressman Zoe Lofgren is standing by. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:40:00]

MARQUARDT: Let's get more reaction to the breaking news, the superseding indictment against former President Donald Trump in his federal election subversion case.

Right now, I'm joined by a former member of the January 6th select committee, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren. Congresswoman, thank you so much for being with me on this breaking news.

You were a member of the January 6th committee. When you look at this revised indictment by Jack Smith, what do you make of it as he tries to slim things down and his prospects for moving the case forward?

REP. ZOE LOFGREN (D-CA): Well, it's very responsible. I mean, the Supreme Court made really a radical decision granting Trump immunity, bizarre case, but it's the case. So, Mr. Smith has to accommodate his indictment to that case, and there's two elements to it. One is the acts themselves, and, of course, the other is what evidence can be used. He's properly taken out the communication with Jeff Clark. The court said specifically that that could not be used as evidence.

You know, there's another issue here, which is the obstruction of an official proceeding. There's an additional case, a Fischer case, that shed some doubt on whether that statute can be utilized, even though the plain language is clear. The Supreme Court rewrote the law, essentially went beyond what the statute said.

So, you know, maybe that case can be made. We'll see as the additional evidence comes in. But, clearly, the judge has to have an evidentiary hearing to find out what is the evidence supporting the slimmed down indictment.

But, I mean, one thing is abundantly clear. The former president summoned a mob to Washington, knowing they were armed. He sent them --

MARQUARDT: All right. I think we're having trouble with the congresswoman's audio. Yes, we've lost her. We will try to get her back. Lots to discuss on this breaking news.

But in the meantime, coming up, why Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson says that she is concerned about the Supreme Court's immunity ruling that they made back in July that is so pivotal to this revised indictment that we got today from Jack Smith. We'll discuss that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:48:56]

MARQUARDT: Breaking news, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is speaking out now on the court's divisive decision to grant sweeping immunity to former President Donald Trump.

Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NORAH O'DONNELL, CBS HOST: In your dissent, you wrote that the court declared for the first time in history that the most powerful official in the United States can, under circumstances yet to be fully determined, become a law unto himself.

It sounds like a warning.

KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: Well, I mean, that was my view of what the court determined.

O'DONNELL: You are concerned about broad immunity.

JACKSON: I was concerned about a system that appeared to provide immunity for one individual under one set of circumstances, when we have a criminal justice system that had ordinarily treated everyone the same.

O'DONNELL: Are you prepared that this election could end up before the Supreme Court?

JACKSON: As prepared as anyone can be, let me ask you, are you prepared for all of the news cycles that you're getting as a result of this question?

[18:50:06]

O'DONNELL: No.

JACKSON: No, exactly. I mean, I think there are legal issues that arise out of the political process. And so, the Supreme Court has to be prepared to respond if that should be necessary.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MARQUARDT: Let's bring back CNN's Joan Biskupic.

So, Joan, what do you make of these comments from the justice?

BISKUPIC: Well, you know, first of all, it was -- that interview was taped before we had today's big news with special counsel Jack Smith reframing his indictment. But it's still really interesting to have a Supreme Court justice speaking out about a case off the bench without the black robe.

And, you know, her comments to Norah O'Donnell, you know, did reinforce what she said in a separate dissent back on July 1st.

You know, Justice Jackson is our newest member of the court and instead of just signing on to the dissent written by more senior justice, Sonia Sotomayor, which usually is what happens if -- for these dissents, she wrote her own, she wrote a separate one that talked about the importance of accountability for the president and her concern that she said was that the -- you know, that there's the model of accountability, there's a paradigm of how the country would hold the chief executive to account, and that the majority opinion here was flying in the face of that.

So she didn't say anything new. Its just that were getting her in this new context, Alex.

MARQUARDT: And, Joan, she also wrote a book. How unusual is it for a sitting justice to be putting out a book like this and making comments like these?

BISKUPIC: Well, they're all writing books these days. Let me just tell you that Neil Gorsuch has written a book. Brett Kavanaugh is working on a book. Sonia Sotomayor had written a book. Clarence Thomas had written a book. I could go on.

But what's different here, Alex, is that she just came on the court in 2020. So she signed this contract pretty quickly to write about her personal journey to the Supreme Court and it's -- as we understand it, and I haven't seen the book yet. It comes out on Tuesday. It's more about her personal story. It isn't really about the court.

But it will still, you know, something that will be interesting to us. Justice Sotomayor, who has a very distinctive story herself, is the first Hispanic woman on the Supreme Court. Justice Jackson is the first African-American woman on the Supreme Court. Justice Sotomayor wrote a book in 2013, which came about four years after her appointment.

So, they both have compelling stories and it'll be interesting to see how Justice Jackson portrays her life and all also what she says in these interviews that I'm sure, Alex, we'll be seeing more of. In fact, CNN, will have an interview with Justice Jackson down the road and we'll see how much you'll talk about what the court is up to and not just her life story.

MATTINGLY: Quite prolific, those justices.

Joan Biskupic, thanks very much.

BISKUPIC: Thank you.

MATTINGLY: Coming up the significant details quite remarkable about how Israel says it rescued a hostage alive from the sprawling Hamas tunnels under Gaza.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:57:32]

MATTINGLY: Right now, we are learning new information about the successful Israeli operation to find and rescue a 52-year-old hostage who was hidden inside a Hamas tunnel in southern Gaza.

CNN's Jerusalem correspondent Jeremy Diamond has this report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDNET (voice-over): Israeli hostage for Farhan al-Qadi is taking his first steps of freedom. After 326 days of captivity, an Israeli military helicopter has landed in Gaza to take him to Israel back his family.

Moments earlier, al-Qadi was rescued by Israeli Special Forces who were combing through a network of tunnels in southern Gaza.

DANIEL HAGARI, ISRAEL'S ARMY SPOKESPERSON: We cannot go into many details of this special operation, but I can share that Israeli commandos rescued Kaid Farhan al-Qadi from an underground tunnel following accurate intelligence.

DIAMOND: Al-Qadi is the first Israeli hostage to be rescued by Israeli forces operating in those tunnels. Seven others who have been rescued were being held above ground, and Israeli military official said the forces found al-Qadi alone, without his captors.

At Soroka Medical Center, each step brings these men that much closer to the brother they feared might never return alive. They're running toward the whir of a helicopter delivering there fifty-two-year-old brother back into their arms.

Al-Qadi has visibly lost weight, but doctors say he is in good medical condition. His family is overjoyed.

It is a joy that cannot be explained. His brother Khatem says, more than the joy you get from a newborn baby. This is a man who has been resurrected.

Al-Qadi, a member of Israel's minority Bedouin community, now on the phone with the Israeli prime minister, thanking him for getting him home and reminding him that other hostages are still waiting. The Israeli prime minister currently engaged in ceasefire negotiations tells me he's committed to returning everyone without exception.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

DIAMOND: And, Alex, the clock is certainly ticking for those remaining 108 hostages still held in Gaza, about a third of whom have already been confirmed dead by the Israeli government.

And for those who are alive, though, it's very clear to most people in Israeli society that it won't be these military operations that will return them home. Only eight hostages have so far been rescued alive from Gaza by the Israeli military. Instead, that will happen through a negotiated settlement. And we know that those ongoing ceasefire and hostage deal released negotiations are ongoing right now.

They have been happening in Cairo. We expect that they are going to move to Doha next. But the question still remains of political will on both sides and whether or not these negotiations will actually lead to a deal -- Alex.

MARQUARDT: And whether those remaining gaps can be bridged between the sides.

Jeremy Diamond in Tel Aviv, thanks very much.

I'm Alex Marquardt here in THE SITUATION ROOM. Thank you very much for watching.

"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts right now.