0 moments in american history, and it really helps to clarify what we saw on january 6th. the seditious tradition in american life. and the very real warning sense of what was actually happening, cnn documented, by people at the time. remember, those tactics, the armed violence and the coup, the attempt to overturn an elected government like in wilmington, it worked overtime. it worked. and the free black people in the south, many of those jurisdictions, did not see their freedom, their true democratic rights again for another 80 years. those are the states. that is what happens if the mob is allowed to rule without repercussions. that is all in on this wednesday night, msnbc prime starts now with ali velshi, good evening ali. >> very thoughtful, chris, thank you for that. and enjoy the rest of you tonight, i will see you tomorrow. thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. i'm willing to bet you felt this way before. throughout the entire trump presidency, we all grew accustomed to moments like the one in which we are in right now, a bombshell revelation about the presidents behavior -- and then, the wondering, we'll this be it? will this be the thing that finally jolts some of trump's supporters, enough that they change their views of him? will this be the thing that convinces certain people that he is lawless and dangerous? and that he has an entire political party and its infrastructure behind him? of course, the answer was generally no, there will never be a bridge too far for donald trump, an epiphany moment for the vast majority of his supporters. but for some, at least on an individual level, perhaps there is and perhaps this is it. for cassidy hutchinson, the young, unflappable white house staffer, who testified before the january 6th investigation yesterday, the events she witnessed on and around january the 6th last year with a tipping point for her. she described feeling frustrated and disappointed and disgusted with the presidents apparent approval of the violence, as the capitol winds being overrun. but for the most part, we should probably start start -- looking for big shifts in opinion about donald trump in reaction to new information. politically, americans seem pretty set in their opinions about him. but opinions aren't everything. there's actually this interesting, pesky little thing called the law. and on that front, there is a noticeable shift happening today in one area. there is a real and significant shift underway in analysis about whether donald trump might now, as a result of all this new information, actually be prosecuted for his role in january 6th. people who thought that would never happen awoke today thinking, actually, it just might. perhaps it's even becoming more likely than not. and that shift is happening where it matters, inside the justice department itself. we are going to have some brand-new reporting on that in just a couple of moments. but what exactly is it about yesterday's testimony that is making legal experts and political observers think that we might be substantially closer to a trump criminal indictment than we were 48 hours ago? and the answer to that is simple. according to cassidy hutchinson's testimony, on the morning of january 6th, the white house's top lawyer, pat cipollone, was actively worried that on trump was on his way to commit a crime or to commit several crimes. >> i saw mr. cipollone right before i walked out on to [inaudible] that morning. and mr. cipollone said something to the effect of, please make sure we don't go up to the capitol, cassidy, keep in touch with me. we are going to get charged with every crime imaginable if we make that movement happen. >> and do you remember which crimes mr. cipollone was concerned with? >> in the days leading up to the sixth, we had conversations about potentially obstructing justice, or defrauding the electoral count. >> white house lawyers, including this man, pat cipollone, were very concerned about what trump was planning to do on january 6th, and for good reason. one thing that became clear from cassidy hutchinson's testimony as today was that it was widely known and discussed inside the white house, four days before january 6th that trump wanted to personally go to the capitol with his supporters and disrupt the certification of joe biden's win. there she wise, describing white house lawyers trying to change the planned language in trump's speech at his rally on january 6th. >> there were many discussions the morning of the 6th about the rhetoric of the speech that day. in my conversations with mr. herschmann, he had relayed we would be foolish to include language that had been included at the presidents request, which had lines along -- to the effect of, fight for trump, we are going to march to the capitol, i will be there with you. fight for me, fight for what we are doing, fight for the movement. things about vice president at the time to. both mr. herschmann and white house counsel's office were urging the speech writers do not include that language, for legal concerns, and also for the optics of what it could portray the president wanting to do that day. >> i will assume you have probably seen the political speech or two in your time, right? politicians use the word fight all the time. it's generally understood to be metaphorical, you probably never watched a politician urge you to fight for some political goal interpreted to mean that you should go commit actual, physical violence. by the lawyers in the white house clearly knew that that's exactly what donald trump was intending to communicate on january 6th. and that's exactly how it would be received by his supporters. because, again, amongst the people closest to him in the white house, it was no secret that trump wanted to go to the capitol and he wanted to stop the electoral count. but if you were still inclined to believe that president trump was still speaking metaphorically when he use those terms, that he did not intend for there to be violence at the capitol on january 6th, then it was this part of cassidy hutchinson's testimony that was the most jaw-dropping. cassidy hutchinson describe the scene backstage at trump's rally, on the morning of january 6th, just before trump was to take the stage -- look at the crowd here. trump was apparently furious, because the space that was set aside for the rally was not full. and we all know how trump hates unflattering crowd size. ms. hutchinson told the investigators that trump's aides had been trying to tell [inaudible] all morning that the issue was not that people were not being laden, it was that a lot of people were refusing to enter the rally area because they were calorie carrying weapons. and to enter the rally space they would have to go through magnetometer's or mags, and have weapons confiscated. many who had gone into the rally area had already had all kinds of weapons confiscated, including pepper spray, knives, brass knuckles, body armor, gas masks and buttons. >> in this particular instance, it wasn't the capacity of our space, it was the mags and they [inaudible] didn't want to come through. and that's where tony had been trying to relate to him that morning, it's not the issues of [inaudible] our we have enough space sir, they don't want to come in right now. they have weapons that they don't want confiscated by the secret service. and they are fine on the mall, they can see on the mall, they want to march straight to the capitol from the wall. >> the president apparently wanted all attendees inside the official rally space and repeatedly said, quote, they are not here to hurt me. >> and his [inaudible] to be clear, so -- he was told again, in that conversation, or was he told again in that conversation that people couldn't come through the max because they had weapons? >> correct. >> and that people -- his response was to say, they can march through the capitol from the ellipse? >> something to the effect of, take the effing mags away, they are not here to hurt me. let them in, let my people in, they can march to the capitol after the rally is over, they can march from the ellipse, take the effing mags away. they can march to the capitol. >> so, around trump had been talking for days about leading his supporters to the capitol to stop the count. white house lawyers have been trying for days to try to get him not to do that, because it could result in charges, in the results words of pat cipollone, every crime imaginable. white house lawyers were trying right up to the morning of his speech on january 6th to try to get him not to say certain things that could incite the crowd violence. and then, backstage that morning, trump makes clear that he wants his armed supporters allowed him to his rally, so they can march on the capitol from there. legal experts who spoke to the new york times today said that, quote, knowing that his crowd of supporters had the means to be violent when he exhorted them to march the and capitol the clear that he wanted to go with him could nudge mr. trump closer to facing criminal charges. one justice department official tells the times, quote, what just happened changed my bottom line. i have gone from trump's lesson likely to be charged to he is more than likely to be charged. even trump's own attorney general, bill barr, seems to think charges are possible now. from the justice department that he used to run telling the times, quote, the department is clearly looking into all of this and this hearing definitely gave investigators a lot to chew on. and now we make it to her evidence straight from the guy inside the white house who was so worried about the legal implications of trump's actions. this evening, the january six investigation has issued a subpoena to trump white house counsel pat cipollone. he did set for an informal off camera interview with investigators in april, but the committee writes to him tonight, quote, in the weeks since the select committee has continued to obtain evidence about which you are uniquely positioned to testify. unfortunately, however, you have declined to cooperate with us further. we are left with no choice but to issue you this subpoena. now, as for the justice department, we know it has its own wide ranging january six investigation underway. the justice department has issued a's flurry of subpoenas and carried out searches of key figures in the schemes that trump and his allies engaged in to try to overturn the 2020 election. we don't know how close that investigation is to donald trump himself, but we are learning tonight but yesterday's blockbuster testimony may have changed the calculus inside the justice department about how strong a case they may actually have against the former president. joining us now is david rohde, he is the executive editor of the new yorker.com. he has new reporting on deliberations inside the justice department regarding charging donald trump. he is also the author, most recently, of in deep, the fbi, the cia, and the truth about america's deep state. good to see, you thank you for making time to be with us tonight. since the attack on the u.s. capitol, one of the things that has been debated in legal circles, if not doubted outright, is whether or not there is enough evidence for the justice department to actually prosecute donald trump. did cassidy hutchinson's testimony yesterday change that? >> i think it did. the key thing is his mindset. he knew what he was doing was wrong. it is this issue of, can you show corrupt intent? there is a very big difference between, as you said, calling on your supporters to fight, versus encouraging an armed mob to assault the united states capitol, and then trying to join them and lead them as the president of the united states. so i talked to multiple former justice department officials, and i do think that this changes things. and separately, the feeling inside the justice department, is that they have been progressively investigating this case. their weekly meetings for garland's updated for the latest information in the investigation as a whole, including evidence against donald trump. there is no decision yet on whether there is enough evidence, but garland is pushing. he signed off on a letter for all of the transgression of the january six committee, that was a few weeks ago, and as you mentioned, there has been a flurry of searches, of subpoenas being issued, phones were seized, john eastman and clark who was trying to become trump's pro, if you will, big lie attorney general. so there is movement inside the justice department, and again, i am hearing from former officials this new evidence will change their calculus. but i just want to be frank, no one knows. there is no final decision yet. but this was a big moment yesterday. >> let's talk about the john eastman phone situation. why is that important? >> it is very unusual to see is a lawyer's phone. you have attorney client privilege, it is a long held american right, and that should be respected. so that suggests that there is significant evidence. you have to show a judge that there is probable cause that a crime was committed, and that there is also probable cause that evidence of that crime would be on the phone. so both easements phone and clark's phone were seized by federal investigators. and that shows, again, judges are saying that there is significant evidence here and again, to credit the justice department, that they are carrying out these -- they are seizing these phones. and they have issued subpoenas and i think at least four states. i know georgia and arizona, trying to get records and evidence from some of these fake electors. that is the focus of the investigation as well, the scheme to have trump electors basically steel multiple states, electoral votes, before january 6th. so again, much more aggressive moves by the justice department. >> let's go back to the committee. when we talk to members of the committee, some of them say it is important to outline the guardrails that did not exist so that they could determine what legislation should exist in the future or how we clarify things. but there are some members of the committee, including the vice chair, liz cheney, who have maintained from the outset that trump and his allies, knowingly and intentionally broke the law. and that there are crimes to be had here. the department of justice needs to weigh that. because the committee, even if liz cheney is, right cannot do anything about that. only the justice department can say that there seems to be enough evidence for us to actually charge either donald trump or rudy giuliani, or one of the people in that circle. where are we on that front? >> i think the committee is in a tremendous job at educating the public. one member of the committee told me that their goal was to win this politically. to weaken donald trump politically. and i do think that there are republicans who are convinced, bill barr, you know, dismissing this idea that the election was stolen. another aide, bill stuffing, saying the same thing. i think that there are republicans who think of trump running again, and i think they hear these accounts, including cassidy hutchison, and there is a fatigue that this person is going to come back, who is so erratic. i think the committee succeeded there. but in the end, it will be the justice department. and again, i heard today from a former official who is very much a centrist, actually a defender of bill barr. he felt that the cassidy hutchison evidence brought a criminal charge for obstruction of an official proceeding. that would be stopping the electoral count. the legal standard is, was there an official proceeding? the answer is yes, obviously, counting electoral votes. and then again there is this corrupt intent that was shown by trump's actions and what he knew. he knew there was an armed crowd, he urged them to storm the capitol and he tried to join them. so it is a big moment. >> an obstruction of a official proceeding is the thing that liz cheney had her -- on. that is the thing she says is the most important charge here. it is important to note that under the law, in that particular case, the intent to secondary to the actual obstruction of the hearing if that actually took place. david, thank you very much, good to see you as always. david rohde is the executive editor of the new yorker.com. we appreciate, you thank you for your reporting. >> thank you. >> today the former trump chief of staff, mark meadows, denied the allegation that he sought a pardon for his role in january 6th. whether he asked for a pardon or not, my question is, how much legal exposure does the former chief of staff have now? we will discuss that on the other side. s that on th other side other side for your immunity, brain, and hair, skin & nails. new one a day multi+.