♪ more legal developments in georgia today. we are learning the sprawling election interference case that brought indictments for donald trump and 18 others could actually have been even more sprawling, special purpose grand jury underpinning that case especially recommended charging some 39 people. a reminder that panel did not have authority to indict, it could hear evidence, interview witnesses and offer recommendations. among those recommendations were charges for three current and former republican senators, south carolina's lindsey graham, georgia's two former senators kelly loeffler and david perdue, they were not indicted in the end. the report does not show us how the da decided which people ultimately made the cut as it were. cnn's paula reid is here. paula, a da does not have to indict all that a grand jury recommends to indict. by the way, some that were split votes in effect from the grand jurors, others were close to unanimous if not quite unanimous here. that were made headlines. >> incredibly rare for the public to have access to this information, these were the recommendations from the special grand jury. they are not binding on the district attorney but we know who was ultimately charged in this case. after looking at the recommendations we can see she passed on indicting 21 people. there were two groups raising eyebrows, the first are the lawmakers, senator lindsey graham and the former senators kelly loeffler and david perdue. we don't know why she declined to indict them, but if you look at the votes it's clear they did not have unanimous support from the members of the special grand jury. if you can't get a significant support in a grand jury room, it's going to be tougher rent you move to an actual courtroom. that was part of her callous. the other group is the trump advisers recommended, boris epshteyn, mike flynn and mitchell. if you look at the match, the vote breakdown is similar to many who were charged like former president trump and rudy giuliani. so at this point it's not clear why she declined to charge them, but that's going to be something we're going to be watching during this trial. are they incredibly significant witnesses, are they providing something else that would have prompted her not to move forward with the charges. cnn is one of the media outlets that pushed to make this report public. >> epshteyn, it was virtually unanimous that he be indicted. there were some responses including from senator graham. >> the grand jury were looking at conversations, among things were the conversations he had with the secretary of state brad raffensperger. raffensperger said in interviews that these made him uncomfortable, that he believed that the senator was possibly encouraging him to disenfranchise voters when asking him to look for fraud. let's listen to what graham has said in response to this. >> 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 voting 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. >> as i will remind you that the senator fought having to testify before that special grand jury all the way to the supreme court, ultimately he did provide testimony and could potentially be one of those 150 witnesses at trial. >> and as you said he said doing his duty, brad raffensperger said he felt that the man was pressuring him to disenfranchise folks. that was his testimony. paula reid, thanks so much. we are racing towards an october 23rd trial date in that georgia election case. there are many legal experts who are skeptical whether that date will, in fact, stand on the calendar and that includes the fulton county superior court judge presiding over the case. here is why. in a televised hearing this week just scott mcafee denied a motion from kenneth chee bros and siddy powell to separate their trials from the other defendants. the judge set a joint trial date for them of october 23rd, but fulton county district attorney fani willis, she is pushing for all 19 defendants, pictured here, including trump himself, to be tried on that same day. in a case prosecutors say will feature at least 150 witnesses and last close to four months. that's at least an estimate. judge mcafee has serious doubts if the timeline is possible because these five defendants are trying to move their cases now to federal court from state court, plus trump's lawyers just officially notified the court that they might join that effort as well to switch the case, which would of course complicate that timeline. also, trump has asked to sever his case from co-defendants who want a speedy trial, among them his former lawyer, john eastman who is behind so many of those efforts to overturn the election in georgia and elsewhere. so many questions do remain. it's the nature when you have four criminal trials running including this one in georgia. judge mcafee says he will make a decision on some of these issues by next thursday which is just about two weeks from we should note the next gop primary debate. it's all happening in the midst of a busy election calendar. >> a very busy time for former president trump. let's discuss with former federal prosecutor jennifer rodgers. thanks for being with us. looking at the three senators in the report, the special grand jury was pretty divided on whether to recommend charges for them or not. in fact, there is one footnote from a juror that thought some were simply pandering to their political base and not engaging in a criminal conspiracy. this report is a fascinating look at the way that jurors interpret evidence. >> it really s you never get this sort of insight into what grand juries talk about but ultimately the decision was up to fani willis and she and her team must have decided she couldn't indict the senator and former senators or it wasn't doing. there are some legal issues here, there's first amendment political speech issues that arise with elected lawmakers, speech or debate clause issues that come up that they could have had defenses on. it's a trickier case than with a lot of these other folks and i think that's at least part of the reason why fani willis and her team decided not to charge the three ultimately. >> yet she did wind up charging former president trump. could we potentially see him argue that he was just pandering to the political base? >> well, i think we will see him argue a whole bunch of stuff including that he is immune from prosecution by a state prosecutor. we have a lot of motions coming in not just this case but in all the cases. i do think we will see during the course of all of these trials a lot of statements by president trump being read into the record to make the prosecutor's case. i think his response to all of that evidence is going to be, hey, you know, i'm just a politician kind of saying what i need to say. i do think that kind of argument will rear its head in different ways, but it's not really a defense. i mean, if you have proof that someone was subverting the election results in a criminal way it's not a defense to say i was also just pandering to my base. i think prosecutors will be ready for that. >> any of the 19 co-defendants could have objected to this report being released. the deadline was on wednesday. none of them did. jennifer, who do you think benefits more from these details being made public, the prosecutor or the defense? >> well, it's interesting because i think what it does show is that fani willis and her team did use their discretion here. they didn't just rubber stamp the special grand jury's desires, this he decided not to charge in 21 instances. to the extent they will say this was political, she just indicted me and the other 18 defendants because we are republicans, that doesn't hold up when you look at who they decided not to indict. there is a group who isn't being talked about so much who has interests and that's the 21 people whose names are out in the public realm and we all know that the special grand jury suggested they be indicted but the prosecutor decided there wasn't enough evidence or they shouldn't be indicted. that's a real problem. the fact that georgia law allows for this release shows a real commitment to transparency on the part of georgia which is terrific in a lot of instances but i do think that there's value in not releasing people's names in connection with suggested charges if they are not ultimately charged and so i don't want that issue to get lost here. >> i wanted to look more closely at the question of discretion that you brought up about fani willis because there are people that were looked at here that received just as many votes recommending indictments as folks that were indicted but yet they were not. walk us through potentially some of the logic behind those decisions. >> well, it's hard to know why folks in the grand jury room vote one way or the other, you know, you can see what they're doing but not really into their heads. what prosecutors have to do is different. they have to knowing the law, being lawyers, they have to walk through each defendant and each charge and say do we have enough in connection with this person when you look at the elements of this statute to charge and so they can't really rely on what the grand jurors think about that. they of course are taking into account the investigation that the grand jury put forward but they are the ones that have to make those decisions. i don't think they were overly concerned with the vote counts except in one instance. it is a good barometer if you are a prosecutor. if you are in the grand jury and you barely eek out the number of grand juries that you need in a regular grand jury, a charging grand jury not a special grand jury, that is a trouble sign for you at trial, right, if you can barely get the grand jury you're going to have trouble with the actual jury that has to final unanimously beyond a reasonable doubt. in that sense they may have looked at that time it but not in the sense of can we charge this person, how strong is the evidence. >> very barely do we get access to a report like this. we appreciate you walking us through it. thanks. a senior u.s. general warns that china is exploiting u.s. service members to try to train its own military. we will tell you exactly how they say that's happening coming up. and we are now a week away from a possible union strike against the big three auto makers. right now there's no deal in sight. we will tell you what the impact could be on the economy just ahead. later, the race to save the american trapped in a cave more than 3,000 feet down. a doctor is with him to get his strength up so they can begin the rescue mission. you're watching "cnn news central" and we will be right back. meet the future. a chef. a design. and, ooh, an engineer. all learning to save and snd their money with chase. the chef's cooking up firsts with her new debit card. hungry? -uhuh. the designer's eyeing sequins. uh no plaid. while mom is eyeing his spending. nice. and the engineer? she's taking control with her own account for college. three futures, all with chase. freedom for kids. control for parents. one bank for both. chase. make more of what's yours. if you have this... and you get this... you could end up with this... unexpected out-of-pocket costs. which for those on medicare, or soon to be, is a good reason to take charge of your health care. so consider this. an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan from unitedhealthcare. why? because medicare alone doesn't pay for everything. and what it doesn't pay for, like deductibles and copays, could really add up. even thousands of dollars a year. medicare supplement plans help by paying some of what medicare doesn't... and making your out-of-pocket costs a lot more predictable. call unitedhealthcare today and ask for your free decision guide. learn more about plan options and rates to fit your needs. now if you like this... greater freedom... you'll love that medicare supplement plans have no networks and no referrals needed... see any doctor. any specialist. anywhere in the u.s. as long as they accept medicare patients. these types of plans also give you more flexibility when traveling in the u.s. your plan goes with you... anywhere you go in the country. even better, these are the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. call unitedhealthcare today for your free decision guide. so if you have this and want less out-of-pocket costs... and more peace of mind... consider adding this. an aarp medicare supplement plan. take charge of your health care today. just use this...or this to call unitedhealthcare about an aarp medicare supplement plan. meet the chevy zr2 family. they'll never let you down. with features like dssv dampers, mt tires and an off-road performance display. ♪ when the going gets tough, it's a family you can count on. ♪ introducing the silverado, colorado and silverado hd zr2 family of trucks. - [announcer] do you have an invention idea but don't know what to do next? call invent help today. they can help you get started with your idea. call now 800-710-0020. in less than a week we may see 145,000 auto workers walk off the job and hit the picket lines. the united auto workers union says their demands against ford, general motors and stelantis is not been met while calling gm's latest proposal insulting, general motors offered higher wagers, more time off and a higher starting wage. the union says it is not and next week's strike deadline stands. the uaw is demand ago 40% pay raise, restoring cost of living increases and restoring traditional pension plans for all workers. remember the last strike against gm in 2019 cost the company $2.9 billion over the course of six weeks. a strike against all big three u.s. auto makers has never happened before and it could mean losses of $5 billion in just ten days. let's discuss with robert rice, former labor secretary under president clinton. obviously, robert, there would be a huge economic impact if a strike were to happen. should the white house, the biden administration, get involved? >> well, my advice for what it's worth is not to be involved. basically the white house does not have not only this white house but white houses in general don't have great track records in terms of getting involved in labor disputes unless those labor disputes are so serious that they threaten the economy overall. you have to go back years to the truman administration before you see something like that. i would say the biden white house should stay away from this one. it could be very costly, but both sides know exactly what they are getting into and they are very, very, very sophisticated in terms of handling a strike and handling labor management relations. >> on the note that it could be costly for the u.s. economy, couldn't it also be costly for president biden in the sense that in general the american public doesn't have enormous confidence in his handling of the economy? there is a new cnn poll showing some 60% of americans believe he's actually hurt the economy? >> well, boris, first of all, as a factual matter the economy is actually in very good shape right now. inflation is way, way down, there is no sign of recession. this is as close to a goldilocks economy as i have seen in my many years of providing economic analysis and advice. beyond that obviously if you have a prolonged strike that costs $5 billion or more in just ten days in terms of not only the workers and manufacturers, but also suppliers and consumers, it could have a negative effect. the political fallout could be negative, obviously, but the political fallout would be much more serious >> on the question of perception regarding the u.s. economy, you are right, we have not seen the recession that many had been worried about for several years, but does the white house need to do more so show the work that they have done to enhance the economy and to provide things like the infrastructure act or the inflation reduction act when so many believe that president biden is hurting the economy? >> well, i would say, you know, these are -- the messaging action -- legion -- boris, every administration is frustrated inevitably because it's not getting its message out. i think the biden administration could presumably do a much better job. you've got these extraordinary -- extraordinary achievements, not only the chips act, the infrastructure act, the inflation reduction act with huge solar and wind and noncarbon-based initiatives that are going to be very, very helpful in terms of fighting climate change, which we are all suffering from and all dealing with, and at the same time we are -- we have avoided a recession and brought inflation way down. i think there's a lot to cheer about and so i can't advise the biden administration obviously on exactly what to say or how to say it, but i do hope that the public pays a great deal of attention with the coming months because we've got an election coming up in 14 months that could be one of the most critical elections in american history. >> quickly, robert, your impressions on what it would take from both sides to prevent a costly strike? >> well, look, the big three auto makers in the united states have over the last ten years they've made a huge amount of money, about $250 billion in the first six months of this year alone, $21 billion, huge amounts of money, and yet workers, auto workers, are still back in 2009, 2 2010, they have had very little by way of a raise. the ceos of the big three, they have -- they're earning about 29, 28, $25 million a year just the ceos, we are just talking about the chief executive officers. and they have had a raise of about 40% over the last four years. so if i were a uaw worker i would be clamoring, i would say now is the time. you've been doing so well, now is the time for a major raise, a lot of benefits that i have foregone for years. i should be getting right now because why should the ceos and top executives be doing so well and the shareholders be doing so well and everybody else be doing so well but i as a worker doing all the work, i'm not doing so well. it's about time i did. that's what the auto workers probably are saying to themselves. >> robert reich, we appreciate the perspective. thanks for joining us. >> thank you, boris. jim? now to a warning from one of the nation's top generals that foreign companies are, quote, targeting and recruiting u.s. and nato training military talent to educate and train the chinese military. air force chief of staff general charles brown who has been nominated to replace general mark milley as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff has written, quote, by essentially training the trainer, many of those who accept contracts with these foreign companies are eroding our national security, putting the very safety of their fellow service members and the country at risk and maybe violating the law. i'm joined now by cnn military analyst general wesley clark, former nato supreme allied commander. general, always good to have you on. >> thank you, jim. >> so, first -- >> i really -- >> go ahead. >> what general brown is saying is spot on. our big advantage in the united states military, not just the training, of course china wants to put can you tell into that advantage. >> no question. i heard about this from lawmakers about this children, particularly pilot trainers so that they can get up to speed on som