Updated
Summary
Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony draws comparisons to Alexander Butterfield’s Watergate testimony. Steve Bannon’s lawyer actually said to a judge today in court quote, “What’s the point in going to trial here if there is no defenses? Agreed, said the judge. Jazmin Casarez’s nine-year- old sister Jackie was one of the 19 children who were murdered in their classrooms at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas.
Transcript
LAWRENCE O’DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Rachel.
I’ll be joining you in that recap tomorrow evening.
And tonight, Rachel, I’m very excited. This is one of those things that, in this job, where I just sit here wondering, how did this happen? How did this happen? Because, I was a kid watching the Watergate hearings, and watching the moment the changed everything, which was Alexander Butterfield testifying under oath, on TV, and revealing that pretty much everything Richard Nixon said was on tape. Pretty much all of it was tape recorded in the White House, on the telephones, at Camp David, everywhere.
And, Alexander Butterfield, is going to, 49 years later, is going to join us here tonight.
RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST, “TRMS”: No way, really?
O’DONNELL: To talk about what it is really like to be that star witness in that kind of presidential investigative hearing, in what is now the Cassidy Hutchinson role, and what we’ve seen. He was subpoenaed, just like she was subpoenaed.
And it was obviously, it’s a unique experience, and a unique perspective to get on what we are watching, and what we will be watching tomorrow.
MADDOW: I can’t believe I went all day-to-day without knowing that you had Alexander Butterfield be on the show tonight. How did this escape me? How come nobody came in and rang my bell about this?
O’DONNELL: You are supposed to be informed immediately, Richard. These are not supposed to take you by surprise. I don’t know what happened to the system.
But it’s really exciting, and we do have to reach back that 50 years, for people who actually have lived through things like this.
MADDOW: Yes, exactly right. And, arguably, what we’ve learned from the January 6th committee, is already describing a scope of criminality and it aggression gets the Constitution in the country, that far outstrips the worst things that Nixon was accused of, about what Mr. Butterfield disclose those days, and when the Watergate hearings were able to achieve with accountability, with him resigning. I mean that is the gold standard, sort of, for exposure and accountability.
We have now — we are now living through the gold standard for criminal behavior by people occupying the highest offices of the land. We just haven’t seen the accountability.
O’DONNELL: Well, Alexander Butterfield has seen it all.
MADDOW: I’m getting out of the way, well done.
O’DONNELL: Thank you, Rachel.
Well, a star witness of the January 6 committee hearing so far, the star witness so far, could be outdone by another star witness. That star witness did not volunteer to testify. Cassidy Hutchinson’s life changed when a U.S. Marshal knocked on her door with a subpoena from the committee. She was 25 years old, when the marshal put that subpoena in her hands. She turned 26 shortly before she testified publicly in front of the committee.
And now, for the rest of her life, she will be known as the woman who testified against the president. Just as John Dean, at age 35, became known for the rest of his life as the man who testified against the president, when he told the truth to a Senate committee about his conversations with President Richard Nixon, 49 years ago.
Cassidy Hutchinson, could not afford to run up huge legal bills, fighting the subpoena, especially since, as a judge ruled today in Steve Bannon’s case, there are no legal grounds on which to fight such subpoenas from the January 6th committee.
In her first interviews with the committee, Cassidy Hutchinson was presented by a lawyer paid for by Donald Trump, using the political contributions from Trump supporters, of course, not using Donald Trump’s own money, he never does that. She was not as forthcoming in those earlier interviews, as she eventually became.
“The New York Times” reports, not surprisingly, that Cassidy Hutchinson developed a bond with Congressman Liz Cheney, who is now the only Republican woman in Washington who has been willing to take the political risk of actually living the words of her oath of office.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY): I have been incredibly moved by the young women that I have meant, and that have come forward to testify in the January 6 committee.
(APPLAUSE)
Some of these are young women who worked on the Trump campaign, some worked in the Trump White House, some who worked in offices on Capitol Hill, all who knew immediately that what happened that day must never happen again.
[22:05:09]
America had a chance to meets one of these young women yesterday, Miss Cassidy Hutchinson.
(APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O’DONNELL: That was Liz Cheney getting a pause from a Republican audience at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California, 75 miles north of the Richard Nixon presidential library in California, where such a speech would have eerie echoes of the stunning testimony against President Nixon, delivered by Nixon White House counsel John Dean, and others who worked in the Nixon White House, including our next guest, who delivered the testimony, the crucial testimony that ultimately forced Richard Nixon to resign the presidency.
What was it like for Cassidy Hutchinson to receive that subpoena? And, to then turn to the Trump team for legal help, and no doubt been advised, as lawyers always do, to answer questions in a few words as possible. Yes, no, I don’t know, I don’t recall, and never, never offer information that has not been specifically requested.
That is standard advice lawyers give clients in any under oath proceeding. As a White House employee, Cassidy Hutchinson took the same oath of office is that Liz Cheney took as a member of Congress. And, no doubt, as Cassidy Hutchinson watched Liz Cheney publicly and privately, in her interviews with her committee, live up to her oath of office, that oath, as well as the oath to tell the truth to the committee may have changed Cassidy Hutchinson’s feelings about what she should be telling the committee. About what’s the whole truth is, that she should be telling the committee.
When Cassidy Hutchinson switched lawyers to an independent lawyer, not paid by Donald Trump, Cassidy Hutchinson told the committee that she was being coaxed, or threatened to stay in line. With someone leaving her message saying: A person let me know you have your deposition tomorrow. He wants me to let you know that he’s thinking about you, he knows you’re loyal, and you are going to do the right thing when you go in for your deposition.
Still, Cassidy Hutchinson delivered the testimony that was almost as good as having a tape recorder in the West Wing of the White House.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HUTCHINSON: I saw Mr. Cipollone right before I walked out this 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.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MADDOW: That important testimony seems to have forced Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone to reach an agreement to testify to the January 6th committee, which he did on Friday, behind closed doors, for eight and a half hours. The committee is expected to use some of the video testimony obtained from Pat Cipollone, in tomorrow’s public hearing.
Cassidy Hutchinson’s vivid quotations of statements made in the White House, by the White House counsel, and by White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and others, including quoting things Donald Trump said, are the next best thing to tapes of White House conversations. When our next guest’s turn came to testify against the president who he worked for, he actually delivered the best thing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Butterfield, are you aware of installation of any listening devices in the Oval Office of the president?
ALEXANDER BUTTERFIELD, RICHARD NIXON’S DEPUTY ASSISTANT: I was aware of listening devices, yes sir.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O’DONNELL: That was Richard Nixon’s deputy assistant, Alexander Butterfield, testifying to the Senate Watergate Committee under subpoena.
Like Cassidy Hutchinson, and like John Dean, Alexander Butterfield did not volunteer to — we he didn’t think that that’s what he was doing. John Dean had already testified to the committee, and his testimony was clearly against the president who served. John Dean said that the president participated in criminal conspiracies in the Oval Office.
But, John Dean’s testimony alone would not have been enough to take down Richard Nixon.
[22:10:01]
John Dean confessed to committing crimes himself, and was sentenced to less prison time, because he cooperated and testified against Richard Nixon.
So, John Dean’s testimony could be dismissed by people loyal to President Nixon as something self serving and something significantly less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Then came Alexander Butterfield and the revelation that it was all on tape.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Butterfield, as far as you know, from your own personal knowledge we, from 1970 until the present time. All of the president’s conversations, and officers mentioned, and on the telephone mentioned were recorded?
As far as you know.
BUTTERFIELD: That’s correct.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And as far as you know, those tapes are still available?
BUTTERFIELD: As far as I know, but I’ve been away for four months, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I have no further questions.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O’DONNELL: That was not something that Alexander Butterfield planned to tell the committee. He delivered that testimony publicly, 49 years ago this week, on a Monday. And no the previous prime Friday, he was privately questioned by committee staff.
He decided that, of course, he was going to tell the truth to the committee, but he was not going to volunteer anything. And during that Friday interview, one of the Republican staffers on the committee asked him if there were any recordings of White House conversations.
And the rest is history, and the television audience watching that day, like I was, knew that we were watching history being made right there, live on TV.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SAMUEL DASH, CHIEF COUNSEL, WATERGATE COMMITTEE: Mr. Butterfield, just a few questions, because I think Mr. Thompson’s questions have pretty much elicited most of the testimony. I think what you’re saying was, at all times, certainly in the White House itself, either in the Oval Office, we are in the executive office of the president, where there was a locator light. Whenever the president moved, and a locator might move to where the president was, it should get the microphones. Now, is your understanding that this operated on an ongoing basis, daily? This system operated on an ongoing basis, daily?
BUTTERFIELD: Yes, sir.
DASH: To your knowledge, did the president ever asked while he was in the Oval Office, to have the system not operate, the locator light not showing that office, so as to trigger the device?
BUTTEFIELD: No, sir. As our matter-of-fact, the president seems to be totally we really oblivious, certainly uninhibited by this fact.
REPORTER: A recess for the vote by the committee on the Alaskan pipeline bill, and we’ve just heard some startling testimony from Alexander Butterfield, a former White House in, who just testified under oath that the president’s office, the president’s phone or all bugged. Mr. Butterfield said that these listening devices were installed sometime between April 1970, and the end of the summer of 1970.
Room devices were installed in the presidents oval office, and in his office in the executive office building. He said that there were installed for historical purposes, to record the president’s business. And, he said that the listening devices in the room are activated by voice activation. When anybody starts talking, the tape starts rolling. He testified that the tape picks up all conversation, all noise, even whispers.
Mr. Butterfield also said that the cabinet room has a listening device installed. He says that this means that the president can turn this on and off if he wants to, and he went on and said that the president’s business phone in the Oval Office, in the executive office building, in his residence, in his cabin at Camp David are all bugged.
And when Senator Talmadge asking if any warning signals were given to anyone, private citizens, senators, congressman, Mr. Butterfield said no. And down in front of the Senate caucus room, is Carl Stern who has majority counsel Sam Dash.
Carl?
CARL STERN, REPORTER: Thank you, Doug.
Mr. Nash, what do you do now? Now you are where that there are these tape recordings, and presumably they are still in existence, how do you get them?
DASH: I think the answer to that is obvious, I’m fairly sure that the committee will vote to request the tapes for the particular dates that come up in the testimony.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O’DONNELL: The committee subpoenaed the tapes, Richard Nixon fought that subpoena all the way to the United States Supreme Court, which unanimously ordered the president to hand over the tapes.
[22:15:01]
The tapes prove that John’s testimony was accurate, and the president was shown to be committing impeachable actions, in his own, voice in the Oval Office on tape. Only then did Republican leaders of the Senate go to the White House to tell President Nixon that he had no choice but to resign, or be convicted in a Senate impeachment trial.
As a result of the investigation of the president, 48 Nixon administration officials were found guilty of crimes. Alexander Butterfield was never implicated, in any of those crimes.
Joining us now is Alexander Butterfield, former deputy assistant to President Nixon.
Thank you very much for joining us tonight. It is a real pleasure to have you here, and to be able to get your perspective on what we are seeing now in Washington.
Tell us about what was going through your mind when you saw Cassidy Hutchinson testifying.
BUTTERFIELD: Well, first, let me thank you for having me tonight. It’s a pleasure. You are one of my favorite newsmen. What was alike? I don’t want to say it was another day at the office, although, in many ways it was.
I was — everything I did really seem to come naturally, and I had no qualms about not answering questions. I had my own rules, that is that everything I answered was a direct question, a question without any ambiguity, and very clear. And if I’m at those qualifications, I didn’t want to be tricky with the committee, I respected the committee. But unless the question met those requirements, I was not going to respond in kind.
O’DONNELL: You said that you didn’t consider yourself to be testifying against the president, you actually felt that maybe, because you knew what was on the tapes. You thought that maybe there are some things on these tapes that were helpful to the president.
BUTTERFIELD: Well, I’m not sure — that’s right, Lawrence. I was very to death, because what’s nobody knew, I felt that it was my responsibility, and I was the purpose in who’s told to put in the system, and I chose the Secret Service technical security division of these Secret Service to do that work. Those carrier guys I knew very well, sort of as a liaison between the oval office and the Secret Service. And I knew most of them pretty well. I even selected one of the leaders of the Secret Service, one of the longtime leaders had to leave office.
I — so I just — I just had this little room, and if the room was in no way a way indirect, or fuzzy, or ambiguous, I would refuse to answer.
O’DONNELL: I’ve been hearing some people who watched Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony, who wondered why she didn’t come forward sooner, why she needed a subpoena to testify. Tell us what it is like to be in that situation, working in the White House, where you never anticipate, certainly, when you start working there, that you will end up testifying in a way like this. And what it is like as a witness, when you come around to the realization that you are going to have to raise your right hand to tell the truth.
BUTTERFIELD: First, let me say that from the day that I started at the Nixon White House, which was January 21st of the first year of the Nixon administration. I was the deputy White House chief of chess staff.
[22:20:00]
And I was also, at that same time, at the beginning, chief administrative officer and director of internal security. And then, within a year, I was secretary to the cabinet, and working very closely on a daily basis with the president himself. So — and my only boss was Haldeman and the, he and I — I had trouble with Haldeman for a while, I had known him back at UCLA back in 1946.
And we had — we were close because we — our girl friends were Kappa Kappa Gamma sisters. So Bob counted on me to do a lot of things right away, and I took that, I don’t have any trouble doing it. I’ve been a colonel in the Air Force, and one of the world’s greatest fighter pilots.
So, you know, this was something I felt I could do and do pretty well.
O’DONNELL: As you watched this current investigation of the president, and he watches testimony unfolds. What are your reactions to the witnesses so, far especially Cassidy Hutchinson?
BUTTERFIELD: Well, I’m glad you mentioned her, because I can’t tell you, Lawrence, I was very impressed by that young lady. You could tell a lot she didn’t particularly want to be there, that she was so professional, you knew that she was being truthful. And I was just — I knew nothing about her before, and she was being very professional in every way. I only hope that my various interviews were half as good.
O’DONNELL: Did you — did you have a feeling watching her, of what it felt like to be in that room yourself, giving what was then called the bombshell testimony?
BUTTERFIELD: Yeah, yes I did. And I felt I had a feel for what she was going through at the time.
O’DONNELL: Alexander Butterfield, thank you very much for joining us tonight. Thank you for telling the country the truth, and what we needed to know, when you did when your moment came in that hearing. That is a debt that the country owes you.
BUTTERFIELD: Well, it’s a little embarrassing to hear, but thank you, Lawrence, very much.
O’DONNELL: Thank you. Really appreciate it.
And, joining us now is Jill Wine-Banks, who served as assistant Watergate prosecutor. She’s an MSNBC contributor.
And, Jill, I think — you certainly know exactly where you were when you heard Alexander Butterfield’s testimony. And I think most people in the country who heard it remember that moment.
JILL WINE-BANKS, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: I definitely do. I was in the office of the special prosecutor. And like everybody else in the country, we learned it on the television. We heard — one of our staff happen to be passing by a television, heard it. The difference between me and everyone else in the country is our next up was, what tapes do we subpoena? We need to have those, because right now, it is he said he said, John Dean versus the president the United States. And the president is going to win that episode, unless we can corroborate John Dean.
And, so we sat down and we figured out nine tapes that we felt we are about criminal activities, that would not fall within executive privilege because of the crime fraud exception. We carefully selected them, we subpoenaed — well, first, we sent a letter to the White House which, of course, they ignored me and that’s what led to a subpoena and I do have to correct one thing you said Congress never actually got the tapes directly. They got them from us.
The Supreme Court ruled in our favor, and we got them. We actually end up with six of the nine, two were missing, went out an 18 and a half miss missing gap. So we got six, and we subpoenaed 64 more, one of which is known as a smoking gun tape which clearly let us know that the president knew from the very beginning about the burglary and the cover-up.
[22:25:13]
And it was him saying, well let’s just use the CIA to stop the FBI from following the money trail, because the money in the burglars pockets, 100 dollar bills, came from cashing a campaign check, from, by the way, a Democrat which is really the thing they did want to know, is that a Democrat had given the money.
And, it would’ve led directly to showing that the court was financed by a committee to really elect the president known as creep. And that is how the whole thing started, was on that day June 20th — June 23rd.
And so, that’s what it was all about, it was really life-changing for all of us, hearing that there were tapes, and we could then corroborate John Dean. I am hoping that there was something similar to corroborate Cass Hutchinson, because her testimony was very dramatic, much as John Dean’s was. And John Dean was more, he was the one in the room, like Cipollone, he was in the room with the president.
So, his testimony could also be bombshell if he’s willing to say when he heard the president say, but he knew the president knew. But Cassidy Hutchinson has laid a very strong groundwork, and it’s very powerful.
O’DONNELL: Jill, quickly before we squeeze in a delayed commercial break here. If Alexander Butterfield had not identified the tapes, and if the tapes were not part of the evidence base, would Richard Nixon have served out his term as president?
WINE-BANKS: We’ll, if there was a Fox News, the answer is he would’ve served out the rest of his term. If there wasn’t, John Dean’s testimony was 100 percent accurate, he made no mistakes, he was corroborated. But, without the tapes, it would have been tricky. It could have been much harder to convince a jury to convict.
And remember, the president was only an unindicted coconspirator. He was subject to a real impeachment, there is a legitimate impeachment going on. And Leon Jaworski, who then was a special prosecutor, and felt that impeachment was a better way to go. I personally thought, then and think now, that accountability, and not been above the law means that even the president, even a sitting president, but certainly a four former president is subject to indictment.
And, unless there is accountability, what is happening now that threatens our democracy, could repeat itself. And that’s why we cannot afford to ignore the criminal violations that are being shown to us every time there is a hearing from the January 6 Committee.
O’DONNELL: Jill Wine-Banks, thank you very much for adding that note to Alexander Butterfield’s testimony for us here tonight.
And coming up, Steve Bannon’s lawyer admitted in federal court today, that he has no defenses for refusing to comply with the January 6 committee subpoena, and his trial starts a week from today. Andrew Weissmann will join our discussion, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:32:32]
O’DONNELL: Steve Bannon’s lawyer actually said to a judge today in court quote, “What’s the point in going to trial here if there is no defenses? Agreed, said the judge.
Joining us now is Andrew Weissmann, former FBI general counsel and MSNBC legal analyst.
Andrew, I’ve never seen a pre-trial session like what we had today where the judge basically throwing out all sorts of nonsensical defenses that Bannon wanted to present. Something that happens never quite so nonsensically in pretrial motions. There are certain angles that lawyers are not allowed to use in trial.
But to have Bannon’s lawyer actually get down to the point of saying but then there is no defenses was kind of like a, yes we kind of knew that from the start.
ANDREW WEISSMANN, MSNBC LEGAL: Yes. I mean it was — look, that was not the finest moment for the defense lawyer. In fact judge probably shouldn’t have said agreed, because everyone’s entitled to go to trial in our system of justice.
There is an odd quirk in D.C. Law which is worth noting which is typically there is a form of reliance on council defense where you get to say I didn’t intend to violate the law or do anything wrong because I was relying on the advice from counsel. There’s a little bit more to that. You have to have specific advice and you have to explain why you believed it.
That’s not the law in the D.C. circuit. I imagine that that is something that could be an appellate issue up to the Supreme Court if there is conviction here. But as you mentioned there’s not a lot of defenses here, it’s a pretty open and shut issue without that defense.
O’DONNELL: And now you have Bannon saying, oh no, I’m willing to testify to the committee apparently in the hope of getting out of prosecution. The Justice Department saying no, even if you are willing to testify now, you don’t get out of prosecution for refusing to comply with the subpoena on the date you were supposed to comply.
WEISSMANN: Right. That’s the difference between civil contempt and criminal contempt. So Steve Bannon has been charged with criminal contempt for his refusal, his violation, his intentional violation of not complying with the subpoena.
[22:34:56]
WEISSMANN: Civil contempt is just to coerce you to testify. So if you agree to testify, then your civil contempt sanction is removed. But whatever Steve Bannon does now, and of course, he hasn’t actually testified, that’s irrelevant — completely irrelevant and will be kept out by the judge from the trial. And the judge rejected the continuance based on that ground and any ground, so this trial is going forward next week.
O’DONNELL: Thank you for that. I didn’t really understand the difference between civil contempt and criminal contempt and why simply agreeing to stop the contemptuous behavior doesn’t make the case go away, as it does in a civil side. Andrew Weissmann, thank you very much —
WEISSMANN: Exactly.
O’DONNELL: — for joining us tonight. Really appreciate it.
WEISSMANN: You’re welcome.
O’DONNELL: Thank you.
WEISSMANN: Thank you.
O’DONNELL: And coming up, the sister of one of the kids murdered at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas will join us next to tell us what she is now demanding, including the firing of the school police chief Peter Arredondo.
State Senator Roland Gutierrez will also join our discussion.
[22:36:02]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAZMIN CASAREZ, SISTER WAS MURDER AT ROBB ELEMENTARY SCHOOLL: The morning of the 24th I usually run into my sister in the restroom.
We usually bump into each other (INAUDIBLE). But I woke up a little late that day, so I didn’t see her, forgot to say good morning. And I think I think that is going to haunt me for the rest of my life.
I’m doing this for you sister. If you can see me, I am doing this for you. You will be remembered, I promise you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O’DONNELL: Jazmin Casarez’s nine-year-old sister Jackie was one of the 19 children who were murdered in their classrooms at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas. Jazmin helped organize a march yesterday in Uvalde demanding that the school police chief Pete Arredondo be fired and demanding the full truth of what happened inside the school while the police waited for more than an hour to attack and stop the mass murderer.
Joining us now is Jazmin Cazares. Also with us Texas State Senator Roland Gutierrez.
And Jazmin let me begin by saying, I’m very sorry for your loss. And I know, that it’s only seven weeks since your life has been changed this way. And I hope that in some ways in the seventh week you’re able to sleep better or in some ways have moments that are — in which you feel more relief than seven weeks ago.
How are you doing? What can you tell us about how you are doing?
CASAREZ: I’m doing as best as I can be. I’m just pushing — pushing through everything.
O’DONNELL: And tell us about what you were doing yesterday in Uvalde and what you hope to accomplish?
CASAREZ: Yes. Yesterday we had Unheard Voices March and Rally. Our first one but hopefully not our last. While everyone was marching or chanting, and I was helping pass that water majority of the time, but I think our whole point of the march — everyone has their different reasons — but our main things were of course remembering the 21 lives lost, for school safety, for accountability, and for justice.
O’DONNELL: And Jazmin, you shared with us some pictures of you and your younger sister Jackie which we were just showing there while you were speaking. Just want to get another look at those. What are you — what are you hoping to do next? What is the next stage?
CASAREZ: The next stage — more marches, more laws being made, more rules being passed to protect me and other kids that have been in the same situation my sister was in.
O’DONNELL: State Senator Roland Gutierrez, Texas state senator, you’re in Washington today with President Biden at the White House in discussing what they were able to accomplish in Congress with some gun safety measures, what can you tell us about what might be next?
ROLAND GUTIERREZ (D), TEXAS STATE SENATOR: Well thank you Lawrence. First off I really want to thank Jazmin for all of her bravery and her efforts. I’m so very proud of her.
I’ve gotten to know her and her family. And I’ve got to tell you Lawrence. I know Jackie would be so proud of her sister.
And so far as this bill is concerned, you know, it’s a good starting point for sure. It remains to be seen whether Greg Abbott will avail himself of the red flag incentives, will avail this state of red flag incentives here in Texas.
It is my hope that as we move forward we can put enough pressure. And it’s going to happen with the kind of pressure that Jazmin and her family are putting forward. It really is that Emmett Till when you hear Jazmin and her family talk about what happened to her little sister.
It’s my hope that thoughts and minds will change in Texas so that we can take the benefits of this bill and even move forward at the state level to make sure that we can change the law from 18 to 21 on these types of assault rifles.
[22:44:53]
O’DONNELL: And Jazmin, who joined with you yesterday in Uvalde and did it include family members of some of the other victims?
CASAREZ: Yes, yes. Of course, it was my family, a lot of the other victims’ families. We had some volunteers that came and helped out. And of course, the majority of the community that just came together to march for the lives lost.
O’DONNELL: We have seen kids like you get activated because of these kinds of tragedies around the country. Did you ever, when you saw maybe on television some other kids in your situation some of whom survived their own — shooting at their own high schools? Did you ever think that something like this could come to your life?
CASAREZ: Yes. And it’s unfortunate that it happens so often that people are in that situation. And you never think it’s going to happen to you until it does.
O’DONNELL: Going forward, you said, you know, Jackie of course your sister will always be remembered. You have done a great deal to make sure that that happens. What are you hoping you will be able to say about what you have been able to accomplish say five years from now or ten years from now?
CASAREZ: I hope to say that I have accomplished, of course, honoring the kids. I want to say holding people accountable, people taking responsibility for what happened there. I of course, changed — so many changes that I hope to will come from my activism and the activism of other people.
O’DONNELL: Jazmin Casarez — again very, very sorry for your loss. Thank you very much for joining us. We really appreciate it. And State Senator Roland Gutierrez as always, thank you for joining us.
GUTIERREZ: Thank you, Lawrence.
CASAREZ: Yes. Thank you for having us.
O’DONNELL: Thank you.
And coming up, reporter Tony Plohetski has seen the video that many families want to be released. Video of police doing nothing in the hallway of the Robb Elementary School for over an hour. Tony Plohetski will join us next.
[22:47:12]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O’DONNELL: Our next guest has seen the video that Texas Governor Greg Abbott is hoping no one else sees until after the election in November. Texas reporter Tony Plohetski has watched the 77 minutes of video recorded from a permanent hallway camera in Robb Elementary School while a mass murderer was killing 19 children and two teachers in their classrooms.
The video does not show anything that happened inside the classroom, it doesn’t show any of the children or the injure teachers. It does not show any of the killing.
But it does show the police doing nothing for over an hour. During that hour, wounded teacher Arnulfo Reyes, who is now recuperating from several surgeries, said I kept waiting for someone to come. But when I didn’t see anyone coming in, I just thought, nobody’s coming.
When the murderer started firing his assault weapon in the adjoining classroom, Arnulfo Reyes told his students, all right we’ve already practiced this. Get under the desk, ok. Just close your eyes, act like you are asleep. “I didn’t want them to see anything.”
Mr. Reyes was the first to be shot in his classroom. He gave this account to the “New York Times” about what happened after he was shot.
“The gunman paced around the room, then perched on the teacher’s desk as Mr. Reyes lay sprawled out face down on the floor below in what he believed was an attempt to taunt him or make sure he was dead. The gunman let a cup of water drip from a desk on to Mr. Reyes’ back.
The government then smeared some of Mr. Reyes own blood on the teachers face and the placed the teacher’s phone, which kept ringing as desperate relatives tried to reach him on his back.
When he was shot a second time, Mr. Reyes thought I’m not going to make it, I’m going to bleed out.
Joining us now is Tony Plohetski, investigative reporter for the “Austin American Statesman”. Tony, you’ve seen the video and this shows all of the officers from several departments including state police officers doing nothing for over an hour.
TONY PLOHETSKI, “AUSTIN AMERICAN STATESMAN”: So Lawrence, the video actually, of course, begins with the gunman walking into the hall of Robb Elementary and just a short time later you can see him still in the hallway, opened fire on one of the classrooms and just a hail of gunfire from that AR-15.
tell you that about three minutes later local police officers arrived at the scene and did try to make entry into that classroom. But they took gunfire. You can actually see them being blown back in a hallway camera.
And then after that there seemed to be no real urgency at least urgency that you would not think that you would see knowing that there was a gunman and a classroom with 19 children.
[22:54:54]
PLOHETSKI: And so as the time went past, you see more and more officers arrive in that hallway. You see more and more firepower arrive in that hallway. You see more protective equipment arrive in that hallway. But it was not until about 12:50 — keep in mind the gunman entered the school at 11:33, so not until about 12:50 did the team finally breached that classroom and take down the gunman.
O’DONNELL: Tony, what are the prospects of us ever seeing this video?
PLOHETSKI: I do think they are increasing. There seems to be a growing core chorus for it to be released. The governor actually did say today on the record publicly that he does want it to be released. And yet the Texas Department of Public Safety is pointing to the district attorney three hours away as a reason for the fact that they have not released it, Lawrence.
O’DONNELL: Very convenient for the governor to be saying I want it released when he has the power the state police officers could release it without any reference to what the district attorney wants who is investigating a crime that is now a closed case because the murderer is dead. You cannot prosecute a dead person.
Tony Plohetski, thank you very much for joining us tonight. Really appreciate it.
PLOHETSKI: You bet.
O’DONNELL: We’ll be right back.
[22:56:20]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O’DONNELL: That is tonight’s LAST WORD.
“THE 11TH HOUR WITH STEPHANIE RUHLE starts now.