Donald Trump is reportedly a subject of a DOJ investigation into the attempted coup on January 6. Cassidy Hutchinson is cooperating with the DOJ probe. An under-oath testimony from Chris Miller debunks a blatant lie about Donald Trump ordering to deploy thousands of National Guards that were pushed by Trump and Fox News. Former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson joins Hayes to discuss the Secret Service deleted text message scandal.

THOM HARTMANN, HOST, THE THOM HARTMANN PROGRAM: But you know, my kids are millennials, so I will speak to them, I suppose. But --

JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: My kids too.

HARTMANN: Yes, and they just -- you know, they have been relentless. It`s all about transferring wealth and power.

REID: That`s correct. Transferring wealth and power up, up, up, up. And Thom Hartmann, I have to have you back because we didn`t talk more about this because it underlines a lot of the extremism in our politics too, because they got to do more crazy in order to sell that to their base. Thom Hartmann, you`re brilliant. Thank you very much.

And that is tonight`s "REIDOUT". ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES, guess what, starts right now.

CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voiceover): Tonight on ALL IN.

MERRICK GARLAND, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: The Justice Department remains committed to holding all January 6 perpetrators at any level accountable under law.

HAYES: The twice-impeached ex-President becomes the subject of a criminal investigation. Tonight, Asha Rangappa and Chuck Rosenberg on what it takes to move from subject to target.

New reporting on who is talking to the grand jury, including Cassidy Hutchinson.

Jeh Johnson on the Secret Service scandal and why he says the case against the ex-president is already indictable.

Plus, a complete debunking of a Trump alibi from Trump TV.

And the new project from Heather McGhee that gives me genuine hope in these insane times when ALL IN starts right now.

HAYES (on camera): Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes. You know, all of a sudden, there is a lot happening in the Department of Justice investigation into the January 6 insurrection. In just the last few days, there have been a bunch of developments, some of which we`re going to get to in a moment. But before we do, it`s just we`re stepping back and looking at the bigger picture because I think the significance here is, well, large.

For seven years now, we have been covering Donald Trump and he`s basically always been enmeshed in controversy and scandal. He`s always been surrounded by investigations and also allegations of criminality, serious ones. That is how he has lived his entire life right on the edge of the law, both before entering politics and after.

And there has always been this perpetual sense that Trump manages to wriggle his way out of every jam, partly because I think he has an innate, cagey set of instincts of someone who has always skirted the rules, to walk as closely the line of criminality as possible while still retaining plausible deniability. Also because he`s a powerful, rich person with good lawyers.

Once he became president, there was of course, the Mueller investigation on the Trump campaigns coordination with Russia, and they`re sabotaging -- criminal sabotage of our election. There was also the Southern District in New York`s investigation into the potentially illegal hush money payments Trump allegedly paid to cover up extramarital affairs. That investigation resulted in Michael Cohen`s plea deal.

Former Manhattan district attorney Cy Vance had his own investigation into fraud by the Trump Organization which was then handed to the current Manhattan district attorney. That is all separate from the New York state investigation into fraud by the Trump organization led by State Attorney General Letitia James which remains very active. To say nothing of Trump`s first impeachment over his pressure campaign to get Ukraine to dig up dirt on the Biden`s which of course, ended with his acquittal in the Senate.

And the fact that many of those cases fizzled isn`t really a reflection of Trump`s actual behavior. Rather, it speaks to the ex-President`s ability to avoid accountability for himself, even as he often leaves a slew of cronies and yes men holding the bag. Crucially, that does not appear to be the case right now with January 6, at the very least, in the court of public opinion.

Now, there`s a few reasons for this. First is the seismic historic nature of just what he did, attempting a coup, using a violent mob to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power for the first time in this country since the firing of the cannons on Fort Sumter. That led to the first, second impeachment in U.S. history. And that moment, the coup, the impeachment, all of it, that will be the defining legacy of the Trump administration, of Donald Trump. His own Son recognized it on that day when he frantically is texting saying, his legacy is ruined. January 6 will be what school children read about Donald Trump in their history books.

But part of that also has to do with not just the nature of the offense, but the excellent work of the January 6 Committee because they had made a public case of Trump`s culpability, criminality on television again, and again and again. And on the one hand, their efforts are obviously an attempt to sway the court of public opinion, which is important, very important in this democracy of ours. But in a lot of other ways, they`re also speaking to an audience of one, Attorney General Merrick Garland. That is the man ultimately with the authority to criminally prosecute Trump for the attempted coup. And it`s clear that he is listening.

GARLAND: I think it is very important. It`s an important part of democracy that every American recognizes the truth of what happened January 6, and the time surrounding it. I think that this is an important part that we not downgrade or suppress how important that day was. And I think that the hearings did an extremely good job of reminding us and for people who didn`t know in the first place, telling us how important that day was and what a risk it meant for our democracy.

HAYES: Just since that interview, we have learned that Donald Trump is reportedly a subject of a DOJ investigation into the attempted coup. And it feels as though a lot of that investigation is following the lead of the January 6 committee. For instance, last week, Marc Short, chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence, testified before a grand jury in the investigation. Short also cooperated with the January 6 Committee, who previously played testimony where Short explained that Pence directly told Trump amid his pressure campaign, he could not go along with Trump`s attempted coup.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Was it your impression that the Vice President had directly conveyed his position on these issues to the President not just to the world through a Dear Colleague letter but directly to President Trump.

MARC SHORT, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: Many times.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And had been consistent in conveying his position to the President?

HAYES: The DOJ investigation has gone even further requesting testimony from some of the high-profile live committee witnesses, like a guy named Greg Jacob who served as legal counsel to Vice President Pence. Jacob, as you see there, also testified before the committee and before a grand jury in the DOJ investigation. And while we don`t know what he said, we do know what he told the committee about the Pence pressure campaign, as well as his conversations with John Eastman, the man behind the coup memo and his interactions with Pence during the insurrection as the two men hid while an armed mob stormed the building chanting among other things, hang Mike Pence.

REP. PETE AGUILAR (D-CA): While the Vice President made several calls to check on the safety of others, it was his own life there was in great danger. Mr. Jacob, did Donald Trump ever call the Vice President to check on his safety?

GREG JACOB, LEGAL COUNSEL TO VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: He did not.

AGUILAR: Mr. Jacob, how did Vice President Pence and Mrs. Pence react to that?

HAYES: With frustration. Yes, I think I got scammed. He`s probably a little frustrated by that situation. Now, just today, more news. ABC News reporting that Cassidy Hutchinson, of course, you know her from the hearings, right, the star witness of last month`s jaw-dropping surprise committee hearing is also cooperating with the Department of Justice in some capacity.

They reportedly reached out to her specifically in response to that testimony. I mean, the Department of Justice did. Hutchinson testified that Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows was warned of potential violence on the sixth, that there are White House discussions about the seditious gangs like the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys who have been charged with sedition. And the damning revelations that Trump knew the crowd was armed before he sent them to the Capitol and that he wanted to go with them.

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON, FORMER AIDE TO MARK MEADOWS: I was in the vicinity of a conversation where I overheard the President say something to the effect of, I don`t effing care that they have weapons. They`re not here to hurt me. Take the effing mags away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in. Take the effing mags away.

So, 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, we don`t have the assets to do it, it`s not secure, we`re going back to the West Wing, the President had 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: We do not know what any of these witnesses cooperation with the Department of Justice looks like, how that investigation will unfold. Again, it`s all behind this sort of black box, right? Intentionally as Merrick Garland said, you don`t do investigations in public. And it`s important that you don`t do them in public. We learned from James Comey just how destructive that can be.

That said, from what we can see outside of the black box, right, because things become public either through reporting or public filings, you know, when someone shows up at a grand jury, you know, you can take a picture of him. From all of that, well, it sure as heck seems like we`ve entered a new chapter of this investigation. Thanks in large part, it seems, to the work of the January 6 Committee.

Asha Rarngappa is an attorney and former FBI special agent as well as an editor at Just Security blog. And Chuck Rosenberg, former U.S. Attorney and a former Senior FBI Official. And they both join me now. It`s great to have you both on because you both have a lot of institutional knowledge here. And I have to say, again, we`re watching the sort of outside of this black box machine occasionally a little glimpses come into view trying to make sense of it.

And I just want to get your sense of how you understand the developments that we`ve gotten both in terms of public filings or appearances before the grand jury, and then also some reporting indicating that he is a subject of investigation. I`ll start with you, Asha, and then go to you, Chuck. Asha, what do you think?

ASHA RANGAPPA, FORMER FBI SPECIAL AGENT: Yes, Chris. So, what I`m looking at is, who are they talking to and are these people fruitful avenues of investigation to get to Trump`s personal criminal liability. And I think that this is where Short and Jacobs are both changing the game a little bit.

You know, all of those instances that you laid out, Chris, in the beginning, what has protected Trump is that he`s been able to maintain a cone of silence around him, partly by never having a paper trail, and partly by surrounding himself with loyalists who will never rat him out.

And what Marc Short and Greg Jacobs allow is for them to pierce that cone of silence from the vantage point of Mike Pence to get to what was being told in these personal conversations, this pressure campaign on Pence. And importantly, they are not loyal to Donald Trump. They are not one of these people that is going to lie on his behalf with the hopes of some pardon down the line if he becomes president again, or something.

And so, you know, they`re able to get to actual one-on-one conversations. And the pressure campaign on Pence is key because it gets to both the fake electoral plot, this whole conspiracy to defraud, and it gets to also the incitement plot because he tweets to his followers that Pence is on board knowing he isn`t, creating the powder keg that will later be used to send the mob to the Capitol. So, I think it`s a significant shift in where this investigation is headed.

CHUCK ROSENBERG, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. Look, I generally agree with Asha. I have a few things to add. I`m not surprised that the Department of Justice is looking at Mr. Trump`s conduct. I`d be surprised, Chris, if they weren`t. I mean, when you look at the pressure on Mike Pence, when you look at the frivolous litigation around the country, when you look at the call to insurrection, and when you look at the fake electoral scheme, all of that is designed to keep Mr. Trump in power, right?

I mean, he is the beneficiary of all of that stuff. And so, if you take Mr. Garland at his word, the Attorney General, and they`re doing a wide ranging investigation and no one`s above the law, and they`re going to hold people accountable at all levels, how could they not be looking at Mr. Trump`s conduct?

HAYES: So -- but here`s then the question, right? So, I want to -- Chuck, I`m going to follow up with you and then I`ll go to you, Asha. So, this is a line from NBC is reporting today along similar lines. This is a source -- the reporting sourced to an administration official, that there is an inquiry. But it says the inquiries related to the department`s broader probe of efforts to overturn the 2020 election results and not a criminal investigation of Trump himself.

There`s a little bit of a distinction here between whether someone is a subject to investigation or the target. And I wonder, Chuck, like, how much does that distinction matter? How much should we be thinking about that in this context?

ROSENBERG: Well, let me start with the definitions, Chris. A subject is somebody simply within the scope of a criminal investigation, meaning you haven`t decided yet whether that person is going to be a defendant one day, or maybe just merely a witness? A target is a putative defendant, someone likely to be charged. But these categories are not immutable. You can move from one to the other, and people often do.

And so early in an investigation, you`re more likely to have a number of subjects because you haven`t resolved their status fully yet. At the end of the investigation, you have your target to become defendants who often become convicted felons and incarcerated inmates. And so, it`s not immutable. It`s not surprising that he would be within the scope of the investigation. The department hasn`t called him a subject per se. But saying that you`re investigating someone`s conduct is similar to saying that there are subjects.

And so you can move. People often do. I wouldn`t be surprised to see a lot of movement here among different players, but we don`t know how the department categorizes them or how they think about them. We simply know at this point what they are looking at generally and that Mr. Trump is within the scope that investigation.

HAYES: Right. And Asha, you know, I was struck by this reporting. I mean, there`s a few other things that -- to sort of fill in here, right? You have John Eastman who has been -- you know, had his phones seized. There`s a search warrant. Jeffery Clark who, you know, had federal agents show up at his house, right? Like, those are people clearly who are targets of investigation. They`re not just like asking questions about you. Like, you have to show a judge probable cause in order to get to secure those warrants under the U.S. Constitution.

So, it does seem to me like those folks we know -- but then to go back to Chuck`s point, it`s like, who were they doing it on behalf of? There just no way to do any of this and avoid the dude at the top that`s not obvious beneficiary of the entire scheme.

RANGAPPA: Yes. I mean, I think the question is, how far can they go that really reaches into Trump. And that piece that Chuck mentioned about this being something that was for his personal benefit, look, I think that this is what makes this a very challenging case for Garland, right? This isn`t just, you know, some side hustle, you know, trafficking in stolen art while he was president, you know, that can investigated separately. This was his political strategy. It was about his own political survival. And in that way, it is similar to the obstruction of the Russia investigation, the concealment of the Stormy Daniels payment, the bribery, quid pro quo with Ukraine.

And so when you`re investigating a person`s political strategy, a future candidate, that creates the potential for your own investigation to be characterized as political. And I think that whatever Garland says, he has to be thinking about that and proceed very carefully. And on the other hand, it`s also -- those are the exact kinds of crimes you have to hold accountable, because there`ll be repeated by Trump or be a green light for future presidents.

HAYES: Yes, this point -- I mean, this was -- the Alan Dershowitz proration at the second -- the first impeachment was basically, look, he was pursuing his own reelection which he thinks is for the good of the country, ergo, logically by deduction, it was for the good of the country. It can`t be selfish, right? Like, it`s all politics. It`s all within the bounds of politics or it`s all within the bounds of constitutional speech is going to be one of the defenses here. I just think it doesn`t really amount to much in the end. Asha Rangappa and Chuck Rosenberg, thank you both.

Still ahead, given all we know, the evidence that we know, an aggressive federal prosecutor would regard this as a prosecutable indictable case. Those are not my words. They`re the words of former federal prosecutor, as well as Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson. I`ll talk to him about that and the growing scandal at the Secret Service next.

HAYES: So, one of the questions that has lingered in the year and a half since the violent attack on January 6 is why the Capitol Police were basically left alone to defend themselves and all the lawmakers inside the building, not to mention the seat of the U.S. government, how could it be there was no plan to support them ahead of a day that Donald Trump tease would be "wild." And why did it take so long for backup to arrive on the sixth when it was clear the Capitol Police were overwhelmed. We saw it on television. Where was the National Guard?

Well, beginning that very afternoon, the Trump White House attempted to tamp down those concerns with a big lie. Hours into the attack, Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany tweeted, at President Trump`s direction, the National Guard is on the way. Not true. Just a lie. Not true. Donald Trump never directed the National Guard to go to the Capitol. Maybe she was mistaken. But in the days before and on January 6, it didn`t happen. That did not stop Trump himself from then lying on January 7.

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I immediately deployed the National Guard and Federal law enforcement to secure the building and expel the intruders. America is and must always be a nation of law and order.

HAYES: We now know thanks to testimony the January 6 Committee, Donald Trump`s staff had to convince him to make that speech, the January 7th one in the first place. And when he finally agreed, practically the first thing out of his mouth was that lie, I deployed the National Guard. It had already been debunked. The New York Times reporting on the evening of January 6 that Trump "rebuffed and resisted request to mobilize the National Guard." And in the end, it was Vice President Mike Pence who approved the order to deploy.

That did not stop Trump and his allies and the staff from repeating a lie over and over again.

MARK MEADOWS, FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: Even in January that was given as many as 10,000 National Guard troops were told to be on the ready by the Secretary of Defense. That was a direct order from President Trump.

HAYES: A few weeks after that, Trump said it again in an interview on Fox News, this time trying to dump some of the blame on Nancy Pelosi.

TRUMP: I definitely gave the number of 10,000 National Guardsmen. And I think you should have 10,000 of the National Guard ready. They took that number, from what I understand, they gave it to the people at the Capitol which is controlled by Pelosi, and I heard they rejected it because they didn`t look good.

HAYES: Of course that new part also completely untrue, just fabricated, the whole cloth. Trump has continued to spread this lie even recently on his fake Twitter platform falsely claiming he recommended, offered thousands of troops and Pelosi refused them. He will not stop repeating this even now 18 months later. Then, of course, there`s the cable news echo chamber for Trump`s pseudo alibi.

SEAN HANNITY, HOST, FOX NEWS CHANNEL: Donald Trump authorized up to 20,000 National Guard soldiers to protect the Capitol.

Donald Trump authorized the use of 20,000 National Guard troops.

Donald Trump called up the National Guard two days prior.

Don`t forget President Trump requested increased National Guard support in the days leading up to the -- to January 6.

HAYES: Sean Hannity was still doing this as recently as last month. According to Media Matters, he pushed the lie hundreds of times and total, at least 43 episodes of his show, including when he asked Donald Trump`s Acting Secretary of Defense at the time, Chris Miller, and Chris Miller`s Chief of Staff Kash Patel, to confirm they heard Trump authorized the use of National Guard troops before the sixth.

KASH PATEL, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF: Mr. Trump unequivocally authorized up to 20,000 National Guardsmen and women for us to utilize should the second part of the law, the requests come in, but those requests never did as you highlighted.

HANNITY: Well, let me -- let me be very clear. Both of you said this under oath and the threat of a penalty of perjury to the committee.

CHRIS MILLER, FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Oh, absolutely, Sean.

HAYES: Chris Miller, absolutely, Sean. Now, there`s no law against lying to Fox News viewers, and if there was, there would not have a network. But there is a law against lying under oath. So, what story do you think Chris Miller, the guy who told Sean Hannity last month that Trump ordered the guard to be deployed before the sixth to be ready what he told the January 6 Committee? Well, the committee has released the tape. We`ll play it for you next.

PATEL: Mr. Trump unequivocally authorized up to 20,000 National Guardsmen and women for us to utilize should the second part of the law, the requests come in, but those requests never did as you highlighted.

HANNITY: Well, let me -- let me be very clear. Both of you said this under oath and the threat of a penalty of perjury to the committee.

CHRIS MILLER, FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Oh, absolutely, Sean.

HAYES: Under threat of oath, perjury. Absolutely, Sean, unequivocally. Not a lot of wiggle room in those statements. Since January 6, Donald Trump and his allies like Kash Patel, who apparently wears a custom Kash Patel lapel pin with dollar sign on it, have repeated this utter lie over and over that the ex-President authorized the National Guard to defend the Capitol from the mob in the days leading to it, and then he ordered them to go in.

Well, now, the January 6 Committee has released definitive proof debunking it. This is testimony under oath from one of the very men you just heard spreading the lie with Sean Hannity on Fox News last month, Donald Trump`s Acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So, I want to be clear here that since then, in February 2021, Mark Meadows said on Fox News -- Fox News that "even in January, that was a given as many as 10,000 National Guard troops were told to be on the ready by the Secretary of Defense. Is there any accuracy to that statement?

MILLER: I`m not -- not from my perspective. I was never given any direction or order of any plans of that nature. So, I was surprised by -- seeing that publicly. But I don`t know the context of, you know, where it was. No, there was -- we obviously have plans for activating more boats, but that was not anything more than contingency planning. There was no official message traffic or anything of that nature.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So, just so we`re clear, you did not have 10,000 troops "to be on the ready for January 6 -- prior to January 6?" A nonmilitary person probably could have some sort of weird interpretation. But no, to answer your question, that was not part of my plan or the Department of Defense`s plan.

HAYES: Lies, just lies. They just lie. Joining me now Elie Mystal, Justice Correspondent for The Nation where he covers politics and the courts and also lies. Elie, I -- would I -- this is just a small one little nugget, right? It`s just like one thing, but it`s just very rare that you get -- you sort of get them to say the truth. And what to me, this sort of speaks to in some ways is the power of subpoenas, the power of being under oath, which is a real thing with real consequences, and really does matter.

So, here we have an example of why it matters. Why it matters the January 6 committee can get people under oath, because they can`t lie like they do on Sean Hannity when they`re before the committee.

ELIE MYSTAL, JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT, THE NATION: Yes, Chris Miller might as well have said, it is weird that people actually believe the words coming out of my mouth, because who wouldn`t do that? Like, that was his testimony under oath. And you`re exactly right, Chris, this is why the subpoenas have so much hour. But this is a lesson that we all need to learn and I would argue should have learned in, I don`t know, circa 2015. These people lie for a living. All they know how to do is lie. If they are not under oath, everything they say should be viewed as a lie.

If Donald Trump says I had a cheeseburger for dinner, what should happen next is a voiceover saying, NBC News cannot confirm whether or not Trump got the cheeseburger or the chicken nuggets in his Happy Meal. I mean, that`s -- we have to -- we have to independently verify everything they say because all they do is lie. That`s all they know how to do.

Remember, Chris, just a couple weeks ago, Cassidy Hutchinson testified, and then there was all this right-wing drama. Oh, the Secret Service is going to -- Tony Ornato was going to testify. No. Did they do that? No, because they weren`t lying.

MYSTAL: And they weren`t going to come under oath to lie. So, they just had to put this out there when everybody knew that Cassidy Hutchinson was telling the truth, because she testified under oath. And these unnamed sources were just lying. At some point, the rest of the media needs to catch up to reality and start -- stop platforming these liars uncritically.

HAYES: Yes. And I will say, I mean, in this case, right, like the New York Times did a good job. They reported -- you know, that night they have the report saying here rebuffed calls. This sort of idea of whether it was -- you know, whether there was this plan to have 10,000 people ready. I mean, part of what makes the line so insidious is that Chris Miller and Kash Patel were Trump cronies installed in the Department of Defense going on TV to say that was the case, right? So, like they were the officials at issue. It`s just that they were not telling the truth in public. And then when you got Miller under oath, well, then you actually get the real story.

The other -- the other thing about this that strikes me is that there`s this narrative of Team Normal versus Team Crazy that they have built the Committee. And I think it`s been savvy because it`s like, here are the -- here are the constitutionally heroic Republicans and here are the coup supporters, and there`s a distinction between the two.

But the fact that team normal hasn`t go out on January 7 when the first thing he says, I ordered the National Guard to deploy was complete B.S. just shows you that like teen normal are all liars too. Let`s not forget that team normal are all liars. Like, just we have to remember that.

MYSTAL: Republicans have been playing this game for my entire life, this idea that there are good Republicans, there are decent Republicans, there are Republicans that aren`t willing to sell out the country for an extra marginal percentage on the tax break. And then they`re the crazy ones, right? They`re always trying to tell us this.

And if you think about it, like, I remember -- I`m old enough to remember when Sam Alito was the team normal Republican, right?

MYSTAL: As opposed to Bush One and his crony, Harriet Miers, but Sam Alito. And look what Sam Alito has turned into. Like, this idea that Republicans are -- there`s something Republicans aren`t willing to do for more power just hasn`t held up throughout history in terms of movement within their party. Are there individual Republicans who do seem to have some measure of integrity?

MYSTAL: Yes, there are individual humans who are able to when the rubber meets the road come find something within themselves that resembles integrity and push it. But in terms of like, that being a wing of the party, are you kidding me? They just don`t know how to operate like that. And again, this goes back to our kind of media training and our media like, understanding to -- we have to be able to listen to the news critically, understand that lying liars lie and will continue to lie and take what they say with that appropriate grain of salt.

HAYES: Yes. Elie Mystal, as always, man, thank you.

MYSTAL: Thanks for having me.

HAYES: All right, still ahead, too little too late. He turned in the Secret Service for deleting key texts. But now, House Democrats want them gone. I`ll talk to President Obama`s Homeland Security Chief about all that next.

REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY): That is when you heard the President say that people with weapons weren`t there to hurt him and that he wanted the Secret Service to remove the magnetometers?

CHENEY: When the President said that he would be going to the Capitol during his speech on the Ellipse, the Secret Service scrambled to find a way for him to go.

HUTCHINSON: Mr. Meadows had a conversation with me where he wanted me to work with Secret Service on a movement from the White House to the Willard hotel so he could attend the meeting or meetings with Mr. Giuliani and his associates.

HAYES: One thing that January 6 hearings showed us was just how integral the Secret Service was to what happened the day of the Capitol attack. Just why it was such a huge shock when we learned that all of the text messages from dozens of agents on January 5 and 6 were deleted. That prompted the Department of Homeland Security`s inspector general to open investigation into the agency.

It`s important to note the Inspector General himself was the same DHS inspector general during the Trump administration. In fact, the guy who heads up the Secret Service right now is the same guy who oversaw it during the insurrection. And after the investigation into legal text messages was launched, a spokesperson for the Secret Service released a statement saying "The insinuation the Secret Service maliciously deleted text messages following a request is false," instead blaming a technical error.

And now, top Democrats are calling for the inspector general to step aside because he reportedly found out about those deleted text messages, "in December 2021, two months earlier than previously reported and did not alert Congress at the time."

Now, Jeh Johnson served as the head of the Department of Homeland Security under President Barack Obama. It`s the body that oversees the Secret Service. And he joins me now. It`s great to have you on. I want to start with the Secret Service because it`s an agency with a lot of mythos attached to it. They have obviously an incredibly important and crucial job. I think there`s lots of people who work there who are, you know, patriots who take their job very seriously. Institutionally, the story the Secret Service is telling here doesn`t really add up. And I`m wondering your perspective as a person who worked at DHS, like, how are you hearing all this?

JEH JOHNSON, FORMER SECRETARY, DHS: Chris, first of all, thanks for having me. On my internet connection is a little unstable, so you might lose me and you`ll end up -- you`ll end up talking to yourself.

HAYES: I`m good at that. Don`t worry.

JOHNSON: But I was the oversight for the Secret Service for three years and I was a protect D of the Secret Service for three years. I was in their constant company. A little perspective here, the Secret Service is trained to take a bullet for the protectee. On occasion, even, the Secret Service is trained to save a protectee from himself as we saw on January 6.

I would be -- I have to say I would be very surprised to learn that there was something nefarious around January 6 -- related to January 6, through the loss of these text messages. For as long as I`ve known the Secret Service, going back to my days as a federal prosecutor 33 years ago, they are good at some things, but they are not good at the back office stuff.

And one of the things that frustrated me most in the job as DHS Secretary, their oversight with a number of unforced errors coming out of that agency, while on the other hand, their central mission is executed flawlessly, like a U.N. General Assembly, for example, the largest domestic security operation in 2015, led by the Secret Service.

So, in the context of the events around January 6, that`s where you have in the Presidential Transition, an outgoing president who frankly is unhinged, an incoming president, the Secret Services in the middle of that transition, are managing the security of January 20, and the nation is on high alert, frankly, I`m not surprised that they did not get the data migration completely perfect.

We will learn more about this. But I`ve had to admonish the Secret Service. I`ve had to ask for a director`s resignation. It is far from perfect in its execution of a number of things without a doubt.

HAYES: That`s a very interesting perspective and illuminating because of the experience that you had. There were some -- you know, there were some scandals there in the Secret Service during your period of time that you were overseeing. And I want to ask too about something that you said. You were a former federal prosecutor as you just referenced. And you said that more or less that the case the public evidence thus presented could in the hands of, I think you could say, aggressive prosecutor, be an indictable prosecutable case. Elaborate on that.

JOHNSON: Yes. Based upon everything we know from public sources, including most notably the January 6 hearings, I believe that an aggressive prosecutor would be willing to take on the case against Donald Trump, or participation in a seditious conspiracy, for violation of the insurrection statute. In my opinion, January 6, was a very definition of an insurrection. And the statute punishes those who incite the insurrection. And those who give aid and comfort there to.

Donald Trump lit the match that started the conflagration. There were moments during January 6 where he blew -- he poured gasoline on the fire, and he was the commander-in-chief of all the firemen and failed to call them in. I believe that we`re well within the range of potential criminal liability if an aggressive prosecutor is willing to take that on.

HAYES: You know, you served in the Obama administration. You were the, if I`m not mistaken, the General Counsel of the Department of Defense, long and distinguished legal career. I tend to think of the individuals like yourself who made up the Obama cabinet and worked close to the former president as, you know, pretty strong institutionalists. I mean, really believe in American institutions, believe that they are -- that they can be made to be responsive and produce increases in our welfare. And I guess I wonder is, what do you think about the case of like, you know, this will be bad for the country. It`ll tear the country apart. It`s institutionally reckless to prosecute an ex-president from your perspective as someone who`s served as long as you have.

JOHNSON: Chris, I respect and admire what Gerald Ford did in 1974-75 sparing the country the prosecution of Richard Nixon. I think we live in different times right now. An argument could be made that if there`s an indictable case against the former president, yet we fail to prosecute him, we may be doing more harm to our democracy than if we forbear.

It`s a different time now. And in my judgment, the actions that occurred during the Trump presidency around January 6 and before were actually far more serious than Watergate.

HAYES: Yes. Jeh Johnson, thank you so much for hanging out through those -- hanging with us for those technical difficulties.

HAYES: I really appreciate it. Always great to see you. Thank you very much.

HAYES: All right, here`s a tease I don`t get to do very often, late breaking good news from the U.S. Capitol. I swear. That`s next.

HAYES: It`s fair to say the national mood right now is dyspeptic. Gallup has our national satisfaction with how things are going down to just 13 percent, pretty low. According to a Quinnipiac poll, President Joe Biden`s approval rating is at just 33 percent. Those two are related.

Despite that, if you are an optimist looking for a sign of hope, look no further than the U.S. Senate where tonight, surprisingly, Majority Leader Senator Chuck Schumer announced a surprise deal with West Virginia Democratic Senator Joe Manchin on a reconciliation bill that would invest hundreds of billions of dollars into major progressive priorities. It will include $369 billion for energy security and climate change, making it the most ambitious climate action taken by Congress ever.

This is genuinely good, genuinely surprising news. We`ll see if it holds. It`s a good reminder that there are tons of people out there, Senate staffers, ordinary folks working day and night mobilizing to protect progress. And for me, stories of people doing that, doing the work are inspiring and hopeful.

And there`s a new podcast dedicated to telling those stories that comes from my good friend, New York Times best-selling author Heather McGhee. Her book, The Sum of Us, which is fantastic, is about how we build a multiracial resilient democracy. That was the inspiration for her to travel across the country to interview people for a new podcast by the same name, which is now available on Spotify.

And Heather McGhee joins me now. Heather, I love the book and I`m very much looking forward to this podcast because it`s about building hope at the ground level. What have you learned as you went out and reported these stories?

HEATHER MCGHEE, AUTHOR AND PODCAST HOST, THE SUM OF US: You know, I ended the book The Sum of Us with this audacious idea that we could be a lot closer to progress if we come together across lines of race in order to understand that we have a lot of collective power. And it was sort of like a theory. And it was -- the thing that people asked me the most about, like, how do you do it? How do you still have hope?

And so I decided to hit the road again. And over the last nine months, I`ve crisscrossed the country again finding all news stories that are cross- racial coalitions. People in actually largely the vast majority red and purple states who have come together across cultural, political, religious lines, to fight for something precious to them, taking on a powerful interest, and they`re winning.

HAYES: Yes, there`s a story I think you did in New Mexico on -- it`s about abortion which is really, really, really gripping and relevant because right now there`s this vote that`s coming up in Kansas on August 3rd. There`s some encouraging news about mobilization there that more than two and a half times as many people have cast early ballots as of Tuesday, compared to the same point in 2018 in the midterm primary for -- to secure a right for abortion in the state of Kansas. What does it look like when people mobilize around something like this? Like what happens?

MCGHEE: Well, one of the most critical understandings that really was clear to me is that these are ordinary people, right? The people that are featured as real heroes of democracy in the Sum of Us podcasts are an executive assistant at a nonprofit, mountain biker, a poet, a stay-at-home mom, a farmer, right, a refugee, right? These are all people who just say enough is enough.

And then they do something huge. They take a risk, a small risk, and then they encourage somebody else to do it. And then that other person`s courage encourages them to take a bigger risk. And it`s really all about how messy it is to have cross-racial coalitions, but how powerful it is. And you know, Chris, we are a much more diverse nation than we`ve been racially. And there are a lot of people who say that our growing diversity is something to fear and then there are those of us who say that it`s something to cheer.

But this podcast really goes on the ground and tells the stories of people who are living in the America that`s becoming and showing us how to make it work for all of us.

HAYES: The messiness, it`s there. It`s real.

MCGHEE: Yes. It`s in stories of misunderstandings, of biases of people, you know, literally like, you know, a white Republican and a Black civil rights leader trying to get together and form common cause to protect our democracy in Florida. You know, the whitest state in the nation, African- Muslim refugees coming in to start small farms. What could go wrong, right?

There all of these stories in the podcast that make us -- that we recognize, frankly, from the news stories of potential division and misunderstanding. And what`s so exciting is that we got people to talk about how they pushed through and made something really amazing happened in their community.

HAYES: I like the term heroes of democracy. Heather McGhee, thank you so much for joining us tonight. Sum of Us podcasts on Spotify. Get it in your ears as soon as you can. Thank you.

That is ALL IN on this Wednesday night. "MSNBC PRIME" starts right now with Mehdi Hasan. Good evening, Mehdi.

MEHDI HASAN, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Chris. And thank you. And thanks to you at home for joining us tonight.