because we have some major breaking news special counsel Jack Smith has just filed a superseding indictment in the federal January 6th case in a statement the special counsel says quote today a federal grand jury in the district of Colombia returned a superseding indictment charging the defendant with the same criminal offenses that were charged in the original indictment the superseding indictment which was presented to a new grand jury that had not previously heard evidence in this case reflects the government's efforts to respect and implement the Supreme Court's holding and remand instructions let's bring in MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin Lisa what more can you tell us well Lisa I can tell you a couple of things one is that the Department of Justice or rather the special council's office and bringing today's superseding indictment didn't change any of the actual charges against former president Trump they remain identical to those on the original indictment which was filed a year ago or more than a year ago at this point in August of 2023 but we are already seeing just in comparing the number of sheets of paper the original indictment was 45 pages long this is 36 pages long and so I expect once we start doing this page to- page comparison we will see the places where they have taken out allegations in order to try to comply with the Supreme Court's ruling and in particular one of the things that I expect will be missing here are allegations about former president Trump's interactions with Department of Justice officials that is one concrete area that the Supreme Court hit in its July opinion saying that his discussions with Folks at the Department of Justice about whether or not there was election fraud and what they should do about it were part of his core constitutional duties for which he was entitled to Absolute immunity that is perhaps the only area that they gave Clarity on the others they gave sort of Contours about what he would be immune for what he wouldn't be immune for but that is one where he they gave precise guidance and so I would expect to see that cut out of this superseding indictment I will also tell you this isn't entirely a surprise when the department uh when the special council's office 3 weeks ago asked judge Tanya chuin for more time to tell her what they thought the appropriate Way Forward was a number of folks me included thought one thing that they could be doing with that time is thinking about whether they want to supersede and essentially take a first crack at trying to comply with the Court's orders rather than dumping it all in judge chutch kin's lap as the Supreme Court's opinion essentially does you see here the special council's office making a goodfaith effort to do that with a newly convened grand jury that's because the grand juries who have heard evidence in this case before have expired in all likelihood they did not bring Witnesses before this new grand jury but rather an agent from the FBI to even read back from transcripts from Grand Jury interviews that were conducted prior to the first indictment so we have some reading to do and comparing Page by Page what's still here but for the most part this remains a case against former president Trump only identical charges and with lighter numbers of pages of paper here in an attempt to try and um comply with the Supreme Court's order by taking out allegations of official acts for which the Supreme Court has said now that the former president cannot be charged much less convicted Alicia Elisa do we know anything more about the grand jury the Jack Smith imp paneled here we don't and we don't even know that it's a grand jury specific to Jack Smith I want to go back to that statement that you were just reading from a few moments ago because I believe that that statement says that while the grand jury here had not previously heard evidence related to the case that this was not necessarily a grand jury just for this it just says presented to a new grand jury that had not previously heard evidence in the case so I'm not even sure that this grand jury was specific to this case it could have been a grand jury that had already been convened in the ordinary course of business in the federal district of the District of Columbia that's federal court in Washington DC Basel it is a reminder that accountability is happening on Parallel tracks here and while this one track will not happen in the timely fashion that many people wanted to see it in it proceeds nonetheless wheels of Justice keep turning and you know for Donald Trump it it's a reminder to him that he needs to get elected to get away from all this in his mind uh but the but the real ity is and it's an important reminder that we all have to remember that this is a president who has here to for I love using that word here to for that has here that has here to for and will likely continue to see a number of his uh days in the future in a court defending himself and raising money for the purpose of his defense and that's something that you know as a Democrat if you're KLA Harris's campaign or any other Democrat around the country to constantly remind voters particularly in those swing States and in those districts that this is not a person who has been freed or is free of allegation that this it's still out there he has done such a remarkable job though of getting people to not think about this anymore I mean it is really unbelievable and they've even sort of gaslighted the Democracy topic you know and turned this around into a political persecution in and and held it up over and over again as an example of why actually electing him is a way to protect democracy which is of course completely ridiculous given the man tried to overthrow free and fair election by calling his supporters to Capitol Hill so you know I you saw some really meaningful videos and some like pieces about january6 during the DNC but it's it's pretty remarkable that it it sort of hangs in the background and he has done actually an incredibly effective job of pushing the subject to the background and we won't have much more information about it before the election Lisa ruin there's a part of me that wants to free you up as quickly as possible so you can begin to do that side by side that you were speaking about there's also a part of me that wants to keep you with me the entire show so you will tell me when you have to go as you look at these documents side by side what is it you're going to be looking for I'm really going to be looking for what's missing because Alicia right now my expectation isn't that we're going to see anything new it's rather that the Department of Justice is going to be taking away parts of the old indictment that they believe can no longer be used against former president Trump and I want to take you and our viewers back to July when the Supreme Court ruled because that ruling isn't just about the charges it's also about evidence and this is what we call a speaking indictment right it goes through events and facts in order to come up with those four charges it doesn't just say we're charging former president Trump with obstruction of an official proceeding it tells you why and how they alleg that he obstructed That official proceeding and so I'm going to be looking for what they take out of this both in terms of the substantive charges but also is there are there pieces of evidence here that really aren't integral to the charges but could bear on for example former president Trump's intent or were were here mostly for evidentiary reasons those might be gone as well and so that's going to be Forefront of mine for me once I get these documents right in front of me and can do the precise line by line that we were just discussing I finally