>> good evening from new york.

-- in for chris hayes. the greatest crime donald trump ever committed was to undermine democracy. the will of the people by trying to overthrow a free and fair election. today, we saw the first signs that justice may be coming for him. today, we learned that the ex president received a letter from the special counsel jack smith, indicating that he is the target of a criminal investigation into efforts to interfere with the presidential election of 2020 leading to the insurrection on january 6th 2021. according to trump, the special counsel gave him a four-day deadline in which to speak to

the washington d. c. grand jury hearing the case. it's an offer he will almost certainly not accept, seeing that anything he says can be used against him in a subsequent trial. all of this indicates the department of justice is wrapping up what has been a long and sprawling investigation led by this man, jack smith, for the past eight months. we do not have any indication of what the exact charges are that smith is considering. and the ex president said himself, a target letter like this, quote, almost always means arrest and indictment are coming. that is exactly what happened just last month, when jack smith sent out another target later regarding the

investigation into classified documents. just days after that letter became public, smith brought a 37 count indictment against the ex president, charging him with seven federal crimes. of course, and that was already the second indictment against trump this year, following the 34 counts of falsifying business records charged by this man, the manhattan district attorney alvin bragg in april. this indictment, the third against the ex president and if and when it comes will be by

far the most consequential, while some people may argue the charges about donald trump's business practices in new york, for instance, don't really matter. or they just don't care that much about the documents at mar-a-lago. there is just no way for a reasonable person with elementary critical thinking skills to deny the seriousness of this case. this is about a real and existential threat to our nation. it's about donald trump's attempts and continuing attempts to undermine and possibly end our democracy as we know it. in fact, there has already been a long and thorough investigation into this, resulting in the recommendation of multiple criminal charges. that was done by the house january 6th committee, last year they methodically laid out the evidence against the ex president, showing the american people exactly how he attempted

to remain in power against their will. he knew he had lost the 2020 election, but he spread the lies of the fraud anyway. his own attorney general at the time, bill barr, said this to the committee. >> the president said something like, well, we could get to the bottom, some people said we could get to the bottom of this if the department sees the machines. that was a typical way of raising a point. i said, absolutely not. there is no problem with cause. we will not sees any machines. i said, how long is he going to carry on with this stolen election stuff? where is this going to go? by that time, meadows had caught up with me. leaving the office and caught up with me and side that, he said, look, i think he's becoming a more realistic and knows there is a limit to how far he can take this. jared said, yeah, we are working on this, we are working on it. >> the january six committee also detailed how trump launched a massive pressure campaign to try to get all corners of the government to do his bidding. including his own vice president. >> he tried to pressure state legislators to reverse the results of the election in their states. but they refused. he tried to enlist the

department of justice in his efforts to overturn election results. but officials leading the department refused to comply. so eventually, he latched onto a completely nonsensical and anti-democratic theory that one man, his own vice president, could determine the outcome of the election. he wanted the vice president to unilaterally select of the president. >> and of, course on the advice of his own lawyers, mike pence decided that was not his role. donald trump summoned a violent mob of his supporters, hurling them at the capitol in a bloody attack on american democracy. >> trump has given us marching orders, one post on the donald dot wing wrote. basically, if you are east of the mississippi, you can and should be there. advance on the capitol. >> one user asked, is the sixth day? is that why trump's wanting everyone there? another asserted, trump just told us all to come armed. >> i heard the president say something to the effect of, you know, i don't effing care that they have weapons, they are not here to hurt me, take the effing mags away, let my people marched to the capitol from here. take the effing mags away. >> that was the former white house aide cassidy hutchinson recounting how trump wanted the max removed, those are magnetometer's that helped detect guns. the end of the january 6th investigation, and after ten public hearings, the committee referred for criminal charges against donald trump to the department of justice. >> we propose to the committee advancing referrals where the gravity of this specific offense, the severity of its

actual harm, and essentiality of the offender to the overall design of the unlawful scheme to overthrow the election compel us to speak. ours is not a system of justice where footsoldiers go to jail and the mastermind and ringleaders get a free pass. >> but until, now that's exactly what's happened. the footsoldiers have gone to jail and the masterminds and the ringleaders have, for the moment, had a past. so here we are. seven months later, a historic moment with the department of justice boys to finally bring charges against the ex president in the january 6th case. we've already seen and heard the evidence about donald trump 's attempts to overturn the election and bring down our system of government. and if you believe that evidence, then criminal charges are the only possible response. because our democracy itself is at stake.

john brennan served as the director of the cia under president obama, he's now an nbc news senior national security and intelligence analyst and he joins me now. john, thank you for being with us. i want to start with your reaction to the news of this target letter. while it was anticipated, we knew this was likely coming, we didn't know when. now that it has happened, what does it make you think? >> well, it certainly makes me think that jack smith has gone to the end of his investigation as far as looking at what donald trump's role was in that january 6th assault. we've already seen the results of the january 6th committee. all the evidence has been put out publicly implicating donald trump in the days of events. it is quite clear that none of that would've happened if donald trump actually follow through with his rightful responsibilities as president of the united states and called off those individuals. again, it is a sad day in many respects. another former president is facing another indictment. i think it is quite clear,

across the board, that donald trump has try to -- skirt these issues and these crimes for so long, but there is going to be a day of reckoning and i do hope it is going to be before the november 24 election. the american people, i think, deserve to know exactly what evidence there is about donald trump's criminal activity before they actually go to the polls and cast their vote. >> i ask you this is a national security expert, because donald trump has made the case, particularly as it relates to the mar-a-lago case, but he will make it again, that he is busy right now. he is too busy for a complicated case. in the mar-a-lago case, his lawyers today referenced this new target letter to say he is going to be really busy being prosecuted while he is trying to run for president. if you interfere with him running for president, that is political interference. that is the weaponization of the justice system against him. the consequence of that, john, is that donald trump gets to be president again if all of this stuff isn't out there and he's not held accountable. >> it's a very, very worrisome scenario that he could actually run for office while being indicted and maybe even being

convicted and going to jail. who knows what he will do in terms of trying to pardon himself if he were to be elected. it is so critically important that a trial be held, or trials be held before so that all these allegations of his involvement in january 6th, of his mishandling, egregious mishandling of classified documents, this really needs to come to the fore of a court so that a jury can in fact determine whether or not donald trump's guilty as charged. but it really is quite appalling that an individual who has all these allegations against him is the leading republican candidate for the office of presidency. i still shake my head. i find it so surreal that republican voters out there, at least those in the base, continue to stand by him. >> director, legal experts tell me all these indictments, this is the third, would be the third set when it happens, are important. but some people don't feel that the manhattan charges were as important or as some have said to me, it's not the best first case to bring up against donald. trump then you have the mar-a-lago stuff, which national security experts like you understand the danger. i i guess we are all coming to

understand. it for a lot of people, they thought that was a case about moving boxes and not giving them back to the archives. there isn't really a way, as i mentioned in the introduction, for anyone with critical thinking skills to not understand the gravity of this particular case. it feels a little bit different. remember the footage and watched him in horror, what happened to our nation's capital on january 6th. we've also seen and heard the things donald trump has said inciting those individuals, telling them to come to washington. he was defying all common sense in terms of continuing to claim that he won the election. we always say no one is above the law, including the president of the united states. and that's why i think it is so important that all these charges, whether it be in a new york court or because the classified information, as well as his involvement in january

6th, they need to be brought to trial so that we actually can in fact hold individuals to account. if he is found not guilty, so be it. but pushing off this trial passed in the election, it seems to encourage anybody facing a trial to run for election as a way to avoid going to court. >> which happens in a lot of other countries. it happens as we speak, in fact. director, good to see you as always. john brennan is a former director of the cia under president obama. joyce vance is a former united states attorney for the district of alabama. she's now a professor at the university of alabama school of law. lisa rubin is an msnbc legal analyst. both join me now to talk about what this means and what comes. next good to see both of you. at least, at let's talk about what's next. this always happens in a very unusual way with donald trump. he posts something that says something is going to happen. shortly thereafter, something happens. he gets the letter.

that is still not an indictment. and that is not a trial. it's not done. this is early steps. what do you expect to happen next? >> i expect his lawyers are going to seek a meeting with the special counsel's office and or senior officials at the department of justice. if they have not already. there's been no public reporting of that reporting. the last time around, we went through a federal indictment trump target letter and his lawyer sat down with jack smith and team, it wasn't until about two weeks later, plus, that we saw the indictment and the record's case. >> joyce, how big a deal is the target letter? because you get it once they are well into the investigation against you and you are invited as lisa said, there will probably be a meeting, at which what happens? are you supposed to say you guys got this all, wrong you are not supposed to go after me, you got the wrong guy? what is between now and the next thing. >> in a complicated case with

sophisticated lawyering, what this meeting typically looks like's defense lawyers going into a prosecutor's office and trying to convince prosecutors that their case is flawed. and offering them some reasons to suggest the case should not be indicted because they can either obtain a conviction or sustain one. which is of course is the standard federal prosecutors have to meet before they bring an indictment. in this situation, that meeting is in many ways just a theoretical meeting. jack smith has been through the issues here. it's very unlikely that trump's team can suggest something he has not considered. but it is good form in some ways a measure of due process to engage in these sorts of conversations. in many cases, this is the meeting that a plea comes from a defendant who is interested

in pleading guilty. there is some room here. there could be some room in a case where a defendant who is engaging with the evidence and seeing what risks they were at to work out a plea agreement. it's awfully unlikely that will happen here. >> i've only got a smile on my face because normal stuff doesn't apply here. lisa, there will even be some invitation for donald trump to address the grand jury, and generally speaking his lawyers don't like him talking directly to people who make decisions. >> that's. right we understand that invitation, in fact, wasn't the target letter. the invitation was, if you want to speak to the grand jury, you have until thursday to do so. of course, his lawyers don't

want him speaking to a grand jury. they don't want him speaking to a civil jury. we know that from the e. jean carroll case. this lawyer is going to keep him as far away from this grand jury and potentially any other jury as far as they can. >> joyce, let's talk about the expected reaction from donald trump. it's always the same, the weaponization of the government coming after him. he had a dark, grim speech this weekend in florida about this whole thing. but he's got a lot of allies in congress who are echoing the same thing. what role does any of that play in the legal process going forward? and does jacks mitt and do jack smith people listen to or care about the sentiment that trump and his ilk are expressing?

>> some of the best act evidence that the prosecution has landed it has gone from the former president's mouth. i'm sure they could appreciate the opportunity to continue videotapes and collect his social media statements, to the extent that they have evidentiary value. but i think in any prosecution where you are looking at donald trump, this is sort of baked -in. prosecutors will let any sort of comments, any sort of attacks on them just sort of rolled off their backs. it might play a role, we could see the surface in jury selection, when jurors will be asked what they've heard outside of the courtroom about the evidence. many of them will of her the former president's comments. the judge will ask if they will be able to decide the case

solely on the evidence that they hear inside of the courtroom. set everything else aside, that's the commitment the judge will ask of jurors. it is more difficult in a case like this where there's been a lot of pretrial publicity. some judges will use gag orders, some form, to keep the parties from continuing to blabbed. >> broadly, lisa, this effort donald trump is making to have all these trials, everything pushed off until after the election, reasonably, for people who are politically inclined, they say we know what he is up to here. when --

he obviously doesn't want to do this. but a judge, when they take into account the fact that for better or worse donald trump is actually busy for the next year and a half, potentially? how does a judge balance that? how by the way, in the documents, gaetz does aileen cannon, who donald trump raised on saturday night as a true patriot and a great judge, how does she handle the idea that you don't want to be seen as too lenient on trump? on the other side, you don't want to open yours for up to criticism that you are too tough on him. >> that was the crux of one of the biggest debates at the

hearing today before a judge cannon. whether trump should be treated like any other defendant in a federal prosecution or whether certain allowances should be made because, not only is he a former president, but he's a candidate for office running against the incumbent president. todd blanche said today being prosecuted by that administration. and that drew a's sharp rebuke from the special counsel's office. he's quick to say, none of us are political appointees. we are all here just to do our job and enforce the rule of law. i think judge cannon and whoever this case is assigned to will try to take into account the fact that president trump has first amendment rights and that he is a political actor with political speech rights. but you don't just get to say, i'm busy, i have other things going on. every defendant, or most defendants have other employment, other obligations. that is not an excuse for postponing a trial for infinity. >> joyce, you heard john brennan say it, when jamie raskin said at the other day. at some point we, running for office or being in office is working as a racket for donald. trump you can't prosecute him when he's president, you can prosecute when he's running for president. of course, if he wins again, you won't be able to prosecute him as president again. maybe in 2037, someone will be able to hold donald trump up for justice, if using his logic, how do you break that logic? >> right. so i think director brennan

says it just right. it's unacceptable. trump can't be permitted to use the presidency as a shield to hide behind. hold him accountable by the way does not mean convicting him. it means giving hi hnow it mea upon this judge t ext stsomething that's not ful reason amount time. thankh of you we alwapprecte you ysis and expertise joyce eber lisa rubin, e had comingp, donp' lawyers had ourt to delay the cled documents case against him we were just mentioning. that was the judge sympathetic to their argument? we will find out but first, congressman dan goldman joins me on whethe another trump indictment, what it means for the ex president. coming up next

we've got one hope. a bomb. 4... 3... 2...1... they just fired a starting gun. just >> over a month ago, on june 8th, donald trump was indicted by the special counsel jack smith on 37 felony counts over illegally retaining classified documents at mar-a-lago. in that investigation, lawyers for the ex president had been told just days before that trump was a target. today, we learned trump received another target letter. this one from the january 6th investigation. so we are now officially on indictment watch. congressman dan goldman, democrat of new york, the former assistant united states attorney for the southern district of new york. he was the lead counsel in the first impeachment of the ex president. he joins me now.

congressman, good to see you. thank you for being with us this evening. >> you too. >> let's start with your reaction to the news to donald trump being informed he's a target in the january 6th interview -- you are a former prosecutor, intimately involved with the impeachment of donald trump. i'm sure no surprise to you, but it is now happened. how do you feel about it? >> i think what we've seen over the last several months as the special counsel's investigation has been really ratcheting up, they had to go to court a lot to get testimony. they were able to apparently successfully do it. i think this is the notice that many of us have been waiting for that they are prepared to move forward with an indictment of donald trump, to hold him accountable for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. i think there are a lot of folks who've been watching and saw what happened not only on january 6th, but in the lead up to january 6th. all of the increasingly lawless efforts outlined so expertly by the january 6th committee designed to subvert democracy and overturn a a lawful and

proper election. and now we are going to see the fruits of both of those investigations, both the january 6th, which i think provided an important roadmap for the special counsel, but the special counsel has a lot more evidentiary tools available to him than congress does. i expect we will see a lot of additional evidence. >> tell me, as a former prosecutor and as a member of congress and as counsel to the impeachment, how that differs. those of us who are paying attention heard most of the evidence, right? it wasn't under oath in some cases to the way it would be if you were reporting into the fbi and they couldn't compel everybody who they wanted to testify. but what is the difference, fundamentally?

what am i likely to hear out of this indictment that i didn't already know from the january 6th committee? >> i think the biggest thing that will be different is there will be a lot more witness testimony. there were a number of witnesses who refused to cooperate with the january 6th committee, some ultimately, like steve bannon, were held in contempt of congress. but the granbury process allows for the special counsel to get access to that information. the other important information that we know of and it relates also to the classified documents case is that if they are able to pierce the attorney client privilege, especially with john eastman and his role as a quote unquote lawyer advising donald trump, or rudy giuliani, for that matter, that would be pursuant to the crime fraud exception and that might be available to the special counsel, and it would not be available to congress. those are just a couple examples that you will see more evidence in this indictment and

in this prosecution. >> let's talk about the politics of. this you heard joyce vance saying that what may happen to keep this thing tight and not subject to donald trump and his lawyers carrying on about the fact that he's very busy running for president so he can't be prosecuted, you may see what joy suggested might be a less satisfying set of charges and then what we expect from a sprawling investigation, something that is tight, that prosecutors can make the case about and do so in a short amount of time. what is your thought on that? >> i'm particularly interested to see who else is charged and whether they are charged in the same indictment as donald trump or a separate indictment. because, in an effort to move forward, you wouldn't necessarily want to have many defendants whose defense lawyers schedules and various other issues that might arise from a multi defendant case, slow it down. but i would be very surprised if the special counsel did not include all of the evidence

that he believes to be sufficient to prove a charge beyond a reasonable doubt. and the issue, of course, is not only what donald trump's defense lawyers do, but we will also be very interested to see what his taxpayer funded defense lawyers, also known as house republicans, do in the coming days and weeks in response to yet another indictment of donald trump. >> let me ask you about matt, gates who says he is planning to raise a bill to defund the special counsel's investigation. what do you understand to be the legitimacy of that sort of an effort and congress? and what do you make of it? >> there is no legitimacy. it's a ploy. it's a charade. the special counsel, of course, has been appointed pursuant to regulations and is properly funded by the department of justice. this is just a continuation of house republicans efforts to undermine institutions that we rely on to adhere to the rule of law. and they don't like that the fbi is investigating donald trump and others, perhaps some

of their current or former colleagues. and so they rather than actually reckon with the fact that donald trump appears to be a serial criminal, we have decided that they are going to go after those trying to hold him accountable. and it is very dangerous to our democracy, to our rule of law that they continue to try to defund the police in the form of federal law enforcement in this case, solely for political purposes. and when we hear about political efforts to undermine the rule of law, from my republican colleagues, i think they ought to look in the mirror instead of across the pennsylvania avenue. >> congressman, good to see you as always. thanks for joining us. congressman dan goldman. still ahead, as donald trump awaits his third indictment is, here there is a good chance it may not be his last. but first, how is a trump appointed judge reacting to trump's request to delay his classified documents trial until after the election? we will have the latest from inside the courtroom, it was pretty hot in there.

we will tell you about it next.

>> joe biden broke the law and in many other ways we are finding out. and so far has not gotten indicted. i did everything right and they indicted me. >> that was for real, that was after his second indictment, just over a month ago, when donald trump appeared in a federal courthouse in miami and pleaded not guilty to a 37 count indictment over his handling of classified

documents. today, federal prosecutors and trump attorneys squared off in the first pre-trial hearing, the special counsel's team advocated for a december trial, but donald trump's attorneys argue the trial should be held after the 2024 election. they said the amount of discovery in the case is too much to get through by december. the trump appointed judge, aileen cannon, did not issue a ruling today, but by all accounts of the hearing was heated. debra acosta is a reporter for the wall street journal. she was inside the courtroom for today's hearing and she joins us now. debra, good to see you, thank you for being with us. give us a sense of what happened today. >> thank you so much for having me. let me paint a picture for you. we are talking about fort pierce, a very small city in south florida of less than 50,000 city -- people.

this is not the kind of scene they are used to. this is a tiny little courtroom, one of the u.s. marshals said it's the smallest courtroom he'd ever seen. it fit about 40 people. i'm going to say about half of them were press. donald trump was not present there today. but wild nauta was charged alongside him was. we were expect him a technical hearing focused mostly on aspects of highly classified documents are going to be treated going forward. however, that was not delved into. the whole thing was about timing. as you just mentioned, the prosecutors would like to get this started as soon as possible, december 11th. and the defense was arguing the entire time that they wanted this to be started in mid november of next year, in other words after the election. there is a sheer volume of unclassified material that is part of this case. that's more than 1. 1 million

pieces of evidence. that doesn't even include the classified documents, which are more than 1000. and, so the judge, again and again, seemed to be siding with the defense on a lot of these issues. however, it wasn't clear that she would concede to holding this trial until after the election. in fact, whenever the defense mentioned the election or the fact that this would somehow -- in some way impede and donald trump's running for president, xi straight away from that and kept pointing to the sheer volume of documents and said she wanted to frame this whole timing issue around that and really pushed away -- this whole theory. >> 1. 1 million classified documents and classified documents are complicated because they may have to be reviewed, it's not the thing donald trump can be given at home to review. is it your sense that, a, there will be a decision fairly soon

and that she is leaning towards the idea that whatever she does is going to be based on there is just too much documentation here, that is the only reason you get extra time, the election is not a prominent part of the decision-making? >> that's right. in addition to the documents, there is more than nine months worth of security camera footage that is part of this case. that comes out of mar-a-lago,. the prosecutors were pushing and saying it won't require that much time to view because the key dates are only a few of them. however, the defense was arguing that they would need to

review all of this video footage in order to really make sure that they are making the right arguments. that judge again agreed with them on that point. she kept agreeing with him on many of these points. unclear how far she might push the date of it all. >> the issue of jack smith target letter did come up in court today. what was the contacts around that? >> so they are talking about all the other trials that trump has to deal with in the coming year. he has another one going on in new york in march. he has another one in january. these attorneys are attending to many of these cases themselves. there is a scheduling issue, just the sheer amount of trials that are going around -- donald trump, creating a scheduling conflict for not only donald trump at the attorneys as well. >> debra, thank you for your, time we appreciate your reporting on this. deborah acosta is a reporter for the wall street journal who is in court today for the classified document trial. still to come, that document case is the tip of the iceberg for donald trump. the overwhelming slate of legal battles that his lawyers mentioned in court need to think that's next. (man) mm, hey, honey. looks like my to-do list grew. "paint the bathroom, give baxter a bath, get life insurance," hm.

i have a few minutes. i can do that now. oh, that fast? remember that colonial penn ad? i called and i got information. they sent the simple form i need to apply. all i do is fill it out and send it back. well, that sounds too easy! (man) give a little information, check a few boxes, sign my name, done. they don't ask about your health? (man) no health questions. -physical exam? -don't need one. it's colonial penn guaranteed acceptance whole life insurance. if you're between the ages of 50 and 85, your acceptance is guaranteed in most states, even if you're not in the best health. options start at $9.95 a month, 35 cents a day. once insured, your rate will never increase. a lifetime rate lock guarantees it. keep in mind, this is lifetime protection. as long as you pay your premiums, it's yours to keep. call for more information and the simple form you need to apply today. there's no obligation, and you'll receive a free beneficiary planner just for calling. >> in just six months, we will

have the first election days of the 2024 presidential race. first, the iowa caucuses, then new hampshire soon thereafter. and the current favorite in that race is a staggering list of legal entanglements that the voters might want to consider. this morning, we learned that the ex president received a target letter from special counsel jack smith in his sprawling investigation into trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election. this is separate from jack smith's other criminal investigation into trump's handling of classified documents. in that case, he has been indicted on 37 felony counts, including willful retention of documents, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and false statements, among others. then, there is the fulton county district attorney fani willis's criminal investigation into trump's efforts to overturn the election in georgia. last night, georgia's top court unanimously rejected trump's last ditch effort to shut down that investigation. the da has set a timetable for announcing potential indictments for the coming weeks.

in new york, the ex president is facing a trial early next year. in his 34 count felony indictment by the manhattan district attorney alvin bragg over a hush money payment scheme that involved falsifying business records during the 2016 election. and all of that is just donald trump's potential criminal exposure. on the civil livid litigation front, he is facing multiple lawsuits, including one brought by the new york state attorney general that accuses trump and his business of staggering fraud. that case heads to trial in october. trump's former fixer, michael cohen, is also suing him on paying legal fees relating to cohen's 2019 congressional testimony. jury selection has just started in that case. back in may, the ex president was found liable for defamation and sexual assault, and ordered to pay the writer e. jean carroll $5 million. but his defamation trouble does not end there. in june, a federal judge allowed e. jean carroll to

amend another defamation lawsuit against trump, to include disparaging comments that trump made about her during a town hall. everything seems to be culminating all at once, for this man who is also the front runner in the republican primary race for president of the united states. so, when does any of it actually begin to matter for him politically? that's what we are talking about, right after this break.

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

the ex president received targets letter and special counsel jack smith january 6th investigation, donald trump is now facing his second federal indictment and his third indictment overall. and of course, there's a possible fourth indictment out of georgia later this summer. politically speaking, trump is still the republican front runner. and the concern for his opponents is that his many legal troubles will start to blend together for voters, which is why it's important for critics of the ex president to not lose sight of the specific charges against him, especially when it comes to his corrupt and legal attempts to overturn the will of the voters, and effectively and american democracy as we know it. that may sound like an overstatement, but not really. olivia troye is a former adviser to vice president mike pence, now this chief strategy officer at the new america movement. michael steele is the former chairman of the republican national committee. both of them joins me now.

thank you both of you for being here. olivia, i certainly, one has to be cautious to not downplay the seriousness of trump's past two indictments. but this has a certain residents with kind of everybody who believes in democracy, right? you may think the documents think it's too confusing for you. you may think that the manhattan thing is about how you conduct your business. this is actually about trying to undermine the will of the people. >> it absolutely is. and i think this is the fundamental one, the underlying one. for all of these actual cases, it is the one about the rule of law. it is about our democracy. it is about our elections which are critical to what america stands for globally, as a beacon of freedom. so, that's what we were held up to as a standard. i think the rest of the world is watching this now, wondering what will america do. will they hold this man accountable? will we remain holding

ourselves accountable? holding trump accountable? and i think at the end of the day, all of these things point to trump being a horrible individual, right? you've had many people come forward from his administration talk about what we saw, the dangers that he was. but this is himself taking these actions against his own people that served under him, like the actions that he took against mike pence, pressuring him. this is him going across the board. and i think that's the importance of this investigation because fundamentally, it matters greatly. and it is a shame, i have to say, that the republican party has decided that their

narrative, over and over again, is to undermine this investigation, and undermine the department of justice. >> michael, how much of these distinctions about this crime versus that crime and the series of it matter to republicans anymore. and i'm not talking about maga republicans, i'm not talking about the immovable crowd that will jump off any mountain or bridge for donald trump. i'm talking about existing republicans who maybe thought the impeachment was too much, or that the charges from manhattan or too much, or the mar-a-lago thing was too much do they get in your opinion, that this is actually the thing, the undermining of democracy is something that someone has to be held to account for in america? >> i think they do. they struggle and the challenge is what to do about it, and how do you move in an ecosystem in

which there is significant segment of your gathering, your tribe, your community, that are antithetical to that acceptance, and to that idea that this is harmful to the party. the party, as i have known it over the years, is secondary. it is secondary to trump. it is actually, you know, even probably below that, because secondary to trump are the concerns that trump has about the things that are happening to him. and that's what a lot of the movement aside the party is focused on. that is why these candidates aren't saying anything. these muted tones, the desantis, the day he obliquely referenced the idea, this is not a good thing, you know the party should not have a nominee who is having all these kind of legal woes. dude, come out and say more directly what you mean! but until you do, every moment of silence, acquiescence, sort of tap a response to all of this, ali, just makes it harder for that base to be pulled away

from him, not that they ever would really, but for all the other republicans to begin to galvanize around the idea. we can move in a different direction because we have leaders taking us in that direction. >> this ideal, olivia, of telling ron desantis, come out and telling us what you actually need, could apply to your old boss, mike pence. sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn't. right now, he's been fairly muted on trump's legal woes. here's what he had to say about the targets that are a few hours ago. >> i'm not convinced that the president, acting on that advice of a group of current lawyers that came into the white house and the days before jack smith january 6th is actually criminal. my hope is that this judgment about the presidents actions on january 6th would be left to the american people. we have an election contest coming up. and we are all involved in the

primary. i trust the american people to judge that day and judge the events accordingly. >> i wouldn't call that going on the offensive. >> now, and i hate to admit it. i actually watched that interview live because i was waiting for a response from pence today to see how he would react. and, again, i continuously am disappointed, and i understand that he will actually become more forceful. and maybe i need to go to therapy, right? for him to take a stance for himself, right? when somebody tries to kill you i would expect you to have some more courage, and actually start taking that person on. but i think what you are seeing is the fear of angering the base. and i think, you know, he is trying to accord some of that base to him. it's never gonna happen. and i think to everyone else, there's gonna be other options out there. and he continues to look weak on those. why not just a come on? the only people today that have really been more forceful about that statement have been asa hutchinson, who i give tremendous credit to, for being consistent about this, and chris christie, right? they are the only two voices out there. you know, right now, chris christie is the only one qualified to be on that debate stage. let's be honest, mike pence has not qualified yet to be on that debate stage, which is -- >> i just want to be clear to you, and our viewers, while this is all being recorded, if you two are threatening to kill me, i'm coming at you --

there's not gonna be any of this, about letting the american people decide -- [laughter] that's gonna be the case. >> michael, i got 25 seconds, but on olivia's point about chris christie and a sergeants, any traction to actually coming out and saying what you think? >> no, not really. i mean, there is been some,asa n to coming out and saying what you think? >> not really. there's been some thought at the bottom of the polling and christie has moved to third place in new hampshire. it's going to be a state by state slog we know that. not a national referendum or vote in that regard at this stage. but he's still punching and that's a difference maker. >> michael steele who often sits in with me on my show knows when i've got 20 seconds i've got 20 seconds. that's "all in" on this tuesday night. you can watch