jurors listed 39 people they thought should face charges for their efforts to overturn the 2020 election. >> that is more than double the number who were charged in the end. we will break down some of the big names among those ultimately unindicted and why this matters. plus a philadelphia police officer has turned himself in after a deadly shooting as the district attorney release its unedited body camera footage of that incident, something the victim's family wanted the public to see in its entirety. we will have the latest. and the fbi chief issuing a stark warning about russian spies in the united states. he says the number operating here is still way too big. we're following these major developing stories and many more all coming in right here to "cnn news central." ♪ today we have brand-new information about the scope of the georgia election interference investigation into donald trump and the key take away, the sprawling rico case against the former president and 18 others could have been much bigger. we're talking twice as many defendants. it's all in the special grand jury report that was released today, the special grand jury could not indict but could recommend indictments. the report shows the panel recommended charges for 39 people. >> among those who were named but who avoided charges were three republican senators, lindsey graham and georgia's two ousted senators kelly loeffler and david perdue, our team of reporters is covering this. also with us a special watergate prosecutors nick akerman. sara murray, first walk us through some of the bigger revelations including the folks who were named at least but not charged. >> first of all, obviously the special grand jury felt there was a broad array of wrongdoing among people who did not ultimately face charges. they said 39 people should face charges so that's huge. i think the biggest name alongside donald trump that they recommended was lindsey graham, sitting south carolina senator who talked to bratd raffensperger the georgia secretary of state, raffensperger felt that graham was asking him to throw away votes something graham denied. there are a number of trump advisers, michael flynn, boris epshteyn able to dodge charges but who the grand jury felt committed some wrongdoing. this gets to the difference between what you as an average person sitting on a grand jury might think is wrongdoing, violating the law versus what a prosecutor believes they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt if they take these things to court and to trial. >> on the question of lindsey graham let's take you live to capitol hill with melanie zanona. what's senator graham saying. >> reporter: we are hearing from senator lindsey graham. first, i want to provide some context. it boils down to this conflicting account between brad raffensperger, the georgia secretary of state and senator lindsey graham and this phone call that they had. now, raffensperger has suggested that graham was pressuring him to throw out legal mail-in ballots and it made him very uncomfortable, but graham has flat out denied that. he said he was just inquiring about the mail-in ballot system, the signature verification system, trying to figure out how it worked. he said he wasn't even talking about the 2020 presidential election, that he was talking about the pair of critical senate runoff race that is occurred in january 2021. let's take a listen to what he said moments ago in south carolina. >> i called around different states, including georgia, as a sitting united states senator, chairman of the judiciary committee. i eventually certified the election in all states including georgia. i didn't find any evidence of mass voter fraud, but i did have concerns about the mail-in ballot systems in georgia and other places. this is troubling for the country. we can't criminalize senators doing their job when they have a constitutional requirement to fulfill. it would be irresponsible for me in my opinion as chairman of the committee not to try to find out what happened. >> reporter: now, it's unclear why charges were recommended or what those charges were. it's also unclear why the district attorney didn't bring those charges as part of her indictment in the election subversion case, perhaps because the jurors were split in those recommendations or perhaps it was because of graham's testimony himself. he did testify before the special grand jury, though he did try to fight that in court and afterwards he said he fully cooperated and was not expecting to be charged. again, as you heard, he is denying any wrongdoing in this incident. >> nick, question for you as you look at this. does the fact that the da charged fewer people than the grand jury recommended indicate that she raised the bar, in effect, for indictment and could that strengthen her case at trial? >> first of all, the bar for indictment is a lot different than the bar for conviction. the bar for indictment is simply probable cause, more likely than not that someone committed a crime. for conviction you have to get 12 people to unanimously find that the person committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. there's a lot of reasons why they could have taken these other people and decided that the evidence just wasn't that strong. now, in the case of lindsey graham, it wasn't as though this conversation between him and brad raffensperger was on tape, like it is with donald trump. if, in fact, it had been on tape there may have been a different decision here, but the fact of the matter is this was a he said/he said kind of situation. they didn't seem to have any other evidence beyond that one phone call as far as we know, and i just don't think that there was the evidence. the fact that the grand jury voted, oh, i don't know, 13-7 to recommend an indictment, and that's the most people you had that were against indicting anybody, as a prosecutor i would always look at what the grand jury thought about the witnesses, about the evidence, and certainly in circumstances like this where you didn't have close to unanimous consent by the grand jury that graham had committed a crime, i'd be reluctant if that was my only evidence to go ahead and indict and go to trial and risk losing a conviction. >> cnn's kristen holmes is also with us, kristen, what is donald trump saying about all of this? >> shortly after this came out, this report is released he started lashing out on truth social, none of this surprising, talking about this was political, a witch hunt. i will read to you part of the post here. he wrote, the georgia grand jury report has just been released, it has zero credibility and badly paints fani willis and this political witch-hunt. they wanted to indict anyone who happened to be breathing at the time. it undermines the credibility of the findings and of course continues and ends with election interference. i will note that i talked to a number of trump advisers and they're pointing specifically to the fact that lindsey graham was on this list. for some reason and i can't quite get to the bottom of it with them, they believe that this shows that this grand jury was willing to indict anyone because he was still a sitting u.s. senator. there's something about that that they seem to think undermines the entire report. again, not clear why they believe that, but the fact that this person was still in often, even trump himself was not, many of these people are former advisers, former, formers, but the fact that it was a sitting u.s. senator -- >> they're pointing to that as saying that fani willis wanted to indict anyone but she didn't actually indict him. >> absolutely. that is true. >> key point of fact. >> and they're saying this is a grand jury report but they weren't indicted. unclear where that connection comes from. i was told that where he put that out. he says he wants to indict anyone who happens to be breathing, that's what's going on here. >> which has been a consistent trump argument about any of the charges against him that it's a witch-hunt. it's not outside the umbrella of claims he has made prior. nick, some of the grand jurors we can tell voted against the fake electors because they were doing -- i'm going to quote from one of the footnotes -- what they were meant to understand as their civic duty. again, these are some grand jurors, they did not vote with the majority on this. does such a finding help or hurt trump in that could he also argue that he thought he was doing his civic duty, or on the flip side, does it point the finger at him because the grand jurors in effect saying they were doing what the boss told them was their civic duty? how do you read that legally? >> i mean, legally i just read that to mean that's what the boss told us to do. what these people are saying is they did not have the criminal intent or knowledge of what was going on, that they were told that this was being done in case -- just in case the trump campaign won its election fight in georgia -- it's court fight, and that the election was reversed legally. that's what they're saying. and i think for some of those people that is probably a valid defense and is probably true. i mean, how many of these people actually knew that this was all very surreptitious and that it was going to be done using the vice president to try to get him to accept those votes over the valid votes that were certified by the state of georgia. i don't think most of these electors were that close to this to understand what actually was happening, which is why at the end of the day fani willis decided to give most of these fake electors a pass and grant them immunity to testify against the people who did know. so that's what's going on here. it's the same defense that's been made in other states with some varying degree of success. it certainly is a valid defense if someone didn't have the actual knowledge of what the whole purpose of this endeavor was. >> nick, we get a full roster of those who had indictments recommended for them and how the vote tallies came from the special grand jury. notably, some of those not indicted received just as many votes as those who were, and i'm thinking specifically of boris epshteyn here, he had 20 special grand jurors recommending an indictment, one voting against one and yet he was not indicted. does that have any special significance to you? >> not really. i think at the end of the day what fani willis did was to look at those recommendations and the ultimate question was can i convict those people beyond a reasonable doubt? people looking at this might have said, well, gee, it seems like they must have been guilty, they have to be guilty, they were talking to certain people or were at certain places at the right times, but at the end of the day the prosecutor is the person who has to put themselves on the line and know that they have admissible evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. it very well could be that that's what happened here and i think it probably was. >> nick, sara, kristen, melanie, thank you all so much. we're going to stay on top of the latest details and bring them to you and responses as we get them. still to come on "cnn news central" the philadelphia da's office released body cam footage from a deadly officer-involved shooting. that officer turning himself into police. we are live with the latest on that case. plus, florida once again attempt to go change its education system. this time by trying to offer a new college entrance exam, one that would serve as an alternative to the sat and act, why this is sparking controversy. back in just moments. your shipping manager left to “find themself.” leaving you lost. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. ined instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matcng your job description. visit indeed.com/hire ♪ ("drumroll" by lónis, little league) ♪ (♪) ♪ this just in ♪ ♪ got the keys to what you want and what you need ♪ ♪ something new something sweet ♪ ♪ moving to a different beat ♪ ♪ okay now (what?) ♪ ♪ can i get a (get a) drumroll? (what?) ♪ ♪can i get a drumroll drumroll? (what?)♪ ♪ can i get a can i get a drumroll please (oohh) ♪ ♪ that's nice (yahh)♪ (♪) ♪ ya, can i get a drumroll, ♪ ♪ can i get a drum- ♪ ♪ that's nice ♪ cam video and it's disturbing. it reveals the final moments of the 27-year-old man you will see here, his name is eddie irizari, shot and killed by a philadelphia police officer back in mid-august. this morning the officer who pulled the trigger mark dial turned himself in on multiple charges which include murder. first police said that he was outside his vehicle when he was shot but you can see clearly in the video that was not the case he was sitting in the front seat of his car. today the district attorney released body cam video from the officers on the scene. one more reminder this is graphic, we were just watching t it's hard to watch. it begins as officer dial is about to exit his own video, he then approaches the suspect's. >> show me your hands. [ bleep ] shoot you. >> 413 shots fired. shots fired. 100 west fuller. >> like we said, it's difficult to watch. you can hear him moaning at the end. brynn gingras has watched the full footage of the officer body cams. brynn, those moments there, the police approached the vehicle, multiple shots fired through the window. very quickly it seemed. tell us what you learned by watching the full range of videos that we have at this point. >> reporter: jim, that's key there. quickly is what you just said. that's what's so striking about this body cam video. you actually don't hear the audio quick in because of the way the technology works. you don't hear all the same warnings we did hear not long ago when we saw that surveillance video from a restaurant of the incident that the family got out there after police gave a different account of what happened on that august day, but it's quick. as soon as those officers get out of that vehicle to respond to this traffic stop within about five seconds to our point the shots are fired. six shots fired at eddie irizarry while he was sitting in that car and allegedly according to police they believed he had a weapon or showed a weapon instead of putting his hands up. in fact, he had two knives in the car but no gun that was threatening one of those officers. again, just to back up in case viewers are just catching up, this is very different than what the initial account of what we heard from philadelphia police. in that initial account was that he was out of the car, threatening police, he wasn't taking commands and that's why shots were fired. you can see that's a different story from that police body camera footage. that's exactly why the irizarry family wanted the full has tent of this video to be shown to the public. that officer was suspended after police came back out and gave a mea culpa and now he was fired from the police department and is charged with murder, voluntary manslaughter, aggravated assault, reckless endangerment. he is no longer a police officer with the philadelphia police department. he has turned himself in, he did that this morning. i want you to hear from his lawyer about what his account is of all of this. >> we intend to right this wrong. this decision today puts police officers in peril at a time when they're dealing with perhaps the most violent time in our city's history. we intend to right this wrong and bring this young man home. >> reporter: now, the other officer involved in this who responded as well, there are no charges against him, but a life lost, jim. eddie irizarry, 27 years old. his family said he had just moved to philadelphia from puerto rico and he didn't speak much english and they believe that he didn't understand the commands that were being yelled at him when this shooting took place on philadelphia streets. >> we should be conscious that as the family releases this video and we see it that they're seeing their loved one die here. that's what's happening on camera. you say you've watched other videos where you are able to hear warnings. what warnings exactly and is the expectation they could have heard them through a closed window of that car which appeared to be closed as it happened? >> there's other -- so, again, when philadelphia police put out this statement of what happened they said irizarry was outside the vehicle. the family's attorney came across restaurant surveillance footage showing the entire scene happen and it was very clear when they released that to the public that irizarry was inside the vehicle and in that video you can actually hear some warnings from police saying, you know, put down the weapon. was one of the warnings. and then, you know, it's just different from what you see in the body camera footage because that audio doesn't kick in. it's important to watch out of the video because you do hear some warnings. what you pointed out, jim, is how striking in that footage is how fast they are outside the vehicle and already shooting. yes, there were warnings but five seconds, not very long. >> brynn gingras, thanks for covering. let's dip deeper with cnn's senior law enforcement analyst charles ramsey who actually ran the philadelphia police department from 2008 to 2016. thanks for sharing part of your afternoon with us. you've seen the footage. what stands out to you? >> well, there are a lot of things that stand out. first of all, you know, this did happen very quickly, but it's not so much the time span because these things can go down very, very quickly. it's whether or not the officer was justified in the use of deadly force. from the video that i'm looking at it does appear that this is a problematic shooting. you know, you look for three things, you look to see whether or not it's necessary, is it proportional, is it objectively reasonable. i don't see anything that would put the officer in immediate danger, which would be the justification for the use of deadly force. so obviously that jumps out. also the initial statement given by the department as to what took place is contrary to what you see in the video. he was inside the car, not outside the car. if he's only armed with a knife, obviously with windows rolled up, doors closed, that's no immediate threat. what the officer may have saw or what he thought he saw, if he thought it was a gun or something like that, i don't know, but obviously this is not a justified shooting in my opinion. >> so as we look at the charges that officer dial is facing, murder among several others, do you find them appropriate given the evidence that you've come across? >> not the murder. there's no premeditation that they are going to be able to prove. voluntary manslaughter to me seems reasonable. i'm not an attorney but i don't think they're going to go anywhere with an actual first-degree murder charge. the other charges, yeah, that's not something that i think would be unusual in a case like this. it's just very unfortunate all the way around. these things do happy unfortunately on occasion but, you know, this is one where the use of deadly force from what i have seen thus far does not appear to have been justified. >> chief ramsey, we also hear from dial's attorney saying that she is charges put other officers in danger, in great peril, his word. do you agree with that? >> no, i don't. listen, policing can be have very dangerous job, there is no question about that. i served as police commissioner in philadelphia for eight years, i had eight officers killed in the line of duty, five were shot to death so i'm very sensitive to the dangers that police officers face, but at the same time if the officer is going to use force, any kind of force n particular deadly force, it has to be appropriate, it has to be justified, it has to be necessary before you resort to