we appear on the verge of his third indictment, a fourth may be a few weeks away in georgia, and this one, to what dave said, this is the weightiest. this is about our very democracy and about the peaceful transition of power. it seems he is on the verge of being criminally charged there. >> mika? all right. that does it for us here on "morning joe." of course, we'll have a full report tomorrow morning. but the breaking news continues right now with ana cabrera. ♪♪ it's 10:00 eastern. thank you for being with us. i'm ana cabrera reporting from new york. we begin with this breaking news. former president donald trump has just posted on his truth social account, claiming he has received a target letter in the january 6th grand jury investigation being led by special counsel jack smith. now, trump also claims that the department of justice gave him four days to report to the grand

jury. now, at this time, this news is only coming from trump himself. we have not heard anything from the doj or other officials. let's get to our experts and reporters to discuss this. garrett haake. justice and intelligence reporter ken dilanian, who is in florida where, by the way, trump's legal team has a hearing in his other federal case involving the classified documents. also with us, danielle cohen higgins, county commissioner in dade county. garrett, what more do we know about this post by donald trump about being informed that he is a target of the january 6th probe by the special counsel? >> reporter: ana, this kicks off a familiar pattern here for donald trump, where he essentially scoops the justice system, announcing ahead of time in the new york case, he was to be indicted, in the documents case, that he had been indicted, in this case, that he is the target of an investigation in which he believes he will be indicted. the former president posting two

lengthy posts on truth social, laying out the fact he says he received this target letter on sunday night after a weekend spent at a conservative conference in florida. telling him he has four days to report to the grand jury, which he says, and which i think ken will support, almost always means an arrest, an indictment is coming. he goes on to make a political argument here about why he believes he is being charged. it's really the same political argument he has been making since 2015/2016. the idea that he is being targeted by a justice department that is out to get him because he is the chief political rival of the current president. he even goes on to say that he thinks he'll be tried in d.c. because he believes a d.c. jury will do whatever doj prosecutors want. so, again, the former president making his legal challenges, of which there are now so many, a central part of his presidential campaign, of his political strategy, arguing, as he's done for so long, that he is a victim

here and he's all that stands between this weaponized department of justice, as he sees it, and his supporters. ana, i have to tell you, i was at that conference over the weekend. this is a message that resonates with the base of the republican party, the so-called ma dpa maga faithful, upon whom donald trump built his career. >> let me read part of this post by donald trump on truth social. he writes, the special counsel, quote, sent a letter, sunday night, he says, stating that i am a target of the january 6th grand jury investigation and giving me a very short four days to report to the grand jury, which almost always means an arrest and an indictment. danielle, is he right? is that what it means? >> well, again, you know, we are in the middle of a situation where it is rinse and repeat, as your correspondent mentioned. he is coming out first, letting

everybody know what to expect, and it is likely an indictment is coming. whether it is a four-day window or not, i think on the first potential indictment, he said it is imminent and it happened a couple weeks later. again, he is trying to control the narrative here. i think everybody should be fully anticipatory of a third indictment coming down. unfortunately, we're seeing the same narrative being repeated. this is a witch hunt. i am a victim here. again, unfortunately, it is a rinse and repeat of what we've seen three times over now at this juncture against our former president. >> so, ken, remind us what's been happening with this grand jury in recent days, recent weeks, because they have been hearing from a lot of witnesses. >> that's right, ana. to be frank, that's why this news is not exactly a surprise to those of us who have been following this grand jury, both reporters and legal experts, because it's been pretty clear for some time that special counsel jack smith was building a substantial case. you know, we referred to this as

the january 6th matter, but the case that jack smith appears to be building goes far beyond that. it goes into fundraising, around efforts to thwart the lawful transfer of power, and then the scheme to put forward slates of fake lectors in various states. perhaps the machinations of using the justice department. a lot of what we heard in the january 6th hearings, almost all those witnesses have been before that grand jury. other people the january 6th committee was not able to compel to come testify have been before that grand jury. so it's been clear, and you can look online and see a draft prosecution memo written by legal experts who are using speculation to postulate that a potential indictment would be -- would charge trump with conspiring to obstruct an official proceeding and inspiring to defraud the united states. we don't know how it is going to go, but that's a plausible scenario. just to be clear, this target

letter, the language in this letter about four day it is to report to the grand jury, it's a formality. everyone involved in this case snows donald trump is not going to come in and testify before the grand jury. without immunity. it is the language used in target letters. prosecutors don't expect the punitive target to come in. it doesn't mean he will be indicted four days from sunday, which is thursday. the target letter isn't a guarantee of an indictment, but generally, in most cases, recipients of target letters go on to the indicted by the grand jury. >> dave aronberg is also with us, a state attorney in florida. do you think an indictment is coming based on this acknowledgment from trump, assuming it is true he received a target letter? >> yes, ana, i think that is one thing that trump got right in his social media post, is that an indictment is coming. generally, when you receive a letter like that, that you're a target, it means you're going to get indicted. he's given one last chance to come before the grand jury and

to give his side of the story, but he is not going there. 100% chance he stays away. so they're just giving the chance and they're letting him know he is a target because they want him to be able to protect himself with an amendment. they don't want any surprises. prosecution folks like to play fair. that's why they sent him the letter, and he has right to be worried. the washington jury pool is anti-maga, as we've seen in the past. trump got 5% of the vote in washington, d.c. it is different than the treasure coves of florida where he is facing the mar-a-lago documents trial. yes, he has a lot of reason to be worried right now. >> danielle, i'm trying to remember the sequence of events, when the classified documents indictment came down. i recall there was this announcement by trump that he had received a letter, but was that before or after his team had gone in and had a meeting with the special counsel? so i wonder, in this particular case, if having received a letter, if this is now the

opportunity for his defense team to essentially go back before the special counsel and try to talk him out of any kind of indictment, perhaps give them other reasons, other evidence, other pathways to explore that could change their mind. >> you're exactly right. this is that opportunity. whether that opportunity will be taken by trump's defense team is a question. it's my understanding that in previous indictments, offers were discussed and denied. typically, defendants outside of this unique circumstance of it being a former president, of it being donald j. trump, would negotiate into a deal. in the past, they've declined that. we don't know what they'll do in this particular situation. again, as all your commentators have said, and i firmly agree, everyone should fully expect a third indictment coming down against donald trump as a result of this target letter. >> dave, do you have any idea, thoughts on potential charges that could come if there is indeed an indictment that follows this target letter?

>> yes. ana, as ken said, it is likely that the charges, i believe, will be obstruction of an official proceeding, which can get you up to 20 years in prison, conspiracy to defraud the united states, up to five years in prison, could be something related to the electors scheme, could be charges relating to the fundraising that went on that went to his pac instead of his legal defense fund. all those things are on the table, and there have been hundreds of rioters who have been charged with obstruction of an official proceeding. you do not need to be at the capitol, ana, to be charged with that. also, one more thing, there was a federal judge, well respected one, judge carter, who said in open court that it is more likely than not that donald trump committed the crimes of obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to defraud if united states. that's powerful. you know prosecutors were listening. i do expect some very serious charges to come very soon. >> when you talk of obstruction of an official proceeding, would

that have gone back to the comments he made at the ellipse or postings on social media where he was trying to suggest that the election had been stolen? what was the evidence that leads you to believe that that might be the potential pathway that we could see an indictment go? >> it's all the above. this is different than seditious conspiracy, which is much tougher to prove. seditious conspiracy means an agreement with two or more people to commit violence, to shut down an official government function. here, you don't have to prove that donald trump had an agreement with others to commit violence. you just have to have an intent for trump to try to stop the counting of the votes. there is evidence that he knew his people were going over to the capitol to help stop it, and i really think it's all you need for conspiracy. if you have a meeting of the minds, that's why they may charge under that stach

statute. i don't expect him to be charged on seditious conspiracy, which is tougher to prove. >> ken, what to you know about the direction of the investigation based on your reporting and talking to sources? >> ana, to add to what dave was saying, what essentially the theory of this case appears to be, is that donald trump knew he lost the election, but he allegedly concocted a scheme to advance bogus allegations of fraud in a number of different impede the counting of the votes on january 6th. not exclusive to the violence on january 6th but all the other things that were done, including the fake electors scheme, including the stop the steal movement, the fundraising around that. so it requires a proof of intent. it requires them to show that donald trump knew or should have known he lost the election. we know there's lots of evidence he was told that by many of his top aides but, yet, continued to perpetrate what prosecutors would call a fraud, in a way that would move the government,

move the levers of power, particularly getting mike pence to try to hold up that count and send the electors back to the states on january 6th. an interesting open question will be whether they connect donald trump with the viviolenc. they don't need to do that in order to bring the case. everybody, stay with us. i want to add to the conversation former fbi senior official and u.s. attorney chuck rosenberg who is joining us on the phone right now. chuck, this news is breaking. what is going through your mind as you assess this potential new charge or additional criminal case that the former president could be facing? >> a couple things. first, ken's analysis is spot on. second, i always thought that if you're going to charge a former president, specifically, mr. trump, it has to be with a crime that is extraordinarily serious and evidence that is extraordinarily compelling. this is, without a doubt,

extraordinarily serious crime, the effort to overturn a fair and free election. now, we still have to wait, ana, to see what the evidence is. we know from the mar-a-lago documents case that the government produced a richly detailed, you know, narrative of the crimes they were alleging, with specific dates and stacks and occurrences. i'm looking forward to seeing that here because i fully expect mr. trump to be indicted. if you receive a target letter, you're a likely defendant, and you can expect to be charged with a federal crime. that's precisely what happened here, ana. >> chuck, is this case as straightforward as the classified documents case, or is this a more difficult one to bring, if there are indeed charges that are coming in an indictment in a few days, weeks, we don't know for sure. >> the answer is maybe, right?

it depends on what evidence the government has collected. for instance, ken eluded to what mr. trump was told. what's also important to establish is his intent or knowledge, and it's what he said. we'll have to wait and see from the indictment itself, right, the number of witnesses who told him he had lost and whether mr. trump expressed to them that he knew he had lost. because if you know you lost the election but you nevertheless devise a scheme to try and steal it back, that's very compelling evidence. so it remains to be seen. the devil is in the details. the details are in the indictment. i imagine that when and if the grand jury returns a true bill indicting mr. trump with additional federal crimes, we're going to have the answers here to those very questions. >> we learned last week, according to reporting in "the new york times," that jared kushner had been called before the grand jury and asked specifically about whether he thought trump knew he had lost the election. so, again, speaking to this

issue around intent, and did trump know and knowingly mislead his supporters to believing he had lost the election, ultimately leading to the actions we saw on the capitol on january 6th? the more interesting thing is these recent interviews or testimony before the grand jury, given everything that was laid out publicly with the january 6th committee. we heard from kushner. the american people have heard from kushner on january 6th issues in the committee. we heard from attorney general bill barr during those committee hearings. does it surprise you at all, chuck, that the special counsel would have waited until, you know, just recently to have interviewed some of these people sort of at the top of the ladder, close to donald trump? >> not really, ana. i mean, you have to speak to everyone, and speaking to everyone takes time.

some will have information that is inculpatory, meaning it tends to prove that mr. trump committed a crime. some might have information that's exculpatory, you know. according to "the new york times," mr. kushner didn't have information suggesting that mr. trump understood he had lost the election. others might just have no information at all. you know, ana, if we wanted to know what you knew before coming on air, we'd talk to everybody on set with you. some of those people might have heard you say something. some of those people might have said something to you. some of them might have been out of the room or hadn't heard what you said. it takes a while to talk to everybody who may know what mr. trump knew, who might have had conversations with him, who might have heard directly from him. am i surprised they would save some of the most important witnesses until last? no. that's typical. you start with the most minor

witnesses first and work your way up and through. chronologically, it makes sense they'd do it in this way. >> there have been recent reporting about the fake electors being a central piece of this january 6th investigation. do you still believe that's the case here? how does that tie back to donald trump himself? if donald trump is now the target according to thisletter that trump says he received -- again, this is according to donald trump himself -- is that -- did you believe the fake electors' scheme is a piece of this? >> it seems it ought to be. we understand from public reporting the government has been looking at the fake elector scheme. by the way, ana, just because mr. trump is a target of the investigation doesn't mean he is the only target of the investigation. look back at what happened at mar-a-lago because mr. trump's

personal aide, walt na nauta, w also charged with federal crimes. it makes sense to me that the government would at least be investigating, looking seriously at the conduct involving fake electors. if you are charging somebody with the attempt to defraud the united states government or try to overturn a free and fair election, the fake electors would have to be part of the investigation. whether or not they're ultimately part of the chargcha we'll have to wait and see. >> i want to bring in nbc news capitol hill correspondent ali vitali. she's joining all of us, who are just digesting this news here. you're tracking reaction there on capitol hill. ali, what are you hearing from lawmakers? >> reporter: shockingly, not the first time we're seeing republican lawmakers react to the former president being in legal jeopardy. this is now something we've seen before. republicans, largely in the house, rushing to his defense, in part that's because we've

only seen house lawmakers today. the senate schedule is what it is, and we'll see them later today, as well. listen first to speaker kevin mccarthy and his reaction to this this morning. >> well, i guess under a biden administration, biden america, you'd expect this. recently, president trump went up in the polls and was surpassing president biden for re-election. what do they do now? weaponize government, go after their number one opponent. time and time again, the american public is tired of this. they want equal justice. the idea they utilize this to go after those who politically disagree with them is wrong. >> reporter: once again, the speaker there defending the former president without engaging in the substance of what is at issue here, which in this case, is in regards to the transfer of power around the 2020 election. democrats also responding in perhaps an unsurprising way. i'll play some of those top

democrats we've heard from so far this morning. >> i think president trump, former president trump, has done repeatedly things that call upon law enforcement at every level to look at what he's done. so much of it is certainly questionable at best and illegal at worst. >> this appears to be the culmination of it. i expect donald trump to be indicted in the near future. >> reporter: of course, that's the democratic reaction from congressman hoyer and congressman goldman. what is fascinating about watching the reaction here on the hill is in typical cases like this, and chuck rosenberg knows this so well, and so many of your guests who have been prosecutors in past lives before joining us here, they know how typically shrouded in secrecy these special counsel kind of investigations are. most of the things doj does are typically done behind closed doors in the shadow of secrecy,

unless they're ready to make them public. the benefit, if you will, of what we're watching with this jack smith investigation, is that we watched the january 6th committee actually go through so many of the different details of this, especially considering the fake elector schemes, the way the former president and his allies pressured people at the state and national level, both doj, his vice president's office. all the various aspects of the pressure campaign were detailed by the january 6th committee over the course of roughly a dozen hearings. the public now has some insight into what the special counsel may have been looking for. the investigations and questions he may have been asking. then, of course, there is the open question of what more he may have learned going through this. of course, the question trump brought up trump me. the idea that in going forward with trump and sending him a target letter like this, there has to be conversation around what trump knew in regards to

having lost the election. that's actually something that the january 6th committee did a lot of work to establish. the idea of his mindset. the idea there were people around him telling him he lost the election, that he was hearing them, he internalized that, and he then went forward and applied these pressure levers anyway. that's going to be really important. again, for the sake of transparency, it's something that we have the benefit of knowing. it gives us some rare insight here after having seen a year and a half's worth of investigation here on capitol hill, that casts some rare light on the fact that now this special counsel investigation is obviously coming to a close, and we're understanding a little bit more of what they may have found out and the lineses of questioning they may been answering. >> we have two sources with direct knowledge telling nbc news that former president trump did receive a target letter from special counsel jack smith on

sunday in connection with the january 6th election interference probe. you mentioned the select committee on capitol hill and their long and in-depth investigation. they interviewed hundreds of people, many on camera, that they showed the american people. they had thousands of documents related to their investigation. were there any gaps, they felt, in their investigation that they left essentially for the doj and the federal prosecutors to under all the circumstances to fill? >> reporter: there were documents they tried to subpoena for. people like steve bannon were held in contempt of congress because they stonewalled the committee. actual members, including the house speaker kevin mccarthy, ignored subpoenas from the january 6th committee. certainly, there were investigations and inquiries that the committee wanted to have under their belt that they didn't ultimately get, but i remember going back to when they

received their final report the end of last year. every member and every source i had within the committee felt they had completed a holisitc picture of what happened in the lead-up to january 6th. they chose to focus on the former president's role in that. certainly, that was a matter of discussion, and there were other things that our team has reported since that got left off the table. for example, digging for deeply into the law enforcement angle. certainly, it was a decision by the committee to spotlight the people at the center of the former president's orbit during those days, weeks and months after the 2020 election, leading up to the january 6th insurrection, and it's why we then saw them produce condemnations and referrals to the department of justice for donald trump and some of his other close allies at the time. it gives us a reminder. frankly, when i'm done talking to you, those are the members i want to talk to. i think they'll have a fuller picture, after having read and

done this investigation, of what the special counsel might be targeting trump for. i do think it is important to underscore, again, the idea that they spent a lot of time and a lot of capital trying to establish in these interviews what the former president knew, when he was told, even though they didn't get people like mark me meadows, his chief of staff, who was having conversations in-depth with the former president, they had cassidy hutchinson there. she could speak to what mark meadows was saying, what trump was saying, what giuliani was saying, all these various people around the former president, and that's how you establish mindset. when you see jared kushner talking to the special counsel, all that fits part and parcel there, as well. >> we know secret service agents talked to the special counsel. again, the former vice president talked to the special counsel, somebody who the january 6th committee wasn't able to interview directly either. ali vitali, i'll let you go to do more work on your end on capitol hill, gathering reaction and speaking to some of the

committee members, as well as additional lawmakers. let's bring back the rest of our guests and analysts and experts who are here with us. danielle, as i'm reading through this trump truth social post, he says straight up, effectively, jack smith issued a third indictment. he says arrest of joe biden's number one political opponent. now, he hasn't been arrested. he hasn't received an indictment yet. he received a target letter which, again, nbc news has confirmed. it indicates an indictment could be coming. he seems he will be charged, and he thinks putting out this information is going to help him, i suppose, politically. but could this help or hurt him legally, to be going off on social media about this? >> yeah, so in other cases, for instance, the documents case we have in florida that we have a hearing on today at 2:00, there have been motions filed to, you know, stop him from issuing these statements to the public, in order to kind of gauge and

kind of keep control over what he says to the public. here, we haven't had an indictment yet. we haven't had an arrest yet. he is free to say whatever he would like and tried to essentially drum up his base to get people riled up and angry again. as we saw in florida, we anticipated a ton of crowds. we anticipated thousands of people. when he appeared for his indictment, it was a sparse crowd. there were not a large group of people here, either in support or against the president. so based on that, it is indicating to us that, you know, him consistently being indicted or being threatened with indictments, him trying to drum up his base by putting out inflammatory messages is somewhat exhausting. people are not responding the way i think that he would like them to. obviously, his poll numbers are going up. as your commentators have said, this potential third indictment, if not likely indictment, is

going to be a serious one. in conjunction with an already very serious one, where we have a hearing today at 2:00 in the southern district of florida. the evidence, the indictments keep mounting. if you are going to be the law and order president, you can't use it as a shield and a sword. no one is above the law in this country, and it's unfortunate that we are reliving these events like january 6th and having to go back there once this breaking news happens. we'll have to relive that. i think all of us were very, very upset at what we saw on that date. listen, if you break the law and violate the law in this country, you have to answer for it. call it a witch hunt all you want. call it election interference. the question has to be posed, if donald trump were to withdraw from the election, which he's not going to, which arguments would he have then? the law is the law. the process is working as it should. as everyone has stated, and as i agree, an indictment, the third

indictment of potentially four indictments against former president trump is likely to come in very short order. >> right now, he's facing two. the one in new york, the hush money payments, and, of course, he has the other federal indictment. we could learn a little more about the timeline and leading up to a trial. garrett, given what we heard on the hill, i want to ask whether you found any of the answers surprising, given you wear different hats, covering the trump campaign as well as capitol hill on the other side, as well. was anything striking to you about what we heard? >> only striking, perhaps, in how quickly it came, but the reality is, donald trump has really largely co-opted the house republican conference almost in its entirety. he is the endorsement of some members of the leadership, the most influential members of the republican conference.

kevin mccarthy, the speaker, hasn't formally endorsed donald trump, but he has defended him at every turn when trump has been indicted or faced other legal challenges. he did so again here. there is no structure built into kind of the modern elected republican party, at least on the house side, to be anything but in line with the former president when he faces the challenges, particularly from federal prosecutors. basically everyone, even the folks who don't support him or don't go out of their way to support him, we hear versions of, they're going after him because he is the chief rival. i'm waiting to hear if any of the candidates use this as an opportunity to create more space. surely, we'll hear from asia asa hutchinson, chris christie, making their platform anti-trump. the other candidates want the party to move on from trump, ideally to him, ron desantis,

nikki haley, tim scott. perhaps someone about to be indicted for holding up the transfer of power in the last election shouldn't have the opportunity to transfer power to him in the next. the short answer is, it is unlikely the candidates will start the process of breaking from trump on this issue. except perhaps mike pence. he'd be most interesting to watch today. he was closely involved in all things related to the transfer of power. he has been critical of the former president on that issue and has stuck to his guns about it, even when pressed in interviews and by, you know, hostile voters. that may have cost him. he's raised just a little over 1 million. he hasn't hit the requisite number of donors necessary to get on the debate stage. how the broader republican party reacts will be interesting to watch. i'm not surprised at all by the house republicans falling into line. interesting to note that, as best i can tell, we've not received a single tweeted statement of any kind from senate republicans, who generally speaking as a group, are less quick to defend the

former president. i suspect that'll come as they trickle back into d.c. tonight. >> yet, garrett, you know, this is, again, january 6th we are talking about. we saw lawmakers literally running for their lives on that day and, yet, they are coming to trump's defense here, which is a far cry from, i think, what many of them were feeling in the moment on that day that we heard, in fact, when they took to the house floor, and after this attempted insurrection, ultimately did follow through with their duties. it's just amazing they can have this amnesia. >> amnesia implies a passivity to it, ana, i don't think is there. it is a deliberate effort to turn the page from all things january 6th. whether it's because some republicans understand the images like what we were showing are terrible for republican electoral prospects, to be

continually reminded it was a pro-trump mob of supporters who attacked the capitol that day. to those who feel it is in their best interest to co-opt what we've seen on january 6th and the prosecutions that have followed into this broader narrative, that somehow the doj, federal law enforcement is biased against conservatives. we saw that last week in the hearing with fbi director wray on capitol hill. you saw it this weekend at the conserative conference in florida. this has become part of the kind of maga superstructure, the idea that january 6th was a protest, maybe it got a little out of hand, but the vast majority of people who are facing any criminal charges from it are being somehow railroaded because they support donald trump. that is baked into the maga base republican understanding of where we are in the world politically right now. that didn't happen by accident. it didn't happen overnight. >> everybody, please standby. we're going to squeeze in a quick break. when we come back, we'll dig into the 2024 implications

related to a potential additional indictment of donald trump after he received a target letter from the special counsel, letting him know that he is a target in the january 6th probe of jack smith's investigation. stay with us. you're watching special coverage right here on msnbc. try boost® high protein with 20 grams of protein for muscle health versus 16 grams in ensure® high protein. boost® high protein. now available in cinnabon® bakery-inspired flavor. learn more at boost.com/tv

that's me before dawn powerwash. soaking, scrubbing...that's life. was life. now, powerwash gives me the power of an overnight soak in minutes. i'm sorry, minutes? with 3 cleaning boosters... not found in traditional dish soaps that help break down, loosen and lift away food and grease... so much faster! tougher mess? let the suds sit a few minutes before wiping. even cleans... the grill! thank you! ♪ the thought of getting screened ♪ ♪ for colon cancer made me queasy. ♪ ♪ but now i've found a way that's right for me. ♪ ♪ feels more easy. ♪ ♪ my doc and i agreed. ♪ ♪ i pick the time. ♪ ♪ today's a good day. ♪ ♪ i screened with cologuard and did it my way! ♪ cologuard is a one-of-a kind way to screen for colon cancer that's effective and non-invasive. it's for people 45 plus at average risk, not high risk. false positive and negative results may occur. ask your provider for cologuard. ♪ i did it my way! ♪

new dove men bodywash gives you 24 hours of nourishing micromoisture. that means your skin still feels healthy and smooth now... now... ...and now too. get healthier, smoother feeling skin all day.

back with more on the breaking news. former president donald trump has received a target letter in jack smith's january 6th probe. instantly making his legal troubles once again the top issue in his 2024 campaign to retake the white house. i want to bring in vaughn hillyard from manchester, new hampshire. nbc's national correspondent gabe gutierrez in south carolina, who is covering trump's rival ron desantis today. also joining us is former republican governor of ohio and former 2016 presidential candidate john kasich. good to have all of you.

vaughn, what reaction are we hearing from trump's campaign team? >> reporter: so far in the first hour, ana, silence from several of the candidates. asa hutchinson, the former governor of arkansas who is running for the republican nomination said this should be disqualifying of donald trump if he is found guilty of ever serving in the white house again. nikki haley was also just on fox news a few moments ago. i want you to listen to part of her remarks. >> that's why i am running, is because we need a new generational leader. we can't keep dealing with this drama. we can't keep dealing with the negativity. we can't keep dealing with all of this. we've got china that's literally trying to be at war with us. you have iran building a bomb. you have north korea detaining a soldier and testing ballistic missiles. we need to focus on the debt and the lack of transparency in schools and crime and the craziness on the border. we can't be sitting there focused on lawsuits over and over again.

>> reporter: ana, the difficulty here for these republican candidates running against donald trump for the republican nomination is the fact that polling shows a majority of republican voters believe that joe biden is an illegitimate president. in a cnn poll from may, 67% of republican voters said joe biden was an illegitimate president. the number of days since january 6th, 2021, it's now 923 days. the number of days until the iowa caucus coming up, 181. several of these republicans have allowed the narrative that donald trump has put into the ether for years now to prevail. you know, mike pence, of course, who has defended his actions on that day by certifying the 2020 election, he has been confronted by voters on the road. just last week in iowa, addressing an angry republican iowa voter who said that he failed in his obligations to defend the trump presidency and to defend the trump white house by his actions that day.

this has been tough for these republicans who have wanted to avoid taking this head on. the idea that the election was rigged and taken has been effectively seeped into the minds of the vast majority of the republican electorate since the january 6th attack. >> gabe, desantis is there in south carolina today. he was looking for a reboot of his campaign this week. once again, he's finding himself overshadowed by trump. >> reporter: yeah, trump by trump. that is something that the ron desantis campaign, as he repeatedly said over and over again. yes, ana, we're in columbia, south carolina, where the governor is set to roll out his military policy in just a few moments. earlier today, he filed for the south carolina gop primary to become the first candidate to do so ahead of nikki haley and tim scott. again, these headlines are coming out about former president trump's legal troubles. now, we have heard no comment

yet from the campaign, but governor desantis is expected to take questions in a few moments. this might be an inflection point for this campaign, ana. governor desantis has been reluctant to take on donald trump on this issue specifically. before he talked about the weaponization of government, as recently as last month he said that on day one, he would appoint a new leader of the fbi. he has not criticized former president trump directly on this issue. again, we are awaiting governor desantis in a few moments, as he rolls out his military policy. we expect him to take questions, and we will ask about the developments. >> we are getting a i digsal reaction from the candidates. this is from governor hutchinson, who we know we already heard from a little bit there by vaughn. anyone who truly loves his country and is willing to put the country over themselves would suspend their campaign, is

what governor asa hutchinson is saying, who is competing for the 2024 nomination. kasich, if anything, it seems like trump is able to use these indictments against him as political leverage. >> yeah, it's no surprise that he's going to continue to do that, ana. a couple points. one is, when you have so many people questioning the legitimacy of a presidential election, i mean, that is a really, really deeply concerning thing. when somebody cannot let go of power, then they convince their followers that there was a rip-off of the result, that is very dangerous for the foundation of american democracy. we heard earlier, somebody was suggesting, you know, it is a shame we have to go back to january 6th. i think it's fine we go back to january 6th. what happened that day was an effort to try to take over control of the country by a

crazy mob. to be able to revisit that, particularly with people to seriously understand what's going on, can be a good thing. perhaps we can burst this bubble. ana, i have to also tell you, i am struck by the conversation that i had with a very intelligent man when discussing, is there anything that can come out that would cause you to question your support of donald trump? he said, "nothing. the reason it's nothing is i don't trust the elites. i don't trust the news media. i don't trust the government." that is what we're facing, ana. it is a seminal question in terms of the direction of the united states, not just today but over time. donald trump lost that election. those people were down there in the capitol. i used to serve in that capitol. they were breaking into that place, harming people. now, we have the whole business of these fake electors, where

according to this indictment, we'll see how it all plays out, that there was an effort to then overturn this when it came time for electors to cast their votes. it's amazing, isn't it? it's amazing. what's really amazing is that there are people who just simply are in denial about what this is all about. i just would love to think, in the united states of america, we've reached the point where people will say, enough is enough. i know he has 30%, 35% of the vote almost everywhere you look, but maybe over time, and there will be another indictment in all likelihood coming out of georgia, maybe over time, some of these people are going to say, enough's enough. we've got to wait and see. >> you don't even have trump's competitors in the presidential race, though, saying enough's enough. they are tiptoeing around, you know, attacking -- >> it's crazy. i mean -- >> if you expect the voters to say enough's enough, voters who like trump, who want to support him, yet you don't even have people who are trying to win the

nomination and take that victory from trump willing to distance themselves by saying that this is wrong, how do you expect that to trickle down? >> well, you know, look, a leader is somebody that is willing to get out and say things and take the heat. too many politicians are not leading indicators. they're following indicators. they're living in the fear that they're going to make somebody upset. ana, it all gets down to what i like to think we teach our children, that principle matters more sometimes, almost virtually all the time, over success. let me just say, all the time. principle is the most important thing in life. you abandon your principles -- look, when i took on trump from the beginning, refused to endorse him, refused to go to the convention, endorsed joe biden, i'm not calling myself out as a great leader, but i did what i felt i had to do. today, when i look in the mirror, i'm proud of myself. so is my family and my friends.

more people are coming to the conclusion that maybe kasich was right. i'd like to see more of these candidates who are at the head of the pack willing to stand up and say something, and i'd like the donors to stand up and help them. the problem we have now is many people don't want to make a winner, they want to be with the winner. we've just got to keep watching, ana. it's really such a disturbing time. in some sense, i don't want to say frightening, maybe i should say a frightening time, when we watch what's happening in this country today. look, we'll survive this. we'll get through this. we'll get on top of it, but it is going to take some great men and women to have courage, speak out, and do some things they wouldn't normally do. >> there's obviously a lot of people in your party who believe trump and who disagree with you, that this is a bad thing. >> i know. >> that he is as popular as he is. >> hey -- >> he's been gaining ground in the polls. why do you think that is?

>> again, they're kind of look at trump is against -- the whole world is against trump and he is being picked upon. ana, let's not overexaggerate this. we've got a long way to go. we've got debates coming up. we have these indictments. this indictment is coming out and perhaps another one. we can't think about this only in the present. the thing that's so interesting about politics is what is true today is not necessarily true tomorrow. say you have a breakout star in the first debate. say you have a breakout star in a second debate. then things begin to change. the ground begins to change. people begin to have a different perception of not only donald trump, but trump's competitors. i am told there are a lot of people watching in the republican party to see who will stand up effectively against donald trump. different than '16. today, you have to stand up against him and stand strong. if you don't win, at least you have your dignity and your integrity. that's what i think really

matters, not just in politics but in life. >> former governor kasich, thank you for being with us. as well as vaughn hillyard and gabe gutierrez. thank you, all. much more on this breaking news ahead. former president donald trump the target of special counsel jack smith's january 6th probe. our legal experts are back with us to break it down next.

try killing bugs the worry-free way. not the other way. zevo traps use light to attract and trap flying insects with no odor and no mess. they work continuously, so you don't have to. zevo. people-friendly. bug-deadly. we're back with the breaking news. nbc news has confirmed that

former president donald trump received a target letter from special counsel jack smith on sunday, in connection to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. let's get back to our panel, garrett haake, and in ft. pierce, florida. where the lawyers are there for another case. and now, joining us msnbc legal analyst, lisa ruben. garrett, do we know if anyone else in the january 6th probe has gotten a target letter? or is it just trump? >> from my reporting so far, it looks like donald trump. we got a spokesperson for rudy giuliani saying he has not received a target letter. i've been in touch with other attorneys and people that were close to donald trump at the time, who might have conceivably been in the realm, that they or their clients have not received

anything. it's an interesting data point. everything that our core has believed about the election, and the transfer of power, any other fund-raising elements around it -- it was a pretty big investigation. it could involve dozens of potential indictments. for now, only the one target letter. most of the people i mentioned and reached out to, had spoken to the grand jury already. they had the opportunity to give their side of the story already. donald trump one of the few major players that has not spoken to the grand jury. haez more likely to get a letter like this, which is not a requirement to send a target letter. i will share, as i'm opening my notebook, the other thing i'm curious about is the timing of this. donald trump said he got this letter on sunday night.

it's tuesday. what part of legal or political strategy caused the trump campaign to sit on this for a day? we've seen a coordinated response from his pac, from his allies on capitol hill. it's possible that was part of it. that kind of thing doesn't stay secret for long. it's all what we're chasing down. >> we'll get you get chasing. you're in florida covering trump's other federal case. there's the investigation in georgia. the indictment decision to come in the next few weeks. how do we get here? a lot of critics were saying how did we get here?

and they were complaining they didn't see evidence, as the congressional investigation was moving along and producing interesting evidence. they were complaining they didn't see the justice department doing anything. it is the case, according to my reporting, this massive investigation, in what led up to january 6th and other efforts to impede the law and transfer of power, which included damning testimony from many of the witnesses that testified before the grand jury, did light a fire under the justice department. did change some thinking about how important it was to fully investigate this case. it wasn't clear how they were going to pull off this indictment. it has, in the last couple of months, jack smith's team has seized this investigation by the horns and really moved it forward, to the point it appears they're in the position to make

some charges. that's a remarkable development. it has a chance to eclipse what's going on in the courthouse behind me about classified documents. the classified documents case, remains the simpler, more straightforward case. there's a lot of legal perils that may attach to a massive complex conspiracy case, involving constitutional issues and first amendment issues around the lawful transfer of power that don't apply to this classified documents case. >> thank you for your reporting, ken delaney. let's talk timing. if the d.o.j. is having this additional investigation turned into potential charges and a few case that goes before a new cart, right? and the classified documents case happening already, and the prosecutors want a trial as early as december, even though trump has suggested to pushing that back to after the election,

how is this news going to impact the timing of these other cases? >> it's unclear. but you're thinking i'm no longer the sole thing that can stand between donald trump and a federal trial. there's likely to be another federal indictment here in a court that's well-equipped for handling january 6th cases. they've handled hundreds of them. in d.c., they are ready to proceed expeditiously. and they're not likely to take the excuse that i'm too busy running for president to be tried. the case will be indicted as soon as later this week. but tried before the election. and that gives aileen cannon as the only person wanting to schedule a trial for donald

trump. >> how do you think jack smith's team is going to handle the two court cases moving forward at the same time? >> they are ready for this moment. they know the history-this moment. they've been preparing for it for some time. it's legitimate criticism, in saying d.o.j. was slow in bringing the charges. was motivated by the january 6th committee. everyone saw what happened on january 6th. this was an attempted insurrection. the documents matter is the strongest case, as ken said, because there's a direct tie between trump and the criminalalty. when it comes to january 6th, it's tenuous. he had broad first amendment rights. this trial, i think happens before the documents. and it's more likely he's

convicted in this case. evidence though the evidence is not as strong as the documents, because it will be in washington, d.c. a place that gave donald trump, only 5% of the vote. a graveyard for maga defendants. >> why would this move forward because of other classified case? is it the classified documents and making it more complexity in terms of the layers you have to get through? or because it's not more straightforward. but it happened earlier in the timeline of things. >> but the classified documents have to go through the federal law. rules on who can see the documents. and you have a judge that she's ruled favorably for donald trump. and donald trump asking for it to be postponed after the

election. when it comes to january 6th defendants, there's hundreds of people that have gone through the process. there's been several trials. and the courts are used to putting this forward in an expeditious manner. >> we've seen so much evidence, lisa, in the january 6th investigation. we've discussed that here. how do you see some of that evidence, perhaps, fitting into this investigation? criminal investigation? we know a number of people that we call the stars of the january 6th house hearings were grand jury witnesses or cooperated with the department of justice and the special counsel's office. cassidy hutchinson, pat cipollone, i was venture a guess that some of the people will be witnesses in any trial. the thing i'm looking forward

to, are the people that chose not to show up and could not evade the process, given to them by the department of justice. folks like mark meadows. >> mike pence. >> we don't know where mark med dose stands here. that's a great mystery. >> a lot to learn here. thank you for being with us throughout the hour. that's going to do it for me today. jose diaz belar picks up our coverage right now. we begin this hour with breaking news. former president donald trump received a target letter from special counsel jack smith on sunday, in connection with his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. according to two sources with direct knowledge. trump broke the news in a post on truth social this morning. he said the special counsel's of