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

Transcript: All In with Chris Hayes, 2/2/21

Guest: Jed Shugerman, Jill Wine Banks, Sheldon Whitehouse, Anthony Fauci, A.C. Thompson

Summary:

The House Impeachment Managers unveil the argument to convict former President Trump. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) is interviewed on President Trump`s legal brief. COVID vaccines are showing success in curbing symptoms and preventing death. ICE is resisting against President Biden`s reversing of Trump`s immigration policies.

Transcript:

JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: And that is tonight`s REIDOUT. Now, go get you some dessert and watch Chris Hayes because he`s coming up next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voice over): Tonight on ALL IN. Donald Trump`s summon the mob and aimed them like a loaded cannon at the Capitol. House Democrats unveil new details and their argument to convict Trump.

Tonight, what democrats are alleging, the Trump response, and how anyone who was paying attention should have seen this coming.

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): We knew in advance that violence was planned. We knew that that violence needed someone to tell the lie.

HAYES: Then Dr. Anthony Fauci on what may be exciting new vaccine news and the race against new variants.

And as the President takes steps to reunite families separated by the Trump administration, why one congressman says ICE has gone rogue in deporting one of his constituents, when ALL IN starts right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES (on camera): Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes. Tonight, Congress has taken a big step forward in holding accountable those responsible for the January 6th attack on the Capitol. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi just announced her intent to set up an official investigation into the events of that day. Writing in a letter to the Democratic caucus "It is clear that we need to establish a 9/11 type commission to examine and report upon the facts, causes, and security relating to the terrorist mob attack on January 6th."

Today, the Senate received the first legal filings for the first-ever second impeachment of a president of the United States. The House impeachment managers released this 80-page trial memo outlining their case against the former president for inciting insurrection. They are thorough and clear in their description of what he did and why he deserves to be convicted in the Senate. Writing that "The nation will remember January 6, 2021, and President Trump`s singular responsibility for that tragedy. It is impossible to imagine the events of January 6th occurring without President Trump creating a powder keg, striking a match, and then seeking personal advantage from the ensuing havoc."

Impeachment managers layout in stark terms the effect that Trump`s words and actions had in the lead up to that crucial date. He spent the weeks preceding his rally doing everything in his power to persuade attendees that their votes in the election itself were going to be stolen away in the joint session of Congress. That is unless they somehow stopped it by making plans to fight like hell and fight to the death against this act of war by radical left Democrats and the weak and ineffective RINO section of the Republican Party.

At this point, it was clear that President Trump was comfortable urging, approving and even celebrating violence. Answering to the President`s call to mobilize, thousands arrived in Washington for the purpose, aggressively championed by the president of not -- of doing anything necessary to stop the joint session of Congress from finalizing the election results.

They describe how that mobilization of the President`s supporters happened in plain sight online. It was widely discussed on Web sites such as TheDonald.win that as confirmed by a former White House staff member, were closely monitored by the President Trump`s social media operation. These sites posted hundreds of posts about plans for the attack on the Capitol with detailed discussions of weaponry, directions to find the tunnels, and arrest the worst traitors.

At TheDonald.win, one poster stated, "If Congress illegally certifies Biden, Trump would have absolutely no choice but to demand us to storm the Congress and kill/beat them up for it." And then, when the day arrived, the former president took the stage to directly incite the crowd. The words he said they`re like, if we don`t fight like hell, you`re not going to have a country anymore. For inviting them explicitly to go to the Capitol are pretty squarely within the definition of incitement.

The impeachment managers explain, those who had come to the rally looking for a signal from their president found it in his remarks. Rather than quell the crowd, urge peaceful demonstration, or promise to carry on the fight over the years to come, the overwhelming thrust of President Trump`s remarks delivered to an armed angry crowd widely known to be prepared for violence on his behalf was a militaristic demand that they must fight to stop what was occurring in the Capitol at that very moment.

The crowd, of course, went to the Capitol just as the President directed them to, invited them to, told them to, with weapons and gas masks and bulletproof vests and zip ties where they chanted hang Mike Pence and proudly proclaim that they were doing President Trump`s bidding. One told police officers he came as part of a group of patriots at the request of the president. In a live-stream video from inside the Capitol, another declared that our president wants us here. We wait and take quarters from our president.

The key point the impeachment managers are making here is that it is impossible, impossible to conceive of this event and the chain of events that led to it without Donald Trump behaving the way he did. It`s all him. He`s at the center of the thing. He is the but for cause for all of it. Donald Trump was the one who pushed the lie about election fraud. Donald Trump doesn`t want to use every tool in his disposal to try to overturn the election. Donald Trump is the one who kept lying to his supporters and urging them on.

Donald Trump is the one that convinced them to see January 6th as their last desperate chance. Donald Trump is the one who invited them to come to Washington D.C. Donald Trump told them it would be quite wild and then he whipped the crowd into a frenzy. At every stage, the impeachment managers argue President Trump`s responsibility for the events of January 6th is unmistakable.

Then, there`s the former president`s week, weird counter brief from his brand new legal team, just 14 pages long, starting with the signature characteristic of nearly all Trump official documents, a typo within the first few lines. It`s weird that keep doing that. The former president`s lawyers go on to make these tortured sounding arguments in this very strange, passive voice construction. Take a listen to this, OK.

"It is denied that the 45th President engage in insurrection or rebellion against United States." Some of their arguments are pretty much what we expected that the constitutional power of impeachment doesn`t apply to the 45th President United States since he is no longer president, and that articles of impeachment violates the 45th President`s right to free speech.

But when it comes to the crux of the issue, right, that the President, the former president pushed this big lie, and you saw it in word and in deed in public and in private to overturn a democratic election, the best his lawyers can muster is this incredible statement for the agent. Listen to this. Insufficient evidence exists upon which a reasonable jurists could conclude that the 45th President`s statements were accurate or not, and he, therefore, denies they were false."

I want to bring in two people well versed in the legal arguments of public accountability. Jill Wine banks, a former assistant Watergate special prosecutor, also served as general counsel in the army. And Jed Shugerman, a professor at Fordham Law School, author of The People`s Courts.

Jed, maybe I`ll start with you because you`ve been writing specifically about this. There`s lots of weird circumlocutions you encounter in the law. And I kept thinking that I was missing something, that this was a way that the people wrote briefs. It`s a bizarre document, the defense the president, and particularly on this specific factual claim which talks around about 720 degrees and never actually comes down on.

JED SHUGERMAN, PROFESSOR, FORDHAM LAW SCHOOL: So, it is -- it seems more like a draft of a brief or an outline of a brief. It`s written in a very strange way in terms of -- you know, I encourage people to look at these two documents. One is a lot of facts and law, and the other one is the president -- President Trump`s brief has a lot of assertions and it is very circumlocutious. And it doesn`t really have a lot of facts to refute.

So, it does -- so let me I think identify one of the key arguments in the House brief that does not get addressed at all in the president brief at all. It is the -- I think a key point is the dereliction of duty. So, it is very challenging to establish incitement as a matter of law without having the risk of the backlash, right. This backfires if we suddenly criminalize speech.

So, the key difference here are two things. One, this is not a criminal trial, right. This is a civil proceeding under impeachment. But I think it`s also a different burden of proof. It`s not beyond a reasonable doubt. I think that the key question is, what did President Trump do after a riot was breaking out? And this is where I think the House brief is strong, is that it lays out that dereliction of duty. And the President`s team, President Trump`s team offers no response to those facts.

HAYES: It`s such a good point. And one of the most -- Jill, one of the worst parts of his actions on that day are the reporting we have and some of the facts presented in the impeachment managers brief that while it`s happening on TV and we`re all watching it, everyone`s freaking out, and people are calling the White House, he`s doing nothing. He`s not taking steps. He is derelict in his duty.

And they also make this point about the sort of First Amendment protections. The Supreme Court has made clear the First Amendment does not shield public officials who occupy sensitive policymaking positions from adverse actions when they`re speaking undermines important government interest. And in this case, that seems clearly applicable.

JILL WINE-BANKS, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: It definitely does. This is a case where the proximate cause of what happened was his remarks on the mall and his instructions to march to the Capitol. But it`s preceded by a meeting on January 5th that we need more evidence about, but which seems very, very damning to him, and by funding of the rally organizers that we also need more information about. And by months of lies about fraud in the election, both before the election happened, he said it`s going to be rigged, and then afterwards, he said it was stolen from me.

So, he set the stage for what could only be determined to be violence to take back the government that he said had been stolen from his control. And that makes him guilty. And no matter what your definition of First Amendment rights are, it doesn`t include an ability to say go and attack the Capitol, fight like hell.

They do address that one fact, but they claim that he was saying you have to fight for election security.

HAYES: Yes.

BANKS: That is such a stretch that it is ridiculous. Jim Neal from the Watergate case, he was the senior lawyer on the trial, used to say it`s like trying to stuff 50 pounds of garbage into a five-pound bag. And that`s what this is. There is no excuse for this.

HAYES: The point -- this sort of constitutional question, it`s very clear to me that Republicans would like to just wriggle out of this on process grounds, if at all possible. They don`t want to deal with it. They can`t even tell you what happened in January 6th,, That`s over. It was whatever happened.

So, Jed, this -- the point about the former officials, I thought this citation was interesting. And I`ve seen a bunch of people say this, that when the Founders were drafting this, that in England, where there was an impeachment process, the parliament impeached only two men during 18 century, both former officers. That it was just clearly understood at the time that impeachment extended for former officers. And of course, it`s happened here in the U.S. as well.

SHUGERMAN: So, let me say two things about this. First is that that this is a very important point that in the Federalist Papers, Hamilton says we are drawing this impeachment practice from England. And again, only two impeachments in the 18th century. One was a former official for bribery and 1725, the other happened during the summer of 1787 while they refer to it, and that was Warren Hastings, the governor of India. And that`s part of the background.

And I -- the House brief cites a piece I wrote called an Originalist Case for Impeaching Ex-Presidents, citing the debates from July from this very same time. I am concerned though that there -- it`s not just process, there is a stretch of the word incitement that I hope the trial will be more precise and careful about.

HAYES: Yes. Incitement is a hard one in any court. And in some ways here, it`s only part of a larger seditious conspiracy, but that is the charge as presented. Jill Wine-Banks who co-host the podcast Sisters in Law, Jed Shugerman, thank you both.

I want to bring in one of the impeachment jurors who also witnessed the events Donald Trump was been impeached over, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island. Let me start with this. How much mental space is this trial occupying a U.S. Senate that is as busy as it has been in a very long time?

SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE (D-RI): I don`t think a great deal. Once the presentations are made, they will obviously have our full attention and they should. But I think that some of us feel going into this a little bit like we did going into the previous impeachment that a lot of the Republicans have already made up their mind, that they made a political decision about how this is going to turn out. And that the evidence and the presentation by the House managers is not going to change their point of view.

So, we`ll have to see. I think there`s curiosity about how this plays out, given that this was personal for so many of us and such a humiliation for our country to have its capitol ransack this way. But I think the real effort will begin when the trial begins.

HAYES: In terms of the trial, I mean, this was not -- you know, we do not have a complete factual record. I mean, as I sit here talking to you, Senator, a Capitol Police officer, Officer Sicknick who will lie in honor tonight in the Capitol, lost his life. And you and I both, unless I`m missing something, have no idea how he died, at whose hands, in what context, what happened, who the perpetrators might be, whether there`s, you know, a search for them, whether they`ve been identified and videotaped.

I mean, that`s just one of the many, many factual holes in the question of what happened that day. And I wonder how much you want to learn about that, think the trial was a venue for that or the commission that the speaker talked about today.

WHITEHOUSE: Well, you know, it`s the old mapmakers dilemma of how much detail do you want to get into on each little segment of the coast, you can end up never finishing your map as you dive down into the detail. Here, the question is a very broad one. Did the president of the United States acquit his constitutional responsibilities when he sent a mob, an inflamed mob, up to the Capitol, for the purpose of their disrupting the orderly counting of the electoral votes, a direct assault led by the head of the executive branch against an ongoing operation within the legislative branch of government.

And then once he knew it was underway, failing to take any steps for a very long period of time to stop it. And indeed, according to testimony from the White House -- information from the White House, I should say, actually delighting in the prospect that he created this tumult and this turmoil.

So, that`s a pretty simple question. Was he acting the way a president of the United States should act or was he violating separation of powers, inciting a riot, and failing to discharge his duties to protect and defend the Constitution? You don`t have to know who hit Officer Sicknick in the head with the fire extinguisher to know that Donald Trump failed at those duties.

HAYES: Yes. Your understanding of the constitutional responsibility here, it`s a point well taken. My journalistic instinct which is to know as much as we can about this, which is still striking to me that we don`t. The point about responsibility you make. I just -- I guess the final question here is you said that most of your colleagues have probably made up their mind or made a political decision to have made up their mind. I do wonder how much the personal experience of it matters.

WHITEHOUSE: We`ll see. We`ll see. I think that the House, if it`s opening pleading is any indication, it`s going to put on a strong case and it`s going to bring back memories. And it`s going to make people, I think, perhaps give a fresh thought to the politically comfortable position that they may be in. So, I wouldn`t rule it out at this point. A lot of my colleagues are honorable people. I just think they`re in a political pickle on this one.

And by the way, the things that you point out, we should figure that out. We should know a lot about all of this through the FBI investigation. We should know a lot about the role of our colleagues through House and Senate investigations. So, I`m with you on making sure that at the end of the day, we have a full understanding of the criminal activity that took place on January 6th.

HAYES: Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, thank you so much, sir.

WHITEHOUSE: Thank you.

HAYES: Coming up, Dr. Anthony Fauci on the race to vaccinate the country and the ongoing risks from the virus as it mutates. Dr. Fauci joins me live next. Don`t go anywhere.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: We`ve seen some encouraging trends of late when it comes to the virus. COVID cases and hospitalizations have fallen. In most states, they`re falling nationally in the past few days. So, that`s good. We appear to be on the other side of that latest third wave which was by far the worst. Also, vaccine news continues to be a bright spot.

Today Russia`s two-shot vaccine was shown to be highly effective in providing strong protection against COVID according to peer-reviewed findings published in The Lancet Medical Journal. So, there`s another vaccine on the case globally. And the New York Times reports, get this, out of the roughly 75,000 people who have received one of the five vaccines in a research trial, not a single person has died from COVID, and only a few people appear to have been hospitalized. All undeniably good news.

But I`ve reported on good news before here, and it`s followed by bad news always. So, we are very much not yet in the clear. Joining me now is Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Great to have you back on, Dr. Fauci. Let`s, let`s talk about vaccine efficacy. We`ve talked a lot about the national picture here. But Sputnik is a reminder that the whole world is fighting this. Does it matter to Americans that other places get vaccinated and get vaccination programs up?

ANTHONY FAUCI, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES: Oh, absolutely. That`s why it`s really very good news about the success of the Russian trial which showed more than a 90 percent efficacy. That`s exactly what you want. You want to get the virus suppressed throughout the world. Because when you`re dealing with a pandemic, if there`s a good degree of infection and spread in any part of the world, it`s always a threat to where you are.

So, if you really want to crush a pandemic, it`s got to be a global effort. I mean, it`s obviously very important to be successful. And as you showed the curve, Chris, of the infections going down, hopefully, we`ll continue that downward trend. And hopefully, as we get more and more people vaccinated, the level of infection in our own country will get lower and lower until it really is not a threat.

But if we do that in a vacuum, without the rest of the world also suppressing the virus, it will be a continual threat hanging over us. So, it`s very important that the rest of the world get vaccinated. That`s why I was very pleased to see the result of the Russian study.

HAYES: Another vaccine that is being used internationally but not in the U.S. as of yet is the AstraZeneca vaccine. That was a joint project with Oxford. There were some problems with the trial. But ultimately, it did get approval in the U.K. It is actually being administered in the U.K.

And I`ve seen some people, you know, respectable folks, folks in the field, wondering if the U.S. is waiting too long on AstraZeneca. If the FDA schedule is too lax, if we should be pushing to get that out into the hands of Americans, even though as you see there, three countries are not recommending it for seniors.

FAUCI: Well, that`s right. You know, there is a little bit of a controversy about that. I think for the most part, the news is reasonably good. But we have a trial going on right now in our own country that we would like to see the data of that phase three trial which is solid, well organized trial, so that we can make the proper decision about the safety and the efficacy and what place it will have among other vaccines.

I mean, the good news is, Chris, that in addition to Moderna, and Pfizer, we have the J&J, the (INAUDIBLE) one with a trial came out and showed a good degree of efficacy particularly in advanced disease. We have Novavax which is another vaccine platform, which is a soluble protein that we`re looking upon favorably, and hopefully, we`ll get some good data there.

So, there are a lot of -- there are a lot of vaccines in the mix here right now. And I believe the process that we`re going through is the proper process to get the good scientific data to make good public health decisions.

HAYES: It`s possible that you have lost audio for me, so I`m just -- I`m just saying that in case you`re blinking at me uncomprehending. You have. Let`s do this. Let`s take a quick break. We`ll be back with Dr. Anthony -- we have him back. Thank you, Control Room. Dr. Fauci, you got me there?

FAUCI: I got you. I can hear you now.

HAYES: OK, good. So, you talked about the sort of -- we have a number of vaccines, right. So, there`s a number that have been -- have these emergency use authorizations, there`s others coming up. So, the way that I`ve been thinking about vaccines, and maybe we can just talk through this, right, is it to get a person vaccinated, it`s like three cherries on a on - - a on a slot machine.

You need to have the vaccine supply, right? Someone has got to make the thing. Then, it`s got to be delivered to someone who`s got a syringe. And then there`s got to be another person with an arm who wants it, right? So, we got to get -- we got to supply the vaccine, we got to deliver the vaccine, we need demand for the vaccine.

FAUCI: Right.

HAYES: What is the obstacle now to American scale? What is the limiting condition on how many people we can vaccine right now of those three factors?

FAUCI: Yes. Well, there is a very minor component of some parts of the country in which it is inefficient getting it into the arms, and there`s some vaccine on the shelf. But overwhelmingly, if you look at the entire country, the supply does not at this point meet the demand.

HAYES: Right.

FAUCI: So, if you get on the phone with mayors and governors, the biggest complaint is we need more vaccine. Get us more vaccine. There are a couple of locations where they`re inefficient and getting it into people`s arms. But I can tell you, Chris. I`m on the phone a lot. I just got off the phone literally a few minutes ago with a mayor of a big city. And that was exactly what the person was saying. Get us more vaccine. We need more vaccine.

We will be doing better as we get into February and March and April. There will be an escalation of doses that are available not only from the Moderna and from the Pfizer, but also from the other companies, the one I mentioned, the J&J and the Janssen and the Novavax. We will be getting more. But right now, we need to get more vaccine in the hands of the administrators who are going to be administering the vaccine.

HAYES: And if that`s a supply issue, again, this is -- I guess, a somewhat naive question, but I`ve seen people -- there has been speculation and arguments about the degree to which say, intellectual property can be opened up so that say, other pharma companies could say produce more of the vaccine. And there`s others who argued, no, no, you don`t understand. The supply chain for mRNA vaccines is very difficult. You can`t just make this up. Like, how should I think about how this -- how big can the supply get? How quickly?

FAUCI: Right. You know, if one had done this months ago to get what we call the Defense Production Act to get other companies to be making a product that one company discovered. So, if you could say, OK, what I want you to do is I want this company and this company that has these facilities to make vaccine to start gearing up to make, let`s say, the mRNA vaccine. It would take a considerable amount of time to get them to be able to get the process in place to do it.

It`s not like making shoes or clothing. It`s a very difficult process. So, if today, you know, in the very beginning of February, we said what we`re going to do is we`re going to use the Defense Production Act to get other companies to make whatever vaccine. Take for an example empirically and mRNA vaccine. By the time you got that facility geared up to make it in a way that would be acceptable and approvable by the FDA, with all of the inspections and things that they would do. By that time, we already would have enough vaccine to vaccinate most of the country. So, it`s a reasonable idea, but for now it`s a little bit too late for that.

HAYES: So, I`ve -- we`ve watched this horrible third wave that we`ve had. It`s been the deadliest. It`s been the most brutal in this country. We`ve acclimated to 4,000 deaths a day. I know multiple people through networks of people who`ve lost family members or have hospitalized family members, it`s been a brutal winter. We`re on the down part of that slope.

The big question to me is, is that the just the dynamics of the kind of thermostatic public response where we`ve seen this a few times or people start to get a little scared, they pull back, maybe they do a little more social distancing, antibodies build up in a community because it ravaged through a place, people go indoors, and then people come back out. And I guess the big question is, like, how confident are you that we`re not going to get a fourth wave? What has to happen for that to happen?

FAUCI: Right. OK, what -- Chris, you raise a very good point. When you have the surge, you have to figure out what triggered the surge. The big surge that we`ve been through right now that has been so devastating was a combination of a bunch of things. The cold weather would force people indoors. The post-holiday gatherings, Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year`s, we knew we were going to see that kind of surge all of those things together. One may be more than the other, but that led to that.

You can`t keep going up like that indefinitely. That`s the reason why you have the plateau. That could be due to a number of reasons. The susceptibles, the one who are most susceptible is have already gotten infected. People get a bit frightened by it, so they double down a bit on public health measures.

I don`t think enough people in any given location have been infected enough to say herd immunity has come in. I don`t think we`re there yet. So, you`re asking me a question. How confident am I that we`re not going to have yet again another surge? I think if we double down uniformly and consistently with the public health measures, at the same time as we phase in increasing numbers of people getting vaccinated, we shouldn`t see that.

One of the wildcards, Chris, that we have to keep an eye on are the mutations, the mutants that are out there. Because if they become dominant, that then could lead to another surge. But the best way to prevent them from becoming dominant, is double down on public health measures, all the things I spoken about with you, masking distance, avoiding congregate settings, etcetera. At the same time, as with the supplies that we have, we vaccinate as many people as we possibly can.

If we do that, and I underlined the if, we should then continue to see the downward trend. But we`ve got to keep our eye out on the mutants because if they become dominant, they could be a problem.

HAYES: Yes. That is -- that is the big fear. Also, for folks coming up this weekend, I like many Americans like to congregate with others to watch the big football game. Don`t do that. Don`t do that. Dr. Anthony Fauci, thank you so much for making time tonight. I appreciate it.

FAUCI: Good to be with you, Chris. Thank you for having me.

HAYES: Still ahead, the rogue agency ignoring the orders of the new president and filing their own deportation policy. That`s next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: This morning, in the early hours, the United States deported a man named Paul Pierrilus to Haiti, except here`s the thing. Pierrilus is not a Haitian citizen. He does not have a Haitian passport, and in fact, had never been to Haiti before. For an odd accident of birth, Pierrilus is stateless essentially. He was born in a French territory to Haitian parents but was not eligible for automatic citizenship from either country. He has instead lived in these this country, United States, since childhood, and he had a work permit.

Now, the Trump administration tried to deport him before and was stopped last minute just in January after an intervention from the office of new Congressman Mondaire Jones and a group called Haitian Bridge Alliance. The congressman staff was told by Pierrilus that he expected to be transferred to detention center in his home state of New York. But instead, something very different happened.

According to Congressman Jones at 3:00 a.m., my staff woke up to an urgent call. Suddenly, and in the dead of the night, ICE was set to deport Rockland County`s beloved Paul Pierrilus to Haiti, a country where he has never been, and there was nothing we could do to stop it.

Now, ICE did not return a request for comment by the time we were on air tonight. Pierrilus is now Haiti for the first time in his life. This happened despite President Biden`s deportation moratorium for most categories of immigrants. Now, even though a federal judge in Texas blocked that order, the thing about it is there`s no legal requirement to start scheduling deportations again. But that didn`t seem to matter to ICE.

As Congressman Mondaire. Jones noted today, "ICE is a rogue agency. With the help of right-wing operatives in the federal bench, ICE is choosing to ignore the President`s deportation moratorium. And this is not a one-time thing. It didn`t just happen once. I mean, we see news reports that in recent days, ICE has deported immigrants to at least three countries, 15 people to Jamaica on Thursday, 269 people to Guatemala and Honduras on Friday.

Now, this kind of freelancing, one would think, would hopefully stop immediately now that Alejandro Mayorkas is the new Secretary of Homeland Security. sworn in just a few hours ago. It is now Mayorkas` job to not just restrain an agency that`s been acting with very few restraints, but reimagine an agency that was too often the tip of the spear for MAGAism.

Coming up, a call for accountability as AOC recounts her terrifying experience at the Capitol and the big flashing warning signs that violence was expected on January 6th. That`s next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: Nearly a month after the assaults in the Capitol, the people who attack the building and American democracy are still being identified and apprehended. Remember this guy in the fur line hat who we saw using a helmet to smash a window to the speaker`s lobby. There were members of Congress on the other side of that door. He`s now facing federal charges after a family member tipped off the FBI.

And then, do you remember the lady with the pink hat and bullhorn who is telling rioters where to go? It turns out she is Rachel Powell, a 40-year- old mother of eight from Western Pennsylvania who is apparently still on the lam but did give a two-hour telephone interviews in New Yorker from an undisclosed location.

As they experience actual consequences for their actions, many of these would-be revolutionaries are blaming Donald Trump. The history of this violent plot does not start with Trump`s speech that day or even his election lost. Donald Trump and the Republican Party have been cultivating this wing of the party for a very long time.

While Mitch McConnell now says Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene`s loony lies are a cancer on the GOP, it`s a bit late for that. Two years ago, Margaret Taylor Greene was just another right-wing conservative activist who is urging the kind of action that sounds a heck of a lot like what we saw on the Capitol.

In a video posted before she announced she was running for congress, Greene called on supporters to flood the Capitol building in a protest against tyrannical leaders, telling them that Democratic lawmakers should fear us and that we should feel like we will use violence if we have to. Last night in a raw and candid Instagram live video, Democratic Congressman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez talked about what it was like to be on the receiving end of that exact type of strategy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OCASIO-CORTEZ: A week before, one week before, the week prior to the insurrection, I started to get text messages that I needed to be careful, and that in particular, I needed to be careful about the sixth. And those text messages came from other members of Congress. They were not threats, but they were other members saying that they knew and that they were hearing even from Trump people and Republicans that they knew in their life that there was violence expected on Wednesday.

Anyone who tells you that we couldn`t have seen this coming is lying to you. Anyone who`s gone on the record and said that there was no indication of violence has lied. There were so many indications of this leading up to that moment. They were there on Monday.

There is a grocery store on my block. And I remember going to the grocery store that night, and seeing all these people in like these MAGA hats, and it felt like tense in the grocery store. And I guess this is just like, you know, whether you`re from the Bronx or New York City or Queens or Brooklyn or wherever, whether you`re from Chicago, whether you`re just -- I don`t know, you also just have your wits about you in a rural area, you just can catch a vibe and you can kind of know, a general sense of when things aren`t right. And things started to feel not right when I was in that grocery store that Monday night.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Two days after she was in that grocery store on Washington D.C. by where she has an apartment during -- when she`s in session. As rioters charge the Capitol, Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez recounted the terror she felt as she ran through the Capitol banging on office doors before finding shelter with Congresswoman Katie Porter.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OCASIO-CORTEZ: And so, we go into her office. And I`m at like a 10, right. Like, I am at a full 10 fighter flight. I thought I was going to die like 10 minutes ago. Then, I thought I was going to die again because I have to tell you outside in this hallway alone, I`m banging on this door. And I`m thinking -- and I`m fully expecting one of these insurrectionists to turn the corner with a gun, and that it would be over again.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: People are dead because of that attack. Many more have their lives changed forever. And there needs to be a reckoning with that moment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OCASIO-CORTEZ: Many of the people who helped perpetrate and who take responsibility for what happened in the capital are trying to tell us all to move on. And they`re trying to tell us to forget about what happened. They`re trying to tell us that it wasn`t a big deal.

We cannot move on without accountability. We cannot heal without accountability. And so, all of these people who wants to tell us to move on are doing so at their own convenience.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: And just under an hour, the remains of Officer Brian Sicknick, the Capitol Police officer killed during the January 6th attack will arrive to Capitol to lie in honor there until tomorrow morning. There`ll be full coverage of that in the next hour. But first, the push to hold those responsible for the violence accountable for that violence next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

OCASIO-CORTEZ: We knew that violence was expected on the sixth. We knew that that violence was predicated on someone telling the lie, the big lie about our elections. We knew all of this in advance. And these senators, Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, knew that it was the lie. And they knew that these violent people needed the lie. And they chose because they thought it would be politically advantageous to them. They chose to tell the lie.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pointing out the clear responsibility of the politicians who cynically stoke the motivating lie for the insurrectionist to storm the Capitol. A short time ago, she again called for Cruz to resign for having "Deliberately and knowingly amplified specific lies fueling violent attackers."

For more on what inspired the mob, I`m joined by NBC News Investigative Reporter Brandy Zadrozny, and A.C. Thompson, a staff reporter of ProPublica, whose new stories on the so called Boogaloo Boys and their desire to overthrow the government.

A.C., let me start with you. Obviously, there have been radical extremists, you know, for a long time on the right-wing. We have the Militia Movement and Timothy McVeigh. I have noticed in the last few years just as a political reporter and in internet spaces in 2015 and 2016, this idea of political violence, of a second Civil War, of you lib, you come with your guns and you come for us and see who`s armed growing more and more mainstream and more common. What have you found in your reporting?

A.C. THOMPSON, REPORTER, PROPUBLICA: Yes, absolutely. I think that you see a whole spectrum of sort of far-right characters that goes from the Boogaloo Boys who generally identify as libertarians and are absolutely prepping for a new civil war or violent revolt, to outfits like the Proud Boys who are kind of ultra-nationalist street gang, to the QAnon conspiracy theorists, to the militia types like the Oathkeepers who were there at the Capitol. They`re all talking about civil war.

HAYES: And it`s also, Brandy, that it`s not just like -- all those groups are people that are their political identities kind of revolve around political violence. But the QAnon mythology is that in the end, a bunch -- thousands of people are executed as traitors. Like, it is fundamentally a violent fantasy that the people in that movement are engaged in.

BRANDY ZADROZNY, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, NBC NEWS: Yes. The QAnon community is often laughed at. But I always like to remind people it is underpinned by an extremely dangerous idea of modern blood libel that targeted -- that targets Jewish people. And it`s also that the basic idea of it is that there will be a storm, a judgment day, where there are perceived political enemies, Hollywood actors, people that have eaten pizza before are all sort of marched out and executed publicly.

It`s incredibly dangerous and it`s radicalized many, many Americans. We saw a large contingent of QAnon people at the rally on the sixth. And we`re learning from documents that are being unsealed in federal and local court cases now from the rally that a lot of these people were QAnon people.

HAYES: What do you think, A.C. is happening in terms of the rhetoric of political violence on the right, right now in the aftermath of January 6th?

THOMPSON: Yes. There`s kind of two interesting threads. And one is that you had a lot of groups that portrayed themselves as pro-law enforcement. They said, we back the blue. We`re for the cops. And they were reluctant to engage directly with law enforcement violently before January 6th. On January 6th, that changed. And they have sort of joined up with the other groups that were outwardly insurrectionist and we`re very pro armed revolt. And so I think you see these two threads converging.

HAYES: Brandy, the Marjorie Taylor Greene video that was -- that was discovered yesterday which is that when she`s just sort of a right-wing activist, right, I didn`t realize everything is sort of snapped into focus. This sort of ideation of storming the capitol, of people taking over the Capitol and their physical presence and the menace of the possibility of violence being a tool of influence which is explicitly stated in that video two years ago. I guess I didn`t realize that was a thing, that that was a concept that was sort of in the -- in this subculture.

ZADROZNY: That video was really on the nose even for this timeline. But yes, I mean, we have to remember this sort of like bubbling of violence from the radical right, which would definitely include someone like, you know, Alex Jones, like who is Marjorie Taylor Greene. It`s been bubbling. I mean, we all remember, like the journalist rope tree T-shirt that we saw at Trump rallies in 2016. We all remember sort of the violence that was just happening at Trump rallies.

I mean, you take a large group of people and you feed them disinformation, and you put them in online spaces, and this is what we get. I mean, we`ve been telling the story of the radicalization of Americans and their planning, organizing, radicalizing, and then jumping off the wires and into the streets all summer.

We told it with militias that were harassing and targeting Black Lives Matter Movement people, we told it with the Boogaloo Boys who were shooting police officers over the summer and planning a second Civil War. We`ve shown it with QAnon. We`ve been telling these stories all year. So, it wasn`t a surprise to me to see that video, although it was strangely fitting.

HAYES: A.C., there`s two ways I can imagine the January 6th reverberating. One is a propaganda victory for some of these groups, but others alienating. That there are some people who are kind of day trippers who are freaked out now by what happened there. And I wonder how you think this goes from here.

THOMPSON: My honest and worried prediction is that there will be an act of mass casualty terrorism over the next year, and that we need to be prepared for that. We shouldn`t be totally paranoid, but we need to be prepared. There are a lot of people who seek to do harm to this nation and it`s very easy in this country to get a gun or build a bomb.

HAYES: Yes, that`s very sobering. You guys are both doing incredible reporting. Brandy Zadrozny and A.C. Thompson, thank you both for being with me tonight. I really appreciate it.

That is ALL IN on this Tuesday night. "THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW" starts right now. Good evening, Rachel.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. END