at such a crucial moment. >> the white house had been displeased with what was happening with the judicial overhaul, and there was notable delay in the president extending that invitation. thank you very much. that's going to do it for me today. "deadline: white house" starts right now. hi, everyone. it's 4:00 in the east on what could be the first day of the rest of the trump story. donald trump breaking the news himself that he has received a target letter from special counsel jack smith, likely indicating his imminent indictment in the january 6th criminal probe. but that's not all. we come on the air with both of today's top stories, spokes of the same wheel of trump's alleged criminality. a hearing just wrapped up in a courthouse in south florida where lawyers for the government squared off with lawyers for the ex-president in the classified documents case.

we will have full coverage of those proceedings later in the broadcast. but we begin with news that the ex-president has been informed he is now a target in special counsel jack smith's january 6th probe and is therefore very likely to be indicted. donald trump took to truth social this morning saying he received the notice on sunday and was given, quote, four days to report to the grand jury. "the new york times" reports this -- "the former president is expected to decline the invitation to appear before the grand jury." it is unclear what the charges against this ex-president will be, but we do know prosecutors have brought a veritable parade of witnesses, including mike pence, mark meadows, and jared kushner to testify before the grand jury investigating january 6th in recent months. "new york times" reports this as well. prosecutors have been asking witnesses about the former president's state of mind, as well as efforts to fund raise off his false claims of widespread voter fraud and whether he knew he lost. they have also been scrutinizing

efforts to put together slates of so-called fake electors to cast ballots in support of trump when the electoral college tallies were certified. so much of what we as a public know about the trump-directed coup plot is thanks to the work of the january 6th select committee. they laid out clear evidence of a multipronged and complex plan to overturn the 2020 election, culmin culminating, of course, in the attack on the u.s. capitol on january 6th. none of it was possible without the man as vice chair liz cheney, said, "summoned the mob, assembled them, and lit the flame of this attack." that panel referred the ex-president to the justice department on four criminal charges. watch. >> the first criminal statute we invoke for referral is what

makes it unlawful for anyone to corruptly obstruct influence or impede any official proceeding of the united states government. we believe that there is more than sufficient evidence to refer former president donald trump, john eastman and others, for violating title xviii, section 371. this statute makes it a crime to conspire to defraud the united states. third, we make a referral based on title xviii section 1001, which makes it unlawful to knowingly and willfully make materially false statements to the federal government. the evidence clearly suggests that president trump conspired with others to submit slates of fake electors to congress and the national archives. the fourth and final statute is title xviii section 2383. the statute applies to anyone

who incites, assists, or engages in insurrection against the united states of america and anyone who gives aid or comfort to an insurrection. >> we don't know for sure, but history may very well reveal it was that moment that brought us to where we are today. the looming indictment of donald trump and the federal criminal investigation into the plot to overturn the 2020 election is where we begin today with some of our most favorite reporters and friends. former lead investigator for the january 6th select committee, tim is back with us. former depp city assistant attorney general and former u.s. attorney harry lipman. "new york times" washington correspondent glen this rush is back with us. and former assistant for counterintelligence at the fbi, msnbc news national security analyst, frank figliuzzi is here. tim, when you listen to the

criminal referrals that congressman raskin listed off there, that sort of was the climaic final work and the bred crumbs left by jack smith, the fact that pence and meadows have been in before the grand jury investigating january 6th, does any one of those the crimes referred leap out for you? >> the order raskin used is exactly the order that i think we'll see in the indictment. the lead charge here in my view is 1512 c, the evidence that the president and his co-conspirators specifically intended to obstruct, impede, or interfere with a official proceeding, a joint session which president biden's election was certified, is the lead count. i think the others are important to. i think the least likely is the aid and comfort to an

insurrection. that is a statute that has not been used by federal prosecutors, not been brought against any of the january 6th rioters. it's unclear what aid and comfort means, what's the intent level. so i think that is the one of the four is the most obscure or least likely. but 1512, from our investigation, we headlined with that statute, i think that is likely the operating assumption, the approach that the special counsel has taken. that's the lead count. unless they have additional evidence. that's how i would expect an indictment to read. >> congressman raskin named eastman. is that a conspiracy that you would imagine jack smith would charge, a conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding? >> yes. i think you'll see an indictment that will charge the former president, the leader of a group. conspiracy an agreement, a group

of people that agree to commit additional crime, obstruction of the proceedings. so you could see four, five, six people. unclear how far he will stretch it. will it go all the way out to the republican national committee operatives that were suggesting the submission of the fake elector schemes or will it be a control group, more tightly held inner circle? eastman, giuliani, jim clark, mark meadows, although it sounds like he may have testified and may be cooperating. all the inner circle who were helping the president essentially execute that multipart plan that the select committee laid out could have exposure. >> tim, this is down in the weeds, but i think that's where viewers of this program are able to go and want to go on a day like this. if meadows has been before the grand jury and rudy has voluntarily come in, are we to assume that people that went before the grand jury somehow cooperated or gave jack smith

something? or could it be that the only people who are targets are the ones who did not cooperate? >> no. i mean, it's really hard to game out from the outside why someone -- someone could go into a grand jury and assert privileges. someone could go into the grand jury and continue to set forth the baseless theories of election fraud or the power of the vice president that they said all along. that would not be in any way exculpatory. it would be inculpatory. i'm not sure the circumstances that led to meadows or giuliani going into the grand jury. it is either a cooperation agreement where they are telling the truth, to the grand jury in exchange for the hope of leniency, or they are potentially doubling down on what they had said, what giuliani particularly said publicly, over the course of the lead-up to january 6th and on january 6th if the election, was, in fact, stolen. i don't know that you can read

from just the fact they went in, what their status is unless you know what they said once they were before that group. i will say finally that it is doj policy not to bring targets in front of the grand jury, right. that is an invitation for sort of a fifth amendment problem. in our system, people don't have to incriminate themselves. you don't have to go in front of the grand jury and take an oath and say you did anything criminal. you can refrain to answer that question by asserting the privilege. the department does not put people they think have privileges in front of the grand jury. that's the standard policy. the fact they went in suggests they have somehow work organized -- worked it out and are waiving that privilege or don't think they have a privilege and therefore no criminality. >> tim, what does it mean in terms of where jack smith is and what he's ready to do that trump received a target letter on sunday? what should we all be prepared

for? >> yet another sign that he's close to the end. target letter is something that typically comes sort of as a last step, right. it's basically the special counsel saying we developed evidence that you have violated federal criminal law, we're going to give you a chance to present any evidence that might bear upon our decision as to whether to charge you with those crimes. that is something that they do once they have made a conclusion, a determination, albeit a preliminary one, that there's exposure. so i think we're close to the end. i think the fact that these witnesses that you mention have had gone in suggest that as well. i think we've been talking on this show over the last several times i've been here that it looks like this is winding down and the target letter just reinforces that. i think we're likely now within a matter of days or weeks before a decision, and if that decision is an indictment to be issued. >> so, glenn thrush, it's an

interesting moment for the department and the ex-president, i suppose, in that all of the things that people worried about have not happened, right. but if we charge an ex-president, we've never done that before, everything will fall apart. there was sort of a ho-hum -- there was a lot of anxiety ahead of his arraignment in miami, but the sun came up in the morning, went down in the evening, and everybody went about their live, except the ex-president, who has now said to his supporters, i am your retribution. you standing by my side, we will eradicate the deep state. the smears against jack smith are almost next level, things i won't amplify eve on the my very informed audience. what do you think that means that donald trump knows is coming his way? can you hear us? you were muted.

>> yes. can you hear me all right? >> we got you. okay. start over. i don't want to miss it. >> to sum extent, i think that you're absolutely right, i think the department started off on this road really slowly as you pointed out on any number of occasions. the thing we can discern from smith is he's true to his word. in november when he was appointed by garland to take over these two investigations, he promised to move expeditiously. and, you know, that had to do with getting this under the wire before we got into the 2024 presidential campaign. now we have over the course of really four to six weeks i think, we have two potential -- we have one indictment that's already in books and another appears inevitable. so he has moved very quickly. i think the outer edge of his decision process here is likely to be early august, because that is when fulton county,

investigating georgia, investigating a lot of the same events, is expected to move ahead with her indictment. and what form toer federal prosecutors tell me, and i've heard folks on your show say, is that moving simultaneously or after that would be dangerous for smith because you don't want to have witnesses whose testimony varies even slightly from the testimony that they're giving him. that could create problems for him and opportunities for the defense. so if we're looking at a period of time and time pressures that are on smith, it's no longer just the political calendar but the air traffic control of donald trump legally is getting very crowded. so smith i think to some extent is being impelled by a calendar imposed upon him by the officials down in georgia. >> harry lipman, i traded calls

and some messages earlier in the day with three former federal prosecutors. and i asked about jack smith and some of the questions i just put to glenn thrush. there's something in my mind that wonders coming from war crimes to the domestic political landscape, maybe jack smith was the person to be totally unfazed in what he had to sort of immerse himself in. what do you make of the speed and the change in speed and pace from before there was a special counsel from before at least the january 6th probe was in jack smith's hand to after? >> you're really right about that. first, he has been in the fire before. and to all accounts, he's totally been able to walk forward and be completely unfazed by the political swirl around him. he knows how to handle it. but second, yes, he got out of the box pretty quickly, and we were struck with mar-a-lago.

he's now in overdrive. i don't think there's a faster gear. and we went through this in mar-a-lago, but the definition of the target letter is so close, you can bet it's gone through the leadership of the department. in terms of speed, the big question will be, and glenn's comments refer to it, he can do a small, medium, and large basic case and the pivotal question will be will he actually go after trump for the january 6th conduct itself. it's true that it would be very fraught legally. on the other hand, the department has already gone that way with the marauders themselves and gone that way with charging the president. but in any event, i think we can see expectations something to do with the false electors and probably something to do with the fund-raising itself.

and a final point, even though giuliani and eastman's attorneys announce they don't have a target letter yet, it doesn't mean that they won't figure in his unindicted co-conspirators or that smith doesn't have a real possibility of superseding. but he's coming out of the box with the most important and probably the quickest because the court he's bringing it in and the court of appeals over it is used to moving with dispatch and has signaled they're fed up with trump's delay tactics. >> someone pointed out to me today it is possible that if trump is charged and if it goes to trial, that that trial could very well happen ahead of the documents trial. >> yeah. look, we've had -- the d.c. judges there already have had ooh lot of experience in different procedural kind of emotions where they've given it pretty close to, increasingly

back of the hand treatment, then things have gone to the court of appeals that has disposed of things within a day. compare to mar-a-lago, where the hearing just ended and we're still not exactly sure where cannon is. compare also -- i think it's important. i think he was taken by the imminence of the fulton county charges. it's interesting. he has not been in touch, by all accounts, with the state prosecutors. so he's going on the same time line we have. i think it's important to come out of the box quickly. he'll have judges, almost all of them on that d.c. bench, that are used to moving quickly and know the different, complicated issues, and first and foremost are sensitized and have shown it to the overall time line we're looking at with the november 2024 election. >> frank figliuzzi, i want your thoughts on today's news. then i'm going use all of you because you're some of the most

knowledgeable people on the planet, to delve into what might end up in jack smith's indictment itself. first your reaction to today's news. >> i like to remind people on any given day in any given year, federal criminal prosecutions result in at least 90% of defendants pleading guilty. now, i don't mean for anyone to infer that i think donald trump's going to plead guilty. rather, i say that to emphasize the strength of a federal criminal prosecution, the seriousness of the charges that get brought, and the strength of the evidence when you have agencies like fbi and others pulling out all of their tools in their tool dit kit from informant development, cooperating witnesses, surveillance coverage, wiretaps, paper analysis, you name it. the federal government drinks it to the table, which is why cases are so strong. what do i mean by this? i mean that jack smith would not

be bringing this case, and it looks like it's imminent, unless he had it nailed down solid with evidence. the charges will not be light or fringe-like, and the evidence will be overwhelming, because that's what we see generally speaking in all federal cases. the federal government would rather ditch a case than lose a case. so this is the strength of what we're about to see happen. also, you led with this issue of the likely spring board that happened from the january 6th work, excellent, the committee, to lead to where jack smith is today. i'm both disturbed by that and encouraged by it, disturbed because i took way too long for the fbi and the doj -- and we learn more about this delay every day -- for them to get their act together, and that's bad. but the congress, this

commission, this committee stepped into a gap and made it happen in an unprecedented way for a congressional investigation, and that's encouraging that the three branches of government can step a-in and not only check each other but assist or augment each other when one is failing to rise to the occasion. >> i'm going to put you on the spot in a second. but do you think that, absent the congressional probe, absent the evidence that the congressional committee developed with the same kind of similarly trained federal prosecutor tos who populate doj, taking taped depositions of the likes of cassidy hutchinson and mr. jacob and mr. shores and mr. stepien, and -- i mean, clarence thomas' wife to -- i mean, the meticulousness, the depth, the volume of the interviews that were gathered, the presentation of evidence.

it seemed to prove two really important things. one, if doj brought a criminal case, it would not be novel. that was a big hang-up about 18 months ago. two, if doj worries the public couldn't process the story about a sitting president trying to cling to power using anti-democratic and legal methods, the public very much is capable of understanding that story. in fact, it broke decades of midterm political history in that it averted a red wave. i mean, it seems that two of the big hang-ups were wiped out by the work of the congressional committee as well as all the evidence developed by it. >> yeah. we've talked before on this program about how general pli throughout my career i've kept at arm's length and even held in disdain the notion that the serious comprehensive investigation could be conducted by congressional committee. i have changed my mind on that, not only -- yes, i do think that -- i do think that we would

not have even seen a special counsel appointed if the work of the committee hadn't seen the light of day and essentially compelled doj to get their act together on this. and, look, the more we learn from "the washington post" reporting and other major outlets about the delays and the debates in the fbi and the doj and the degree to which headquarters at fbi may not have even been aware of the base between the washington field office and o.j. headquarters, even over the mar-a-lago search warrant, which was a no-brainer, by the way, once you've got multiple refusals to cooperate, subpoenas blown off, lies occurring. it's a no-brainer to get the search warrant, yet they couldn't even get that quickly agreed to. so yeah, i think i'm unclear that we'd even be this far without the work of the committee. >> all right. you're all assembled because we knew we'd have news break once we came on the air. one of those stories has broken. we want to tell our viewers about it. it comes from the state of

michigan. michigan attorney general dana ness l has announced charges for 16 individuals who served as fake electors for donald trump in the aftermath of the 2020 election. the charges include conspiracy to commit forgery. that carries a sentence of up to 14 years in prison. here is the announcement of these charges from her. >> that was a lie. they weren't the duly elected and qualified electors and each of the defendants knew it. they carried out these actions with the hope and bleach that the electoral votes of michigan's 2020 election would be awarded to the candidate of their choosing instead of the candidate that michigan voters actually chose. >> now, later in our broadcast, michigan secretary of state jocelyn benson will be our guest to talk about the plot to steal the election in michigan. but we have tim who investigated the fake electors plot in multiple battleground states.

it was amazing that the georgia investigation has been churning under the d.a. and trump is bad at a lot of things. counting the votes he need isn't one of them. he would never stay in power in georgia. i always wonder where the other states were he plotted the fake electors. it appears here goes michigan. >> exactly. the attorney general in michigan over a year ago referred this very matter on which she is now issuing indictments to the department of justice. she said what you just said. the michigan story is part of a broader story that needs to be investigated by federal authorities that can tie together activity in multiple jurisdictions. then she said she's not gotten any sense to where that stands, where the michigan story is being investigated upon her referral or not. so she finally went ahead and issued state charges very

similar to what federal charges might be. it is unlawful to submit something purporting to the official when you know it is not official, and those are not duly certified certificates. they were fake cats, and that makes it criminal. . i think what you're seeing in michigan is a part of a national story and a state official much like georgia saying we can't wait and devine whether there will be a federal case. we have to move forward with charges in our particular jurisdiction. what will happen to those charges, what about the sequence will be if that story is part of a lengthy indictment that includes the fake electors in michigan and elsewhere is to be determined, but i'm not surprised that the attorney general and attorney general nessel has moved forward. she said, again, over year ago, there was evidence of crime in the generation of these fake electors in michigan. >> and i want to read -- just to tie this back to the news that

we talked with, i want to read the evidence that the committee developed tying trump to the fake electors plot. this is from the final report on giuliani and trump's role in setting up the fake base of electors. "on december 13th and 14th, trump worked with rudy giuliani on the plan's implementation. on the 13th of december, miller texted some of his colleagues to check in about the fake elector meeting scheduled the following day. he let them know that giuliani told him, quote, potus was aware they were filing legislation in four states, likely a pretext to claim it was still possible for the fake electors to be authorized retroactively. the next day miller sent an email asking if they would issue a press release about electors and he told them the mayor is going to discuss with potus." of all of the elements of the coup plot, the fake electors' legwork and the meetings and the

retail political nature of assem lg fake electors is the one that trump's fingerprints appear to be the most completely all over, tim. >> yeah. that's one other piece of evidence, nicolle, beyond what you read from the report, and that's a phone call with president trump and john eastman calling rahm emanuel and saying we need to generate these electors in these contested seven states, we need your help, the rnc's help to do it. they're encouraging her to deploy rnc staff and resources to coordinate this submission of those electors. again, direct personal involvement in the generation of the these false certificates that these electors, you know, were certified. so there's a lot of evidence as we laid out that put president trump in addition to john eastman, giuliani, and chesebro and other people in the states, to generate those fake electors. it was one part of the multipart

plan to disrupt the joint session for them to prevent transfer of power. >> i am nothing but a superfan of the january 6th hearings. let me play this for you, glenn. >> my view is that the vice president didn't have the legal authority to do anything. >> they looked closely at'sman and meadows, but it had no basis, it was not a strategy that the president should pursue. sounds like that's consistent with your impression as well. >> i impression would have been informed certainly by them. >> did john eastman mp admit, as far as you know, in front of the president that his proposal would violate the electoral college? >> i believe he did on the 4th.

>> what did the president say? >> essentially he turned the call over to mr.'s eastman, who then proceeded to talk about the importance of the rnc helping the campaign gather these contingent electors in case any of the legal challenges that were ongoing changed the result of -- just helping them reach out and assemble, but my understanding is the campaign did take the lead and we just were helping them in that -- in that role. >> glenn, we'll deal with the first clip in a second. but the second piece, i mean, miss mcdaniel talking about trump getting her on the phone and turning the call over to mr. eastman, talked about the importance of the rnc helping the campaign gather what she called contingent electors.

they were actually called fake electors inside the trump campaign until an email the committee developed as evidence that someone said maybe we should come up with a different name than fake, smiley face, emoji. don't see a lot of those in coup emails, but this one did. then they changed the internal sort of word to alternate electors, going back to kellyanne conway. this was a sort of slow-motion coup they called about. they put trump on the phone. they did this with particular brazenness. glenn, you've frozen on us. can you hear us? can you hear us? >> sorry. can you hear me? >> go ahead, glenn. yes, we have you. >> i'm sorry. >> okay. go ahead. >> i mean, a lot of stuff was

brought before the committee. i want to say it fast before i freeze again. this was brought before the committee and i will share my praise of the efforts for putting a lot of this into the public domain as a journalist. but the question is what additional connective tissue has smith been able to develop in terms of connecting this to individual interactions with trump, which will be critical in the prosecution? so there's the stuff we know that's been out in public already, and the cassidy, hutchinson thing i think -- i was at the department the day she testified. i can tell you, it had a real impact on people. i don't think they realized the extent to which this information was available. but the question is what has smith developed that links trump even more to this particular plot and demonstrates his state of mind? that will be a critical we.

that seems to be what they were asking of jared kushner when he came into the grand jury earlier this month. but that's the critical question, where was trump's head at and did he understand, as you've articulated, that this was a plot and that these electors were fake? >> you know, harry lipman, it's a good point. and we always, stop at the gates of just how far the committee got, right. so the committee had access to jared kushner but not beyond the mountain of text messages mark meadows turned over. to read all ul this information, i think adam kinzinger called him the star witness who didn't show up, they broke through that gate, right? mark meadows has been before the dprj. and it's not just the fake electors but it is the question of the violence, to the degree that the violence was a tool to stop an official proceeding. let me show you some of the

sound that we dug up today of trump's closest advisers and allies in congress who clearly, as the insurrection is happening, know that the insurrectionists themselves are at the direct and complete command and control of donald trump. we start with chris christie and a few others. >> the pat caused this protest to occur. he's the only one who can make it stop. >> mr. president, you have got to stop this. you are the only person who can call this off. call it off. the election is over. call it off. >> i was very clear with the president when i called him. this has to stop and he's got to go to the american public and tell them to stop this. >> so, harry lipman, as we -- because trump has already been indicted we know a little bit about what a trump indictment crafted by jack smith and his team looks like in that

instance. you can imagine if he has to give examples of trump's direct role in command and control of the insurrectionists, that he might fall from some contemporaneous sound of people like that on that day. >> completely. look, the michigan complaint and charges there are michigan specific. but the committee developed a lot about them, incluing brazen detail. they rekite they went to the senate and went through the whole process, all bald lies. now, i don't think we can expect the a.g. of michigan to charge the, you know, head of the rnc, much less the trump folks. but absolutely, this is what smith has been doing as it sort of filtered out over the last few weeks, not just here but also georgia, possibly arizona. so, what is a 16 specific countings in michigan will elongate into a conspiracy beginning with them on the ground with trump's intervention

at different points but definitely ending at the ring leaders of the people who were absolutely, you know, calling the shots. and, you know, we spend all these days, nicolle, teasing out the specific details that we're getting, but this is kind of an amazing day because all these crimes happened in plain sight. but at the time, are they political acts? are they okay? and it's finally a really resounding response by the system, you saw this, this was not politics or trumpian politics. this was flatout violations of the michigan and federal criminal code, and they're now all coming together, starting in the states, ending in the oval office, which is exactly what happened. >> harry lipman, we know you have a plane to catch and only because of that, we will let you leetch us. thanks for being part of our coverage on this day. everyone else sticks around. we have more news to get to in the next two hours including the first court hearing in the classified documents case in

florida. the united states versus donald trump. both sides facing judge aileen cannon in a heated back-and-forth about the date and the schedule of that upcoming trial. we'll fill you in on everything that happened there. and later, one of the most prominent voices who has been calling for accountability for years now, congressman adam schiff joins us on today's fire hose of breaking news. become an aunty. book a flight. stay 4 nights. meet the baby. make the baby cry. give the baby back. fly home. silver tier in a single trip. join one key and move up tiers fast.

♪ (upbeat music) ♪ ( ♪♪ ) woah. ( ♪♪ ) ( ♪♪ ) ( ♪♪ ) ( ♪♪ )

constant contact delivers the marketing tools your small business needs to keep up, excel, and grow. constant contact. helping the small stand tall. this is american infrastructure, a prime target for cyberattacks. but the same ai-powered security that protects all of google also defends these services for everyone who lives here. ♪

what to the facts and the evidence show. certainly i've been clear, he's been guilty of the most dereliction of duty than any president in our nation's history. you had a federal judge in california say it's more likely than not that he and john eastman committed two crimes. so, you know, i think that we're going to continue to follow the facts. i think the department of justice will do that, but they have to make decisions about prosecution understanding what it means if the facts and the evidence are there and they decide not to prosecute, how do we then call ourselves a nation of laws. >> throwing down the gauntlet as liz cheney is known to do.

michigan's secretary of state spoke to federal prosecutors in march about the fake elector scheme in her state. your reaction to today's breaking news. we've turned to you over the years since the election of 2020 and efforts to steal it from donald trump. news today trump has received a target letter from jack smith in the january 6th probe. >> i think i we're moving forward justice being served. if we allow that to stand despite evidence that there was an effort to undermine our democracy, then, you know, as liz cheney said, we are not a nation of laws. and indeed we are. so i'm grateful that there is a wide scope of the investigation that's leaving no stone unturned and that it's a fact and evidence-based investigation to simply ensure justice is served so we do not see a reoccurrence

of these attempts in the future. >> big news happening at the state level as well on the criminal casualty front. in your state, the attorney general announcing charges against 16 individuals who were charged with eight counts each, all felonies, if convicted, leading to lengthy prison sentences. i guess two questions on this. we know this has been on her radar. she has referred it to doj and took the case back and focused on it anew, seeing little action and movement from doj in their pre-jack smith period. your reaction to the charges in michigan today. >> this was an actionable plan, not just an idea to lie to the federal government about who won a presidential election and how michigan's electoral vote should go. and it wasn't just again an idea. this was an actual fraudulent attempt to overturn and

undermine the will of the people. these documents were submitted to the federal government, and they were -- we received them and then turned them over to the attorney general for a full investigation. so i'm very grateful that the attorney general has followed the facts, followed the law, and issued charges against individuals who -- for whom there was an overwhelming amount of evidence that they knowingly, in my view, allegedly took actions to violate not just any laws but the very laws that govern the access to our elections and who has power in our country. so i'm optimistic that we'll see justice served here. we'll see thousand facts and the process plays out. but this certainly underscores there's a role for states to play as well in seeking full accountability for all of those who took actions to undermine the will of the people in 2020. >> i spoke -- you've received a lot of recognition. i know that's not why you did it, and i know that nothing

really ever erases the fear of having armed people outside your house when you're inside with your child. but those things stipulated, some of the people who have been recognized alongside you over the last 2 1/2 years are the capitol police officers themselves who paid the price of this insurrection and engaged in what one described as, quote, medieval hand to hand combat. one officer said today, "i don't feel happy. i feel this almost unrelenting sense of rage and grief that it's taken this long and it still feels like a long shot." how do you feel? >> i feel energized, frankly. we're in the midst of preparing for the 2024 presidential cycle, and this is breaking news. i've been in meetings all days

with individuals not just many michigan but across the country about how we're going to protect the 2024 presidential psych from any known or potential tactics that could be employed aga anew to overturn election results simply because individuals don't like them. so the fact we are seeing any type of progress at justice for events from the past gives me a renewed sense of hope and energy that we'll see justice, and that in some ways will be our best tool to prevent a reoccurrence of these attempts in 2024. so i'm hopeful. and i think the charges -- felony charges out of michigan are serious. the potential charges coming out of the federal government are serious. and they will do what is needed to be done in my view to ensure that we don't see a reoccurrence of at least these tactics in future elections. >> michigan secretary of state jocelyn benson, at the center of so many of the stories we talk

about. thanks for taking time to talk to us today. we're going to sneak in a quick break. we'll get reaction on the other side. tion on the other side you didn't live this strong, this long to get put on the shelf like a porcelain doll. if you have postmenopausal osteoporosis and are at high risk for fracture,

you can build new bone with evenity®. ask your doctor if you can do more than just slowing down bone loss with evenity®. want stronger bones? then build new bone; evenity® can help in just 12 months. evenity® is proven to reduce spine fracture risk by 73%. evenity® can increase risk of heart attack, stroke, or death from a cardiovascular problem. do not take evenity® if you have low blood calcium, or are allergic to it. serious allergic reactions and low blood calcium have occurred. tell your doctor about jaw bone problems, as they have been reported with evenity®. or about pain in your hip, groin, or thigh, as unusual thigh bone fractures have occurred. don't let a break put you on a shelf. talk to your doctor about building new bone with evenity®!

- you like that bone? i got a great price on it. - did you see my tail when that chewy box showed up? - oh, i saw it. - sorry about the vase. - can we just say vase like normal people? - fine. - i always wondered what it would be like to have a tail. - maybe you did one time. and maybe a thousand years from now, i'll be tail-less using that chewy app to get you great prices on treats. - i'm pretty sure it takes more than a thousand years- - vase. - pets aren't just pets. they're more. - vase! - [announcer] save more on what they love with everyday great prices at chewy. (air whooshing) (box thudding) why didn't we do this last year? before you were preventing migraine with qulipta®? remember the pain? cancelled plans? the worry? that was then. and look at me now. you'll never truly forget migraine. but qulipta® reduces attacks, making zero-migraine days possible. it's the only pill of its kind that blocks cgrp - and is approved to prevent migraine of any frequency. to help give you that forget-you-get migraine feeling. don't take if allergic to qulipta®. most common side effects are nausea,

constipation, and sleepiness. learn how abbvie could help you save. qulipta®. the forget-you-get migraine medicine™. and the president says i think it could have been pompeo, but he says words to the effect of, yeah, we lost, we need to let that issue go to the next guy, meaning president biden.

>> i remember maybe a week after the election was called, i popped into the oval just to, like, give the president the headlines and see how he was doing, and he was looking at the tv, and he said, can you believe i lost to this effing guy? >> in the motorcade ride driving back to the white house and i said does the president really think that he lost. he said a lot of times he'll tell me that he lost but he wants to keep fighting it. he thinks there might be enough to overturn the election, but he's pretty much acknowledged that he's lost. >> we're back with tim heaphy, glenn thrush and frank figliuzzi. frank, one of the things that almost blinded you by the end of the committee's work was the volume of evidence developed by the people closest to donald trump that donald trump knew he had lost the evidence. there's recent reporting that suggests a radicalization

process of the company, the pillow person and the overstock person and sidney powell as he got closer to jigts. there's a copious amount of testimony and taped depositions. you can only imagine jack smith was able to find more evidence that trump knew he lost. that seems to only enhance his criminal exposure and whatever is coming from jack smith. >> no question the jury is going to hear what you just played and hear much more likely about this. i still remind folks, really something important here. a fervent belief in something does not equal a reasonable belief in something, nor does it give you license to commit a crime around your per vent belief. the jury is going to sit there, evaluate the evidence. they'll see what i call charles tan attorneys and advisers telling the president, i think this is fraud, you should fight.

you'll hear from real professional attorneys, including the attorney general of the united states, telling him we've looked at it, we can't find the fraud you're talking about, and add in some of the statements and clips you just played that he actually did understand that he lost, you have a jury that will sit here and go, fervent belief, maybe, maybe not, but not reasonable belief and not license to commit fraud, try to steal the selection, try to submit alternate slates of electors. it just won't add up for the jury. >> tim, the first time we had a chance to talk to you, i asked if you thought there was enough evidence to charge trump, and you said yes, but there's more that jack smith had access to. i asked if you thought it would be exculpatory and you said no. when you look at sort of the difference between what you saw and what we know jack smith saw that you didn't, take me through some of those extra pieces and

what you would like to have deepened in terms of evidence either with mark meadows or rudy giuliani or mike pence, people who didn't cooperate with your investigation. >> the first example i would offer is pat cipollone. he tiptoed up to the line repeatedly in our interview with him. you can see it in the video. he's thinking constantly about, is this a privileged communication. he's an institutionalist. he believes that white house counsel should be able to provide the president with candid advice without that information -- that information subsequently being discoverable by congress or a third party. he's doing that because he cares about the rule of law and the institutional role of white house counsel. but he was tiptoeing. jack smith may have gotten him to run across that line and opened the door to all those conversations. the chief judge of the d.c. district court affirmed by the court of appeals said you don't

have an executive privilege, mr. cipollone. you must answer the special counsel's questions. all of the times he stopped short of the line with us, he didn't have that hesitation because the judge told him he had to answer that question. mike pence and mark meadows didn't even come in and tiptoe. they stayed home. they obviously are central to this. mike pence is a victim. he was the recipient of all that pressure. we obviously want to hear all about the pressure that was put upon him. he's in a very real sense a victim because the rioters come within 40 feet of the vice president of the capitol as he's evacuating the senate chamber on january 6th. mark meadows is the gatekeeper, the chief of staff right at the center of all of these things. he's at all these meetings, on the raffensperger call, he's there all day on january 6th when the president is saying, as cassidy told us, he doesn't want to do anything. he's a central witness right in

the room where it happens. again, we've got enough just based on what we were able to find with those witnesses tiptoeing up to the line to believe there had been a violation of federal crimes. judge clark in california even back in the spring of 2022 also found that there was prima facie evidence that trump and eastman conspired to violate criminal statutes. now jack smith, with his grand jury power that comes with the adjudication of privilege assertions, my expectation is that he has a lot more, that the case has only gotten stronger, there's more en culp tory evidence, he's gotten to that vital information. >> glenn, cassidy hutchinson was the inrefutable star witness of the january 6th probe. with george terwilliger, there's there conventional wisdom that mark meadows between what he knew and what he could offer jack smig and the caliber of representation throughout would

find a way not to get charged. is there a scenario where mark meadows replaces or sur plants cassidy hutchins and becomes the star witness in the criminal case against trump? >> look, george terwilliger is a very well-regarded attorney in washington and someone who has a lot of experience in very high-profile, high-stakes prosecutions. he's going to do what's best for his client. i don't think showing jack smith the back of his hand is really a sustainable strategy for mark meadows. the one thing -- we don't know what's been exchanged, but the one thing, knowing terwilliger, is that whatever questions he was asked, he was counseled to answer them truthfully as possible. the one thing i want to throw

into the legal discussion, based on what's happening today, we've reported and other outlets are reporting it, too, trump is coordinating with mccarthy and some of his allies in the house today. so trump again is viewing this, as he has viewed the mar-a-lago documents investigation, as a political challenge. he is apparently adopting generally the same approach which is, if i can win on the politics, if we can discredit the people who are bringing these cases, then we can win inside the courtroom. we'll see if that works this time. >> i mean maybe even not that far. if he can win in the politics, if he can be re-elected, he doesn't have to win in the courtroom where we've not seen much of a legal defense of any of this, he can pardon himself. tim heaphy, glenn thrush and frank figliuzzi, thank you so

much for spending the whole hour with us. we're grateful. we have much more news to get to. one of the january 6th select committee members who helped build the case against the ex-president even before doj did that, adam schiff joining us next. don't go anywhere. joining us next don't go anywhere. ♪ tourists tourists that turn into scientists. tourists taking photos that are analyzed by ai. so researchers can help life underwater flourish. ♪ with the freestyle libre 2 system, know your glucose level and where it's headed.

no fingersticks needed. manage your diabetes with more confidence. freestyle libre 2. try it for free at freestylelibre.us (ambience of room, crickets, scrolling content on phone) they're off from school, but not really home. images and videos. social media, fine-tuned to suck them in. and steal them away. alone you can't stop it.

together we will. join us. ( ♪♪ )

goli, taste your goals. join us. all this bravado and everything else, i've known him for 22 years. when i was doing these cases in new jersey and i would put political figures in jail, he would say to me, i could never do that. i could never go to jail. i'm telling you no matter what he says, no matter how he's bragging and going on and on about him not being afraid, he goes to bed every night thinking about the sound of that jail cell door closing behind him. >> clink. hi again, everybody. it's 5:00 in the east on this blockbuster day of news where the nightmare of donald trump's described by his former ally and

very close yearslong friend chris christie could be inching closer to a possibility. special counsel jack smith giving us the biggest signal yet he's close to seeking an indictment of the already twice-indicted ex-president. trump broke the news this morning that he has been sent and has received a target letter in smith's probe into the efforts on trump's part to undo his 2020 defeat. we do not know what exact parts of smith's expansive investigation the target letter pertains to, but trump was told he had four days to report to a grand jury. over in michigan, the state's attorney general, dana nessel has announced felony charges against 16 fake electors, people who signed paperwork falsely claiming that trump won the 2020 election as part of a scheme to overturn the results there. today also marking the first pretrial hearing in jack smith's other criminal case against the ex-president when examining his

role in withholding classified documents from the government and keeping them at his personal residence. it has already resulted in indictments. his co-conspirator, walt nauta, appeared before u.s. district judge aileen cannon in a hearing that wrapped up in the last hour. that hearing ended without a decision on timing from cannon. msnbc is reporting from inside the courtroom and reveals there was a heated discussion on both sides about how quickly the case would be ready to go to trial. judge cannon appeared to brush aside the arguments from trump's lawyers that just because their client is running for president a jury could not be picked before an election. she did appear to have a lot of sympathy for their other argument that this case is so complex that they can't follow the prosecution's blueprint and have the trial as soon as january. cannon said she would file a written order soon. we'll get to that case in just a moment. for now we return to today's

historic news that the ex-president was informed on sunday night that he is a target in the second investigation being overseen special counsel jack smith into trump's conduct, meaning the current republican front-runner for president of the united states of america could be nearing another criminal indictment in less than four months. the many investigative walls closing in on the twice-impeached, twice-indicted president is where we begin the hour with congressman adam schiff. congressman, first, your reaction to today's news? >> it shows jack smith is moving i think to conclude this investigation, that we are very close to the end, and it now seems if what the former president is reporting about in the letter is correct, that he may very well be indicted yet again on. on the january 6th committee we found evidence that we referred to the justice department that

he may have engaged in multiple criminal acts including conspiracy to defraud the united states, inciting the attack on the capitol. he should be treated like anyone else that engages in that kind of serious criminal activity. you don't get a pass because you're the president, not if there's going to be one rule of law. it looks like we're coming the a decision point and frankly, it's about time. >> the work of the congressional committee is cited by in people we talk to on and off the air as the variable that, but for the committee -- you can't test the alternative. i'm asking you to address a hypothetical, but do you think that the department of you tisz would have pursued a criminal indictment against donald trump for his role in january 6th absent the investigation done by congress? >> honestly, i think it is very unclear whether we would have gotten to the point but for the fact that the january 6th committee put this information out into the public and also submitted it to the justice

department. at the time of much of our investigation they weren't proceeding, it didn't appear, against those that organized the effort to overturn the election. they were really focused on other important law breakers, those who broke into the capitol that day, those who assaulted police officers. they didn't appear to be looking at the most serious offenders at the top of the scheme. i think they couldn't look away from the evidence we introduced. i think the investigation took a real turning point when the special counsel was appointed. he was laser focused. he has moved i think with speed and a sense of urgency that appeared to be looking up until that point. >> what do you think the stakes are of having the evidence heard by a jury of donald trump's peers ahead of the 2024 election? >> well, i think the stakes are very high. i don't know that even if he were indicted and even if he

were convicted that his base is going to leave him. as he said quite famously quite early on, he believes he could shoot someone in the street and they'd still support him. they have supported him, many republicans, through thick and thin. but at the same time there's an important middle in america, if maybe a smaller middle than it used to be, but nonetheless, people who don't want a law breaker as president and don't want someone blaking these laws in particular which so attack the foundation of our democracy. this, the essential component of this scheme was an effort to stop the peaceful transfer of power for the first time in our history. if you put someone like that back in office again, you can expect it to be the end of the democracy as we know it. i just can't believe americans want to go down that path. >> i agree with you. i feel like the political class has this conversation about donald trump as though it's all in stone or concrete and can't change. his base may never walk away

from him, but his base may also shrink. his base has never evaluated him with his one-time ally chris christie coming at him with whatever it is chris christie is wielding against donald trump, talking about his fears of being in prison driving everything. do you see the politics as fixed, or do you see them as fluid? >> i still see it as fluid. one big question mark for the chris christies and others that were at times critical of donald trump in 2016, but then when trump was running away with it and becoming the nominee, they got on board with him. will they do that again? i hope they don't. i hope they show more devotion to the country, the constitution than merely going with whoever wins their nomination. i think back to mitch mcconnell's passionate speech on the senate floor after the second impeachment about how trump used the biggest

megaphones to broadcast the biggest lies, it was a matter of weeks later before mcconnell asked, well, if he's the nominee again, will you support him, answered by saying "absolutely." frankly, it's that kind of capitulation that has put us on such fragile ground as a democracy. i hope that doesn't happen again. >> yeah. in some ways what happened in today's news cycle is exactly what mitch mcconnell said should happen. he votes to acquit trump. then he says, but basically refers him to doj for investigation and prosecution if the facts are there. we've looked high and low. we haven't seen any response from him today. i do want to ask you, though, about the turn that the republican party has taken and its full embrace toward basically what would be a dictatorship in trump's second term, the tools of an autocrat, the promise to secret bugs against a deep state. the people that investigated

donald trump in his first term were lifelong republicans. miller was appointed by a republican president. jim comey was appointed to senior positions in the justice department by a republican, as was rod rosen stein. the people that he calls deep state are largely republicans who had jobs that required them to investigate crimes. every time a rock was turned over and it was trump underneath it, it looked been committed. what are your concerns about the republican rhetoric beyond trump, about the fbi and the department of justice and the rule of law in america? >> i'm deeply concerned about the long-lasting damage that kevin mccarthy and others are doing right at this moment. mccarthy was out there today, again, basically taking aim at the justice department and the whole justice system because he's doing trump's bidding yet again. and the judiciary committee, where we had chris wray come

testify, they were vilifying him and vilifying the fbi. that's doing long-term damage. i was an assistant u.s. attorney many years ago. when you go into the courtroom, you're often calling fbi agents as witnesses. if the juries don't believe them anymore because they've been told by the leader of one party that they're all part of some deep state conspiracy, it has impacts to do what republicans say they're for which is bring about law and order. sadly, what we have seen is an after foremention of what robert carroll said, power not corrupting as much as is revealed. it's revealed all too many people in gop leadership as being devoted to their own power over country, constitution, democracy, you name it. i frankly would not have expected that to be the case. it's been quite a difficult realization that the things people profess to care about matter so little at the end of

the day. >> i wonder what you think we will ever learn about the role of republican members of congress. we know trump received a target letter because trump told us he received a target letter. there's no indication from even the recent flurry of activity that jack smith has examined some of the folks that you and your fellow committee members asked to come in and talk to you about their role or their knowledge of trump's role. do you think that sort of goes into a black box, that we never learn of the role, of who trump described in his own justice department leadership as "our allies will do the rest after doj declares the election corrupt." >> i think some of it will be in a blank box. members of congress are not likely to ever -- at least not for how ever long a period of time is before records are released to the public, which

could be decades from now, learn more about the details of the involvement of members of congress. it's possible during a trial in these matters that more of that information comes out. but i would imagine that the department will at least endeavor to adhere to its policy of not discussing things outside the kroo, outside the pleadings. so we may never know fully the involvement of some of the members in all of this. >> just remarkable, remarkable commentary on our times. congressman adam schiff, thank you for making time for us and starting us off this hour. we are grateful. >> thank you. switching gears to us to the other development in jack smith's other investigation into the ex-president, the probe into his mishandling of classified documents. today's hearing was the first one presided over by judge aileen cannon. she did not make a decision on the timing or scheduling for the trial, but she did say she would make that decision promptly. let's bring into our coverage former senior national security official at the department of

justice, brandon van grabbing. he's well versed and very patient with us and our questions about it. take us through -- just first explain to us what happened today. >> so what was supposed to happen today is a focus on scheduling what's going to happen with respect to classified information in the case. there are certain procedures and hearings and filings that occur with respect to classified information based on a law called the classified information procedures act. what it appears is the focus instead was really on trying to set a trial date and at least based on the reporting, it doesn't seem like there was discussions of the cipa process and really a back and forth of when they're going to put that stake in the ground to try to have a trial. >> so one of the notes that "the new york times" reporter on this

submitted or sort of has tweeted about is something i wanted you to expand on for us. this is from "the new york times." beneath the scheduling issues was a fascinating philosophical scruggs of the nature of trump as a defendant. it revolved around the question of should trump be treated like any other defendant or did his role as a candidate need to be taken into account. one, expand on that for us. and two, where do you come down on that debate? >> i think it's also related to some of the reporting that talked about the judge in this case really pressing the defendant's counsel on why this case is complex. under law -- under the speedy trial act, trials need to occur within 70 days of charging in which a judge makes a decision to exclude certain information -- certain time, it's justified. what the judge is saying, explain to me why this is complex, to the defendants, give

me the justification we need to not have this trial within 70 days. the reason i focus on the law of the speedy trial act in the judge's comments is with respect to the complexity of the case, the status of the defendant isn't necessarily a basis for complexity. in fact, the judge pushed back, it appears, and was making points of, well, talk about the volume of discovery, talk about the classified information. so ultimately i think the government's point was that defendants have all manner of challenges with respect to timing, and just because the former president is, in fact, running for office isn't, of itself, a basis to cause significant delay. another point on that, i think the point works to the opposite effect. to the extent there's a concern an individual is running for political office, the interest should be resolving that case before the election so it

minimizes the impact. i think what you're seeing is the department of justice move mountains to make that happen and i think you're seeing defense counsel resist that. >> one of the things you said yesterday was on this review -- this cipa process, the classified documents themselves, one of the tells about judge aileen cannon and whether this would be speedy or not, is whether she brought in a magistrate judge to do some of that work. did we learn when we might find out if she's going to do that or not, or did she hold all of her cards very close to the vest today? >> well, i think it goes to my first point which is at least based on the reporting, we are not there yet. i think one of the two takeaways, takeaway number one is this trial is not going to happen in 2023. we just don't know when in 2024 it may happen. the second is we didn't get, it appears from the reporting, any

clarity of what is going to happen with respect to the cipa process. i think it's a really important point here because there are some real urgent issues that the judge needs to decide. the government flagged on monday that the parties haven't agreed to a protective order to receive classified information. that is a condition precedent to the government handing over classified information. there are unresolved issues, to our knowledge not resolved at the hearing. the government didn't even know what, in fact, the defendant's objections were to that protective order. that needs to be resolved before the defendants receive the classified information. i think the point about whether these hearings go before initially a different judge is also a cause for delay. i think the point is you're starting to see some of the slow drips for potential delay here. it's really incumbent on the judge to really try to hold the parties' feet to the fire to

make sure this proceeds as quickly as possible. >> brandon, before we lose you, i want to zoom out a little bit. you brought to our attention some cases of other defendants not running for president. mr. teixeira and other defendants. it feels like the blast radius from what mr. trump is doing could be larger than people expected or understood. can you talk about the impacts of trump's case on other prosecutions? >> i think it's an important point, in fact, related to exactly what's talked about in the hearing. one of the points the judge made to resist scheduling this trial in december was it's unusual for cases involving classified information to occur within six months. the judge is right, but it's not unreasonable and it's, in part, because what the government hars done here is prepared this case and prepared discovery more quickly than they do in other cases. so when you compare it to other

cases, like the teixeira case, the national guardsman in massachusetts, if you compare the discovery representations, the government has said it's ready in this case to produce almost all the information. the government typically isn't that prepared. in the teixeira case involving the national guardsman, the government isn't as prepared. they don't have all that information ready to go and to provide to the defendant. i make that point because ultimately, yes, this case looks like the department s&p seeking to move faster than other national security cases, but that's because it's devoting all the time and resources to do so in ways that typically don't happen like in the teixeira case. >> and because you're someone we turn to to understand what it is like inside the seemingly her metticly sealed department of justice, we want your reaction

to the information that trump revealed that he's received a target letter regarding his role on january 6th. >> i think it's sobering. the focus tends to be on, well, there's yet another criminal case, potential criminal indictment which appears to be the case. it's important to focus on what types of criminal violations we're talking about because not all crimes are created equal. what the department appears to be saying -- it's a department of justice i have faith in in terms of its independence, and i think they've demonstrated justification for that faith, is that the former president compromised national security. the only question is the extent of that compromise, and sought to undermine the presidential election. that's not just a crime. those are significant crimes.

they're troubling, they're concerning. the election is the foundation of our democracy. so i think it is yet sort of another moment to sort of take a step back and realize what remarkable times we're in right now. >> i mean, as you say that, i have chills thinking of john mccain's private moments before conceding to then president-elect barack obama, and he looked at mark salter who had written an exquisitely gracious concession speech with john mccain, and he showed it to me. i read it. i had been doing the last tv interviews. i think brian williams was one of the last people. but it's not over until it's over. but john mccain said to me, it's beautiful, it's his best, about mark salter's work, something like this may be one of the most important speeches i get.

the peaceful transfer of power gets short shrift. your comments remind me of the seriousness with which liz cheney went about her work as vice chair of the select committee. i wonder if you can speak to whether that's in the back of the minds of people working on this, the front of the minds or are they myopically focused on the crimes? >> i think i'd almost separate the two. i think when you look at the individuals who are working with the special counsel right now, i think they're individuals who simply put their head down, and it seems like in a very compressed amount of time, did a remarkable amount of investigative work and believe they have the evidence to -- for both of these criminal charges. i think the piece that you're referring to is that, again, this isn't just crimes -- and i

know there are state crimes, too. this is the department of justice, this independent body within our government, sort of as i've said before. i think faith in the department of justice and the fbi are critical, foundational to our democracy because they have the ability to take away one's liberty. the fact that this department of justice, careful and thoughtful, this attorney general who has been sensitive and thoughtful and sought to be hypersensitive, the thought that this department of justice is accusing the former president of not just compromising national security in multiple ways, but now of undermining, as you said, the peaceful transfer of power, i think it does add weight when you sort of put that in context, not just the what, but the who. >> wow. you always make us think.

sometimes you make me google. today you just made me think. brandon, thank you for spending time with us today. >> thank you. as we keep zooming ahead on this historic day of news, we will be joined by pennsylvania governor josh shapiro who, as the state's attorney general, had more time to chat with us and had a front row seats to the efforts by the twice-impeached, twice-indicted disgraced ex-president and his allies in attempts to overturn the 2020 election there. later, our political panel joins us on this monumental day of breaking news as the legal morals are now clearly closing in on donald trump. "deadline: white house" continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. ouse" continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere.

your shipping manager left to “find themself.” leaving you lost. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire

as you all know by now, we're juggling several crucial developments this afternoon, in addition to the target letter we've been discussing informing donald trump that he is now a target of special counsel jack smith's investigation into january 6th as well as the pretrial hearing in the classified documents case. we're also covering this important story out of michigan. state attorney general necessary sell announced her office is charging 16 of those fake fraudulent electors, people who fraudulently proclaimed in official documents that trump won the 2020 election there. joining our conversation is someone we have turned to throughout the ex-president's attempts to overturn his defeat in 2020, now the governor of pennsylvania, josh shapiro. before he was governor, he was that state's attorney general. we had the privilege of talking to you often in that precarious period between joe biden's win

and the inauguration which, of course, included january 6th. it's great to see you. i know you've been busy fixing freeways and getting your state in good shape. it's very nice to see you. >> great to be back with you. thanks so much, nicolle. >> i want to hear what you've been up to. we'll start with democracy, since you've been a pretty loud and clear voice on all matters of democracy. your office when you were attorney general clarified while pennsylvania's fake electors had a little bit of legal cushioning in what they did, they added a clause and basically had better coup lawyers as i understand it and said, if the challenges are successful, then we will go. the michigan fake electors don't seem to have that clause in there. what do you make of the news out of michigan from your one-town counterpart? >> let me just say attorney general necessary sell is a serious person, one of the ags i respect most in this nation.

she obviously took her time, she took her time. she applied the facts and analyzed the law and made a decision apparently to issue these charges today. obviously there's some factual differences between what allegedly occurred in michigan and what we know occurred here in pennsylvania. the similar thread throughout is there was a coordinated effort led by the former president that was pervasive in states like pennsylvania and michigan and others, to try and undermine our democracy, to try and thwart the will of the people, to try and take away their voice in our democracy. while we were able to defeat that threat -- i went to court as attorney general more than 40 times and won every single time. you and i have talked about this. that threat to democracy continues. the fact that a no indicted, twice indicted, perhaps maybe three-times indicted former president is the leading

republican candidate i think should be a wake-up call for all of us that our collective work to defend our democracy must continue. >> i want to ask you how that manifests in pennsylvania. do you still hear people who don't accept that president joe biden is the legitimate president? >> i do. look, there's good news and bad news here in the commonwealth. the bad news is that probably the leading, most dangerous extremist was the republican nominee for governor. he brought some people along with him. the good news is we not only defeated him. i earned more votes than anyone in the history of pennsylvania running for governor, which shows that there are common sense pennsylvanians, the vast majority, who rejected extremism and defended real freedom here in the commonwealth of pennsylvania. we're going to continue to call on those people. republican, democratic and independent to do the hard and

necessary work to defend our democracy, continue to beat back these very, very real threats against our democracy. you gathered to your effort the remaining normal republicans in the commonwealth. do you see a healthier version or do you see a more radicalized sort of opposition party in the commonwealth on the republican side? >> i see a group of people from both parties who want to see us just get stuff done again and who do want to defend real freedom, who want to be able to make decisions over their own bodies, want their kids to be able to read the books they determine are right for them to read, who don't want politicians bullying children just for being who they are. i think that's where the majority of pennsylvanians are. that dangerous, radical, extreme

element that propped up my opponent, continuing to prop up the former president, that people like desantis feel they need to speak to every single day. i think that's dangerous. i think we need to focus less on sort of the party lines and more on folks who are willing to come together and defeat that extremism and protect our democracy and search for real freedom in the midst of this cloud of noise and aggressive efforts to try to undermine our rights here in this commonwealth and in this country. >> you gave a speech i think the saturday night before election day. president obama was there, and you crafted this. feel free to jump in. it seemed to be a frame that not only worked and certainly was one of your more i think publicized final public speeches

before your resounding victory, but seems to be that has worked up and down the ballot and in other places. i wonder if you think that's a useful frame for the 2024 election. >> i hope more and more candidates adopted the approach i laid out in my combine, that we were all about defending real freedom in this commonwealth, again, the freedom to make decisions over your own body, the freedom to marry who you love, the freedom to raise your children the way you believe they should be raised, the freedom to not have our children be bullied by politicians, the freedom to be able to walk down the street free of gun violence, the freedom to be able to breathe our air and make decisions to protect our planet, i think that's real freedom. we may have some differences, nicolle, in how we achieve those

things. but we should all be rolling in that same direction. that is certainly something i took all across this commonwealth, and not only won in places that democrats traditionally won, but we won counties democrats hadn't won in generations. i think it's because folks saw that as a common-sense approach that brought us together, didn't divide us the way too many folks on the other side do. i am hopeful that that becomes part of democrats' message going forward, and for republicans, too, who believe in real freedom and patriotism and are willing to do the hard work necessary to both defend our freedoms and our democracy. >> respectfully you also ran against one of the biggest lunatics that was on the stage, on the menu on the right. i want to ask you, if you had been asked by any of jack smith's prosecutors to answer any questions about trump's efforts to overturn the election

in pennsylvania. >> i haven't. i haven't answered any questions, and i haven't been asked to answer any questions. certainly if there's anything that would be useful, i'd be more than happy to help defend this nation, help with any investigation, but i have not been asked for any information. >> if we could ask you to put your a.g. hat back on for a second, what do you think jack smith has sort of marshaled in terms of the public reporting of the kind of witnesses he's brought in, mark meadows, jared kushner, the fake electors. >> with the obvious caveat that i have no insight into what he's doing beyond what's being reported, it seems he's doing the work a good prosecutor should do, and that's be very methodical, climbing the chain, following the facts and evidence, stitching together different pieces of this that may have occurred in different

states or regions, but have a similar thread throughout of a former president who was willing to subvert our democracy, to try to overturn the election. he's obviously, at least according to public reporting, interviewed people close to the former president and interviewed others who may have felt pressured by the former president. so it would seem to me that he is going about this the right way. i'm just commenting to you as an observer and the public, not with any specific insight into his investigation. >> you've been so generous with your time. just one last question. after being in a state that really was for trump, the front lines of those legal challenges, so many of the cases were brought there absent any evidence at all. what do you think the stakes are for -- we've had electoral accountability. president joe biden won decisively. what are the stakes of having

legal criminal accountability for donald trump? >> i think that criminal accountability for trump and those who participated in this is quite important. you'll recall one of his lawyers, the now really disgraced former mayor of new york, rudy giuliani, came into court in pennsylvania and lied. i told you on your program, we're going to do everything we can do to strip him of his law license. we were successful in that. that's the type of accountability that's important. when you come into court and you lie, you should be held accountable. similarly, if you commit crimes in this country, it's important to note that no one is above the law, not a former president or anyone else. i think it's now the responsibility of these prosecutors, smith and others, to put together the facts and evidence. if they warrant criminal charges, to bring them, regardless of how famous the individual is that those charges would be levied against. that type of accountability is important for all of us to again

have faith in the system that when someone breaks the law, no matter how powerful they are, they're going to be held accountable. i do think that's important. there has been electoral accountability, as you corrected pointed out. not only did trump lose, but the guy i beat here in pennsylvania got crushed. now it's important to make sure there's legal accountability and that politically these individuals don't get any kind of terra firma beneath them that allows them to successfully pursue elected office and be in a position of power to do the kind of work they were trying to do before to undermine our democracy. we all have to stay vigilant in our courtrooms and in the court of public opinion and at the election booths. we all have a responsibility to do that work. >> governor josh shapiro, it is very nice to get some time on your schedule. i know you bristled at our description of you having more time for us. it's also the pandemic. we were were all home and had

the privilege of seeing your family behind you. as we've covered the story, we do remember how much we learned from having the chance to interview you during trump's efforts to overturn his defeat in pennsylvania. so thank you very much for all of our conversations with you and thank you for spending time with us today. it great to see you. >> thanks. you, too, nicolle. appreciate you. >> thank you. when we come back, we'll get political reaction to everything we've heard today, especially the ex-president's target letter now in his inbox for the january 6th investigation and in the case of republicans on capitol hill, hypocrisy does not begin to describe what we've seen today. we'll show it to you next. today. we'll show it to you next. 3... 2... 1...

your record label is taking off. but so is your sound engineer. you need to hire.

i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire psoriasis really messes with you. try. hope. fail. no one should suffer like that. i started cosentyx®. five years clear. real people with psoriasis look and feel better with cosentyx. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting get checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infection, some serious and a lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor about an infection or symptoms or if you had a vaccine or plan to. tell your doctor if your crohn's disease symptoms develop or worsen. serious allergic reaction may occur. best move i've ever made. ask your dermatologist about cosentyx®. ♪ tourists tourists that turn into scientists.

tourists taking photos that are analyzed by ai. so researchers can help life underwater flourish. ♪ bridgett is here. so researchers can help life underwater flourish. she has no clue that i'm here. she has no clue who's in the helmet. are you ready? -i'm ready! alright. xfinity rewards creates experiences big and small, and once-in-a-lifetime. we moved out of the city so our little sophie could appreciate nature. but then he got us t-mobile home internet. i was just trying to improve our signal, so some of the trees had to go. i might've taken it a step too far. (chainsaw revs) (tree crashes) (chainsaw continues) (daughter screams) let's pretend for a second that you didn't let down your entire family. what would that reality look like?

well i guess i would've gotten us xfinity... and we'd have a better view. do you need mulch? what, we have a ton of mulch. rounding out our two hours of breaking news coverage, three dear friends of the program we turn to on slow news days, to be honest, and busy, crazy ones like today. former congressman from florida david jolly. editor at large for the bulwark charlie sykes, and eddie glaude, msnbc contributor. ed zee, what are your thoughts today? >> well, people are being held to account. one of the things, either we're a country of laws or we're not. we can be deliberate, nicolle, but we can't be skittish. today is just an example of the deliberate nature of the

process. folks are being held to account. they will have their day in court. >> charlie sykes, your thoughts? >> well, i mean obviously it is a big deal. we've waited for this for a long time. we'll answer the question about whether our constitutional session is able to hold someone like donald trump accountable. this indictment, if it comes as we expect it will, will i think be an historic moment, a constitutional crisis, but it will also be in political terms i think a crisis of patriotism. you've heard the phrase, putting country over party, i think that's been the ideal for more than two centuries. what you're seeing on capitol hill today is quite literally, one republican leader after another putting party over country. in fact, not just putting party over country, but putting their leader, their dear leemder over the country. they're not even waiting to see what is the evidence, what are the charges, and they're sounding off. we've seen this pattern before.

but i think this is going to be a real stress test. based on the comments we're hearing from kevin mccarthy and people like congressman scalise and the incredible weak interview just given by ron desantis over on cnn, there are very few prospects the republicans are going to rise to this moment and finally recognize it's time to move on. >> what's so amazing is they attack the deep state without any evidence that one exists. >> right. >> they don't have exhibit a, b, c or d. they have no examples. it was rod rosenstein, a republican, robert mueller, jim comey. the only people who have really come close to examining and evaluating and investigating trump are all republicans. so lisa monaco isn't a republican, but i think she had 96 votes in the senate. there is no conspiracy on the

left. i want to show you, david jolly, mitch mcconnell put this in motion, lit the match for criminal referral of donald trump for crimes committed around january 6th. watch. >> president trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office as an ordinary citizen. didn't get away with anything yet. yet. we have a criminal justice system in this country. we have civil litigation, and former presidents are not immune from being accountable by either one. >> i mean, david jolly, i didn't think they were going to play that today on fox. but the remedy for acquitting him in his second trial, it wasn't a vote to acquit on mcconnell part because he was innocent. it was a procedural thing, he didn't think you could impeach someone on their way out the door. the overton window always shuts. there was never any sense on

january 6th that trump was innocent of inciting the insurrection. everything they say today is a load of you know what. >> that's right, nicole. i hope mitch mcconnell stays true to his word which is that ultimately if the senate leader from kentucky decided not to use his political authority, that he trusts the criminal justice system. i think what we're seeing is ultimately the american people are going to be faced with a question which is i believe today that we will see donald trump on trial sometime between him getting the nomination for the -- the republican nomination for presidency and the general election. and then do we trust the criminal justice system to right its course? i don't know. this is a question that will be put in front of the american people in a very, very hard way. i think we have to prep for that moment. donald trump is appearing to be indicted. he already has two dimts.

he'll likely have two to three more. he'll try to push as a defendant all of those indictments in the trials past his securing the republican nomination. the ultimate nomination will be do we wish to elect donald trump to absolve his criminal culpability? or do we trustabsolve his criminal culpability, or do we trust joe biden to continue to right the ship of state and let the criminal justice system determine ultimately donald trump's fate, if you will, as mitch mcconnell once said in the u.s. senate. >> charlie, the message from trump to his base isn't even coded anymore. it's basically, you shield me. you vote for me, and i'll be protected. >> exactly. no, there are several different defenses. one is the o.j. defense, which is if you have no defense you attack the prosecution. but you can see from the motions that he's throwing up against the wall that he's not really mounting a legal defense. this is all political. he knows that his best chance to stay out of an orange jump suit

and stay out of prison is to win an election, that this is for him a political contest. the great irony of course is the only job that he would ever be considered for given his record, conduct, is president of the united states, but that is his only way out at this point, and the republican party is apparently not going to draw the line here. and i do think it's worth mentioning -- and made this point, nicolle, which i think is very, very important. if not for the january 6th committee, we would not be experiencing what we are today. if it was not for that investigation, i'm not sure the justice department would have moved on all of this, and i think that would have been a real -- i think it would have been a constitutional calamity to have allowed this to pass without the kind of legal action that i think is now imminent. >> eddie, we can't end without tipping the hat to bennie thompson and liz cheney and the work of the january 6th select committee. >> absolutely. you know, just to think about

this man from mississippi, of all places, chairing that committee. but i'm thinking about this -- there's always been a question, nicolle, about democracies, would they work? would it work to give everyday ordinary people the capacity to govern themselves? where their passions overrun r.n. reason. democracies are the threat of the mob, mob rule. charlie hit it on the head. the heart of it is will our political passions overrun the understanding of justice? overrun the commitment to the principles of democracy? we're at that inflection point. we'll see what history says, what we do now. >> we could not have ended this broadcast on this day without hearing from you guys. thank you so much for making time for us today. we need to sneak in another quick break. we'll be right back. break. we'll be right back.

young lady who was, mid 30s, couple of kids, recently went through a divorce. she had a lot of questions when she came in. i watched my mother go through being a single mom. at the end of the day, my mom raised three children, including myself. and so once the client knew that she was heard. we were able to help her move forward. your client won't care how much you know until they know how much you care. ♪ i'm saving with liberty mutual, mom. they customize your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. you could save $700 dollars just by switching. ooooh, let me put a reminder on my phone.

on the top of the pile! oh. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ i did have hearing aids from another company... i was just frustrated... i almost gave up. with miracle ear it's all about service. they're personable... they're friendly. i'm very happy with them. we provide you with a free lifetime of aftercare. meaning free checkups, cleanings, and adjustments. i see someone new... someone happy... it's really made a difference. call miracle ear at 1-800-miracle and schedule your free, no obligation hearing evaluation today.

this is spring semester at over 13,000 us school districts, which have become top targets for ransomware attacks.

but there's never been a reported ransomware attack on a chromebook. which is why thousands of schools like the fairfield-suisun unified school district switched to google tools for education. so they can focus on teaching and 22,000 students can focus on learning, knowing that their data is secure. ( ♪♪ ) as the pileup of legal exposure facing the twice-indicted, twice impeached ex president gets higher and higher today, there's more. there's what's happening in fulton county, georgia. georgia court denied trump's bid to hold fawny willis' probe into whether he and allied tried to overturn that state's election results a unanimous ruling, nine judges, eight of them appointed by republican governor of

georgia, said what trump's legal team was seeking, quote, is not the sort of relief this court affords, at least absent extraordinary circumstances, the petitioner has not shown or presented here. what that means is we could soon see charges in that case against trump in fulton county georgia, and they could come any day now. we will be watching together. another break for us. we'll be right back. ight back. w. his a1c? it's down with rybelsus®. my doctor told me rybelsus® lowered a1c better than a leading branded pill and that people taking rybelsus® lost more weight. i got to my a1c goal and lost some weight too. rybelsus® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't take rybelsus® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop rybelsus® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction.

serious side effects may include pancreatitis. gallbladder problems may occur. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking rybelsus® with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. need to get your a1c down? you may pay as little as $10 per prescription. trelegy for copd. ♪birds flyin' high, you know how i feel.♪ ♪breeze driftin' on by...♪ ♪...you know how i feel.♪ you don't have to take... [coughing] ...copd sitting down. ♪it's a new dawn,...♪ ♪...it's a new day,♪ it's time to make a stand. ♪and i'm feelin' good.♪ start a new day with trelegy. no once-daily copd... ...medicine has the power to treat copd... ...in as many ways as trelegy. with three medicines in one inhaler,... ...trelegy makes breathing easier for a full 24 hours, improves lung function, and helps prevent future flare-ups. trelegy won't replace a rescue inhaler... ...for sudden breathing problems. tell your doctor

if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. do not take trelegy more than prescribed. trelegy may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating,... ...vision changes, or eye pain occur. take a stand, and start a new day with trelegy. ask your doctor about once-daily trelegy... ...and save at trelegy.com.

thank you so much for letting us into your homes during these truly extraordinary times. we're so grateful. "the beat" with ari melber starts now, and ari's back. . >> how you been? >> i'm good. nothing happening. >> good to see you, nicolle. very happy to be back. we are tracking this breaking news tonight about a potential third indictment of former president trump. he's the breaking news tonight. doj special counsel jac