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 office gave him a four-day

notice to report to the grand jury. an attorney says no one has to appear before the grand jury. if you're a target, you do not have to appear. later today, in a separate case, lawyers are set to appear in court, alongside the special counsel's team, for the first pretrial hearing in the classified documents case. joining us are garrett haake, lauren jaret, ken delainen and barbara mcquaid, former u.s. attorney. and danny cevallos. gary, what do we know so far at this hour? >> the former president scooping his antagonist and suggesting he believes his indictment is imminent if he does not appear or if he does before the grand jury, in the next four days.

now, we have confirmation from law enforcement sources. jack smith, sent this target letter to donald trump. we've been referring to this as the january 6th probe. but it's much bigger than that. we don't know if there's specifics about the charges mr. trump might face. we don't know if anyone else has received other target letters. no one had received similar letters. for his part, the former president has been reactive on the social media platform, on lengthy posts, describing this as a witch hunt. he has conflated the prosecutions of him, on the local, state or federal level, where political

efforts to keep him from returning. this is when he first came down the escalator. the political and the legal deeply entangled here. the former president faces a third indictment over the course of the last few months. this one on a case that the vast majority of americans are broadly familiar with and might be paying much closer attention to than others. >> trying to separate the political from the legal in this case. always difficult. what signals are we seeing from the special counsel's team, for election interference legally? >> few, jose. that's on purpose. the grand jury proceedings are supposed to stay secret. we likely will not hear anything until the grand jury has actually acted. we have state lookout teams that are watching for activity at all

times. no ward word from the special counsel on what this could be. and as garrett mentioned this, is a more sprawling investigation, than the classified documents probe, that the president has been indicted on. we talk about january 6th. it's much larger than that. we should think of his efforts and his allies efforts to cling to power, to try to flip the election. to overturn the will of the people. we don't know what piece of, if anything, this is focused on. >> we talk about the intent and the different context, with the legal and processes going on,

vis-a-vis, what is going on at the capitol. it's all about interference and election interference. what are the legal differences that the election was lost? what is the knowledge that could make a difference for the former president. >> it is important to see what the charges are. every criminal statute has a different level of intent. an other times when you can be reckless. but you have to see the charge to know what the intent is. but it appears on public reporting that the special counsel is asking witnesses about that issue, trying to probably at, did trump believe

he had lost and was going forward with all of the plans anyway? or did the president think the election was stolen? >> it means that it's certainly coming. generally, people that receive a target letter. the letter for mr. trump is giving him an opportunity to report to the grand jury. his lawyer said, there's no requirement that he or any defendant do that. he would be putting himself in grave legal jeopardy to go before the grand jury and talk.

before the mar-a-lago indictment, this case that i'm here to cover here in ft. pierce, florida, there was reporting that mr. trump's lawyers were notified he was a target. he didn't tweet that out. he didn't tell the world back then. i'm told there's no reason to believe, that an indictment would come as soon as this week. we should be watching for it. that's what this target letter means. >> how usual or unusual is it that what we're seeing play out right now, in breaking news on msnbc, what is it this four-day possibility that the former president has, to go to the grand jury? what is that all about? and how common or usual is it? >> a target letter is an advice of rights, essentially, to someone who is now in the sight

sights of a grand jury. the grand jury is investigating crimes. they say grand juries investigate crimes, not people. it becomes apparent to the grand jury. here's a person we think we're likely to indict. and at that point, a target letter is sent to give an opportunity to tell their side of the story. if there's something we don't understand, tell us so we can dispel ourselves of what we believe is probable cause that you committed a crime. because of self-incrimination, a person need not accept that invitation. and it cannot be held against them they declined. it tells me we're at tend of this investigation. prosecutors want to have heard from other witnesses and seen other documents to be armed with all of the questions, when they question these people. it sounds to me like an indictment, that may come as

soon as next week. >> as a practicing attorney, what are you seeing here? and what are you telling your client from the very little information that we have right now. certainly, what would you be looking at. >> a target letter is an invitation to talk to the environment. a target letter means your client is getting indicted. i never heard where a target letter was received and that person was downgraded to subject or witness. i'm sure it's happened. i'm not aware of it. the reality is, the odds are certain that donald trump, if he's receiving a target letter, will be indicted. when the witnesses pick up the

phone and call the prosecutors, they're not going to get more information than, either. if they do, it may be a smattering. but the government is not going to reveal the results of the grand jury investigation, at any point, until the grand jury comes out. >> we're talking generalties. we don't know the specifics or the details of this specific case. does -- is there ever a time when the attorneys for the person who receives this letter reach out to the prosecutor? do they get an indication of the scope or the nature, the focus, of what they will be asked to talk about in four days? >> answer to the first question, yes. the attorneys contact the government, to say, look, we got the letter. the reality is, my client will exercise fifth amendment right he's not going to come in and

testify or will assert it if you call him in to testify. you always contact the government. but it's not likely donald trump is going to come in to the prosecutor's office, and sit down and discuss the case. they'd love to hear his version of what he thinks he did wrong or did not do wrong. that's not going to happen. and donald trump's defense counsel will never let him come in. the client can do what the client wants. but donald trump has self-preservation in his mind, although he's totally ignorant of the fact he lost the election, he's not ignorant that sitting down with a conversation with the government would be a bad idea. you're not likely to see him come in and discuss it. en the schedule of things, looking at it from a distance.

does it seem to you that this is getting closer to the investigation wrapping up? and actually seeing indictmentings being announced? you're saying possibly next week? >> it does. they've given him four days to appear. they don't want to give him an indefinite time period because he can stall it for months and months. it says they want to get his answer in four days. it will probably be a no. even after this time expires, there may be a period where there's analanalysis. and sharing of memos. it could be there's additional time that occurs while that process goes on.

or after the four days, they are on indictment watch. >> we don't know, do we? if anybody receives a letter this week or last week, indicating they also are a target in this similar investigation. >> no indication of that. our team is checking with lawyers. other people we presume might face some legal exposure here. the trick here, a lot of people have testified. they may not get the same offer to tell their side of the story. i was struck by what danny said. trump's lawyers may not want to have him give a free-ranging conversation about this case with the grand jury. he's going to have a free-ranging conversation about it. he's doing a town hall on fox news. this will come up. it's the same double-edged

toward that exists for donald trump. anything he says now can be added to the evidence that can be used against him legally speaking. by announcing he's received this target letter and having until next week, when he's potentially indicted, to shape the narrative, telling his side of the story, unencumbered about any d.o.j. pushback, it helps them set the stage for what's coming next politically. you can guarantee that's one of the discussions that's happening in the broader trump political orbit right now. in a world of trump where the political and legal go hand in hand, he's able to raise money off of the many legal challenges he is facing. there's no requirement or responsibility from the d.o.j. or special counsel smith to

respond to clarify anything, is there? >> no. we've seen this play out a couple different times in a couple different ways. we remember when he was indicted the first time. then, there was a lag when the indictment was under seal. there was confusion what the charges were. and what would happen. once it was unsealed we heard from the special counsel for the first time. something similar could play out here. he doesn't have to make an estimate statement, even after the grand jury returns an indictment. >> so, danny, back to the legal and political implications how the former president is responding to this. is what he could say about this continue on that town hall or in

the next coming day, are there things that the former president could say that could? >> everything you say can and will be used against you.

we have to tell you not to do this. and donald trump being the client, can say, i hear you. but i'm going to do things my way. jack smith's team will be waiting and going every word of the transcript tonight. after ever rally and after every tweet and every truth social because it all can be used against him. >> can you give us a broad

picture and broader understanding of what exactly smith and the d.o.j. is looking into for election interference and how it may have something directly to do with this letter that the former president says he got on sunday? >> absolutely. we shorthanded this as the january 6th investigation. that's a misnomer. the mandate was to examine any potential violations with efforts to impede the lawful transfer of power after the 2020 election. we know from our reporting and other reporting about the nature of the witnesses that have come before the grand jury that this investigation has ranged in areas from fund raising to the fake electors that were put forward, to co-opting levers of

the federal government. to potential incitement of violence. it runs the gamut. what we said earlier about things that donald trump could say that would jeopardize him. a bedrock of this case, to make a case of conspiracy to defraud the united states, they're going to have to show that donald trump knew he lost the election. but perpetrated the fraud any way. if he goes on the town hall and continues to talk about what he says was fraud in the election, that's going to add to the body of evidence. it requires proof that the prosecutors can show that trump was told he lost the election. we've seen that evidence before the january 6th congressional committee. that's what the theory of the case looks like. you can see some draft prosecution memo. they are looking at potential

charges of conspiracy to defraud the united states and disrupt the proceeding, that would be the counting of the votes on january 6th, which is a formality. yet, donald trump and the people around him took actions. because that evidence is out there to get mike pence to stop that process. and the question is whether crimes were committed and who else was involved? >> gary, what are your thoughts? >> we talk about this idea whether donald trump knew he was lying the election was stolen from him. in the truth social post he set out, announcing the target letter. i have the right to protest the election that i am convinced was rigged and stolen. they are slipping that language into the statements they are putting out today, to make it clear, whether this is true or not this, is something he believed at the time and now to be true.

there's testimony on this report. i was able to point out the former communications director in the trump white house had spoken to prosecutors that trump said, can you believe i lost to this guy? or something that she said before the january 6th committee and what she told prosecutors. there's folks that were close to donald trump who say they would swear to the idea that donald trump believed this election was stolen from him. getting inside donald trump's head, that everybody on this panel has been trying to do, as we've been reporting on him, if that's the case they put together against him in washington, d.c. >> that's a great point. just wondering on that. the fully convention convinced

it was stolen line. words matter. they always do. the former president doesn't think that's important, in what he says and how much truth there is to what he is saying. how important legally for the fact that someone believes something happened? or doesn't and acted in a certain way? >> it is frustrating for us in white collar prosecution is to see people get away -- to be a blatant crime. because of the requirement to prove intent, it makes it difficult. you have a crime, that the act is the essence of the crime, the fact that the person has these weapons or contraband itself is enough to bring the case.

they have these, they know it. it's easy to move the intent. people making speeches and you have to prove is intent. and there's a jury instruction that goes something because you cannot read another person's mind, we have to draw fair inferences about what they were thinking and what they knew. so, jurors are asked to look at the totality of the circumstances to decide. one instruction is helpful. you can ignore the obvious by pretending something is or is not true. if donald trump never said out loud, i know i lost the election, if enough people tell him so, william barr and security expert, chris krebs and his own consultant, even if he stubbornly refuses to admit it, he can be blind to the fact he

should know it's true. >> willful blindness is a legal term with consequences? >> it is because you can't read a person's mind. you can't say, i didn't see the accident. i was stand right there. i didn't see what happened. it's a jury question. it's a matter of what the jury believes. if you pile on enough evidence there's no way he could have believed that he won the election, in light of all of the things people were telling him, i think a jury can make a fair inference he did know he lost the election. he was refusing to admit it. >> we're going to continue to talk about this because there's so many layers and levels to the legal challenges the former president is facing. i want to talk to you. we'll do that in our hour. why you are where you are today.

and we don't know from the statement from the former president he got this on sunday, where the proceeding would be carried out. >> almost certainly in washington, d.c., jose. we're not aware of grand jury venues the way we learned there was one in miami in this classified documents case. i'm in ft. pierce, where the classified documents case is know happening. where judge aileen cannon presides. there's a hearing on the scheduling in this case. it could be one of the most important rulings that judge cannon makes. there's a huge divide. lawyers are saying this trial shouldn't happen until after the presidential election. jack smith is saying it should happen in december. judge cannon might not rule but

will give a hint of how she fells about it. they will talk about the thorny issues around classified documents in this case. there's a question whether things can be kept from the jury under the classified procedures act. there's going to be special handling rules and lawyers have to get clearances. but the schedule is the thing. the evidence is overwhelming against donald trump. his number one tactic is to delay until after the election. now, we find out if the judge who has been favorable to him in the past will go along with that. >> ken, on the classified documents case in ft. pierce and separate this other issue, that we're finding out about this morning, after the former president said on sunday, he received a letter from the

special counsel's office saying he was the target of an investigation into election interference. please stay with us. we'll take a short break. we'll be back with more of special coverage of the special counsel investigation next. how the news is being received on the campaign trail and a whole lot more. ♪ rsv is a contagious virus that usually causes mild symptoms but can cause more severe infections that may lead to hospitalizations... ...in adults 60 and older... ...and adults with certain underlying conditions, like copd, asthma, or congestive heart failure. talk to your doctor and visit cutshortrsv.com. ♪ tourists tourists that turn into scientists. tourists taking photos that are analyzed by ai.

so researchers can help life underwater flourish. ♪ (vo) consumer reports evaluates vehicles for car shoppers in... ...reliability, safety, owner satisfaction, so researchers can help life underwater flourish. and road-test evaluations... and the results are in. subaru is the 2023 best mainstream automotive brand, according to consumer reports. and subaru has seven consumer reports recommended models. outback, forester, solterra, crosstrek, ascent, impreza, and legacy. it's easy to love a brand you can trust. it's easy to love a subaru. hi, i'm katie. i live in flagstaff, arizona. i'm an older student. i'm getting my doctorate in clinical psychology. i do a lot of hiking and kayaking. i needed something to help me gain clarity. so i was in the pharmacy and i saw a display of prevagen and i asked the pharmacist about it. i started taking prevagen and i noticed that i had more cognitive clarity. memory is better. it's been about two years now and it's working for me.

prevagen. at stores everywhere without a prescription. - i got the cabin for three days. it's gonna be sweet! it's been about two years now and it's working for me. what? i'm 12 hours short. - have a fun weekend. - ♪ unnecessary action hero! unnecessary. ♪ - was that necessary? - no. neither is a blown weekend. with paycom, employees do their own payroll so you can fix problems before they become problems. - hmm! get paycom and make the unnecessary, unnecessary. - see you down the line.

-dad, what's with your toenail? -oh, that...? i'm not sure... -it's a nail fungus infection. -...that's gross! -it's nothing, really... -it's contagious. you can even spread it to other people. -mom, come here! -don't worry about it. it'll go away on its own! -no, it won't go away on its own. it's an infection. you need a prescription. nail fungus is a contagious infection. at the first signs, show it to your doctor... ... and ask if jublia is right for you. jublia is a prescription medicine used to treat toenail fungus. its most common side effects include ingrown toenail, application site redness... ... itching, swelling, burning or stinging, blisters and pain. jublia is recognized by the apma. most commercially insured patients may pay as little as $0 copay. go to jubliarx.com now to get started. sleepovers just aren't what they used to be. a house full of screens? basically no hiccups? you guys have no idea how good you've got it.

how old are you? like, 80? back in my day, it was scary stories and flashlights. we don't get scared. oh, really? mom can see your search history. that's what i thought. introducing the next generation 10g network. only from xfinity. sleepovers just aren't what they used to be. a house full of screens? basically no hiccups? you guys have no idea how good you've got it. how old are you? like, 80? back in my day, it was scary stories and flashlights. we don't get scared. oh, really? mom can see your search history. that's what i thought. introducing the next generation 10g network. only from xfinity.

31 past the hour. we're following breaking developments that could have an impact on the 2024 race for the white house. two sources tell nbc news that former president donald trump received a target letter from jack smith in his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. joining us with more is vaughn hillyard, and gabe gutierrez is in south carolina. michael steele, an msnbc political analyst. governor desantis is on the trail in south carolina. is he reacting to any of this? >> yes, jose. in the past few moments we had a chance to ask governor desantis some questions as he rolled out his military policy in columbia, south carolina. he responded to the developments of the target letter. he had not been able to look at

the breaking news. someone just told him about it. he doesn't know details of the letter. i asked him if he thought that what former president trump did was wrong? >> the difference between being brought up on criminal charges and doing things. for example, i think it was shown he was in the white house and didn't do anything while things were going on. h should have come out more forcefully. to try to criminalize that, that's a different issue entirely. we want to be in a situation where you don't have one side just constantly trying to put the other side in jail. unfortunately, that's what we're seeing now. >> that's the most direct attack on former president trump. you heard, he didn't do anything. he should have come out more forcefully.

he didn't elaborate on that. he made a point that he didn't think politics should be criminalized. he spoke on the trail about what he believes the weaponization of the department of justice. he thinks that former president trump should have done more to stop january 6th. >> you're in new hampshire. a critical state for this republican field. how do you see this playing out with voters where you are? >> the baseline understanding is that the electorate used donald trump as a sympathetic figure. that's where you see ron desantis trying to strike that difficult balance. suggesting that donald trump was taking actions he wouldn't take himself but he didn't break the law.

two-thirds use joe biden as an illegitimate president. it's donald trump that's campaigned on the idea of pardoning january 6th defendants. by extension, this potential indictment, he could be one of those defendants. a statement said, i would have made different judgments. but a bad judgment is not a crime. and nikki haley was on fox a bit ago saying, this is going to keep on going. the rest of the primary election is going to be a referendum and going to be about lawsuits and judges. the republican candidates are dealing with reality this is going to be front and center for the republican electorate. and to a certain extent, it's up to them, the extent to which they defend donald trump. the other issue is that these candidates could very well, if one were to beat donald trump on

january 15th in the iowa caucus, they may face calls by donald trump that the iowa caucus was rigged. back in 2016, donald trump lost to ted cruz. he said ted cruz stole the iowa caucus. that was passed by after he won the new hampshire primary. in six months from now, the echoes of 2020 could reverberate if anyone were to eclipse him. >> the more things change, the more they stay the same. i'm wondering your thoughts on this. what kind of a political world are we living in? >> one where there's a lot of

drinking required to get through the day. i don't know how our colleagues do it out there in the field. asking questions about people who aren't being straightforward with their answers. hemming and hauing and taking on the massive enigma in front of them. the desantis response, we don't want to live in a world where one side is trying to put the other side in jail. are you familiar with lock her up? they weren't talking about donald trump. that's the crazy we have to live with. it's of their own making. if the candidates can take this in a different direction. but they won't. >> they could. odds are, if you look at how things have been in the past, if they do, they would get -- they

would get get destroyed by trump. >> okay. >> that's the process, jose. >> i'm just telling you. that's why probably they're not into it right now. when you see trump is fund-raising off of this, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, what does it tell you? >> here's the truth. >> republican voters, talking about the indictment of january 6th, his voters don't care about that. i had conversations. i'm voting for donald trump. you can do what you want. i'm voting for donald trump. that's his base. that's a significant part of his base. the man is over 50%. do you think one more indictment is going to go -- i can't

support donald trump now. his base is locked with him. the candidates have no way to get around that. >> is that something you're hearing on the campaign trail? something you're hearing from voters in where you are? regardless of what happens, they are going to go for trump, come hell or high water. >> i couldn't tell you how many conversations i had with republican voters in the last 960-something days, since january 6th, 2021, that donald trump is not directly responsible for the violence that took place. some of the folks also make the case it was actually antifa or black lives matter that caused the events of that day. to michael's point, a great share of the republican

electorate is not living, where other online outlets have put into the ether, ideas about the events leading up to january 6th in the 2020 election, that's led them to galvanize around donald trump and take back the white house. they believe it was stolen. not only do conversations with voters play that out, but the data does. one individual ally with donald trump told me, wait for the day that ron desantis starts to get booed at donald trump events. folks believe there's a difference between running against donald trump and not supporting him. right now, ron desantis, the

folks have booed. ron desantis and other republicans are now trying to -- a little bit of separation from him. this is a tough reality they have lived in. kevin mccarthy and other republicans on capitol hill, not defiantly speaking out about donald trump, has led to this moment. so few thought that donald trump would run for office, let alone remain in good standing with the events that transpired after the 2020 election. >> michael was talking about the reaction from florida. are they telling you one thing publicly and something else privately? are they living in such fear of trump, they don't want to talk about this? >> since the beginning of the campaign and before the campaign started, it was clear that ron desantis would have to walk a fine line.

over the last several days, there's numerous reports about a campaign shakeup. how the campaign has been burning through cash in the first six weeks of his campaign. a dozen staffers had to be laid off. there might be a new strategy as part of the campaign. we saw, a few moments ago, when it comes to attacking donald trump, not much has changed. he said that trump should have acted more forcefully on january 6th but refused to go after hm. reverted to the talking points about the weaponization of the department of justice. it's clear that governor desantis will not make on trump that much more forcefully.

the previous indictments, the former president's poll numbers have gone up. the shakeup of the campaign has played in the last couple days. will it make any difference in the days and weeks ahead? that remains to be seen. the campaign is focused in the coming weeks on rolling out policy proposals. foe kuing on the august debate. they have been overshadowed by this development regarding former president trump. jose? >> michael, using your vast experience on all things politics, do you think that essentially, as the legal proceedings continue against the former president on so many different cases, that we're talking about donald trump as the fait accompli for the republicans in 2024?

>> yeah. tell me how that trajectory has changed. gabe put it exactly right in how ron desantis is trying to, you know, navigate this space. tim scott, nikki haley. nikki haley has been in the beginning of this campaign. not a good blip on the political radar. tim scott is running, you know, reaganesque themes. and the base is like, that was then. we want someone who is going to break things and scare the hell out of people. who is going to walk in? chris christie has created a narrative lane, which will be interesting to see how that plays out, in terms of does it translate into votes? we're talking about a 30% to 40% base for trump.

that's untapped and ready to move. it will be hard to get the voters to turn out in the numbers you need them to turn out in a republican primary to overwhelm the tsunami that donald trump has been building since he left office. >> ron, gabe, makele, thank you for being with us this morning. really appreciate it. coming up, we go to capitol hill for reaction there. you're watching jose diaz belart reports on msnbc.

introducing tow frech dip sandwiches. featuring fresh artisan bread piled high with tender roast beef, smothered with melty provolone cheese, just enough chipotle mayo and served with hot au jus for dipping. try the roast beef or pastrami french dips today. only at togo's.

featuring fresh artisan bread piled high with tender roast beef, smothered with melty provolone cheese, just enough chipotle mayo and served with hot au jus for dipping. try the roast beef or pastrami french dips today. only at togo's. 49 past the hour. we're following breaking news this morning. two sources with direct knowledge tell nbc news, that 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. we're going to go live to capitol hill. ali vitale is there for us this

morning. what's the reaction there? >> this is not the first time we've seen the former president be in legal trouble. it's not even the first time we've seen him be in trouble with the department of justice. lawmakers are doing so in the same pattern we've seen them do it them do it before, largely republicans jumping to the former president's defense, the speaker of the house saying this just in the last few hours. >> well, i guess under a biden administration, you would expect this. if you notice recently, president trump went up in the polls and was actually surpassing president biden for re-election, so what do they do now? weaponize government to go after their number one opponent. it's time and time again, i think the american public is tired of this, they want to see equal justice, and the idea that they utilize this to go after those that politically disagree with them is wrong. >> reporter: so mccarthy pleading politics, not engaging

with the substance of this particular probe. in this case around january 6th attempts to disrupt the transfer of power around the 2020 election. the view from the hill here is also informed on this in a very different way, jose, because we went through over a year of the january 6th committee doing investigations, holding public hearings, and frankly interviewing a lot of the same people that we are likely to hear that the special counsel, jack smith, also interviewed. you'll remember this is how we got details on things like the fake electors scheme, but then also the january 6th committee did a lot of work to try to establish the former president's mind-set, what he knew, what people around him were telling him, specifically in regards to losing the election. that's something that as many people have said today, is going to be critically important to the special counsel and this target letter for the former president. >> ali vitali on capitol hill, thank you so very much. joining us is nbc news legal

analyst, lisa rubin, ken dilanian. looking at today's hearing in the documents case, a separate case, the documents case in mar-a-lago, there are important rules that this trial will have to fall under because of the classified documents? >> yeah, that's right, jose. they're going to argue about that today, for example -- and it's just the beginning of a long process, but one of the questions in this case will be is the government going to ask that parts of these highly sensitive documents be redacted, even from the jury. there's a provision for that. we're not supposed to have secret evidence in this country, but when something impinges on national security there's a law that allows that to be kept secret from everyone and often defendants resist that. the most important issue that's going to be talked about today is the issue of scheduling and when this trial will take place. obviously donald trump and his lawyers are asking the judge to postpone it potentially until

after the 2024 presidential election, and jack smith, the special counsel, wants a trial as soon as december. so today we'll get the first indication of where judge ileen cannon stands on this. they issued pro-trump rulings that were overruled by an appeals court. now we'll see where she is on the issue of speedy trial and scheduling in the classified documents case, which is going to have to be juggled potentially with a separate case in mr. trump is correct that he is about to be indicted. >> ken dilanian in fort pierce, florida, thank you. let's talk about the two cases that are separate. are they going to have, do you think, any conflict of even scheduling? it seems like this is an ongoing series of issues. >> yes and no, jose. the judges certainly can work out scheduling issues between them and the special counsel's office has shown their own

capacity to walk and chew gum at the same time. they certainly have dedicated teams on each of the records investigation and the election interference investigation. where this becomes trickier, however, is things that require the presence of the defendant, donald trump, for example, and his lawyers. it remains to be seen who will defend donald trump in any indictment related to january 6th, but there has been reporting indicating that todd blanche that represents him in the record investigation and the manhattan da's criminal case, he will have to be in multiple places at the same time potentially. so given that trump will be entitled to counsel of his choosing, the fact that one person can't be four places at the same time might pose a problem with respect to scheduling, jose. >> lisa, thank you so much. danny, your thoughts on this. it seems like there are so many investigations that are coming

to fruition almost on similar time schedules. what do you see of any conflict at all? >> i can't prove it, but i long suspected that once there would be one indictment, all the others, if any, would come very quickly afterwards. it's almost like breaking the seal, there are plenty of different analogies that you can make. but the bottom line is whether psychologically or maybe the fact that the investigations just all happened and concluded at the same time. what i think really happened is that once one prosecutor's office was willing to indict, it seemed a lot easier to bring an indictment against the most significant criminal defendant in american history. because nobody, state or federal prosecutors, wanted to bring a case against donald trump until they were absolutely certain the case was as good as it was going to get. just a good example is this case we're talking about today. most of the evidence or a lot of the evidence that we will see in any indictment if trump is

indicted in connection with january 6th and efforts to overturn the election, maybe we've already seen it a year ago in the january 6th committee's not only very public hearings, but their voluminous report that they issued. it's all been there for at least a year, maybe over a year. so it took that long for the government to take all of that evidence, develop any additional evidence, and arrive at the conclusion as they may in just the next few days or weeks, that this is a case that they can indict and prove donald trump guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. when you think about it, an additional year in addition to all the evidence the january 6th committee uncovered, that means they were moving carefully, if nothing else. >> and so barbara is back with us this morning. just wondering on the technicalities of it, with this former president's statement that he received this letter on sunday from special counsel jack smith in connection to his

efforts to overturn the 2020 election, whether he has to appear in the next couple of days, in four days. an attorney for trump says no one has to appear before a grand jury. if you are a target, you don't have to appear. is that correct? >> that's right. in fact, this is not a requirement to appear. this is not a subpoena. he's not being compelled. everyone has a fifth amendment right not to testify against themselves. but this is, instead, an invitation. it says that you're a punitive defendant, this grand jury thinks you've committed a crime. do you want to come in and tell your side of the story? so it's an opportunity. most defendants choose not to avail themselves of that opportunity because anything they say can be used against them, so most of the time they decline that invitation. but i have heard of people coming in and saying, yes, i would like to tell you my side of the story. it turns out it was not so black and white and perhaps the grand

jury decides not to indict. that's the exception to the rule. usually a period of time is given. if you want to come in and tell your side of the story, come on in, you've got four days to do it. >> danny, the fact that the president may probably not decide to go in on that invitation, but is going to tonight, garrett haake was telling us this earlier this hour, that tonight the former president is going to be on some town hall, i think on fox news. is that legally -- does that have any weight, the fact that the invitation is not to speak to the grand jury, but on a town hall for an hour? >> nobody who gets a target letter is likely to go -- like barbara said, i'm sure it's happened. i'm not aware of it personally. once you get a target letter, the wagons are circled, you're not sending your client in to talk to anybody. and i would suspect of the tiny, tiny fraction of defendants who have gone in to explain their story to government, to the

prosecutors, that tiny fraction of them have talked their way out of an indictment, i would suspect the vast majority still get indicted. and of course the government would love it if a defendant or a prospective defendant came in to tell their side of the story. we will wait there with pencils and pads ready to take down notes, because they might get something useful. so donald trump benefits himself not at all if he were to go in and talk to federal prosecutors. instead, he would prefer an arena where he controls the narrative, like a rally, like going on fox news, like doing a town hall. where he can control whether he chooses to answer questions or not. but as i hope his attorneys have explained to him, and i'm sure they have, anything you're going to say at a town hall, at a rally, are words that can be written down in transcript form and used against you, and believe me, if the government can, they will use those words against you. >> barbara, just looking at the track record of the federal government and the doj, if

you're indicted, odds are it's going to be tough. >> yes, although not impossible. the justice department uses this grand jury process and the cases it brings are usually quite strong because of all of the procedural requirements. i imagine the evidence will be strong but the cases that are the most challenging are the ones that go to trial. >> i thank you so much for being with us. that wraps up the hour for me. i'm jose diaz-balart. thank you for the privilege of your time. peter alexander picks up with more news right now. right now on "andrea mitchell reports," a bombshell update, former president trump posting on social media this morning he is now a target in jack smith's investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election, as trump-appointed judge aileen cannon is back in the national spotlight with a timeline for the former president's classified documents trial in her hands this afternoon. and breaking news from