LATEST DETAILS ON THAT, MADISON, THANK YOU. JOHN? >> John: SANDRA, SPECIAL COUNSEL JACK SMITH TREND TO SALVAGE HIS ELECTION INTERFERENCE CASE AGAINST FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP. HE HAS SECURED A SECOND INDICTMENT WITH NARROWER ALLEGATIONS IN RESPONSE TO A SUPREME COURT RULING THAT GIVES PRESIDENTS BROAD IMMUNITY FOR PROSECUTION. JOINING US NOW AS JONATHAN TURLEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR AT A FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR. PROFESSOR, JACK SMITH NEW ARGUMENT, DIVORCES TRUMP FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT. SMITH INSIST THAT TRUMP'S ACTIONS WITH THE ELECTION WERE TAKEN AS A "CANDIDATE." THIS COMES AS AFTER SMITH ELABORATELY MADE THE CASE IN HIS PREVIOUS INDICTMENT THAT TRUMP USE THE POWERS OF THE PRESIDENCY TO FURTHER HIS AIMS. SO WHICH IS IT? >> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. THIS IS VINTAGE JACK SMITH. HE HAS ALWAYS PLAYED A RIGHT UP TO THE MARGIN IN CASES. AT TIMES, HE HAS CROSSED OVER. HE WAS REVERSED BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT ON PROBABLY HIS MOST FAMOUS PREVIOUS CASE BECAUSE HE STRETCHED THE LAW, AND THAT HAS BEEN A SIGNATURE OF HIS, AND I THINK HE IS STILL DOING IT. I MEAN, THIS IS -- MANY OF US EXPECTED, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT HE WOULD DROP THE ALLEGATION CONCERNING VICE PRESIDENT PENCE. AT ONE SEEMS TO FALL FAIRLY SQUARELY WITHIN THE PRESUMPTIVELY PROTECTED AREAS OF THE OPINION. HE DIDN'T. WHAT HE DID IS JUST TOOK OUT LINES THAT REFERRED TO OFFICIAL CONDUCT. INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE OBVIOUSLY PART OF THE GOVERNMENT. OTHERWISE HE LEFT AT THE SAME. IT REMINDED ME, MY FAVORITE ITALIAN BEEF STAND IN CHICAGO, A WOMAN ASKED FOR A LOCALE OPTION AND THE OWNER CUT THE SANDWICH IN HALF AND CHARGE HER THE FULL AMOUNT. THAT IS BASICALLY I THINK WHAT THIS IS. HE IS BASICALLY CHARGING THE FULL AMOUNT BUT THERE IS JUST LESS PRODUCT. >> John: [LAUGHS] I LOVE THAT METAPHOR. HERE'S FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR KATIE CHURCH ASCII ON "FOX & FRIENDS" TALKING ABOUT THIS. LISTEN. >> THERE IS ALMOST NO LEGITIMATE LEGAL PURPOSE TO JACK SMITH BRINGING THIS SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT AT THIS POINT BECAUSE THE ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED BY THE SUPREME COURT WITH THE IMMUNITY RULING NEEDED TO BE LITIGATED BY THE TRIAL JUDGE ANYWAY AND THEY COULD HAVE CERTAINLY DONE THAT WITH THE EXISTING INDICTMENT, SO THIS SEEMS LIKE A PURE HEADLINE GRAB. >> John: WHAT DO YOU SAY TO THAT? >> WELL I THINK THAT JACK SMITH STRATEGY HERE IS NOT NECESSARILY A BAD ONE PURE WHAT HE IS DOING IS A COMPLETE DIFFERENT GRAND JURY. THIS GRAND JURY WASN'T TAINTED BY ANY EVIDENCE THAT MIGHT NOW BE VIEWED AS CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED. THEY CAME OUT WITH THE SAME CHARGES. THE INDICTMENT ITSELF REMOVES THOSE REFERENCES. THE PROBLEM IS YOU HAVE THE PENCE ALLEGATION AND ALSO AN ALLEGATION OF HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. THOSE ARE TWO OF HIS FORMING THEORIES. I THINK THE SUPREME COURT IS GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF TROUBLE WITH THOSE BEER THE REMAINING TWO ARE STATE ISSUES, INCLUDING THE SLATE OF ELECTORS HIS TEAM WAS PUTTING FORWARD. I DON'T THINK HE HAS REALLY GOTTEN HIMSELF OUT OF THE WOODS ON THIS ONE. I THINK HE IS GOING TO FACE A VERY SKEPTICAL REACTION IF HE GETS A CONVICTION, BUT HE'S COUNTING ON THE FACT THAT HE HAS A VERY FAVORABLE JUDGE, AND HE'S LIKELY TO HAVE A VERY FAVORABLE JURY. >> John: IN TERMS OF THE NEW GRAND JURY, CRITICS MIGHT SAY HE BROUGHT ANOTHER HAM SANDWICH TO THEM. TRUMP CLAIMS THAT SMITH VIOLATED DOJ POLICY. HERE IS WHAT HE ON TRUTH SOCIAL. DOJ POLICY THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SHOULD NOT TAKE ANY ACTION THAT WILL INFLUENCE AN ELECTION WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THAT ELECTION, BUT THEY HAVE JUST TAKEN SUCH ACTION. VOTING STARTS ON S SEPTEMBER THE 6TH. THEREFORE THE DOJ HAS VIOLATED ITS OWN POLICY. ELECTION INTERFERENCE. REAL QUICK ANSWER, IF YOU COULD, WHAT DO YOU SAY TO THAT? >> WELL, FIRST OF ALL, JACK SMITH SAID EARLIER HE DIDN'T FEEL HE WAS BOUND BY THAT RULE, IT IS REALLY JUST A POLICY. HE IS CALCULATING THIS IS TEN DAYS OUT FROM WHAT HE THINK IS THE ELECTION. EITHER WAY, I DON'T THINK IT MATTERS. IT'S CLEAR THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HIMSELF IS GOING TO DO NOTHING TO REIN IN THIS PROSECUTOR, SO HE IS GOING TO GO FORWARD. >> John: ALL RIGHT, WE WILL KEEP WAT