IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

Transcript: All In with Chris Hayes, 6/29/22

Guests: Adam Schiff, Harry Litman, Asha Rangappa


The new testimony from Cassidy Hutchinson suggests violent insurrection was Trump`s goal on January 6. The January 6 Committee subpoenas White House Counsel Pat Cipollone. The new January 6 testimony raises legal stakes for the Trump world. The January 6 hearings lay out a roadmap for the Department of Justice to indict Donald Trump. The January 6 hearings spotlight the Trump world`s consciousness of guilt. Hayes discusses the historical blueprint of the Trump coup.


JOY REID, MSNBC ANCHOR: Right to choose, simply because they can. And that is tonight`s "REIDOUT". ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES starts now.


CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC ANCHOR (voiceover): Tonight on ALL IN. The 45th president actually participated in a violent coup to overthrow democracy.

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON, FORMER AIDE TO MARK MEADOWS: The president said something to the effect of, I`m the effing President. Take me up to the Capitol now.

HAYES: Tonight, the stunning reality of Donald Trump`s role on January 6, and the committee`s new subpoena for his White House counsel with Congressman Adam Schiff. Then.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`ve decided that I should be on the pardon list that is still in the works.

ERIC HERSHMANN, FORMER WHITE HOUSE LAWYER: Get a great effing criminal defense lawyer. You`re going to need it.

HUTCHINSON: We`re going to get charged with every crime imaginable.

HAYES: Asha Rangappa and Chuck Rosenberg on the consciousness of guilt, jumping off the screen at these hearings and what the Department of Justice is doing about it, and how Donald Trump and his mob dusted off a preexisting American script to try and pull off their insurrection when ALL IN starts right now.


HAYES (on camera): Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes. It did not seem like there could possibly be any secrets left, that there could possibly be new, revelatory shocking details about the ex-president`s plot to end American democracy. And yet, oh, my there is. Yesterday`s historic testimony from Cassidy Hutchinson, an advisor of Trump`s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, forces everyone, I think, to update their basic understanding of what it was we saw in the period leading up to and during the insurrection on January 6, both for Donald Trump and the people who supported his attempts to end the peaceful transfer of power.

Now, the old model of our understanding of what happened on January 6 is basically as follows. The ex-president told a bunch of lies about voter fraud, right and he refused to accept the loss, whether he believes it or not, is unclear, nurtured those lies in this impetuous frenzied rage-filled haphazard way. He threw everything against the wall to see what would stick in and out of court in a desperate attempt to cling to power, which culminated in this inciting speech on January 6 to a mob he riled up and then sent to the Capitol. And there hopped up on Trump`s incitement and lies and reckless disregard for both safety and American democracy, the mob broke into the Capitol ransacked it, threatening the lives of members, and calling to hang Mike Pence. And while they did, Trump sat and watched and refused to lift a finger to stop them, as things got more and more out of hand, and more and more violent.

That was our almost immediate understanding of what happened that day. And based on that understanding of the events alone, Donald Trump deserved to be discredited, impeached, and barred from future office, living the remainder of his days as a reviled figure. But now, in light of what the hearings have presented, what the committee has presented, and particularly yesterday`s revelations, it really seems like that old model was actually an insufficient understanding of what happened. Another way of understanding what happened based on the testimony we got yesterday and more of the evidence is that a scheme to end American democracy through a variety of means culminated in a plot by fascist thugs to sack the Capitol, and that Donald Trump was our participant in that action. Not it got out of hand, not that he was too self-absorbed to do anything. No.

Now to be very clear, the level of Trump`s actual foreknowledge is still being determined. We don`t actually know it yet. Again, based on the evidence that`s introduced. But we now know the ex-president wanted the plot to go further than just a public pressure campaign to overturn the election. There`s a whole new level of culpability than we had initially understood. Because yesterday, we learned the extent to which Trump`s top lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and his own Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, knew what was going to happen.


REP. LIZ CHENEY, (R-WY): Do you remember Mr. Giuliani meeting with Mr. Meadows on January 2, 2021?

HUTCHINSON: I do. He met with Mr. Meadows in the evening of January 2, 2021.

CHENEY: And we understand that you walked Mr. Giuliani out of the White House that night, and he talks to you about January 6, let you remember him saying.

HUTCHINSON: As Mr. Giuliani and I were walking to his vehicles that evening, he looked at me and said something to the effect of Cass, are you excited for the 6? It`s going to be a great day. I remember looking at him saying, Rudy, could you explain what`s happening on the 6th? He -- and he responded something to the effect of we`re going to the Capitol, it`s going to be great.


The president is going to be there. He`s going to look powerful. He`s going to be with the members. He`s going to be with the senators. Talk to the chief about it. Talk to the chief about it. He knows about it.

CHENEY: And did you go back then up to the West Wing and tell Mr. Meadows about your conversation with Mr. Giuliani?

HUTCHINSON: I did. After Mr. Giuliani had left the campus that evening, I went back up to our office and I found Mr. Meadows in his office on the couch. He was scrolling through his phone. I remember leaning against the doorway and saying I just had an interesting conversation is Rudy, Mark. It sounds like we`re going to go to the Capitol. He didn`t look up from his phone and said something to the effect of there`s a lot going on, Cass but I don`t know. Things might get real, real bad on January 6.


HAYES: Giuliani and Meadows knowing there is a plan to go to the Capitol four days before the sacking of the Capitol that the mob stormed the Capitol. We`re going to go to the Capitol, the president`s going to go to the Capitol. Now we already knew that likes of Steve Bannon, the podcast are in too short and Trump`s advisor warned that all hell will break loose on the 6. So he knew something was off. But it now seems that both Meadows and Giuliani, two of Trump`s closest advisors in this whole period of the election also knew something was going down that day, specifically at the Capitol, and that Meadows feared it would get bad. We didn`t know that before.

We also know Giuliani was part of a group of people plotting the coup at the Willard Hotel that we have known, and that that group included Trump advisor Roger Stone, among others. Stone, who was in contact with far-right armed groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. We also know that both of those right-wing gangs I just mentioned have since been charged by the Department of Justice with seditious conspiracy for their role in plotting in a quite granular fashion, the attack on the Capitol.

Cassidy Hutchinson yesterday also testified that both far-right gangs who have been accused of seditious conspiracy kept coming up around Rudy Giuliani in the days before the attack.


HUTCHINSON: I recall hearing the word Oath Keeper and hearing the word Proud Boys closer to the planning of the January 6 rally when Mr. Giuliani would be around.


HAYES: OK. Now, that`s interesting. Maybe her recollection isn`t perfect, but that`s a pretty notable piece of information. So again, those groups according to Hutchinson`s testimony, they were being discussed in the West Wing of the White House because that`s where she was right, not at the Willard Hotel. But that`s not all. Perhaps the most shocking bit of testimony the committee played yesterday was the revelation from Hutchinson that Donald Trump wanted to do away with the magnetometers also known as mags or the metal detectors, which screen for weapons at his Ellipse rally that morning.


HUTCHINSON: That was in the vicinity of a conversation where I overheard the president say something to the effect of, you know, I don`t -- I didn`t care that they have weapons. They`re not here to hurt me. Take the effing mags away.


HAYES: Trump knew the crowd was angry. He knew they were spoiling for a fight. Those around Trump were worried about the potential for violence and warned him about it, warned about the presence of the weapons. I mean, gave him a readout apparently, and Donald Trump`s response was to get rid of the metal detectors because they are not here to hurt me or they are not here to hurt me. You don`t know which one.

He wanted his angry mob -- again, to be filled with people carrying weapons and then marched to the Capitol, and knowing that he took the stage at the Ellipse and he ordered that arm crowd to march the Capitol and said he would go with them. And that wasn`t just like, Trump be assessing. That wasn`t Trump saying like you guys, go ahead. I`ll be there and then with you. No, no, no, no, no. That`s what we learned yesterday. He actually wanted to be with -- there with them. He was going to go with them. He apparently became furious when he was told he could not join the mob sacking the Capitol.


HUTCHINSON: When the president got in the beast, he was under the impression from Mr. Meadows that the Off The Record movement to the Capitol was still possible and likely to happen with that Bobby had more information. So once the president had gotten into the vehicle with Bobby, he thought that to him were not, you don`t have the assets to do it. It`s not secure. We`re going back to the West Wing. The president had a very strong, very angry response to that. Tony described him as being irate. The president said something to the effect of, I`m the effing President. Take me up to the Capitol now. To which Bobby responded sir, we have to go back to the West Wing.


HAYES: So, after knowing there`s an armed mob going to the Capitol, Trump wanted to lead the armed mob into the Capitol as essentially the fascist point of the spear.


With his security detail and the armed mob around him and the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers depart the seas and breeze past the Metropolitan Police who are getting their brains bashed in by the crowd, one imagines, and the Capitol Police being concussed and brazen sack the Capitol, to occupy the Capitol, to take it over. Personally, I`m the leader now. This is what we are left to understand. The president of the United States wanted to do not some lawsuit, not some wise through some cutout, not getting some lawyer run an errand. This is Trump himself.

Congressman Adam Schiff is a Democrat of California. He sits on the January 6 committee. He was the lead impeachment manager during the first impeachment of Donald Trump. And, Congressman, let me -- let me start just on that, like, what are we to believe? What are we to understand from the evidence your committee has introduced about what Donald Trump`s plan was to do when he led the armed mob into the halls of the U.S. Capitol?

REP. ADAM SCHIFF, (D-CA): Well, it was to succeed where he had failed through every other means and that was to stop the transfer of power to overturn the election to cling to his office. And, Chris, I think you put your finger on what was most important, in my view in the testimony yesterday, and that is that when the president was told this crowd was armed, they wouldn`t go through the magnetometers because if they did, they would have their weapons taken away, the President`s response wasn`t good. We don`t want them to have weapons. The president`s response was to take the magnetometers down. He wanted them to be able to march with him to the Capitol armed.

And so his knowledge, his intent, I think we got the most direct view of that in the testimony yesterday, the fact that when that attack was going on, having been frustrated in his efforts to accompany that -- this armed mob, he`s sitting in the safety of the White House, he`s asked over and over to do something about it but he won`t do anything about it because he thinks that Pence deserves this. That`s a pretty telling compelling narrative provided by this witness of a president who went to all else failed, and was prepared to use this violent mob to achieve his ends.

HAYES: We got some news about Pat Cipollone, which I`m going to ask you about in a second. But just one more follow-up on that, which is whether you have updated your understanding, whether your mental model of what happened that day has changed or evolved as this -- as you have -- you in the committee have learned more and more.

SCHIFF: Yes. And, you know, I certainly suspected that Trump was aware of the fact that the crowd was armed and dangerous. And you know, there was evidence to indicate that, but her testimony was the first that he was -- he was directly told about this and his response was taken away the method of disarming these people, take away the magnetometers and, you know, to me, that tells the whole story of where he was coming from on that day and what he was prepared to do. So, yes, I think our understanding continues to improve.

And it`s an astounding thing, Chris. We`re a year and a half from these events. And up until yesterday, that, you know, the public wasn`t aware that the president knew that the crowd -- the mob was armed. And he wanted them to be able to march on the Capitol armed. You imagine how the Capitol police who were injured, over 140 of them, during that attack, knowing that the commander in chief who was supposed to be protecting them and our institutions was wanted that mob to be able to go to the Capitol armed. It really is astounding.

HAYES: I mentioned former White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, the committee has made direct appeals to him on screen before the mics to come to talk to them. I understand he had an off-the-record I think a conversation with the committee and his deputy. There`s a subpoena out for him today. What -- why now? Why is Pat Cipollone being subpoenaed?

SCHIFF: Well, as we`ve learned more and more, we`ve learned of his role in the run-up to January 6. On January 6, his fear that there was going to be blood on the hands of the White House Chief of Staff if he didn`t do something, that if the president accompanied this mob to the Capitol, they would be charged with every crime on the books, or something along those lines.


So his knowledge of the propensity for violence that day, his knowledge that the president and others may be breaking the law that day, I think is very important. And he ought to show just a small portion of the courage that Cassidy Hutchinson displayed. You know, here she is at the ripe old age of 26 years old showing such poise and character and courage. And here he is in a much more senior position and unable to testify as to what he knows and to do so observing whatever legitimate claim he might make a privilege. And plainly, there are lots of conversations and evidence he can provide that have no claim of privilege. Here he is, and he needs to come out of hiding. He needs to do his patriotic duty.

HAYES: Final question for you. It`s been very weird aftermath to Cassidy Hutchinson`s testimony insofar as. Various people have attempted to dispute details of her testimony, often either anonymously, or through spokespeople issuing statements. Some of these people have testified before your committee, some have not. There`s obviously a profound asymmetry between an individual who testifies under penalty of perjury and sworn testimony and someone anonymously saying something to someone. What do you make of those efforts? Do you have concerns about the veracity of what we heard yesterday?

SCHIFF: No. I have great confidence in Cassidy Hutchinson as a very, very credible, reliable witness. She told us what she knew. She told us the extent of what she knew. She told us when she didn`t know things. You know, I spent over six years as a prosecutor. I dealt with a lot of witnesses. And sometimes you could tell the most about the credibility by what they tell you they can`t tell you. That is that they don`t know.

And, you know, all you can ask from them is to tell you the truth, to tell you, you know, when they were a first-hand observer, and when they got something secondhand, and she did all that. And these -- some of these attacks on her, some anonymous, you know, sleazy rumor campaigns, all the rest of that is by people that don`t have the same courage that she does, that don`t have the same respect for their oath of office. You know, the idea that Mark Meadows, for example, would dispute anything she has to say in hiding from the committee unwilling to come forward, willing to write about these things in a book, when he`s not, of course, under oath, is just appalling. So I have nothing but respect for her and nothing but confidence in what she had to say.

HAYES: I`m surprised that Meadows was able to tear himself away from scrolling through his phone to even hear her testimony, to be honest. Congressman Adam Schiff, thank you for your time. Appreciate it.

SCHIFF: Thank you.

HAYES: Like I said, I really didn`t expect to be surprised by anything in these hearings. But yesterday`s testimony from Cassie Hutchinson was packed with brand new details about what was happening behind the scenes while the attack on the Capitol was unfolding. What I found to be some of the biggest revelations just ahead.



HAYES: We already knew that the fascist Trump mob wanted to sack the Capitol on January 6. Now, we`re learning that the ex-president wanted to join the mob on their way to the Capitol. There`s a bit of sound from yesterday`s hearing of Mark Meadows` aide, Cassie Hutchison, where she recounts a story she heard on what Trump did when he realized he could not go to the Capitol. For context, she refers to a man named Bobby Engel, who`s a secret service agent, and Tony Ornato, who is Trump`s Deputy Chief of Staff for operations.


HUTCHINSON: Once the president had gotten into the vehicle with Bobby, he thought that they were going up to the Capitol. And when Bobby had relayed to him, we`re not you don`t have the assets to do it, it`s not secure, we`re going back to the West Wing, the president had a very strong, very angry response to that. Tony described him as being irate. The president said something to the effect of I`m the effing president, take me up to the Capitol now. To which Bobby responded, sir, we have to go back to the West Wing.

The president reached up towards the front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel. Mr. Engel grabbed his arm, said, sir, you need to take your hand off the steering wheel. We`re going back to the West Wing. We`re not going to the Capitol.


HAYES: Now, as I mentioned, there`s been some, you know, cowardly anonymous disputations of the details there, which I don`t know, I wasn`t there. Neither was Cassie Hutchinson, she`s very forthcoming on that. And there`s been spokespeople saying so and so is prepared to testify. Again, people should testify and say what happened. And until they do, this is the story that we have. If they want to dispute it, they should come forward, right? Do what Cassidy Hutchinson did.


What is clear, though, and again, I think there`s some disputation on the details, right, like, where did he touch him? The ex-president wanted to be at the Capitol. He wanted to go to the Capitol. He wanted to be the head of the violent fascist mob invading the Capitol. He was their leader, and he wanted to march alongside them to lead them. I truly did not think I was capable of being surprised about any details because they were already so terrible, until yesterday.

Joining me now is Harry Litman who served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General and the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania. You know, Harry, what was striking to me about the testimony yesterday, and I think it has real salience both politically and legally is that -- is how direct all this was. Trump directing these things. Trump there and present and not through cutouts, and not through arm`s length kinds of stuff that the testimony we got is about Trump or people very close to Trump answering to him, like his chief of staff, or his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani. And that, to me felt like a new level that we`re just closer to this than we`ve ever been before. What did you think?

HARRY LITMAN, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: We`re more than closer. We`re at a bullseye and at a different place, Chris. I think what you say and why you were gobsmacked is exactly right. And let me try to put a legal gloss on this. So a crime is the combination of a bad act and a guilty intent. And to date, just as you were saying, we were talking about the delay or hindrance in the January 6 hearing itself, and wondering about Trump`s guilty intent visa vie. That act always seemed clear to me he had guilty intent. But now, that`s been blown out of the water for two reasons by Cassidy Hutchinson.

First and most importantly, we`re not talking now about the hindrance of the proceeding. We`re talking about violence and force. And under the federal code, that means we are expressly in seditious conspiracy and inciting a riot land.

HAYES: Right.

LITMAN: That`s precisely the element that distinguishes it. That`s for starters. What about this guilty intent? You said at the top, maybe it`s still a little murky. It is not the slightest bit murky, and for the reasons you say, not only does he find out or at least Meadows and others know in advance, Giuliani, January 3, it -- but it still doesn`t matter because we know for a fact and that`s without regard, as you say to this sort of sideshow of did he grab the wheel and the clavicle or not. He knows they`re armed. He wants to lead them. He`s not simply accepting. He wants - - he wants to foment and be this odd Napoleonic figures sweeping in with violent thugs in you know, the weird horns, etcetera behind them. That is a seditious conspiracy. That is inciting a riot as defined in the federal code. We are in a completely different territory for exactly the reasons that you pointed out at the top of the show.

HAYES: Yes. And it`s interesting because again, like I never want to get too far ahead of this. And I don`t -- we`ve talked about this before, and we`ll talk about it I think later in the show about like, there`s a whole bunch of institutional questions about this and technical questions, legal questions about the evidence and -- but it was interesting because I -- you`re not alone, like Eli Hoenig, who`s a -- who`s been on the show before former federal prosecutor told NPR that the requesting the mags remove builds a prosecutable case against Donald Trump.


HAYES: I have seen a lot of people who are again, not necessarily gunslingers, and not necessarily people who are like, you know, chomping at the bit to say he`s saying that the evidence yesterday moved things in that -- in that direction.

LITMAN: They more than move them, they pull vaulted them. I`m in the same. I`m been relatively conservative. I`ve only recently come to the view that the worst thing next to prosecuting him is not prosecuting him. But I know what that table is going to be like and I`ve been there when the decision is made, and Garland presides. And I think it is clear that a responsible respected voice is going to say, how can we not do this? You know, it doesn`t mean it carries the day but without doubt, the proof part will be so clear and the crime that`s proven will be so grave and serious, that the consequences of staying back will be very apparent to Merrick Garland and everybody at that table as being grave for democracy in and of itself to counterbalance what will remain, as you say, which is the welter of considerations that make a prosecution of a former president pretty gnarly.

HAYES: Yes. That is well said and we`re going to get dive into that even more ahead with some other folks like yourself with some experience adjacent to this. No one has experienced prosecuting ex-present because it never happened. Harry Litman, thank you very much for your time tonight.

LITMAN: Thank you, Chris.


HAYES: So, the committee has been meticulously working to show that everyone involved in this coup plot knew what they were trying to do was criminal or at least fear that. And there`s a real question about, as Harry said, well, OK, well, what does the Department of Justice doing with that information? But there are real unmistakable signs of light and action from the DOJ and that`s ahead.



HAYES: When it comes to January 6 attack on the Capitol, it has been obvious at a certain level that all the people surrounding Donald Trump had to have known that what they were doing was likely or at the very least, possibly criminal. And so far, the committee has done an incredible job of demonstrating a consciousness of guilt.

ERIC HERSCHMANN, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE LAWYER: Now, I`m going to give you the best free legal advice you`re ever getting in your life. Get a great effing criminal defense lawyer. You`re going to need it, and then I hung up on him.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And are you aware of any members of Congress seeking pardons?

HUTCHINSON: Mr. Gaetz and Mr. Brooks.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Dr. Eastman`s email stated, "I`ve decided that I should be on the pardon list if that is still in the works."

CHENEY: Did Rudy Giuliani ever suggest that he was interested in receiving a presidential pardon related to January 6?


Mr. Biggs did. Mr. Jordan talks about congressional pardons but he never asked me for one.

CHENEY: Did White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows ever indicate that he was interested in receiving a presidential pardon related to January 6?

HUTCHINSON: Mr. Meadows did seek that pardon, yes, ma`am.

Mr. Gohmert asked for one as well. Mr. Perry asked for a pardon too, I`m sorry.

Mr. Cipollone said something to the effect of, please make sure we don`t go up to the Capitol, Cassidy. Keep in touch with me. We`re going to get charged with every crime imaginable if we make that movement happen.


HAYES: The committee has introduced a body of evidence that lays out how aware people around Trump were that what they were doing was likely criminal. Lawyers warn them. They said the administration would get charged with every crime imaginable. Afterwards, the people involved sought pardons. There`s no plausible deniability left.

Trump World is making all the criminal referrals you could want against themselves. So, what does the Department of Justice do about that? What does Merrick Garland do about that? We have two incredible guests to answer the question of both served in the Justice Department and understand almost better than anyone the legal and criminal ramifications that could come from these hearings. They`ve had a lot to say. That`s next.



HAYES: For a while now, I`ve been to the strong belief that Attorney General Merrick Garland, just knowing his career, knowing some people that know him worked with him, would basically sooner rather die than be the person to prosecute an ex-president of the United States, the first person to do that. So, I`ve been operating under the assumption it`s not going to happen.

That`s until last week, when we learned that federal investigators searched the home of Trump Department of Justice official Jeffrey Clark, a man who was central to the plot to use the DOJ to overturn the election. Law enforcement officials raided his house just before seven in the morning. According to one of his colleagues, they put him in the streets in his pajamas took his electronic devices.

There are different ways you can execute search warrants but executing a predawn search that includes putting a former DOJ employee on the street in their PJs, which again, happens every day in America but not necessarily to those sorts of folks, it sort of feels like the Department of Justice is playing hardball.

Asha Rangappa is a former Special Agent of the FBI Counterintelligence Division. She`s attorney and senior lecturer at Yale University, editor at the national security and civil rights forum Just Security. And Chuck Rosenberg is a former U.S. Attorney and a former Senior FBI official. They both join me now. It`s great to have you both. I know both of you have a lot of institutional knowledge and experience you`re carrying into this discussion.

So, maybe let`s first start with the state of things legally as we know from just what is publicly available, and the degree to which that change. So, Asha, I`ll shall start with you just to the degree that you think along the lines of what Harry Litman and others said that we`re in somewhat new territory now just in terms of what the facts and the law are as we know them.

ASHA RANGAPPA, FORMER SPECIAL AGENT, FBI COUNTERINTELLIGENCE DIVISION: Yes, Chris. Thanks for having me on. So, I think it`s important at the outset to note that the January 6 Committee and the Department of Justice, even though they`re working in parallel, actually have different goals. The Department of Justice wants to seek legal accountability. So, they need to see whether a criminal law has been violated and whether there`s evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

The January 6 Committee is concerned with public accountability. They don`t have to be concerned with things like admissibility or, you know, other evidentiary concerns.

HAYES: Right.

RANGAPPA: -- and help me to work methodically. They can go straight to the top. So, there can be a disconnect between the evidence that we`re seeing from the committee, which is explosive, and people -- imagine that Garland must be ready to indict tomorrow and where the Department of Justice might actually be in there, somewhat plotting investigation. And I totally get that that can be incredibly frustrating because on top of that, they`re completely silent.

So, I think the Department of Justice is probably not as far along as what we imagined they would be given the evidence is coming from the Committee. And that`s just because they`re working on different timelines and standards.

HAYES: Yes, that`s a really good caution, a really good point. Even just those sort of evidentiary questions, right? Like, what you can and can admit. And, Chuck, what`s your -- what`s your feeling about all this?

CHUCK ROSENBERG, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I think Asha`s point about the Committee doing a top down investigation is an important one and one worth perhaps explaining a bit more. At the Justice Department, and I was a prosecutor for a long time, Chris, you work cases from the bottom up. So, you try to -- you know, if you can induce the evidence, and then you can sustain a conviction, you get people to cooperate, you convict and they cooperate, you convict and they cooperate, and you move up the pyramid.

And the committee, and I understand this, seems to be focused at the very top of the pyramid. And so, it`s a very different orientation. Also, I think we have to be extraordinarily careful because let`s say the Committee has interviewed 1000 people, and let`s say they`ve spent four hours with each one. I wasn`t a math major, but 1000 times four is 4000, and we`ve so far heard about 10 or 12 hours of testimony.


HAYES: Right.

ROSENBERG: They may have 4000 hours-worth of deposition. So, it`s sort of like me reading the first three pages of Warren Piece, and then writing a book report. I`m not saying I ever did that in college, but we don`t yet know a fraction of what the committee has. And we know almost nothing of what the Department of Justice has. And so, I think Asha`s caution to be patient and to be mindful of these different paradigms is really important.

HAYES: So, let`s talk then about the development of -- on Eastman and Clark, because that does seem to me quite significant. I mean, anytime, you know, someone ends up search by the Feds, you know, whether it`s a -- it`s an elected official back when I was in Chicago covering local politics, it happened about every other week with an alderman. You know, that means there`s something there, right? This isn`t starting from square one. What`s your judgment, again, from what we know publicly, Asha, about the significance of the Eastman and clerk searches?

RANGAPPA: Yes, Chris. I would say there`s good news, and then there`s inconclusive news. I think the good news is, look, they do have people who are some of the major players and architects of this coup in in their sights, specifically Jeffrey Clark, who was ready to weaponize the Justice Department and become a part of executing this fraudulent scheme.

The inconclusive piece is that this investigation is coming out of the officer -- Office of Inspector General. So, this is the internal watchdog of the Justice Department. And because Jeffrey Clark is an employee, you know, they investigated him, and it looks like again, good news, that it has turned into a criminal investigation, and the Eastman search warrant appears to be connected to that.

I`ve been interested to know what Chuck thinks of this. It seems to me that it`s not -- I don`t know that you can come to a lot of conclusions because it kind of -- they have head start on that piece of the investigation, what that means in terms of where they are for the other players. I don`t know that we necessarily know how far they -- along they are for Roger Stone, for example, or Rudy Giuliani, or even Donald Trump, though I suspect they will all intersect at some point.

HAYES: What do you think, Chuck?

ROSENBERG: Well, look, I`m not trying to leave myself wiggle room with this answer, Chris. But I`ll tell you what I know and what I don`t know.

HAYES: You`re a lawyer. It`s OK.

ROSENBERG: No, no, I was a prosecutor, big difference, Chris. Let me tell you what I know and what I don`t know. With a search warrant, that means agents in this case of the Office of Inspector General, but it could be FBI or someone else in another case, goes to a federal judge and asks her to review and sign a warrant, which attests to the fact that they have probable cause, probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that they`re going to find evidence of that crime in the place that they`re going to search. So, you know, Mr. Clark`s house or Mr. Eastman`s phone. That`s not a good thing. If you`re Clark or Eastman, it`s never a good thing, Chris, to have, you know, the FBI or someone else knock on your door and take your stuff.

Now, the wiggle room part of it. It doesn`t mean they`re going to be charged with a crime, although many people who are searched by search warrant are ultimately charged with a crime, but it doesn`t mean that. It`s not dispositive. And so, as Asha had cautioned earlier, we need to be patient. Patience is hard. And we only know a tiny fraction of what the Department of Justice is doing right now.

But there`s a really clear delineation between what they were doing. All the first 800 cases were tied to violence.

HAYES: Right.

ROSENBERG: And what we see them doing that where they`re moving to the electoral vote fraud. It`s a -- it`s an important delineation.

HAYES: Yes. And I think that that step is really where things start to, you know, get much closer to the President. And they open up a whole bunch of really profound to me institutional questions, kind of democratic theory questions about how -- you know, what -- how do you -- how does a sort of self-governing rule of law country go about this kind of thing. Other countries have done it, of course, in fact, but I would love to sort of continue that conversation as this goes forward in the future with both you.

Asha Rangappa and Chuck Rosenberg, it was very, very enlightening. Thank you both.


RANGAPPA: Thank you.

HAYES: When we come back, how the attempted insurrection by Donald Trump and his mob followed a pre-existing script in American history. The warning signs we cannot ignore.


HAYES: We tend to think about January 6 is unprecedented because in many ways it was. We`ve never seen the Capitol ransacked by insurrectionists. We`ve never had a coup at the federal level. Which is why watching it in real-time felt so surreal, like is this actually happening? But as we learn more about what it was, essentially a violent right-wing mob refusing to accept defeat at the ballot box by multiracial coalition and storming the seat of government to take it over by force, it`s clear this is actually a pre-existing script in American political life. It`s not one we`re taught in school. But this blueprint has existed in this very way, particularly in the south in the years after the Civil War.


Immediately after the war ended, of course, southern states were under federal occupation. Formerly enslaved people were freed and given the right to vote. And these places in the South began to see a new form of multiracial coalition politics, black, white, fusion elected governments throughout the south, from the municipal level, all the way on up. And those governments were opposed by the dead-end reactionary, white racist, old guard.

And what happened in those years, again, and again, again, is the multiracial party, of that time the Republican Party, with white and black voters, they were in power. And the Democrats of the era would say, elections were stolen, that there was fraud after an election. They would assemble armed mobs to march on local government in order to wrest the power back into their control.

And it was fully understood at the time that`s what happened. In one newspaper, 1874, read "the condition of the South is by no means reassuring -- this of course, from a Republican paper -- there`s an evident determination shown in several the states to intimidate black voters, and by the process of intimidation to secure a monopoly of political power to the whites.

Now, that story ran just two days after one of the most infamous examples. It was called the Battle of Liberty Place. It happened in New Orleans in 1874. Again, this is the prime of the deconstruction, right? The South is still under federal occupation. The details, they`re going to sound familiar. So, there was an election. There were accusations of voter fraud by the reactionary white party who then turn to calls for street action.

Here`s one such call. It was reprinted in a local paper. It called on people to mass in the street saying, "you have been the silent but indignant sufferers of outrage after outrage heaped upon you by a usurping government." While a white supremacist militia movement responded to that call gathering to overturn the state government and put the losing candidate in office.

And the New Orleans Metropolitan Police were put on a war footing because "it was believed that the White League clubs meant business and no mistake, it was known these clubs are pretty well-armed, determined to make a stand. These were the Proud Boys of their time.

And the police of New Orleans were right to be worried because lo and behold, later that day, "the various companies of the white League, armed with every variety of weapon, appeared in the streets taking positions in various portions of the city.

And they attack the police. Multiple police officers were killed. By the following day, the old officials from the Republican Party, right, the Democrat -- the multiracial party, they had been deposed and the State House seized by the white supremacist party. And the pro-coup papers celebrated the victory with language that again, it`s going to sound very familiar, noting that "dozen gallant lives sacrificed on the altar of liberty, the blood of gentleman and patriots that have been shed" and that "Louisiana throughout its borders today is free."

Eventually, it took federal troops to restore order as so often happen, but it was a huge deal at the time. I mean, chronicles in newspapers from Louisiana and New York, and it happened just a year after the notorious Colfax Massacre, which was also in Louisiana, where the same group, the White League, captured a federal courthouse, defended by an all-black militia and murdered dozens of African-Americans.

And atrocities like that one kept happening, armed white supremacist, mobs trying to overthrow democratically elected local governments all the way through the latter half of the 19th century. They actually succeeded in 1898 in Wilmington, North Carolina. This one is less famous, less well known, but the mob took to the streets shooting and killing an untold number of black citizens. But what their aim was they physically occupied the local government. They took over the local government and they expelled the black politicians, and they put unelected white men into place in the city government instead.

You go back to those moments in American history, Liberty Place, Colfax, and Wilmington, and it really helps to clarify what we saw on January 6, the seditious tradition in American life and the very real warning signs of what was actually happening seen undocumented by people at the time. And remember, those tactic, the armed violence and the coup, the attempt to overturn the elected government, like in Wilmington, it worked over time. It worked. And the free black people in the south, many of those jurisdictions threw democratic rights again for another 80 years. Those are the sakes. That`s what happens if the mob is allowed to rule without repercussions.

That is ALL IN on this Wednesday night. "MSNBC PRIME" starts now with Ali Velshi. Good evening, Ali.