inquiry back here in washington, with senate intel leaders demanding the fbi show them the receipts, formalry asking to see those classified documenting taken during the mar-a-lago search. plus, two primary elections that could tell us about the state of the republican party, all happening just hours from now. we re in wyoming and alaska with what might be the final stand for at least one former leader in the republican party. i m hallie jackson in washington. we have a lot to get to. covering all of this for us, tom winter, msnbc political analyst greg bleustein, and kim whaly from american university, former white water independent counsel. tom, i ll start with you as the tip of the spear. you spoke with giuliani s attorney who confirms he s now a target in the investigation. what does target mean and how significant is it? great question, hallie, and one we re still trying to answer. robert costello is the attorney for rudy giuliani who has told nbc news within the las
threats to her safety after being accused of being part of a conspiracy theory involving fake ballots, debunked, by the way. most of the discussion heading into today s hearing surrounds brad raffensperger who won a primary earlier this month. raffensperger was facing deep discontent from some trump supporters for pushing back on donald trump in the days before the january 6 insurrection, refusing the former president s request to, quote, find the votes trump needed to win that state. i just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have, because we won the state. flipping the state is a great testament to our country. ladies, in the hearings so far, each followed a pattern. donald trump was told he lost. he told his supporters that he won anyway. donald trump was told that there was no fraud. he told his supporters that there was fraud. donald trump was told that mike pence did not have the power to overturn the election. he said mike pence had the power to
that is according to what we know from the media reporting and what the white house counsel set, is what happened. i want to still see what comes out more details wise i m, not just taking their word for it but if that is what transpired here than in terms of at least joe biden, he s in the clear. he did what you are supposed to do. donald trump is the case study in how to get yourself into more trouble when you didn t have to be and how to take off the justice department. on that point, the idea that we are thinking about not taking one s word for, spoken like a true lawyer, i m not going to take your word for it, i wonder if you are looking at this in your trying to think about how to evaluate and assess ones accountability, or to trust somebody, he could easily say i didn t know. and some talking points already saying, isn t that what trump would say? why is this so different? how do you see it? from a counter intelligence perspective, laura, you are looking at the material it
and how to tick off the justice department. well doug, enough, point that idea when you re thinking about, not taking a word for it, the whole trust and verify, or just not trust you at all moment, but i wonder, if you re looking at this in you re trying to think about, how to evaluate and assess one s accountability. or to trust somebody. you can easily, say i don t know, and some talking points will say isn t that what trump would say? and how would you see it? from a counterintelligence perspective, you re looking at the material that, self control, and intent. intent may be speaking to the accountability factor. in terms of material, maybe ten, documents some of it special access programs. but they are finished products when it comes as sources and methods. in terms of control, these were locked in an office that perhaps, only biden and his
was angry marchers talking. this is the way the process works. i think ultimately, if you do things that are allegedly not so good. if you have documents, potentially you should not have had, there is an accountability factor. if you have organizations engaged and alleged impropriety, there is an accountability factor there. so i think that at some point in time alison, you ve heard the expression chickens come home to roost, you reap what you so. i think the reckoning is here. when you run for president, that does not act as a bar to investigations and potential indictments and of course prosecution. not going to help, can stall, but is not going to prevent. scott, how do you see it? do you think things are ramping up? he s got a lot going on. carrying a lot of bags, a lot of heavy bags. if you are a republican voter trying to sort this out right now. whether we want to go through this a third time, this is going to weigh on the minds of a lot of people. i saw some polling ton