As the investigation continues into the Uvalde massacre, burials of the victims begin. "The New York Times" provides a stunning moment-by- moment account of how long it took for police to take action at Robb Elementary School. The divide between Uvalde`s leadership and its population is examined. Trump right-hand man Peter Navarro reveals that he`s been subpoenaed to tell a federal grand jury everything he knows about January 6. Special counsel John Durham fails to convict Clinton attorney Michael Sussmann.

ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: And what do you think about Julian Epstein`s point that some of this stuff is getting, as he put it, out of hand? We could talk about it.

Thanks for watching "THE BEAT."

THE REIDOUT WITH JOY REID starts now.

JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, everyone.

We begin THE REIDOUT tonight one week since a depraved 18-year-old walked into Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, and took the lives of 19 defenseless fourth graders and two of their brave teachers. This week begins the next phase for devastated -- for the devastated community, as families and friends begin to say their goodbyes to their loved ones, who should be starting their summer vacations and celebrating birthdays, not being eulogized -- eulogized.

Today, the first two children, Amerie Jo Garza and Maite Rodriguez, were laid to rest, as this city grieves over such an unthinkable act. And many questions remain unanswered, we are also looking toward the country`s elected leadership to finally take a stand and do something, anything to help curb this endless cycle of senseless loss.

In just the past week since the Uvalde massacre, there have been 18 more mass shootings across this country, according to the Gun Violence Archive, in places like Fresno, California; Chattanooga, Tennessee; Benton Harbor, Michigan; and Taft, Oklahoma.

We just had the funerals for the victims in Buffalo; Houston; and Laguna Woods, California. Now many more burials are being planned. In fact, there have been 231 mass shootings so far this year, more than one per day. Just let that sink in.

So, how would a rational country react to tragedy after tragedy committed with the use of the same weapons of war almost every time? How about expanding background checks, banning hundreds of types of military-style weapons starting a gun buyback program, banning the sale and transfer of large-capacity magazines, or creating new red flag laws, allowing courts to require that people considered a danger to themselves or others surrender their firearms to police?

That`d be a good start, right? Well, you know is doing that after the latest tragedy in Texas? Canada. And their death rate due to gun violence is a fraction of what it is here in the United States, even though Canadians have lots of guns too.

But when it comes to our guns, this country is anything but rational. The NRA continues to have its stranglehold on the Republican Party. And so we continue the cycle from Columbine to Sandy Hook to Parkland and now in Uvalde of what can only be described as nothing less than nearly complete inaction, just thoughts and prayers and stasis.

Even something like universal background checks, with nearly 90 percent support from Americans, has repeatedly failed. So, once again, we are compelled to ask if this time will be any different.

President Biden remains optimistic that this could be the time. He tends to be an optimistic guy. He sees the chance for what he calls rational Republicans to act on gun reforms, adding that the Second Amendment was never absolute.

Today, he again pointed to the fact that we all can agree on: A lot of these tragedies could have been prevented.

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There`s an expression by an Irish poet that says, too long a suffering makes a stone of the heart.

Well, there`s an awful lot of suffering. We`ve been -- I -- I`ve been to more mass shooting aftermaths than I think any president in American history, unfortunately. And it`s just -- so much of it is -- much of it is preventable, and the devastation is amazing.

REID: OK, Mr. President, we will see.

By the way, the person sitting next to the president is New Zealand`s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who, in 2019, was able to pass a sweeping nationwide ban on most semiautomatic weapons after the deadly terrorist attacks on two mosques in Christchurch that left 51 people dead, an attack that inspired American mass shooters like the one in Buffalo.

But, New Zealand, they acted, because that is how a rational country responds to an horrific attack.

Joining me now is Mara Gay, member of "The New York Times" editorial board and an MSNBC contributor, and Tim Wise, anti-racism educator and author of "Dispatches from the Race War."

Thank you all for being here.

And, Mara, there is some rational action that is happening. You had Vice President Harris call for an assault weapons ban. Let`s play that.

KAMALA HARRIS, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We are not sitting around waiting to figure out what the solution looks like. We`re not looking for a vaccine. We know what works on this.

It includes let`s have an assault weapons ban. An assault weapon is a weapon of war, with no place -- no place in a civil society.

REID: And, Mara, even Walmart has acted on gun reform. They used to sell AR-15s at Walmart.

You used to be able to walk into a Walmart just buy one. But, in 2015, Walmart stopped selling them, and they have stopped selling bump stock, which you also could buy at Walmart because it`s a rifle, which seems bananas, but you could. And they now won`t do it.

That all is rational, but nothing`s going to happen, right, because we`re not in a rational system.

MARA GAY, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I think a lot of us are living in a rational world. And that`s why we`re so deeply disturbed by what`s happening in this country.

The problem is that Congress is not rational and functional. And, in particular, the Senate is deadlocked for the reason that we have a minoritarian government at the moment.

And so this is really all about what the Senate can do. And it`s also about whether we can marshal -- and we meaning everybody from Walmart, to responsible gun owner owners, to people who never want to see or come into contact with a gun in their entire lives -- whether we can marshal the political capital and the cultural capital to continue to keep up pressure on lawmakers and on Congress to actually move something and make it happen.

Because what`s happening is that Republicans in the Senate are essentially counting on Democrats` inability or disinterest in forcing their hand. And I think they`re hoping that the American people will just move on.

And, of course, we can`t just move on, because people are being killed in the streets, children, adults, lives being lost every day to gun violence. So, increasingly, Americans are -- every American is increasingly invested in this issue. And so it shouldn`t be this way. But the question is, how do we get the political capital to force their hand and to end the filibuster, so that we can see action?

I mean, Tim, look, I mean, Canada is very -- culturally not that dissimilar from the United States. It`s right next to us. And they`re able to just make this decision. And you had the prime minister tweeting about the changes they`re going to make, which makes sense, right? There are countries like Switzerland that have lots of gun ownership, but they have had rational gun laws.

And, here, we know what we`re looking at. If you go and you just look at who the mass shooters are, they`re mostly male; 60 to 61 of the active shooters in 2021 are male. They`re male between 25 and 34. If you go through the mass shootings in schools, it`s even more specific.

These are people who were basically just out of the age or still in the age where they themselves were doing the high school mass shooter drills, because they`re 17, 18, even 15 years old. They`re fresh -- somewhat fresh out of high school themselves. So they know where the kids are going to hide.

They know what the kids are going to do, because they did the drills too. They`re around the same age. They are majority white males between a certain age. Like, the profile is there. There`s online profiles of the things they say, the threats they make.

Like, we know what we`re dealing with, but we won`t do anything.

TIM WISE, AUTHOR, "DISPATCHES FROM THE RACE WAR": Right.

Well, look, first off, before I get into the analytical piece of this, let me just say, our youngest daughter graduated high school this week. And it is not lost on me that, in eight years, there are going to be 19 families in Uvalde who should be celebrating the same way that we were who are not going to get to.

And the reason they`re not going to get to is because this country loves its guns more than it loves its children. This country loves the ability of an 18-year-old the day they turn 18 to go buy a weapon of war than they appreciate the right of a 10-year-old to become 11 or 12 or 13 or 18.

So let`s be very clear. The difference between Canada and the United States, Australia and the United States, New Zealand and the United States, every industrialized nation in the world vs. us is that we fetishize weapons. And let`s be very clear.

The historical precedent for that, the reason that we are so obsessed with guns and personal gun ownership going back to the Second Amendment is because the founders were so afraid that black people were going to rebel against enslavement, that indigenous people were going to rebel against being pushed off their land and killed and removed, that we wanted to make sure white men could have all the guns that they could possibly possess in order to put down the rebellions of the dangerous racial other.

And so the irony is that we now have an incredibly dangerous country for everybody`s babies, white babies, black babies, brown babies, everybody`s babies, because white men a couple hundred years ago decided we needed to have all the weapons that we could possibly have and enshrine that in the Constitution to defend against those people.

And the irony is that now white folks, white children, white families just as endangered. We buy all these weapons. In the wake of Obama`s election, there was a big upsurge in weapons, because folks were, oh, black dude is the president, and they`re going to come take our guns.

After Ferguson, when Mike Brown was killed, the Ferguson uprising, everyone said, we got to go get all these guns. And the irony is that that increase in gun ownership did not lead to self-defensive use of weapons to prevent burglaries or whatever. It led to an increase in suicide, an increase in homicide.

We are a less safe nation for everybody`s babies because of this obsession, and this obsession goes back hundreds of years. So we need to understand the connection between past and present and realize that we are a sick and broken culture. We are not the greatest nation on Earth any longer, if we ever were.

We are a nation committed to an ideology of death. And if we want to stop that and save our children, we are going to make a change. And, I mean, children, students should be walking out of school in the fall, refuse to go to class, until your parents and your grandparents do something to protect you.

Your parents do not love you enough. Your leaders do not love you enough. And you shouldn`t go to class one day until they decide to do something different. A general strike among young people is what is going to end this thing.

And it may be the only thing that does that.

REID: And teachers, I mean, right, because you have to take your life into your hands to teach fourth grade now?

And Tim is right, Mara. This is not in just -- there`s a tendency to try to put this into the inner city and say, oh, let`s look at Chicago. No, everywhere, everywhere, every suburb, every village, everywhere. The mass shootings are everywhere. They`re in the suburbs. They`re in white neighborhoods, black neighborhoods. It`s everywhere.

And I wonder if we can get away from it, because we`re not -- history is basically illegal. That -- what Tim just said is illegal to teach in states like Florida. You`re not even allowed to say that.

But since we don`t know that, what we`re dealing with now is this sort of apocalyptic culture on the right. So, because they are selling apocalypse, immigration apocalypse, demographic apocalypse, white replacement apocalypse, how can any Republicans find the courage to vote for what would save their own grandkids?

GAY: I have to say, I have been a fan of your work, Tim, Mr. Wise, for years.

GAY: I read you in college. So it`s a real treat to be on with you. I think your work is very important.

I think the answer is found in part in Tim`s work, right, which is, how do you undo that? I mean, you have to confront what white supremacy is and its existence in American life, I mean, from -- and then you have to ask yourself, why is it that we are unable to see ourselves collectively as a nation or as a group of people who have common interests?

And, of course, my view is that white supremacy is at the heart of that. So, if you attack that, you can actually find common interest. And then you can learn that, yes, we actually would rather inconvenience a gun lobby, a gun lobbyist, a gun owner than we would put our own children in harm`s way, because we just have it backwards right now.

We are more interested in giving rights to lobbyists who are sending their money to Congress to have special influence than we are in protecting not just the lives of black and brown children who live in inner cities, who, by the way, their lives are absolutely worth something...

GAY: ... but also our own children.

GAY: So it is completely inane.

And the only thing, I believe, that can explain just the insanity with which the United States has acted is, of course, the insanity at the root of what`s wrong with the country at the moment, in my view, which is white supremacy. And until we finally confront that and deal with that, I don`t see how we can possibly find common interest and move forward, until everybody else`s child is -- has the same value as your child.

It`s not going to happen. So that`s the rot.

REID: I wish we had more time. We could do this for an hour, because I think we`re both super fans of you, Tim.

But I`m also a super fan of you, Mara Gay.

You`re both brilliant. I wish we had more time.

WISE: As I am as well. So, thank you. Thanks. Yes, indeed.

REID: Thank you all very much.

Everyone should listen to and read everything that both of these two brilliant people write.

Tim Wise, Mara Gay, thank you both very much.

Up next on THE REIDOUT: 78 long minutes, "The New York Times"` stunning moment-by-moment account of how incredibly long it took for police to take action at Robb Elementary School.

Plus: the divide between Uvalde`s leadership and its population, which tells you a lot about Texas politics.

Also, Trump right-hand man Peter Navarro reveals that he`s been subpoenaed to tell a federal grand jury everything he knows about January 6.

Meanwhile, the right promised that Trump special counsel John Durham would expose the truth about all of their right-wing conspiracy fantasies. Well, how`s that working out?

THE REIDOUT continues after this.

REID: This weekend, "The New York times" put together an interactive timeline of what happened seven days ago at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas.

It lays out in black and white what happened in the 78 minutes between 11:33 a.m., when the killer entered the school, and 12:51 p.m., when the school was secured.

"The Times" used video evidence, statements and accounts of 911 calls to piece together that excruciating hour and 18 minutes.

At 11:33 a.m., the gunman enters the school and moves toward two adjoining classrooms, 111 and 112, where teachers Eva Mireles and Irma Garcia were showing the fourth graders a movie.

Two minutes later, three Uvalde police officers enter the school, joined later by four more officers. At 11:43 a.m., 10 minutes after the shooter entered, the school posts on Facebook that it is under lockdown, and then e-mails parents.

Eleven minutes later, parents began to gather at the schools. At 12:03, 30 minutes since the gunman entered the school, there are now as many as 19 police officers inside. A student in room 112 calls 911 pleading for help. More calls would come from the adjoining classroom, room 111. It`s in those two classrooms where the 19 students and two teachers would die, with many more injured and traumatized.

At 12:06, some students in a different classroom escape through a window. At this point, it`s been 33 minutes since the shooter has entered Robb Elementary. At 12:10, the first student from room 112 calls 911 and tells dispatch that multiple people are dead. That student calls again three minutes later.

At this point, it`s been 40 minutes since the gunman entered the school. The student calls again at 12:16 and tells dispatch that eight or nine students are still alive. Remember, 19 officers are present in the building. At 12:21, police here the gunman fire again. They move down the hallway.

By 12:35, police have been on the scene for an hour. Frantic parents are waiting outside, having increasingly tense interactions with police. At 12:50, 77 minutes after the crisis began, specially trained Border Patrol officers enter the classroom and fire 27 times, killing the gunman.

Minutes later, children are escorted out, and frantic parents try to rush to their aid.

REID: Why it took 78 minutes to clear the scene is to this day unclear.

The grieving parents are devastated and the larger community angered by the inaction. And they`re left demanding answers.

With me now, Mike Baker, national correspondent for "The New York Times," and Donell Harvin, senior policy researcher for the RAND Corporation, former chief of homeland security and intelligence for Washington, D.C., and a former first responder to the Sandy Hook shooting and 9/11 attacks.

Thank you all for being here.

I want to go to you first, Mike.

"The New York Times," this was not your piece, but it was excellent. It was riveting to watch. But you reported on something else that I think is also relevant, because, if you go through that timeline, one would think that the police officers involved had no training in this area.

But you reported something different, that they did do active shooter training. Tell us about that.

MIKE BAKER, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": That`s right.

They started their active -- active shooter training about two years ago. They did it as recently, again, as two months ago. And this wasn`t just theoretical training inside of a classroom, but in person training in hallways, where they would role-play scenarios of what an active shooter would be like and how they would respond to it.

It brought together multiple agencies from around the area, so they could figure out how they could work together. And in the classroom, they were learning how to respond quickly and that the emphasis, the priority was get in there quickly, confront the gunman, stop the killing. That`s the priority.

REID: But, Donell Harvin, you know, from having done this work, training to run in and pretend to confront somebody that`s got an AR-15, which is basically an M-16, but not as -- not automatic, right? It`s similar to what they use in war.

It`s different to train to run in and confront a pretend shooter and a real shooter. And most police don`t actually do that on a regular basis. Most of their job does not require them to run into armed fire, right?

So the training doesn`t necessarily do any good.

DONELL HARVIN, FORMER D.C. CHIEF OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE: That`s correct.

And, last week, when you had me on, I said I`d like to defer and give some deference to law enforcement. But it`s been a week. And I actually have a question. Where are the letters of -- where are the letters of resignation at this point?

We have had an entire week. We have seen all that we need to see. I`m happy that the DOJ is going to come in and do an investigation. But where`s the accountability? We sat here and watched a police lieutenant last week say that his officers didn`t engage because they were scared to get shot.

Are you serious? You`re scared to get shot? But what about those people`s children?

REID: Well, but let me ask you this, because Brittany Packnett Cunningham was on with Tiffany Cross this weekend, and she made a really brilliant point.

She was a teacher. And so she`s been in the position that the Republicans would like to put teachers in, that they should actually be the ones to fire back. This has been litigated. Police have litigated all the way to the Supreme Court in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia that police actually do not have a constitutional duty to protect people.

They actually don`t. I mean, you think about what happens in police shootings of civilians. What they say is: I feared for my life. Therefore, I shot this person.

And they -- that they win on that because they actually constitutionally have litigated that, no, they don`t have to put their own lives in danger. They can prioritize their own safety. So we have written that into the law.

And Jack Crosbie wrote a really great piece on Rolling Stone, because I think about the interactions outside that school, the way that parents were treated.

He wrote this: "The part of police officers` job" -- he`s not saying they`re not good at their jobs, but: "The part of their job they`re really good at is projecting physical force onto whichever elements of society the state deems to be undesirable. In nonacademic terms, that likely means they`re really good at beating up people who annoy them or harassing people who local governments want to minimize."

And that`s not to minimize the job of police officers, but, for the most part, controlling the physical behavior of the people in front of them is what police do, other than being told to act as social workers and do other things.

Running into live firing ain`t something that they really do.

HARVIN: But it`s something they sign up for every day they put the uniform on. And it`s something they train for.

Every law enforcement officer who`s got training post-Columbine and post- Sandy Hook knows that you don`t wait for the shooting the stop. You hear shooting, you go in and you engage. And if you`re not willing to do that, then you shouldn`t put the badge and the uniform on.

REID: It`s -- just for your reporting, Mike, because there is now some question over whether -- his name is Pete Arredondo, who is the chief of police for Uvalde Consolidated Independent Schools, who, bizarrely, was in charge, even when the feds arrived.

Is there any indication that he`s fully cooperating? Because NBC News has some reporting that he may not be fully cooperating with these inquiries.

BAKER: Yes, we heard today that the state authorities that are investigating this they asked him for a follow-up interview two days ago and have not heard back at this point.

They`re hearing that -- they say that the agency itself overall, other parts of the agency, are cooperating, are involved in the investigation. But there`s a bit of a delay. It`s unclear right now why that delay is happening and why the chief hasn`t responded to that inquiry at this point.

And, Donell, there`s a lot of anger at this point, I think understandably, because you had parents outside yelling at these officers, run in there, get in there and get my kid. There were stories of police officers who went in and got their own kids and got them out.

But there was a hesitancy, I mean, I guess a natural hesitancy, to run in. This man was out -- they`re outgunned. At this point, is there any argument that somehow the teachers should have been willing to shoot the gunman? Because that seems to me completely nonsensical, when the police weren`t willing to do it.

HARVIN: It`s certainly nonsensical.

We have said this before. I`m on record. I don`t think we need to be arming our teachers. They have a hard enough time teaching. This entire scenario is essentially a hot buffet of ineptitude and missed opportunities, from leaving the door ajar and letting a shooter that was shooting outside first walk into the school unobstructed, to not getting the message out that there was an active shooter.

And then you had more law enforcement outside stopping parents from going inside. We have seen stories of one person who was in the barbershop got up, got a shotgun from his barber, drove there, got kids out. Another parent who was handcuffed, got un-handcuffed, went in there.

And so this is going to be studied for a long time. But this shouldn`t have happened.

HARVIN: And I will be quite honest with you.

Up until last week, Texas was really the gold standard in training in how to do active shooter response. And so we`re going to really have to take a long look at it. DOJ will get in there. But, still, I mean, there`s a lot of things that are -- that are clear for everybody to see.

HARVIN: And there`s a lot of ineptitude in this.

REID: But -- and last one. Was this a failure of training or a failure of valor?

HARVIN: Well, I think it`s probably both. I think that, as a law enforcement officer, you`re trained to act independently, and you rely on your training. We see that every day.

They should have gone in and engaged. And then, at the top, there needs to be answers.

REID: Yes, yes, and maybe not put the school police chief in charge of an operation like this.

We will see what happens. Mike Baker, Donell Harvin, thank you both.

Up next: Remember the guy who yelled at Beto O`Rourke during last week`s press conference?

SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): Sit down.

LT. GOV. DAN PATRICK (R-TX): You`re out -- you`re out of line and an embarrassment.

CRUZ: Sit down and don`t play this stuff.

REID: We will take a deeper look into the politicians who represent the town of Uvalde after the break.

REID: Last week, Beto O`Rourke disrupted the Texas governor`s press conference on the Uvalde massacre, telling Greg Abbott that the shooting was totally predictable and that he has done nothing.

There was one particularly outraged politician on stage sitting in the back row in a blue shirt who interrupted Beto, saying, "Sir, you are out of line," calling him "a sick son of a B" for politicizing the tragedy.

That individual is the Republican mayor of Uvalde. His name is Don McLaughlin. He was elected to his first term in 2014 and has won reelection three times since. But for someone who is the mayor of a town reeling from an unthinkable tragedy, where funerals began today, and the 21 dead, including 19 fourth graders, McLaughlin has been pretty quiet at these press conferences, saying very little of substance.

And when he does speak, he does as his party does, dodging the issue of guns.

DON MCLAUGHLIN, MAYOR OF UVALDE, TEXAS: Right now, there`s 20 -- 28 million-plus people in Texas. Do you know how many mental health hospital beds there are a day available? No more than 1,000 in the whole state of Texas. And that`s sad.

And I`m not -- look, guns play a role in these too. I`m not downplaying that either. And I`m not going to -- I don`t want to get into a Second Amendment or guns neither. But it took a person to pull the trigger of that gun. And so we need to address both issues.

REID: Joining me now is Maria Teresa Kumar, president and CEO of Voto Latino. She`s heading to Uvalde on Friday to honor the victims and to host a call to action in San Antonio on Saturday.

Thank you always. Always great to see you, Ms. MTK. Always great to see you.

But let`s talk about this for a second.

So there was this op-ed that one of my producers noticed and sent out to our team which was really bracing. It`s called: "I`m from Uvalde. I`m not surprised this happened."

His name is Neil Meyer. He`s a fifth-generation Texan.

And he writes: "The minority white ruling class places its right-wing Republican ideology above the safety of its most vulnerable citizens, its impoverished and its children, most of which -- most of whom are Hispanic."

Uvalde has 15,000-plus residents, 81 percent, 80 -- almost 82 percent are Latino or Hispanic. The median income is very low, $41,000; 21 percent live in poverty.

What do you make of that, this idea that there`s this divide in Uvalde between the rich very white part of it and the part of it that actually used to up to not too many decades ago be segregated, Uvalde, which is where the shooting took place?

MARIA TERESA KUMAR, FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, VOTO LATINO: Joy, this is, sadly, very much what we see in all of Southern Texas. It`s not unusual, where we have seen these divides.

And one of the challenges I think that Uvalde is going to have is coming together again, recognizing where our family and the children are.

I`m going to -- one second. I have an echo. I don`t know if you hear it, but it -- there we go.

REID: I hear it. I do hear it. Maybe turn down -- yes, turn down your TV. There you go.

KUMAR: No, I`m not -- never mind.

It`s behind us -- behind the curtains, Joy.

KUMAR: Sol, I think one of the biggest challenges is that -- and so, as a result, I had a conversation with the state Senator Roland Gutierrez.

And he was very clear that it was shocking and sad that it happened in part of the school that was 80 percent Latino, in the part of town that oftentimes is forgotten, and that the response was so low.

This is an opportunity, he said, for Uvaldens to come together, but also to recognize that the segregation that was written in that op-ed is very real. And he was describing a situation where many of the families just feel that, after decades of trying and protesting, that change hasn`t happened, so they have stopped participating.

And one of the reasons we`re going to Uvalde is to speak, to recognize the pain, but also recognize that the biggest challenge to Texas right now is that it`s a non-voting state. Only 40 percent of Latinos participated in the last election. Only 40 percent of African-Americans participated in the last election.

We`re talking about roughly 3.5 million eligible voters that, if they cast a ballot, they would change the trajectory, not just of Texas..

KUMAR: ... but of the country.

And that is what we have to recognize, is that there is a power of the voting booth, but you have to heal and you have to have action at the same time, Joy.

REID: And I really appreciate you saying that, because there have been a lot of people posting, how can this man, who is not Latino and who is very conservative, very anti-immigrant, very much build the wall, that kind of Republican, keep getting elected?

And you and I talked about this. I mean, this is a very narrow district, the district Uvalde is in. It went for Hillary Clinton. Then it went narrowly for Trump. But we`re talking, like, it`s 50/50.

But, A, his -- Latinos are not a monolith. B, it`s very low turnout. That`s how somebody like that can keep getting elected. It`s very hard to vote in Texas. And people do.

KUMAR: These are hard -- these are -- this district are -- they -- elections are often won by literally less than 2,000 votes.

KUMAR: But there are 80,000 folks that aren`t registered to vote.

That is where the -- that`s where the rub is. And so not just the tragedy of what happened with Uvalde, the fact that, ever since El Paso, they have -- they have really neglected the responsibility of providing real gun reform that most Texans actually want.

Then you also have on that -- top of that the ban on women`s right to abortions. It just keeps piling up. And it`s all, sadly, on the shoulders of disproportionately young people of color in Texas. Just since the last election in 2020, Joy, we have had over 300,000 young Latino African- American youth turn 18.

What is on the ballot is, what is the future of yourself and your country and the state of Texas? Where do you want to live? And do you want to live in a place that is segregated or in a place that it`s inclusive and recognizes you as a human and your rights?

And where it doesn`t take 11 minutes for the police to respond to an active shooter call. That was the first thing that pricked my -- got my Spidey Senses going, because in rich communities -- if this -- in wealthy communities, it don`t take 11 minutes.

You got your sirens on. You`re motoring down. And it took that long to even respond at all? That got me very concerned.

KUMAR: Joy, I had the -- a conversation with a senator, a state senator there.

And, basically, what you`re echoing was what he shared with me, that this was -- that, had it been in a different part of town, it wouldn`t have taken so long and there wouldn`t have been such a long response rate.

One likes to feel that that is not happening, but, sadly, when you start looking at the statistics, when you start looking at the response rate, so, the utter failure of that police department, you do have to start to sit back and question, what did race play into it?

KUMAR: And, at the end of the day, these are children and families who are suffering. And our job first is to help grieve with them, but then also...

KUMAR: ... make sure that Texas takes charge of their state.

And I think, then, also we have to bring you back to have this -- there`s a complicated conversation that Democrats need to learn to have with Latino voters, because this is also a town with lots of gun ownership. And you have to learn how to talk to people who are religious. This might be a heavily Catholic community, some of these communities.

And Democrats have to learn to speak that language and speak to people where they are and talk about their interests. And so we got to come back and do more.

We will be following what you`re doing in Uvalde this weekend. Thank you, Maria Teresa Kumar. Appreciate you.

And I hope that folks will join us. We`re going to be there and San Antonio. Thank you.

REID: Cheers. All right, thank you.

Up next: The Justice Department has subpoenaed former Trump aide Peter Navarro in their January 6 probe, as things are heating up in Georgia, where a grand jury will begin hearing testimony regarding Trump`s role in the 2020 election.

REID: In a sign that the Justice Department is expanding its investigation into the January 6 insurrection, former Trump White House adviser Peter Navarro said he`s been subpoenaed by federal prosecutors to testify before a grand jury and to turn over documents related to the attack and communications with the former president.

Navarro made the claim in a lawsuit filed today against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the House January 6 Committee, arguing that the committee is illegal and partisan, despite having two Republicans on it, including the vice chair, who`s also a Cheney. Navarro is representing himself and claims the grand jury subpoena is based on a House subpoena earlier this year and should be thrown out.

It comes as the criminal investigation into the former president`s scheme to overturn Georgia`s election result is also heating up. As many as 50 individuals could be subpoenaed by that special grand jury, with testimony in that investigation set to begin this week.

Meanwhile, in other legal news today, a favorite Republican obsession came crashing down. The first verdict from special prosecutor John Durham`s probe into the origins of the investigation into the former president`s ties to Russia ended in defeat. The jury acquitted former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann on charges of lying to the FBI.

Sussmann was accused of misrepresenting himself during a meeting with the FBI general counsel in 2016.

I`m joined now by Joyce Vance, former U.S. attorney and professor at the University of Alabama School of Law.

Joyce, always great to see you.

Let`s go in reverse.

The Sussmann obsession, the obsession with the origins of the Trump investigation, that was pretty quick. I mean, the deliberations were pretty brief. And the jurors who spoke to the press said it wasn`t even a question. It wasn`t political. They just didn`t have a case.

Where do you think that that leaves the Durham investigation. And why is that investigation still happening?

JOYCE VANCE, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: So, John Durham has one case left to try, another false statements case involving someone who was supposedly a source on the Steele report.

But, clearly, this special counsel investigation is out of gas. It was peddled as a vehicle for exposing this massive conspiracy at the FBI that was out to get Trump. And we turn out to have this one case here, sort of the showpiece case, and, lo and behold, the FBI is actually played out as the victim in this case.

VANCE: It was always a weak case, a case that wasn`t compelling, should have never gone to trial, and, in essence, shows what the jurors said if she walked out of the courthouse, that they could have used their time in far better ways...

VANCE: ... than hearing this case and deliberating.

Let`s talk about Navarro, Navarro, who -- this is the incredibly unpleasant former labor -- the sort of finance guy that had this plan to trying to overturn the election. He`s trying to claim that he`s -- despite the fact that the Biden administration has said, you don`t get to have -- he thinks that he can hold Donald Trump`s decision to sort of hold his testimony away and say that Biden can`t over -- undo that.

That`s not true, right? It`s up to the Biden administration whether or not he could have that kind of immunity.

VANCE: Even if there was executive privilege in this situation...

VANCE: ... which there arguably isn`t, it`s absolutely up to Biden at this point. Courts have made that clear. The Supreme Court has refused to intervene.

And, Joy, I`m not sure that Donald Trump has actually asserted privilege in this setting. So, Navarro is just hitting bad notes all the way around here.

REID: You tweeted earlier that the fact that he`s been subpoenaed means he`s probably not a target. What could be his usefulness?

VANCE: Well, he could be seen as a witness.

DOJ doesn`t usually subpoena targets. If they want to give someone who`s a target the opportunity to explain their side of the case in the grand jury, it`s usually in negotiation with lawyers. And that`s a little bit difficult here because Mr. Navarro apparently does not have a lawyer. I cringe every time I see that and wish he would get a lawyer.

But he is the person who explained that he understood how this sort of proposal that would have fake slates of electors, with Mike Pence sort of leading the charge. He was the one who masterminded it, according to him. He knew how it worked.

He wrote a big memo that was circulated to members of Congress. And so he could, in many senses, be a witness if DOJ has decided that he`s not a target.

REID: How does -- how do all these cases sort of fit together?

Because you do have the Georgia case, which was the direct ask, where Trump said, get me the votes. I need this many, 11,000x number. Give me that many.

And then you had, obviously, Senator Lindsey Graham also calls, say, can you get him the votes? And then you have what seemed to be a very well- coordinated plan, with memos, et cetera, to try to stop the certification of Biden`s victory, as you said, fake electors and the whole nine.

Do these cases at some point converge? Or do they stay separate?

VANCE: That`s such a good question to ask.

I think what you`re asking is, is this one big overarching conspiracy with a criminal mastermind at the top, or is this a lot of separate plots to try to overturn the election going on, in essence, as parallel play among different, maybe slightly overlapping groups of people?

And we don`t know the answer for certain. Or, to put a finer point on it, we don`t know how DOJ views the evidence for certain. There is some suggestion that the grand jury subpoena Mr. Navarro received has a different grand jury number on it than subpoenas that have been sent out in the fake slate of electors case. So perhaps there could be more than one investigation ongoing.

But, ultimately, if this is one conspiracy, it`s an awfully big, unwieldy, difficult case to prosecute.

VANCE: And DOJ might do better to view it sort of in manageable bites or manageable chunks.

REID: And does it require everyone involved in the conspiracy to understand that violence would be a part of the plan?

And I think that this notion that violence had to be involved is something that we can dispense with. Yes, there are some charges that would require this evidence of a desire to use violence, the seditious conspiracy charge.

But if you`re looking at a -- sort of a charge that involves an effort to interfere with Congress in its work to certify the election...

VANCE: ... that`s a very legitimate, very serious charge here. It doesn`t require any evidence of violence. So that`s really a nonstarter.

REID: And let`s just also disabuse -- I mean, it is not illegal to object to the slates of electors. Democrats have done it. Republicans have done it.

That, in and of itself, is not proof of a crime.

VANCE: That`s absolutely right.

I mean, that`s part of the process. And so what DOJ has to assess here is, was there a concerted plan to overthrow the election using these fake slates of electors as a vehicle, as a means of getting there?

REID: Right, and basically cheating, instead of just objecting, actually then sliding in fake electors.

It`s always great talking to you. I feel like I`m taking like a little class. I`m taking a little law school class on THE REIDOUT.

So, we always appreciate you, Joyce Vance, my friend. Really appreciate you.

And up next on THE REIDOUT: Today, superstar K-pop band BTS visited the White House to talk to reporters about the rise in AAPI hate facing our nation and what we can all do to end this violence.

REID: There are days in Washington that are triumphant, tragic, frustrating, and ridiculous.

But some days, like today, are simply iconic, with Korean pop megastars BTS joining the White House daily press briefing to make remarks, with the help of a translator, about Asian inclusion and the ongoing crisis of attacks against Asian Americans.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We were devastated by the recent surge of hate crimes.

Suga said it`s not wrong to be different. I think equality begins when we open up and embrace all of our differences.

Everyone has their own history. We hope today is one step forward to respecting and understanding each and every one as a valuable person.

REID: Since their debut in 2013, BTS has become a global pop sensation and American phenomenon.

Their fan base, known as the BTS Army, is a broad coalition that also operates as a force for political activism, reportedly raising $1 million for Black Lives Matter in less than a day.

So, it comes as no surprise that the K-Wave swept the White House -- White House today to address Asian -- anti-Asian hate on the last day of Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month, a month that came with more tragedy than celebration, when a man motivated by political hatred opened fire on a Taiwanese congregation in California where people worship, killing one and injuring five.

When three Korean women were shot at a Dallas hair salon, part of a pattern of shootings at Asian businesses in the area, a disturbing echo of the Atlanta spa massacres, where Asian women were targeted in their workplaces, all the while attacks on Asian American civilians continue.

It is a difficult time right now, a tragic time.

This week, America will bury 19 children from one school after laying to rest those killed in the racist attack in Buffalo. As Americans mourn and search for answers, Asian Americans will continue to fight to live authentically and freely long after Heritage Month is over, as will Black people, and LGBTQ people, and women, and indigenous people, and children, who simply want to feel safe at school.

So, on the last day of a chaotic, devastating month, let`s tap into that K- pop stan playbook. Let`s make gun reform and voting American phenomena too.

And that is tonight`s REIDOUT.

"ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES" starts now.