Summary
Attorney General Merrick Garland moves to make the FBI warrant to search Mar-a-Lago public. An armed man attempts to breach an FBI office in Cincinnati. Congressman Eric Swalwell discusses the threat of right-wing extremism. New details emerge regarding the missing January 6 Secret Service text messages.
Transcript
ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: A final question for you tonight.
Merrick Garland is telling Donald Trump to decide whether the warrant should come out or not. So, I ask you, should the warrant come out? Should the warrant and its contents be released?
You can tell me @AriMelber on social media, @AriMelber on Twitter or Instagram. And you can also find me at www.AriMelber.com, if you want to link with me.
And you can tell us, should the warrant come out or not? The Trump lawyers are going to have to decide their answer.
That does it for us. THE REIDOUT starts now.
JASON JOHNSON, MSNBC HOST: Tonight on THE REIDOUT:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MERRICK GARLAND, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: First, I personally approved the decision to seek a search warrant in this matter.
Second, the department does not take such decision lightly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JOHNSON: Donald Trump could reveal the details of the FBI`s search right now. But he hasn`t. I wonder why.
Now the DOJ is moving to make that information public and new reporting on a subpoena from this spring for sensitive documents the FBI believed Trump was still improperly holding on to.
Also tonight, new details on the armed man who tried to breach an FBI office in Cincinnati this morning. Guess where that suspect was on January 6?
Good evening. I`m Jason Johnson, in for Joy Reid.
And we begin THE REIDOUT tonight with the silence broken at the DOJ over the FBI`s search of Donald Trump`s Mar-a-Lago home. After three days of allowing Donald Trump and his allies in conservative media to control the narrative of what transpired, Attorney General Merrick Garland made this statement.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GARLAND: Just now, the Justice Department has filed a motion in the Southern District of Florida to unseal a search warrant and property receipt relating to a court-approved search that the FBI conducted earlier this week.
That search was a premises located in Florida belonging to the former president.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JOHNSON: That means those documents will likely become public, which would provide a window into what investigators were looking for at the property and what crime they believe may have been committed, as well as what was actually collected from Trump`s Florida residence.
Both of these documents were given to Trump`s lawyers on Monday and could have been released by Trump at any point, but he chose not to. And the reason we`re probably going to see those documents? Well, we can thank Donald Trump for that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GARLAND: The department filed the motion to make public the warrant and receipt in light of the former president`s public confirmation of the search, the surrounding circumstances, and the substantial public interest in this matter.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JOHNSON: Meaning, had Donald Trump remain quiet on this, which we know he probably could do, these documents would have remained sealed, at least for a while longer.
In today`s filing, Garland basically told Donald Trump, pull up, writing -- quote -- "The former president should have an opportunity to respond to this motion and lodge objections, including with regard to any legitimate privacy interests or the potential for other injury if these materials are made public."
The federal judge who approved the search warrant has set a deadline of 3:00 p.m. tomorrow for Trump to make any objections. Trump tonight is continuing to say his team was cooperating fully and that the search happened out of nowhere. He did not indicate whether he intends to fight the notion.
Well, Garland also went full Lady Tyrell when he made it clear that he personally approve the decision to seek the search warrant -- tell the Donald it was me -- and that he didn`t take that decision lightly.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GARLAND: Upholding the rule of law means applying the law evenly without fear or favor. Under my watch, that is precisely what the Justice Department is doing.
All Americans are entitled to the evenhanded application of the law, to due process of the law and to the presumption of innocence.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JOHNSON: Just hours before Garland spoke today, an armed suspect tried to breach the Cincinnati FBI field office, flashing an AR-15-style rifle and firing a nail gun at personnel before fleeing and engaging in an extended standoff.
That suspect was eventually killed by police.
Let`s bring in NBC News senior reporter Ben Collins for some breaking news on that story.
Ben, this is disturbing. This seems clearly connected to what happened on Monday. What do we know about the man that attacked the FBI office in Cincinnati right now, other than the fact that he`s dead?
BEN COLLINS, NBC NEWS SENIOR REPORTER: It is clearly connected to what happened on Monday, in the words of the man who did this shooting.
His name is Ricky Shiffer. He was at the Capitol on January 6. There are photos of him at the Capitol that we know are him.
[19:05:05]
And I just want to read you a post that he -- a bit of a post that he posted after he tried to file a -- fire a nail gun into the FBI field office, but before he went to a cornfield and got into a shoot-out with police.
He said: "Well, I thought I had a way through bulletproof glass. And I didn`t. If you don`t hear from me, it`s true I tried attacking the FBI."
It`s one of those things that he said. But in the days before this, a couple of days ago, he was talking about how this is a call to arms and time for combat, and there`s no nonviolent solution to this.
And also, in May, and here he is responding to Marjorie Taylor Greene: "Congresswoman Greene, they got away with fixing the elections in plain sight. It`s over. The next step is the one we used in 1775."
It`s that sort of thing from this kind of guy. That`s what you`re hearing all over the Internet. This guy went through with it. He was at the Capitol on January 6.
JOHNSON: Ben Collins, thank you so much for that update.
Let`s bring in Jill Wine-Banks, former assistant Watergate special prosecutor and co-host of the "Sisters In Law" podcast. That is a very good podcast. You guys should listen to it. Michael Steele, MSNBC political analyst, former RNC chairman and host of "The Michael Steele Podcast," another good podcast to listen to, and Charles Coleman Jr., civil rights attorney, former prosecutor and MSNBC legal analyst.
I hope you get a podcast soon.
(LAUGHTER)
JOHNSON: Jill, I will start with you.
This is disturbing. We have talked about the rising tide of white nationalist terrorism. We have talked about the danger that the Republican organization has become as far as fostering this kind of behavior.
What is your immediate reaction to this attempted terrorist attack on an FBI office in Cincinnati?
JILL WINE-BANKS, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: Everything about it is terrifying.
And I feel that I am no different than anybody else, that we have reasonable grounds to be fearful of people who have serious weapons and are deluded into believing that the election was stolen, that there is a reason that they need to take attacks now, when, in fact, if one pays attention to the facts, there is not a single shred of evidence or fact to support anything that Donald Trump probably has ever said, but certainly has ever said in connection with January 6 or the search under a lawful warrant of his home.
And you said something that I found very interesting, which was about how this was -- the Democrats weren`t responding, that Garland had responded, that Trump has had his say. And it reminded me right back to the Mueller investigation, when Barr made a press release, made a press conference.
He took control. He said, oh, this says that there`s no collusion, no obstruction...
JOHNSON: Right.
WINE-BANKS: ... when, in fact, that`s not what the report said.
But by the time people spoke out saying that wasn`t true, the message had already been sent. And first impressions are very hard to change. So, definitely, Garland should speak up more often.
JOHNSON: But, Michael, one of the things that concerns me, when we see this kind of attempted terrorist action, is the way in which these people are directly encouraged, not just by Donald Trump, but other members of the Republican organization.
There`s a tweet that we have now had verified of this guy communicating with Marjorie Taylor Greene. And she was like, oh, people are saying it`s 1984, but it`s more like 2016, and he`s responding to her.
Look, this guy clearly thinks that he was the Winston Smith in 1984. He`s more like Fredo Corleone. But the fact of the matter is, there`s a lot of guys like that running around this country, talking openly and blatantly about going to their local shop and picking up guns and attacking government officials.
Where do you think the responsibility falls on the party, or what passes sometimes as a party for Republicans, as far as censoring people who are in engagement with folks who engage in this kind of activity?
MICHAEL STEELE, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: In my estimation, it falls squarely on the hands and the heads of the Marjorie Taylor Greenes, the Jim Jordans, the Josh Hawleys, Mitch McConnells, the Kevin McCarthys, the people who are leaders in the party.
JOHNSON: Right.
STEELE: You have -- if -- you have the title, right? This is happening on your watch.
There were times that when, I mean, just dumb stuff when I was national chairman, national chairman, right? And they would haul my behind and flail it out in front of the public and expect me to respond. And I stood up in the moment, where there was someone doing something stupid with the with the credit cards or someone saying something crazy in the party.
I stood up and said, no, that`s not who we are. No, I`m sorry. We`re not talking about witches today, people. Sorry, just not what we`re doing, because that`s not what the party is about.
Crickets. You hear nothing from these people, or if -- in the alternative, you hear the Marjorie Taylor Greenes out there egging it on, profiling it further.
[19:10:07]
But then, when it gets serious, oh, they want to wash their hands. They`re like, well, that`s not what I meant. And I can`t help what people do. And I`m not responsible for what they say.
Yes, you are, because your silence is acquiescence. Your tacit encouragement, saying we`re the MAGA party, well, when MAGA starts acting like MAGA, guess what? You`re now responsible for that. And I think more and more Americans need to hold them all accountable.
There`s an election coming up this November. These folks are on the ballot in a lot of states for a lot of important offices. What the hell you think next year is going to look like with Mastriano running the governorship in Pennsylvania and Kari Lake running the governorship in Arizona, and you`re kind of going into a 2024 cycle?
What do you think that looks like?
JOHNSON: I got to say, Charles, one of the things that gets me about this is, look, I have never been surprised last 25 years of my life at hypocrisy from the right in America, regardless of whether it has a party title on it or not.
But what concerns me is how today`s events connect to overall discussions we have been having intensely for the last several years. This guy tweeted on TRUTH -- he was on TRUTH Social and other social media networks, talking very easily, laying out a game plan on how he was going to get weapons and make multiple attempts to attack a government agency.
From your perspective, just from a legal perspective, what kinds of laws are we hearing about, what kinds of laws have we talked about in the last couple of years that might have made it more difficult for him to do what he attempted to do today?
Because that`s my first concern. How do we stop the next crazy guy from trying to attack government officials?
CHARLES COLEMAN JR., MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: Well, first of all, Jason, I want you to know that that podcast is coming. And I`m going to be looking for you and Michael to be among my first guests for a conversation.
(LAUGHTER)
COLEMAN: That being said, I think what we have seen lately is a significant amount of pressure being placed on social media platforms...
JOHNSON: Right.
COLEMAN: ... to actually use the triggers that are in place to report these things to the FBI and law enforcement agencies earlier.
There`s been a lot of conversation about the failures of social media to actually adhere to its terms and conditions, the ones that are published, the ones that anyone who`s using these platforms agree to when they sign up...
JOHNSON: Right.
COLEMAN: ... where you cannot post these sorts of things where you`re advocating or talking about committing violence against other people, against politicians, against elected officials, because that information has to be reported.
And so what we have seen is a very strong influence of people basically requiring social media platforms to live up to what it is that they said that they`re going to do...
JOHNSON: Right.
COLEMAN: ... to make sure that when illegal activity is essentially being planned right in front of their faces, that they do something about it and turn that information over to the proper law enforcement entities.
JOHNSON: Jill, we`re going to turn a little bit now to Merrick Garland.
So, earlier today, he starts off by saying, hey, look, I am concerned about the rhetoric I have been hearing. It endangers the men and women who are simply doing their job of keeping this country safe. And, by the way, Donald Trump, I`m calling your bluff.
Just from a legal strategy standpoint, how likely is it that Donald Trump and his legal team will actually say, all right, fine, we don`t want these documents to be made public?
Do you think there`s any chance of that occurring? Or would they allow them to become public and basically lie, no matter what they have to do about that reaction as well?
WINE-BANKS: Well, it`s always hard to predict what Donald Trump or any of his lawyers will do, because they have not acted always in what I would consider to be ethical or reasonable ways.
JOHNSON: Right.
WINE-BANKS: So I don`t want to really predict that.
But I want to say, on the other hand, the Department of Justice was brilliant in its strategy. They did call his bluff by waiting for him to open his mouth and say, hey, this is what happened, and here`s my view of it.
JOHNSON: Right.
WINE-BANKS: That opened the door for them to legitimately go to court and say, look, he waived his right of privacy. We wouldn`t have revealed this, but he already has, and he`s setting a false narrative. And we have a right now to reveal this. The public interest outweighs his right of privacy.
And I think they will prevail on that. They also said, OK, we`re going to give you time before we release this, give you time to answer. And so they did call his bluff. And they are now in the hard position of either having to say, uh-uh, no, we want to hide this, or they`re going to have to let it be revealed.
And, that way, the Department of Justice can take back control of the narrative. And I think the narrative is going to show that he has had many the documents that are highly classified that he should have never taken out of the White House, ever out of the White House.
[19:15:05]
But even if those documents aren`t highly classified, they are government documents, and it`s still illegal, period.
JOHNSON: Right.
WINE-BANKS: It`s a violation of law, much more dangerous to national security if they were highly classified.
JOHNSON: Yes, it doesn`t matter if it`s documents, papers, Post-it notes or staplers.
(LAUGHTER)
JOHNSON: If it`s not yours, if it says federal government on it, you`re not really supposed to take it when your job is over.
But here`s the thing. And this is this is my question when it comes to any of these discussions about narrative. Michael, you know this better than most. Does the narrative actually change? I mean, the fact of the matter is that the hard right in America has their own ecosystem, whether it`s that other cable network, or whether it has to do with blogs, or whether it has to do with places on the Internet, far hidden corners.
They don`t hear anything else. So does this change the narrative? I mean, who is this play actually for? Because I don`t see anybody who`s in MAGA world being affected one way or another by facts.
STEELE: No, you`re right.
And it`s -- this is not for MAGA world.
JOHNSON: Right.
STEELE: This is for the rest of America. This is for Americans who, for good, bad or whatever reasons, have a question about this process, don`t fully understand it necessarily.
So this -- you have Trump coming out and creating a story before we know the facts, before we know what happened. So he`s already telling us what happened, right, which is what we saw play out with Mueller. And he was aided by an attorney general who came out and colored the report before it was delivered.
JOHNSON: Right.
STEELE: That`s what this effort was all about.
The difference is, all of a sudden now, they went, OK, well, you want to open up that door, to my counselor`s point here, yes, OK, here it is. We want to put it out here, Your Honor, so that we can tell the narrative the way it actually unfolded.
JOHNSON: Right.
STEELE: So this is for those Americans out there who don`t understand what this process is.
Look, it`s already happening. Jason. Right now, as we speak, there are already signs that Trump MAGA world is coming out and preparing to say, oh, you know what, Trump doesn`t have to show this.
JOHNSON: Right.
STEELE: We don`t need to see this. We just want to know what the process was. We don`t really care about the documents, because they know.
JOHNSON: Right.
STEELE: They know what those documents are going to say.
JOHNSON: Charles, I`m going to just ask you a quick legal question.
Look, we -- again, we know the narrative. We know why Trump might or might not do things. But I want you to put yourself in the mind-set. Now, you may have to take a shower after this.
(LAUGHTER)
JOHNSON: But I want you to place yourself in the mind-set of a Trump lawyer, OK?
COLEMAN: Don`t do it, Jason.
(LAUGHTER)
COLEMAN: Don`t do it.
JOHNSON: If you`re trying, if you are making the argument for team Trump to not have this released, what would your argument to the judge be? What would you say?
Hey, look, there may be some documents that are of the public interest, but there`s also personal family pictures? What would the legal argument be that team Trump would have to make to justify not having this information released to the public?
COLEMAN: Well, really quickly, Jason, Trump has put himself in a difficult position because of the talking that he`s already done.
STEELE: Right.
JOHNSON: Right.
COLEMAN: But, at this point, I think what you have said already is exactly right.
You argue that, within the documents that were seized, there are personal items that would be an unfair intrusion on your personal space and your privacy, and hope that, even though you have already talked and opened this door, as Michael pointed out, that there`s still enough in terms of your private interest that you want to have withheld.
JOHNSON: My guests are staying with me.
And up next, new reporting on what led up to this week`s FBI search of Mar- a-Lago, including a subpoena of Trump that he received this spring.
The REIDOUT continues right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:23:29]
JOHNSON: As the attorney general moves to unseal the warrant for the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago, we`re learning a lot more about the lead-up to that search.
As Garland pointed out today, the department first pursued -- quote -- "less intrusive avenues" to recover those documents. NBC News has confirmed reporting that Trump received a federal grand jury subpoena this spring to turn over classified documents that they thought might still be at Mar-a- Lago, documents Trump`s legal team discussed with DOJ officials on June 3.
According to a source, that meeting was arranged with the Trump team`s understanding that turning over irrelevant documents that day would fulfill the subpoena. It`s not clear exactly what was turned over. But this week`s search indicates that it wasn`t everything that DOJ was asking for.
In fact, "The New York Times" reports that two people briefed on the classified documents that investigators believed remained at Mar-a-Lago indicated that they were so sensitive in nature and related to national security that the Justice Department had to act.
Back with me or Jill Wine-Banks, Michael Steele and Charles Coleman.
Jill, I will start with this. This is the part that kind of gets me in all of this. We have all been late on a bill or a library book. And they send the first letter, and then they send that second letter that`s kind of blue, so you can see it through the plastic. And then you get a phone call.
What on earth do you think the Trump legal team could have been thinking? I mean, was there something else they could have done, other than turning over the papers, that they thought was going to avoid eventually getting searched?
[19:25:02]
WINE-BANKS: It`s incredible to me to think that they were thinking.
That`s the first part of it, because it`s so obvious that, in this process, there was enough time for them to realize they were caught...
JOHNSON: Right.
WINE-BANKS: ... that there was knowledge that they hadn`t turned over everything.
And they were given opportunities. A subpoena is not a search warrant. You still have time. There was conversations. Someone went there in June. And, still, they refused to turn it over, which raises the question about, what could be in those documents? Why did they -- it`s one thing to say, well, I made a mistake. I didn`t know -- I was packing up in a fast way.
JOHNSON: Right.
WINE-BANKS: I didn`t mean to take them. But now you have them. Why would you keep on holding them?
And I was general counsel of the Army. I had a clearance that was so high that I can`t tell you the name of my classification level, because that`s classified. If these documents are in that category, it is a risk to national security. And, remember, this was in an unlocked basement. They added a padlock after the FBI was there.
So anyone, a guest in the hotel, could have gone in there. Someone playing golf there could have gone in there. The staff of the place of Mar-a-Lago could have gone in there. So it was really at risk.
And there are foreign visitors there. It could have been a foreign country. It`s really a serious thing. And I think people need to take it much more seriously than they are taking it.
JOHNSON: Yes, the danger that -- and, Jill, I think this is an excellent point -- that anybody could have stumbled into it. Somebody could have been looking for other papers...
WINE-BANKS: Yes.
JOHNSON: ... and potentially found national security secrets because the president refused to just return the documents to the government.
Charles, I want to start with you. I have got some sound here from Lara Trump talking about Garland`s comments today. I want to get your thoughts on the other side.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LARA TRUMP, DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF PRESIDENT TRUMP: I`m kind of shocked, to tell you the truth, that it took three days for him to come out and really give us no information.
I think a lot of Americans were looking for something, anything that they could look to from the attorney general that would reassure them that this was not a political attack, that they don`t have to be worried that they were overly aggressive, breaking into the home and raiding the home of a former president of the United States.
I mean, that is a very big deal.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JOHNSON: Now, Charles, now that we have this additional information, right?
We know that they didn`t break in to the former president`s home.
COLEMAN: Right.
JOHNSON: They didn`t kick down the door waving a .44. It was nothing like that.
COLEMAN: Right.
JOHNSON: He was given plenty of warnings beforehand.
My question for you sort of legally is, when you hear these kinds of characterizations from Trump`s surrogates, is that something that could potentially land them in legal hot water? If you keep characterizing legal action as crimes that they were not, is that something that Department of Justice could look into?
Could that be seen as obstruction of an investigation if people are constantly mischaracterizing what was a legally and basically a highly previewed action on the part of the Department of Justice?
COLEMAN: Well, generally, Jason, the answer to that is going to be no, unless what we see from those essential lies, if you know that they`re untrue, ended up resulting in further action, a la January 6.
JOHNSON: Right.
COLEMAN: If you continue to push a conspiracy and you continue to push a lie, knowing that it`s not true, and then there are actions and criminal actions that result as a result of that, then, yes, now we`re in a different category.
Saying these things, peddling these lies by themselves, not likely very much to draw very much interest from the DOJ. But it depends on where they go. It`s really important that people understand, don`t get it confused.
Regardless of whatever you may have thought, when Merrick Garland took the stage today, he let people know, I`m not a short-order cook. I`m an executive chef, and you`re going to get this meal when this when this meal is ready.
And that`s what he let people know. But he did it in the interest of the attorneys and the investigators at the FBI who have done such a good job of moving forward and doing things meticulously and strategically and methodically. And it`s important for people to understand, Merrick Garland is a former federal judge.
He has what you call judicial temperament. He knows how to do these things by the book. So you best believe that, when he is executing these search warrants, when he is moving forward to sign a search warrant, in terms of it being presented in front of a judge, he has crossed every T and dotted every I.
So this really was about the protection of his own staff from this narrative that has become perverted and twisted by the right, from those who would seek to make this a political thing, because trust and believe that this man has already done everything that has been necessary in order to make sure that the execution of this search warrant, starting with the subpoena and then moving forward, has all been completely by the book.
JOHNSON: Michael, one of the things that we know about the Trump Organization and Trump himself is that he`s obviously freaked out, and he`s like, oh, there`s -- there`s somebody who must have ratted me out. There`s somebody who must have given this information.
I want to play this sound from Mick Mulvaney today talking about what the possible these are and how the FBI could have known so specifically what was still at Trump`s Mar-a-Lago residence.
[19:30:08]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: How close do you think that person in Trump`s orbit would have had to be to know these details about where these documents were?
MICK MULVANEY, FORMER ACTING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: Really -- that`s a good question. Really close.
I didn`t even know there was a safe at Mar-a-Lago, and I was the chief of staff for 15 months. So this would be someone who was handling things on the day-to-day, who knew where documents were.
So it would be somebody very close inside the president. My guess is, there`s probably six or eight people who had that kind of information.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JOHNSON: And here`s the thing, Michael.
I`m sure that Donald Trump, who`s already a paranoid guy -- look, if he could line up all of his friends and family and do a Nino Brown and walk around with a baseball bat saying, which of you betrayed me, I`m sure he would.
(LAUGHTER)
JOHNSON: But the fact of the matter is, you have multiple people under investigation right now, many of whom have reason and incentive to possibly be the snitch.
In this kind of situation, do you think this is indicative of maybe just one person revealing, hey, that`s where the information is at Mar-a-Lago, or do you think this might have been confirmed by multiple sources before the FBI took an action this drastic?
STEELE: Yes, I`m kind of in the multiple sources camp because of the narrowness of the folks who are around Trump, and having spent some time with the man in the past, having a sense of how he operationalizes things.
It is a very -- it`s very close quarters. So, people talk in those circles and people here and they overhear. And it`s a matter of connecting those dots and relaying that information out and sort of painting the picture.
So I think for -- for a lot of different reasons, it`s probably not just one person who made the call, because, in one sense, that can be easily tracked and traced.
JOHNSON: Right.
STEELE: I think it`s how you -- how that person very carefully, by the -- either placed some information out on the street, knowing that it would work its way to that person, who would then place that information over there.
And that`s the thing about the Trump world. They`re all thieves and hoodlums.
JOHNSON: Right.
(LAUGHTER)
STEELE: They all rat each other out, because they know, at the end of the day, the guy at the top doesn`t give a rat`s patootie about them.
And that loyalty thing is one way. And so when you have got the feds coming after, you have got investigations in two states, you have got a commission on government -- on Capitol Hill coming at you, yes, everybody`s going to have something to say at some point.
JOHNSON: There`s a lot of people squealing in Trump world right now.
Jill Wine-Banks, Michael Steele and Charles Coleman, thank you all so much.
Still ahead: Five years after that infamous march in Charlottesville, right-wing threats and violence are only growing in America and now pose the greatest threat to American law enforcement, especially after Mar-a- Lago.
More on that next on THE REIDOUT.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:37:34]
JOHNSON: Today marks five years since our most recent and very public look at American right-wing racism and fascism, the night of August 11, 2017, when white supremacist descended on Charlottesville, Virginia, for an event they called Unite the Right.
A collection of neo-Nazis, right-wing militias and Ku Klux Klan members, they carry tiki torches and chanted "Jews will not replace but," marching across the University of Virginia campus, my alma mater.
The next day, right-wing extremists violently clashed with counterprotesters. A young woman named Heather Heyer was murdered when a white nationalist plowed his car into a crowd. That open display of right- wing fury was an early sign of a violent rage that`s metastasized.
Now, with the former president`s supporters looking for someone to blame for the search of his Florida compound, the threat of right-wing violence has burst into the open once again. This week, a top comment on the pro- Trump site TheDonald simply said, "Lock and load," while users agitated for civil war.
Much of that anger is trained at the FBI and the judge who authorized the search at Mar-a-Lago. VICE reports that right-wing extremists have targeted that judge with antisemitic attacks and the sharing of personal information.
Republican politicians also spread lies and misinformation about the FBI agents who conducted the search, like Steve Scalise, the number two Republican in the House.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. STEVE SCALISE (R-LA): We`re very strong supporters of law enforcement. And it concerns everybody if you see some agents go rogue, and if you see an agency that doesn`t have the right checks and balances at the top.
This is coming from the top. This isn`t the rank and...
STEVE DOOCY, FOX NEWS: Steve, who went rogue? Who went rogue? They were following a search warrant.
SCALISE: We want to find that out. We want to find that out.
And that`s why we`re asking these questions.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JOHNSON: Today, Attorney General Merrick Garland defended the FBI against those attacks, as the armed suspect who tried to breach the Cincinnati field office was engaged in a standoff with police.
NBC`s Ben Collins reports the suspect, identified is Ricky Shiffer, appeared to post online in recent days a desire to kill FBI agents after the former president`s compound was searched.
NBC News has learned Shiffer was at the Capitol on January 6. The motive in today`s incident remains officially under investigation.
Joining me now is Congressman Eric Swalwell of California, a member of the House Judiciary, Intelligence and Homeland Security committees.
[19:40:06]
Congressman Swalwell, it`s always good to have you on.
One of the things that you have always been very candid about and that I have always appreciated is, you have talked about the tension that didn`t just start outside of Congress, but occurs inside of Congress now, because you have fellow members who are encouraging this kind of violence, who run campaign ads with this kind of violence, who basically say every single day, hey, I would kill my colleagues if I could.
From your perspective, when days like this happen, when you have a would-be terrorist attack the FBI office in Cincinnati, after having just been in a tweet conversation with Marjorie Taylor Greene, how does it feel going back to work? How are you going to feel the next time you go back to work in Congress, knowing that you have colleagues who encourage violent terrorism?
REP. ERIC SWALWELL (D-CA): It`s sick, Jason.
It`s sickening, where we have arrived. We used to say, well, somebody is going to get killed. Well, people died on January 6. And, today, what was just most intolerable is that, for the last 48 hours, since the FBI search of Donald Trump`s home, you can draw a direct line from what Kevin McCarthy, what Steve Scalise, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lindsey Graham have all said and their threats against law enforcement or the lies that they have told about law enforcement and what this individual has posted online, before he took up arms against the FBI.
JOHNSON: Right.
SWALWELL: And it`s a little personal for me because I have two brothers who walk the beat as law enforcement officers.
And we know that law enforcement -- look, these guys, they`re not geniuses. They`re just targeting law enforcement. So you have a lot of people wearing the uniform who are sitting ducks right now. If someone who`s fired up and they`re being told by Kevin McCarthy that these folks are going rogue or that these folks are planting evidence, it`s not like they`re going to go look for an FBI agent.
They`re just going to go after any law enforcement officer they see. And so all law enforcement are at risk. And so this party, by the way, who has told us for so long that they back the blue and the Democrats want to defund the police, when you talk like this, it doesn`t sound like you`re pro-cop. It sounds like you`re pro-coup.
JOHNSON: Right.
Congressman, one of the things that also I have appreciated about you -- I follow you on Twitter -- I have tweeted back and forth -- is that you`re also very candid about how this violence affects you personally.
We appreciate the fact -- I`m going to play some sound that you have revealed from some of the calls that you get at your office. And I want your thoughts on the other side.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: First of all, I want to say, not me, but I hope someone cuts that mother (EXPLETIVE DELETED) throat from ear to ear. Cut his (EXPLETIVE DELETED) head off.
Swalwell is a worthless piece of (EXPLETIVE DELETED). Cut his wife`s head off. Cut his kids` heads off. I don`t give a (EXPLETIVE DELETED).
(END AUDIO CLIP)
JOHNSON: I get a lot of difficult e-mails and phone calls, but, Congressman, I have never, ever, as a black man on television, have never received a direct threat that violent.
First off, how are you? And, second, how common are these kinds of threats and attack? And do you have heightened security at your job in Congress after getting these kinds of messages?
SWALWELL: Doing everything I can protect my three little kids and my wife. And they shouldn`t have to live in fear because their husband or their father works in public service and has spoken out against the former president.
But I`m not going to stop speaking out.
JOHNSON: Right.
SWALWELL: And that`s why I post these messages, because if you think you`re going to intimidate me, you`re not. And if you think you`re going to intimidate my colleagues and the FBI and the Department of Justice, you`re not.
But I put those out there to show, one, we`re not going to be intimidated...
JOHNSON: Right.
SWALWELL: ... and two, that there is a correlation, when America`s leaders stoke these conspiracy theories, that these folks receive it as the gospel, and they think it`s their duty to take up arms.
And people have been killed. More people are going to get killed until the lies stop, starting with the big lie that Donald Trump`s spun after the election, and now the new lies about this FBI search.
So -- and, by the way, Jason, if you`re calling me and threatening to kill my family -- and, oftentimes, I get these calls around my position on gun safety legislation -- you have proven to me and the world why we need to be more scrutinizing about who can purchase a firearm.
JOHNSON: Right.
I want to ask this. President Biden sort of launched his campaign talking about how we need to recapture the soul of America. We can have policy discussions at any time, but, from a character standpoint, from a modeling standpoint, from a rhetorical and moral center standpoint, how good a job do you think he has been as a leader in sort of countering this sort of white nationalist violent insurgency in this country?
Do you think that the president has been a good sort of moral lodestone that we can focus on in this time?
[19:45:03]
SWALWELL: Yes.
And the best example I can give you is that, yesterday, I was at the White House as the president signed the PACT Act, which gives relief to veterans who were exposed to toxic burn pits, veterans like Beau Biden, the president`s son, who died from cancer.
JOHNSON: Right.
SWALWELL: And seated just to my left was a congressman from Pennsylvania who the day before was with Donald Trump at Bedminster to show solidarity with Donald Trump after the FBI search.
So, talk about uniting the country. I mean, this person is working with Donald Trump to try and defeat Joe Biden, and yet he`s at the White House, because Joe Biden has brought Republicans and Democrats together on an issue that we all care about.
And so, yes, through the bipartisan infrastructure bill, the bipartisan gun safety legislation, the bipartisan CHIPS Act to counter China, and the bipartisan PACT Act, he`s uniting the country as best he can. And
I think that`s why it was so important that he won in November 2020.
JOHNSON: Congressman Eric Swalwell, thank you so very much for talking to us this evening.
SWALWELL: My pleasure. Thanks, Jason.
JOHNSON: Still ahead, new reporting on those missing Secret Service text messages.
We will be right back on THE REIDOUT.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:50:56]
JOHNSON: We have got brand-new reporting on those missing Secret Service text messages that the January 6 Committee is still looking for.
According to "The Guardian," top career officials in the DHS Inspector General`s Office had prepared a memo for Congress back in April alerting them of the lost texts and consequent -- and the consequent obstruction by the Secret Service.
However, "The Guardian" reports that the inspector general, Trump appointee Joseph Cuffari, withheld that notification to Congress, possibly violating federal disclosure requirements. In July, Cuffari informed Congress that key Secret Service messages on or before January 6 were deleted. He failed to disclose to Congress that his office knew about the deleted e-mails since last December.
A spokesperson for the Secret Service claimed that this was all part of a long-planned system migration. The inspector general has opened a criminal investigation into the missing Secret Service texts. But some Democrats are dubious of the investigation, given the inspector general`s previous lack of transparency.
Joining me now is Hugo Lowell, congressional reporter for "The Guardian" and the winner of the Sandy Hume Memorial Award for Excellence in Political Journalism by the National Press Club.
Congratulations. That was just announced today.
Hugo, let`s just break this down.
First off, what actually is it that people are asking of Cuffari that he hasn`t done? What is it that he supposedly should have done before and should be doing now that he hasn`t done?
HUGO LOWELL, "THE GUARDIAN": Yes, so the Inspector General Act is actually very clear.
If there was an instance of obstruction or resistance, or even a significant delay of release of information to an inspector general, they are supposed to report that, whether to Congress or to another oversight body. And, in this instance, top career officials at the DHS and Office of Inspector General were having real difficulty trying to get the Secret Service to give up their text messages.
And so, in anticipation of putting this in a report to Congress, they kind of put this all in a memo, and they sent it off to the chief of staff to Cuffari. And then when they expected to see this in the report, it never arrived.
And when they went back and looked, they found that the memo had died when it reached the chief of staff to Cuffari. And so I think there`s a whole new set of evidence here to suggest that Cuffari and political appointees at the top of the Department of Homeland Security of the Inspector General Office potentially interfered with this notification.
JOHNSON: Hugo, if I just run through Cuffari`s resume, this guy was appointed by Trump in 2018.
He lied about having a Ph.D. in philosophy. He helped suppress information about family separation under the Trump administration. There are members of Congress that have been calling for him to be removed. Why does this guy even still have the job? Why would an administration investigating an attempted coup keep an inspector general from the president, the former president, who tried to initiate the coup?
LOWELL: Look, the only person who can remove Cuffari, if he wanted to, is President Biden.
And I think the reason why Biden hasn`t moved on this is partly because, on the campaign trail, he made this big promise about how he was going to keep the independence of inspectors general. And this goes back to the fact that Trump repeatedly removed inspectors general for political, partisan reasons.
Now, in this case, it seems to be potentially warranted because Cuffari is withholding things from Congress that he should be reporting. And this seems to be a performance issue, rather than a political issue.
But, ultimately, that`s a question for Joe Biden. And I don`t think anyone else can really answer to that.
JOHNSON: So, these text messages -- I want to make sure that we get to this clearly.
The text messages are important to the January 6 Committee why specifically? One, because are they primarily concerned about possible people who are working with the coup within the Secret Service? Are they simply trying to find out what almost happened to Mike Pence? Do they think it`s directly connected to other potential crimes?
What do you think is the key thing that the January 6 Committee wants to know from these missing text messages?
[19:55:00]
LOWELL: Yes, so, I spoke to a couple of sources on the committee.
And one of the things they`re really looking at is what the Secret Service was planning with respect to moving Trump and Pence on January 6?
Because we know, through Alex Jones and other far right activists, that they were going around saying Secret Service are telling us to lead a march to the Capitol. Now, if that really is true, that probably wouldn`t have been sanctioned by anyone other than Trump.
JOHNSON: Right.
LOWELL: And the Secret Service wouldn`t need to know that.
And so the question is, was this an actual thing? Was there any cooperation between these far right activists and the White House and potentially the Secret Service? And the January 6 Committee seems to think that, if there`s any way to get to the bottom of that, maybe the text messages cast a light on that potential cooperation.
And so I think they`re trying really hard now to see if they can reconstruct those text messages. And Bennie Thompson, the committee chair, has spoken to Secretary Mayorkas now at least twice, I`m told, to try and facilitate the transfer of records.
JOHNSON: Hugo Lowell, thank you so much for that report. We`re going to be following up on this story very quickly.
We will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
JOHNSON: That`s tonight`s REIDOUT.
Stay with MSNBC throughout the night for the latest on a day of major developments in the FBI search of Donald Trump`s home.
"ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES" starts right now.