Updated
Summary
The Fulton County district attorney says she won`t rule out a Trump subpoena. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on subpoena, “This is all politics”. According to Harvard Law professor Charles Fried, the greatest threat next term is the independent legislature clause case from North Carolina which would produce a slow motion coup d`etat. The most thorough public report yet on the mass murder at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas says that lives could`ve been saved if the police attacked the mass murderer much sooner than they did.
Transcript
LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Ali. Hearing the details of those murders, it`s — the awful reputation of it is the most absurd part of it.
ALI VELSH, MSNBC HOST, “VELSHI”: And unlike politics, but you know a lot about, or at the things that we cover. You get better at it every time you cover it. You don`t with shootings. You never get better at. It it`s just the repetition and the same stuff that you feel all the time. That is why people are fed up with.
O`DONNELL: Yes, there`s — we go through our ritual, our television ritual for this. It has become the single most predictable form of American television in this American way of death. There is nothing else that we can do, if we could think up a better way of doing, it we would. But we have no better idea of how to handle this.
VELSHI: Well, enjoy your show tonight, my friend. I`ll be watching.
O`DONNELL: Thank you, Ali. Okay, thank you.
Fani Willis speaks, and Lindsey Graham goes silent. Now, that`s a news day that we did not see coming. The normally silent Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis gave an exclusive interview to NBC`s Blayne Alexander today. She discussed her grand jury investigation of Republican interference into the presidential election in Georgia.
She said it was possible that Donald Trump could get hit with a subpoena to testify to that grand jury, just like Lindsey Graham got yesterday. Lindsey Graham has been uncharacteristically silent. Since Fani Willis served him with a subpoena to testify to her grand jury in Georgia. Lindsey Graham is the only current member of the United States Senate to have been subpoenaed to testify to a grand jury — pretty special distinction that he has there.
And Lindsey Graham now has one of only five United States senators in the history of the Senate who have been subpoenaed to testify to a grand jury. We have had 1,994 United States senators. And up until yesterday, only four of them had been subpoenaed to testify to a grand jury. Now, Lindsey Graham joins that tiny exclusive club of United States senators subpoenaed to testify to a grand jury.
When Blayne Alexander asked Fani Willis today, why Lindsey Graham? District Attorney Willis said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FANI WILLIS, FULTON COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Well, I`m not going to get into the details of the investigation, but this is what I will tell you — election interference is a very important subject. We have been granted a special purpose grand jury by the judges here. I think it is an important investigation.
And what is important is that the grand jurors hear from anyone that may have impacted this election.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O`DONNELL: Anyone that may have impacted this election. That`s why Lindsey Graham has been subpoenaed.
Lindsey Graham`s criminal defense lawyers issued a written statement today saying, in my conversations with Fulton County investigators I have been informed Senator Graham is neither a subject nor target of the investigation, simply a witness. This is all politics, Fulton County is engaged in a fishing expedition and working in concert with the January 6th committee in Washington, any information from an interview or deposition, Senator Graham would be immediately shared with the January 6th committee.
As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Graham was well within his rights, to discuss with state officials the processes and procedures around administering elections, shouldn`t stand the issue today would erode the constitutional balance of power and the ability of a member of Congress to do their job. Senator Graham plans to go to court, challenge the subpoena, and expects to prevail.
That is every word, every single word that Lindsey Graham`s criminal defense lawyers had to say. And here is what District Attorney Willis had to say today about that statement.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIS: Nobody wants to come to the prosecutor`s party. That`s just kind of — part of the work that we do. We`ll take it before the judge and the judge will make a ruling if we have a legal right to bring them before the court.
Most times, people don`t want to come, but that is why you have the power of the state, and the power to subpoena people and bring them here. My job is not to bring you here because you want to come. My job is to make sure that the grand jurors get all of the evidence they want.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[22:05:01]
O`DONNELL: Lindsey Graham won`t be the last witness invited to testify.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BLAYNE ALEXANDER, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: We expect to possibly see additional subpoenas from people in former President Trump`s inner circle, or Trump associates?
WILLIS: Yes.
ALEXANDER: Are we talking about family members? Are we talking about former White House officials?
WILLIS: We`ll just have to see where the investigation leads us. But I think that people thought that we came into this as some sort of game. This is not a game at all.
What I am doing is very serious, it`s very important work. And we are going to do our due diligence in making sure that we look at all aspects of the case. And so, all you see is a prosecutor doing their due diligence.
ALEXANDER: Might we see a subpoena of the former president himself?
WILLIS: Anything is possible.
ALEXANDER: We`re not ruling that? It is possible though?
WILLIS: Absolutely.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O`DONNELL: Fani Willis said that she will suspend public activity in her investigation during Georgia`s election period this year, when early voting begins on October 17th with Election Day on November 8th.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALEXANDER: But you are saying if you haven`t wrapped up by then, you`re going to pause when it gets to —
WILLIS: Early voting, right. And we would just start up again after the November election.
ALEXANDER: So, no subpoenas, no indictments during that period?
WILLIS: Absolutely not.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O`DONNELL: The January 6th Committee has achieved what “The New York Times” tonight is calling a breakthrough in its subpoena process. After issuing a subpoena to Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone last week, the committee has reached an agreement with Cipollone to hear his testimony in a closed hearing on Friday of this week. The testimony will be videotaped for possible later public used by the committee.
In April, the committee had an informal interview with Mr. Cipollone, which was then based on an agreement to limit the questioning. A similar agreement might apply to Cipollone`s under oath videotape testimony on Friday.
“The New York Times” describes that previous agreement this way: The agreement, according to an email reviewed by “The New York Times”, allowed discussions of a meeting with Jeffrey Clark, a discussion — a Justice Department official who tried to help Mr. Trump cling to power. Mr. Trump`s interactions with John Eastman, the conservative lawyer who drafted a legal strategy for overturning the election; any interactions with members of Congress, and Mr. Cipollone`s recollections of the events of January 6th.
The agreement said that Cipollone could not discuss conversations with Mr. Trump, other than one discussion in the Oval Office with Mr. Clark in a pivotal meeting on January 3rd, 2021.
That would allow questions about what Pat Cipollone said to Cassidy Hutchinson.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON, FORMER WHITE HOUSE AIDE: I saw Mr. Cipollone right before I walked out the West Exec that morning, and Mr. Cipollone said something to the effect of, please make sure that we don`t go to the Capitol, Cassidy. Keep in touch with me. We`re going to get charged with every crime imaginable if we make that movement happen.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O`DONNELL: Joining us now is Daniel Goldman, the former House majority counsel for the first impeachment trial of Donald Trump, he is a former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, and he is now running as a Democrat for New York`s tenth congressional district.
Also joining our discussion is Democratic Georgia State Senator Jen Jordan. She`s running for attorney general in Georgia.
Senator Jordan, let me begin with you. And what we heard from Fani Willis today. Did any of that surprise you? What do you think the effectiveness will be of her subpoena process?
JEN JORDAN (D), GEORGIA SENATE SENATOR: Look, none of it surprised me. They have been very intentional in terms of how they have approached this. They have been very serious. And even just today, there was order out of the Fulton County superior court, where some important state senators who tried to quash Ms. Willis`s subpoenas so they wouldn`t have to appear before her grand jury. And the court did not agree with that. The court said to the extent that they have had communications with a third party, in terms of some sort of larger criminal activity, or enterprise, and it is absolutely appropriate for her to inquire.
So, it`s serious, and if I were anybody who received a subpoena, I would be concerned.
O`DONNELL: Daniel Goldman, there were three United States senators who got grand jury subpoenas. I think it was in 1929. Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas was the last one in 1993. She had first said that she was going to resist the subpoena, but she testified to the grand jury. She did not end up resisting that subpoena.
[22:10:01]
What do you expect to happen with Lindsey Graham, and his subpoenaed to testify to that grand jury?
DANIEL GOLDMAN, FORMER HOUSE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY MAJORITY COUNSEL: I have absolutely no idea. The statement by the criminal defense lawyer is completely nonsensical. Of course, any grand jury testimony would never be turned over to the January 6th Committee, otherwise that in its self is a crime.
But I think what Lindsey Graham will do is try to rely on the speech and debate clause, to say that it was part of his regular duties as a senator to avoid testifying. I don`t really understand why he wouldn`t testify if, as his lawyers say, he is only a witness, and not subject or a target. That just means he has relevant information, but they don`t believe that he was not engaged in any criminal conduct.
We know, Lawrence, as you may remember, he reached out to Brad Raffensperger himself shortly after the election before Donald Trump reached out to Raffensperger, and we don`t know what other conversations Lindsey Graham may have had with any other officials in Georgia.
Let`s remember, Lindsey Graham is a senator from South Carolina. He is not a senator from Georgia. It is unclear why he would be reaching out to the Georgia secretary of state, if anything other than simply working with Donald Trump to try to overturn the results in the Georgia election.
O`DONNELL: When he tries to argue, and his lawyers tried to argue, this is just the regular course of business for Senator Graham. The first question would be, have you ever done it before in your life? When you are a member of the House of Representatives, did you make that phone call, or a phone call like it when you are a senator? Have you ever made a phone call like it before?
And, Senator Jordan, what the grand jury presumably has is testimony from the secretary of state, and the secretary of state staff about what Lindsey Graham said to them. So, that grand jury, and Fani Willis has half of this testimony about these calls already.
JORDAN: Yes, and with respect, if he is going to try to invoke the speech and debate clause from the U.S. Constitution, it`s questionable whether that would even apply at a state level grand jury. And so, you know, kind of what was implied from his lawyer`s statement, in terms of him not being a subject or a target, you know, I almost wanted to read into that, kind of dot, dot, dot, for now.
And so, yeah, I mean, I think they know it is going, on what it happened on that call, and they want to talk to the senator about it.
O`DONNELL: Dan Goldman, Pat Cipollone`s agreement to testify on Friday, especially it if it is within the shape of the previous agreement about their other conversations. It could be very revealing testimony.
JORDAN: It very well could be. I think that the fact that he is now testifying after he has stonewalled the committee for three months, and refused to actually sit down for any transcribed interview or deposition. It just goes to show you how powerful these January 6th hearings have been and how transparent is the great disinfectant, because Pat Cipollone was perfectly comfortable letting these hearings go by without testifying, until pressure became too much.
It became too clear that he was such a central character in everything leading up to January 6th. The public outcry for him to testify was so great that he is now agreed to do so. I will be very interested to see what the conditions of which he testifies, whether they are circumscribed. Certainly his conversation with Cassidy Hutchinson, that she described, where he said, whatever you do, don`t let Trump go to the Capitol where we will get charged with every crime under the books, would not be subject to any time of privilege, and so, perhaps the committee did not know about that conversation in April when he sat down with them. And he was, apparently, not very forthcoming about it.
So, I do think that there will be more to discuss with him, even under the agreement that he had before. But it`s not at all clear if that agreement would apply on Friday.
O`DONNELL: Senator Jordan, Lindsey Graham`s criminal defense lawyers have started off in their public events of Lindsey Graham, in an extremely unprofessional way, accusing the district attorney of Fulton County as being ready to commit a crime by taking grand jury testimony and sharing it, in this case, sharing it with the January 6th committee.
What does that do to district attorneys like Fani Willis, when the first thing that happens, from Lindsey Graham`s attorneys, is that they accuse her of being in effect, a criminal district attorney?
[21:15:14]
JORDAN: Look, I think that our district attorney here in Fulton county can stand up to the pressure. I think she has. I think that she went into this knowing, I think she has had a lot of death threats and a lot of security concerns.
But at the end of the day, what Lindsey`s — U.S. senator — is trying to do, is really trying to affect the judge in South Carolina, because you will remember that these subpoenas need to be domesticated by a superior court judge in South Carolina. And so, by trying to politicize this, and trying to make it look like what is happening in Atlanta or Fulton County is about politics, they are really trying to put their finger on the scale with respect to a local judge, to say judge, this is crazy. We shouldn`t have to show up in Georgia for this, this is really just politics.
So, the way I look at this, this is part of their legal strategy, to actually affect the outcome and really put pressure on whatever judge is going to hear this. And say that this is not legitimate, he`s not a material witness and he does not have to appear between the grand jury here in Fulton County.
O`DONNELL: Jen Jordan and Dan Goldman, thank you both very much for starting off our discussions tonight. We really appreciate it. Thank you.
Coming up, a ten-year-old girl was raped in Ohio, and the governor of Ohio, and other Ohio Republicans all made it impossible for that ten year old girl to get an abortion in Ohio. A doctor in neighboring Indiana got a call, about a ten year old in Ohio who was a rape victim. That doctor will join us next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:21:40]
O`DONNELL: The Republican governor of Ohio, Mike DeWine, said, quote, this is a horrible tragedy for a ten year old to be assaulted, for a ten year old to be raped. As a father and grandfather, it`s just gut wrenching to even think about it.
But Governor DeWine refuses to even think about the law that he signed that prevents that 10 year old girl from getting an abortion in Ohio. The governor refuses to comment on the grotesque cruelty that is the Republican policy of forcing 10 year old girls who are rape victims and incest victims to then give forced birth, forced birth, by Republican law.
Last week, Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an obstetrician gynecologist in the neighboring state of Indiana got a phone call from a colleague, who was a child abuse doctor in Ohio.
“The Cincinnati Inquirer” tells the story.
Now this doctor had a ten year old patient in the office who was six weeks and three days pregnant. Could Dr. Bernard help?
Soon, the 10 year old girl was on her way across the state line to Indiana. Ten years old. And the Republican governor of Ohio wanted her to become a mother. The Democratic leader of the Ohio House Representatives, Alison Rousseau tweeted, please tell me how forcing a ten year old sexual abuse victim to carry her pregnancy to term and endure childbirth is anything other than barbaric?
Joining us now is Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an obstetrician gynecologist and an associate professor at the Indiana University School of Medicine. Also with us, Michele Goodwin, chancellor professor of law at the University of California, Irvine.
And, Dr. Bernard, let me begin with you, and I — of course, I don`t want to go anywhere near patient privacy issues. What is it like for you to be in Indiana with the windows soon closing there on the possibility of abortion, but it`s still possible, and to get a phone call from another state, like Ohio, where you have a 10 year old rape victim, who cannot get the services anymore in Ohio? What does it feel like on your end of that phone call?
DR. CAITLIN BERNARD, OB-GYN: It`s incredibly difficult, and at the same time, it`s something that we feel very strongly about, that we need to provide this care for everybody, for every single person that we get a call about, in any state, all over the country. Literally, people are working day and night to ensure that we have continued access to safe, legal abortion in every single state, for every single patient.
O`DONNELL: You may soon be making some of those calls yourself. What do you expect to happen legally, in Indiana in the future?
[22:25:05]
BERNARD: You know, the legislature has signaled that they are claiming to take severe restrictions on abortion within the next month. We anticipate potentially a complete abortion ban similar to what we`re seeing or even more restrictive than Ohio. It`s unclear if that will include exceptions, for example rape and incest.
And then we will be in the same position, as you said, scrambling trying to find care for the patients that we see, trying to take care of whomever we can, within the letter of the law in Indiana, which is something that we don`t know what will look like. How far do we have to wait until their life is at risk? How long do we have to push it? And how close are we going to get to the brink of death for patients needing abortion care?
O`DONNELL: Professor Goodwin, we have discussed this possibility, you and I, on this program before. The only specific example that we have ever had of it was your own personal experience of this as a child. But we`ve been anticipating these cases. And here it is. And, of course, as you can tell us, this is the first of what will be many.
MICHELE GOODWIN, LAW PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE: That`s absolutely right. We can`t pause and think that this is the only one, where the only girl who is suffering somehow, because the types of anti-abortion legislation that we see coming about. Not only do they not provide exceptions for rape or incest, but many of them seek to punish, in some way, the people who are closest to the individuals who would want to be able to be counseled about an abortion or to be able to get an abortion.
And this is what makes this time incredibly frightening and important to think about the kinds of questions that you are lifting up. If you think about the Texas abortion ban, SB-8, it punishes individuals who might aid or abet a person in receiving an abortion. So, what does that mean for the little girl who wants to tell her mother, and aunt, a teacher, or somebody else who might counsel that girl about what her options are, and where they can go? Those individuals could be punished.
So, these are questions not only about abortion, but also about the First Amendment, about the right to travel, and so much more that we should all be concerned about.
O`DONNELL: Some of these laws have a six-week window, where they do allow some abortion services for some patients.
And, Dr. Bernard, this story of the 10 year old in Ohio was that this was three days after the six-week window, where she discovered this. How common is that? And how practical is a six-week window for people?
BERNARD: In essence, it is a complete abortion ban. There are very few people who know, and then can access the care within that six-week window, you know, the waiting periods, the travel, the childcare, the time off of work. All of these things add up, and there is no way that you can expect anyone, much less a young person, to be able to identify and get to care by six weeks pregnant.
And we know particularly people who are young, and do face additional with risks or consequences are more likely to present later, both because of difficulty identifying a pregnancy, and fear, as you said of the repercussions of that care.
O`DONNELL: And, Professor Goodwin, when we are talking about ten year old rape victims, the ability to actually intervene in their cases has all sorts of legal baggage around it.
GOODWIN: That`s absolutely right. So, let`s be clear, none of this is easy. So, imagine, which we don`t have, to we have an example of a ten- year-old, that ten year old might actually be taken away from her family, and might be in foster care, or in a shelter. How does that ten year old navigate in the legal system in her home state, that allows her to be able to get the medical care that she needs, such that someone makes a call to another state?
And then how does she get to that other state, does a foster care person take her there, does somebody go to the shelter where she is living and there are people who are in foster care that — do they go to that other state? Who is the person that intervenes to provide that kind of support that this ten-year-old needs? Not the least of which that there might be other kinds of legal entanglements in her home state.
So, these are not easy questions, and as we go forward, this is school break now, but what happens in the fall when children are at school?
[22:29:45]
Very pragmatic questions need to be sorted out, and there are not answers that are coming from anti-abortion legislatures who would see ten-year-olds become mothers.
LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: Professor Michele Goodwin thank you for joining us tonight. And Dr. Caitlin Bernard (ph) thank you for joining us for the first time. And Doctor, please come back whenever time allows so that you can keep us aware of what is happening and what is happening to patients, including ten year old girls under these abortion bans. Thank you very much.
GOODWIN: Thank you Lawrence.
DR. CAITLIN BERNARD, INDIANA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE: Thank you.
O`DONNELL: Thank you.
And coming up, Harvard Law Professor Charles Fried says overturning Roe v. Wade is an act of constitutional vandalism and there could be more to come. Charles Fried joins us next.
[22:30:48]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O`DONNELL: Our next guest was four years old when he fled Czechoslovakia with his family in 1939 to escape Nazi terror. 22 years later, he became a Harvard Law professor. Charles Fried served in the solicitor general`s office during the Reagan administration and was elevated to the position of solicitor general by President Reagan in 1985.
Among the lawyers working for Charles Fried in the solicitor general`s office was the now Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. Charles Fried testified in support of John Roberts at this confirmation for chief justice of the United States Supreme Court. Charles Fried said at the time that John Roberts was too smart a lawyer to overturn Roe versus Wade.
As solicitor general, Charles Fried argued in a 1989 case that the Supreme Court should overturn Roe versus Wade. Last year he wrote a “New York Times” op-ed piece with the title, “I once urged the Supreme Court to overturn Roe. I`ve changed my mind.”
He wrote, “To overturn Roe now would be an act of constitutional vandalism — not conservative, but reactionary.”
Charles Fried`s relationship with the Republican Party became strained in the 21st century. He voted for former Harvard Law student Barack Obama for president. Then he voted for Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden.
In an email exchange today with our booking producer Steve Lewis, Charles Fried dashed off an email that reads like the beginning of another of his brilliant “New York Times” op-ed piece.
“Dear Steve. Unions, religion, Second Amendment, abortion, campaign finance, gerrymandering, regulation of elections — all this is an attempt in the last ten years or so to repeal the 20th century. This is not conservative, this is reactionary.
Starting with the progressive era until the end of the last century, a series of decisions complicated and perhaps messy compromises brought the U.S. into modern times as a constitutional capitalist administrative state.
In the last dozen years or so, the court has been relentlessly undoing those compromises and sending us back to an unimagined golden age — to an imagined golden age which in truth never existed, all in the name of the constitution.
The greatest threat next term, the independent legislature clause case from North Carolina which would produce a slow motion coup d`etat.”
Joining us now is Charles Fried, professor of law at Harvard Law School. Thank you very much for joining us tonight Professor Fried. It really is an honor to have you here.
And I want to begin where your note to Steve ended today. And that is with what you are calling now a possible slow motion coup d`etat.
CHARLES FRIED, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL: Yes. What the court is going to have next term, they`re going to start in the fall on this issue. And that is, when a state legislature picks electors, the state Supreme Court cannot do anything about it, because the constitution says that the regulation of electors is supposed to be done by the independent legislature. Now for decades, that has been understood to mean the whole legislative process in a state which includes of course the state Supreme Court.
North Carolina which is the case involved is hideously gerrymandered. The population`s half registered Republican, half registered Democrat, but its 13 person congressional delegation is ten Republicans and three Democrats.
[22:39:59]
FRIED: And when the head of the legislative committee was asked, how did you do that? How come you did this? Because we couldn`t think of any way to get just two Democrats.
Now, this is what would be the coup d`etat, because these gerrymandered state legislatures in all the swing states — Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Georgia would then be able to send the electors they choose, not the electors chosen by the people and there is nothing that could be done about it.
Well, of course you can see why that is a coup d`etat because another Donald Trump who in fact loses the election could end up being elected because these state legislatures as they have been prompted for instance by the notorious Professor Eastman to do. They tried it this year.
O`DONNELL: Professor, the Supreme Court — some of the Supreme Court justices who you know very well have traveled quite a distance away from your thinking on the subjects. You represent what has traditionally been considered conservative thinking on these matters.
How did they get this far away from what conservatism used to be?
FRIED: Well, because there is an agenda there. It started and I`m afraid the chief justice is a very conscious agent of that agenda. It started with the Shelby town, the case in which they simply eliminated Section Five of the Voting Rights Act which had been enacted for the first time in 1976 and reenacted and reenacted most recently in 2006.
And that was struck down by 5 to 4 with the result — with a terrible result as you have seen because they have an awful anti-democratic voter identification laws. Laws which said that there can be only one mailbox in which you can deposit the votes in a state with millions of people and so on and so forth. That it`s not possible to present coffee to people waiting in long lines to vote. That was all impossible under Section Five and now it is the rule in those states.
Now, they must have known that`s what they were doing. This supports their base and their financial supporters and that`s when it started.
Then it went on. They have undermined campaign finance regulation so that famously in Citizens United. They have undermined the amount of money that individuals can give and corporations can give. That was just — it was a conspiracy because there is a watchdog, the Federal Election Commission. Mitch McConnell has deliberately kept that without a quorum or deadlocked with the result that all these things happened.
You know, they are very smart people. I`ve taught some of them. If I see it, they must see it. So it is not an accident.
O`DONNELL: Harvard Law professor Charles Fried, we will have to continue this conversation. Thank you very much for joining us tonight. It`s really an honor to have you here.
FRIED: Greetings from beautiful North Hero, Vermont.
[22:44:44]
O`DONNELL: Thank you very much for that. Thank you, professor.
And up next, a new report says that lives could`ve been saved if the police went after the gunman sooner in Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas. We`ll have more on that report next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O`DONNELL: The most thorough public report yet on the mass murder at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas says that lives could`ve been saved if the police attacked the mass murderer much sooner than they did.
[22:49:53]
O`DONNELL: The new report by the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center in Texas, made public today says one unnamed police officer had the mass murderer in his gun sight before the murderer entered the school. That officer requested permission to fire from a superior officer and then turned toward that officer for a second, and when he turned back the murderer had disappeared and was already inside the school.
The report says the murderer fired over 100 rounds during the first three minutes inside the school when the sounds of children screaming, and crying could be heard. The report describes how officers inside the school retreated after the murderer fired in their direction instead of continuing to advance on the murderer.
Reports says maintaining position or even pushing forward to a better spot to deliver accurate return fire would`ve undoubtedly been dangerous and there would`ve been a high probability that some of the officers would`ve been shot or even killed.
However, the officers also would likely have been able to stop the attacker and then focus on getting immediate medical care to the wounded.
Joining us now is Tony Plohetski, an investigative reporter for the “Austin American-Statesman”. Tony, you got this report today and have been studying it cover to cover. What else have we learned from it?
TONY PLOHETSKI, “AUSTIN AMERICAN STATESMAN”: I think that again, one of the most striking things is exactly what you mentioned. And that is a Uvalde police officer apparently having this gunman in his line of fire but was trying to get permission to actually open fire on him.
A few things that striking about that. Apparently, that police officer conveyed to investigators that he did not believe that he had a safe shot. He expressed concern after the fact, that he may have inadvertently shot and possibly killed a child inside that school. So that is one of the reasons that he says he did not open fire.
The distance we are talking about here, as well, was about 150 yards between the gunman and the police officer. But again, I think one of the things that is so wrenching yet again for us to grapple with here this evening is another missed opportunity. Another chance by officials responding to the school, to take down that gunman long before we now know that they did, Lawrence.
O`DONNELL: And Tony, one point that the report makes, which everyone in law enforcement should know is that, of course, according to the law including Texas law, that officer had legal authority to use deadly force because he had reason to believe that if he did not, that person would murder people. That is a completely legitimate grounds for deadly force.
As the report points out, and the report says, every police officer should know that. Not just commanders, you should not have to check with a commander for that.
PLOHETSKI: It absolutely says that based on the totality of the circumstances — that is a direct phrase from the report — that this officer could have been justified, likely would`ve been justified in using deadly force for a couple of reasons.
Number one is that we know that the gunman had fired rounds outside the school. We know that he was armed with an assault rifle. And so based on those two facts alone, and the fact that he was entering the school, that yes, according to Texas law that it would`ve been justified for the officer to open fire.
Lawrence, I also want to point out that one of the things that is unclear from this report is what the police officer actually did do. We know he didn`t open fire, but for example, why did he not then access the school? Did he have any way of tracing exactly where the gunman entered the school? And if so, why did he not pursue him at that time?
So while we learn an array of new facts today, of course, with those new facts now come new questions that unfortunately we don`t have the answer to.
O`DONNELL: And of course, there was more fault found with Pete Arredondo, the way officers were positioned there. They could`ve been subject to a cross fire of each other, while they were in the school.
[22:54:49]
PLOHETSKI: That`s right. The report notes that officers entered the hallway from actually two different ends. And so because of that, instead of grouping to one particular end, the report notes that yes, they did potentially set up a circumstance where one side or the other could have been subjected to gunfire and cross fire themselves.
And another thing I do want to just point out that I found striking about this report as well, and certainly, while so much criticism has been launched, specifically as we have talked about many times on your program, Lawrence, Pete Arredondo, the chief of the school district police force. This report almost seems to take a wider view and criticizing the more rank and file officers who were there as well. The report notes that their desire however is not to demean those officers, but instead to create a template going forward to prevent something like this from ever happening again in our country.
O`DONNELL: Tony Plohetski, thank you very much for continuing to guide us on this important story, we really appreciate it.
PLOHETSKI: Thank you so much.
O`DONNELL: Thank you. We`ll be right back.
[22:56:05]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O`DONNELL: That is tonight`s LAST WORD.
“THE 11TH HOUR WITH STEPHANIE RUHLE” starts now.