'More powerful’: Ex-WH counsel on the significant differences in new indictment against Trump

As Harrison Walls launched their Georgia bus tour. Former President Donald Trump is off the trail but still on the attack, he said during a recent interview with Doctor Phil that to a certain extent, he believes President Biden and Vice President Harris are to blame for the assassination attempt against him. CNN's Elena Treen joins us now live. Elena Trump making a series of bizarre remarks during this conversation with doctor. So that being just one of them. Yes. That's right. And it is something that his remarks about the assassination attempt and trying to place some of the blame on both Biden and Harris, mainly about rhetoric. He said, you know, he thinks that some of their rhetoric had contributed to perhaps this shooter and other people being very angry with him. He mentioned particularly the line about him being a threat to democracy. But one other area that he also focus on that I found very interesting is remember when a couple months ago, Donald Trump had spoke to a roomful of Christian voters and he said, you know, don't like you only have to vote once more. This time you won't have to vote again in four years. Some people were saying, how are we taking that meaning? Are you saying you won't have more elections? Doctor Phil asked Donald Trump about this. Take a listen to that exchange. And I said to the Christians, we got to win this election. If we win this election, I'll straighten everything out in less than four years by a lot. Then you don't have to. It doesn't matter. In other words, I'm saying you don't have to vote. Doesn't mean we're not going to have elections. You can have elections, but you have to vote this time because we have to win. So a few things are what I will say. I actually personally believe just have haven't covered Donald Trump for so long knowing how him and his team thinks. I don't think he was trying. I think the idea that he was saying there won't be any more elections was overblown, but I do think what he means, and he kind of doubled down on it in this interview is that, you know, he well, he argued, first of all, I should say, he argued that he doesn't think Christians and gun owners vote that much. I don't think that's true. But he was saying that if they're not going to vote so that often at least vote for me, vote for me this time I'm not going to run again. If you put me back in the white House, you won't have to vote again. That's what he was trying to say and break down in that interview. Not sure. It puts a lot of people at ease or makes a lot of sense, but he did address it and he didn't move away from it, I guess is what I'm trying to say here. Yeah. Elena, thanks so much for the update. Appreciate it. Want to discuss now with former Nixon White House counsel and CNN contributor John Dean? John, we wanted to get into the conversation with you. This detail about Trump facing this superseding indictment, this updated indictment in the federal election interference case against him, special counsel Jack Smith revising the original filing, taking into account that Supreme Court decision, the ruling that granted Trump some immunity for official acts taken as president. What do you think are the most significant differences between the first indictment, the original one and this one? I think the most significant thing, based on the comparing the two indictments, is that the new indictment, the superseding indictment, is tighter, and does not address the issue that the Supreme Court seems to be concerned about, which was, his relationship, Trump's relationship, in his scheme to overturn the election with the Justice Department. So all that material about his dealing with Jeff Clark has been excised from the original case and not in the revised case. They've tweaked the language here and there. it's about ten pages shorter. but it is a more powerful, indictment in its new, elegant form. And it's the same four charges. They have not changed. but it is a sleeker document, if you will. And John Trump responded to the updated indictment, citing this informal rule that states that DOJ has to avoid taking major steps in criminal investigation on candidates within 60 days of an election. We're still 69 days from November 5th. So what do you make of the timing here? Well, I wasn't surprised at that at all, being his first reaction, but it actually applies to new cases or cases that are not in court. in this instance, the delay is really Trump's fault. he got the Supreme Court to delay after delay after delay. and that was his strategy. So it's not surprising it has come up in the middle of the campaign now. And the 60 day rule, as I say, doesn't really apply to cases that have already been filed. It's new cases that might affect an election. Were you surprised that Jack Smith didn't give the Trump team notice that it was coming when it did? I mean, the defense expected that there would be a superseding indictment, but there was no sort of flag to say it's coming now. Is that standard practice? Well, it can go either way if it depends upon the rapport, the rapport between the two bodies or the two sets of attorneys. And I don't think the rapport is very good here. there's pretty vicious attacks by the Trump people on the government, when the government is just doing its job and they'll go out of their way to attack, the government and the government just doesn't have to go out of its way to try to help inform and give them a heads up. And, John, to go back to the Supreme Court decision. They did push certain specifics on the limits of presidential powers back to lower courts. And one part of the indictment seems to test that the idea of of presumptive immunity in relation to Trump's interactions with the former vice president, Mike pence. How do you foresee that getting hashed out? Well, that could well result in a mini hearing in judge Chuck and District Court, to resolve the factual part of that, the Supreme Court opinion on immunity did call for factual analysis and examination of this, these issues. and I think that's a possible hearing now that could happen before the election. I doubt if will happen before the election. but it will be interesting when it does happen. and if it happens after the election, and Trump is in the white House, this this whole thing is just going to wilt and go away because Trump will try to get it killed. you know, trying to influence his later presidential powers. so if they ever tried to pursue this case between now and duration, it would be very interesting. John Dean, thanks so much for the analysis. Thank you.