Updated
Summary
A shooter kills four at a hospital in Tulsa, Oklahoma. President Biden announcing that the United States will now be sending those advanced rocket systems to Ukraine.
Transcript
CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST, “ALL IN”: That is “ALL IN” on this Wednesday night. MSNBC PRIME starts now with Ayman Mohyeldin.
Good evening, Ayman.
AYMAN MOHYELDIN, MSNBC HOST: Hey, good evening, Chris. Thank you so much.
And thanks to you at home for joining us this hour.
We are following some breaking news of yet another mass shooting in this country. This one at a hospital complex in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Police there saying, they got a call about an active shooter at the San Francisco hospital campus at about 4:52 p.m. Central Time. At around 4:56 p.m. Central Time, police arrived at the scene. They rushed to the second floor where they heard gunshots.
Multiple people at this hour we understand have been shot. We can report that four people have been killed. In addition to those four people, the gunman himself is also reportedly dead. Police have not yet identified the suspect. They described him as a Black male around the ages of 35 to 40. They say he was carrying both a long gun as well as a handgun.
And just before we got on the air, Tulsa police held a press conference to update the public on the situation. Here`s a part of it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ERIC DALGLEISH, DEPUTY CHIEF, TULSA POLICE DEPARTMENT: The officers that did arrive. We`re hearing shots in the building, and that`s what directed them to the second floor. Right now, we have four civilians that are dead. We have one shooter that is dead, and right now, we believe that is self- inflicted. Officers have not been interviewed but we`re certain that`s a self-inflicted gunshot wound on his part.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MOHYELDIN: I don`t have to remind you that this incident comes just eight days after the horrific mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas, that killed 19 children as well as two adults. And that shooting in Texas, that one came just days after another mass shooter killed 10 people at a grocery store in Buffalo, New York.
Now, as a country, we can no longer move on from this topic even if we wanted to. This wound cannot heal. With each week, there comes yet a new horrific event, more lives lost, more communities ripped apart, more survivors burdened with unshakable lifelong trauma.
And so, tonight, we will continue to do what we have done on so many nights before, we will continue to follow the story of yet another mass shooting in America.
Joining us now is Karen Keith who serves as a Tulsa County commissioner.
Ms. Keith, thank you so much for joining us on such a difficult night for – – for you and quite frankly for the entire country that we have to yet again live through this tragedy. What can you tell us about what you`re hearing from people on the ground there in your community in Tulsa?
KAREN KEITH, TULSA COUNTY COMMISSIONER: Well, I mean, our law enforcement acted very quickly I think they you know got control of the situation as well as they could and I am not at the scene. But what I can say to you and to those who are watching, you know, we are a state of compassionate people, we have a lot of hunters but I don`t know of a hunter that would think that having some long gun, a weapon that you don`t you don`t need to be carrying automatic weapons around.
And so, this is a cry. We have to as a nation address this issue about gun control and we`ve got to do background checks. We can change the age. We`ve got to deal with the mental health crisis that`s evident everywhere, and you know, let`s talk about what weapons should and should not be on our streets, because other countries have done this. New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Japan, look at their numbers — their numbers tell the story and it doesn`t look like what we are seeing.
My heart is broken. I mean, this is a community — as our mayor just said, he spoke a minute ago and he was really eloquent. He talked about how our first responders are, you know, these — this was a doctor`s office and so this individual went in and these are people who stepped up throughout COVID to help keep all of us safe and to have this happen, you know, at Saint Francis, it`s — it`s just, you know, it`s wonderful — it`s a healing place. And this shouldn`t be happening here.
I mean, it`s just absolutely heartbreaking. And I know people are going to say — well, this isn`t the time to talk about this, but there is no better time to talk about this.
MOHYELDIN: I have not had the privilege of making it yet to Tulsa. I hope to one day, but you certainly know that area better than I do. What has been the conversation among your constituents, among Tulsa following what happened in Buffalo, what has happened in Texas, was this something on the forefront of all of your minds? I`m sure it was on the law enforcement side of things, but as a county commissioner, what were you hearing? What was the discussion like in your in your area following what we saw over the past two weeks?
KEITH: Well, I think, you know, everybody — I mean, you can`t watch and see young children like this impacted in their school teachers and not think, you know, this has to stop. But it`s a mixed conversation as it is in many places across this country and because we do have a lot of people who, you know, they`re all about First Amendment rights. But at some point, I mean, our — you know, when they wrote these rules, they were, you know, I mean they had guns that you have to take the powder and push it down in the — you know, this is not an automatic weapon. It`s not the weapons that we have now.
So it is a conversation that we have to have but it is a mixed bag here as it is in a lot of places. And as I speak as a county commissioner, it`s me as an individual county commissioner not speaking for the others represented by my county. I want to make that clear.
MOHYELDIN: No, I certainly appreciate that. Thank you so much, Karen Keith. Tulsa County commissioner, greatly appreciate your time on yet another tragic night in this country. Our hearts go out to you and to everyone in that community. Thank you.
Joining us now is Cedric Alexander, former DeKalb County, Georgia, police chief, former member of President Obama`s task force on 21st century policing.
Cedric, it is good to see you again. Thank you for making time for us. It has not even been a week since the shooting in Uvalde. Almost two and a half weeks since the massacre here in Buffalo. Again we`re talking about yet another mass shooting in this country. This one at a medical facility for — Saint Francis there in Tulsa.
Can I just get your reaction to yet again this mass shooting?
CEDRIC ALEXANDER, MSNBC LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Well, you know, Ayman, first of all, it`s hard to react to any of these now because they`re becoming so frequent. And the unfortunate part is, is that we have to stay very conscious of the fact and not become anesthetized to these shootings and just treat them as if there`s something that`s going to go away. There`s something very wrong and ill that`s going on in our environment, across this country, particularly as it relates to people with guns and those who may have some other stuff that`s going on in their head that we don`t know about.
But this is an issue that`s occurring now once a week and I`ve been seeing that for the last couple of weeks going all the way back to Buffalo is that we`re going to continue to see uh unfortunately, sadly, we cannot ignore what we`re seeing. And if we`re seeing these shootings that are happening with this rate of frequency uh we have a real issue in this uh you know in this country. And I think it`s time for our lawmakers particularly at the congressional level to really act quickly in terms of coming to some type of agreement as we`re going to how — we`re going to approach this whole gun safety issue.
And notice I said gun safety, not gun control, gun legislation, but really there`s the issue because I think using that terminology really puts it in a whole different framework of how do we deal with this without feeling people are — their guns are going to be taken and someone`s going to take control of them. But how do we keep these weapons safe is really what`s very important, right now.
MOHYELDIN: This is a perhaps a difficult question to ask but when you just look at the three most headline making, you know, mass shootings, a supermarket, a hospital, a school, they would consider to be soft targets in this country and so, obviously, the conversation by some has been to harden schools, to harden perhaps hospitals.
Are we as a society moving in the direction where we are going to have to start having metal detectors at every restaurant, pub, hospital, supermarket, school that we go to just to feel safe since we can`t control or prevent these types of shootings.
ALEXANDER: Well, first of all, we have to — remember, we live in a democratic society. People move around freely and at random. You can`t harden the target but so much, you can`t harden the school target but so much, a shopping center, a mall, a church, walking up down Fifth Avenue. There`s targets out there and there — it`s in institutions that you`re not going to be able to just harden.
I think when people make those kinds of statements, they are not thinking very deeply and very intentionally as to really how we address this issue.
[21:10:03]
We can no longer think that we somehow we just harden a target at a school, that somehow our issues around this violent use of weapons is going to go away. It is not. We`re going to have to go a lot deeper than that and think a lot deeper, because what we`ve been doing in the past is clearly not work working. And even the data even suggests having more police in school does not change the dynamic of these school shootings. We got to look deeper and harder and come up with some real strong legislation that is going to help us move through this issue.
But these ongoing kind of slick slogans and innuendos around what they think is going to be best like hardening a target, we can harden targets. But we don`t have to go beyond that because we are free society. People are going to come and go in and out, and so, you can`t harden it but so much.
MOHYELDIN: Now, let me ask you really quickly, the police just a short while ago were making a point to tell us that there was a three-minute response time, given the fact that this country has been consumed with the Uvalde, Texas shooting and the police response in that situation. What do you make of this information, this nugget of information that we`re learning that the response time was three minutes? As a police officer, former police officer, how would you rate that?
ALEXANDER: Well, if they had a three-minute response time, that is a great response time. But in addition, if you go back and you look at that interview with the deputy chief there in Tulsa, here`s what they did very carefully and very cleverly.
Here`s what we know. They did not give you any more information than what they knew at that moment. They did not oversell. We did this, we did that.
Here`s what we know. We only know this at this point. That was smart of them to do and as they learned more, they would share more but they would do it in a manner in which people will — they don`t have to walk their conversation back such as what we saw there in Uvalde. So kudos to Tulsa in a way that they`re reporting how the officers responded, what they know up to this point, which is very limited and they made that very clear, and I think they should be applauded for that. And clearly, it was lessons learned from Uvalde.
MOHYELDIN: Cedric Alexander, greatly appreciate your time, and thank you for joining us this evening. Hopefully, you know, I hate to say, but hopefully, we won`t be talking to you again on another mass shooting in this country. But always appreciate your insights.
As I mentioned we`re going to continue to monitor this story as it develops. We`re going to bring you the very latest throughout the hour as we get it.
Up next, President Biden sets some limits on the kind of military aid that the U.S. will send to Ukraine as it continues to try and fight off Russia`s invasion. We will get reaction live from the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:17:41]
MOHYELDIN: So, it has a boring name, but it is a fascinating piece of equipment. It is called an MRL. It is short of multiple rocket launcher.
And as you probably guess and as the name suggests, it is a type of weaponry that spit out multiple rockets in a single go. And it sounds pretty basic now, but it really did revolutionize warfare when the Soviet Union first trotted them out during World War II.
The American version, coming off the line in the 80s, much later than the Russians. And it is still an important part of the American military arsenal until this day. It has two launchers that can hold up to six rockets each. They can all be fired in under a minute, and with just a three person crew, hitting targets close to 200 miles away, making it a very effective, and efficient, weapon.
There is a compact version of the MRL as well, because this machine is smaller, it is lighter, it is much easier to move around on a battlefield and the company that makes it says, it is perfect for, what they call, shoot, and scoot. You can fire, relocate, reload, and fire again. You can do this in just a few minutes.
It is easy to see why this kind of rocket launcher is such a high value weapon on any battlefield. The cabins are armored so they offer some level of protection for the troops that are inside of them. They have a long range as I mentioned so you do not have to engage too close with the enemy, you don`t have to get to the front lines, and you can shoot a ton of rockets in a very short period of time.
Now, all that put together is why this missile system has been very high on Ukraine`s munitions wish list. And since the start of the war, Ukraine has been essentially begging the United States to try and send them these advanced weaponry systems to try and beat back Russia`s violent march into their country.
But there`s a reason that the United States did not send them on day one of this war. Multiple rocket launchers are substantially more advanced than any of the weaponry Ukraine currently has. And unlike the Stingers and the Javelins, the names that we`ve all grown accustomed to, the U.S. has already sent those, the rocket launchers, these MRLs, they have long ranges, which could give Ukraine the ability not only to deter Russian aggression inside of Ukraine, but it gives them the ability to strike inside of Russia.
[21:20:17]
Now if Ukraine were to use American weaponry to fire rockets across its border into Russia, it would be a serious escalation with international ramifications. Well, late last night, Ukrainian officials announced that Russia had taken control over one of the last large cities in the eastern Luhansk region, a significant milestone for Russia in this war as they continue to expand the boundaries of their control inside of Ukraine.
U.S. military officials are signaling that the next few weeks could bring a decisive phase in this war, which is why this could not have come at a better time for Ukraine. President Biden announcing that the United States will now be sending those advanced rocket systems to Ukraine. So perhaps as a compromise between Ukraine and Russia, they are not sending those big souped-up versions that I was describing that can reach hundreds of miles. Instead they are sending the — you know, baby rocket launchers the shooting scoots that only have the ability to reach a few miles into Russia far away from any major civilian centers.
Even so, by some analysis, this is a potential game changer for Ukraine because these small launchers will more than double the current reach of Ukraine`s weaponry. Ukraine has reportedly promised the United States that they would not use these weapons, these new rocket launchers to strike inside of Russia`s borders, perhaps even Russian troops that are making their way or Russian supplies that are making their way into Ukraine. They have promised not to do that, though predictably Russia says that the United States is quote deliberately pouring oil on the fire by sending Ukraine these new rocket launchers.
And President Biden for his part, he has written an op-ed in “The New York Times” where he made clear his intentions behind sending those weapons. He writes in part so long as the United States or our allies are not attacked, we will not be directly engaged in this conflict either by sending American troops to fight in Ukraine or by attacking Russian forces. We are not encouraging or enabling Ukraine to strike beyond its borders. We do not want to prolong the war just to inflict pain on Russia.
We know how Russia feels about this whole thing. We have now heard directly from President Biden, but here`s an important question: what does Ukraine think in all of this?
Joining us now is the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States, Oksana Markarova.
Ambassador Markarova, thank you so much for making time for us tonight. I greatly appreciate your time.
I`d like to begin by getting your reaction to President Biden`s announcement that the United States will be sending these advanced rocket systems to Ukraine in the coming days. How is your government receiving the news? And more importantly, how do you see these weapons helping Ukrainian soldiers four months into this war?
OKSANA MARKAROVA, UKRAINIAN AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED STATES: Thank you very much for having me and good evening to everyone.
Well, first of all, of course, we are thrilled because you know these weapons have been much awaited by our brave defenders and in this new package that President Biden announced today, not only we are receiving more artillery, more other very important equipment that we have been receiving already for a while, but also we are getting this new capability that we really need for this difficult battle in the east and south that we have now, when on the one hand — you know, on the one side, we see Russian invaders, you know, war criminals with all the fire power firing and destroying literally, making our cities and villages to the rubble. And on the other hand — other side, not only are our defenders there, it`s our citizens, it`s our peaceful villagers.
So we need all the weapons and equipment that we can get in order to stop them and in order to get them out from our country. And this MRLs, you know, the HIMARS that we announced today is exactly what we need for this phase of the battle.
MOHYELDIN: Is it enough? I mean, I guess the short question is, is it enough? Because “The New York Times” is reporting today that some Ukrainian military units are complaining about a lack of ammunition. So my question is, are the weapons the U.S. sending enough to satisfy the current needs of your military? And if not, do you expect other countries to follow America`s lead and step up, you know, for example, Germany or other European countries?
MARKAROVA: Look, first of all, you know, Russia is so much bigger than us and we are in the fight against a very brutal, autocratic regime, a large country that has no respect to international law, that has no respect to any red lines.
[21:25:11]
And they still have — even though they are not motivated, even though they are fighting for the wrong force, it`s an invading army, but you know, there is so many more of them. So we need all the support that we can get in this.
I mean, we are motivated. We are not ready to surrender. We will not surrender. As we have shown, we are able to win and we won already a couple of really difficult battles which came at a very high price and very helpful to the U.S. first for providing all the assistance weapons and sanctions but weapons especially, but also rallying the support.
You know, this Ramstein meeting that happened already twice where the U.S. have led a discussion and cooperation of more than 40 countries out of which 20 already are given us the support in addition to the support that U.S. is providing. So, you know, we, of course, would like the war to be won by us and for peace to return as quick as possible, but we don`t know how much it will take and we need all the support —
MOHYELDIN: Right.
MARKAROVA: — regardless of how much it will take, because it`s not just about Ukraine. It`s a fight for democracy. It`s a fight for rule of law, which has been breached, the international rule of law which has been violated by Russia.
MOHYELDIN: As you can imagine, the Kremlin is arguing that this U.S. decision to supply Ukraine with these new more powerful weapons, quote, pours fuel on the fire. What do you say in response to that charge by the Kremlin?
MARKAROVA: We have heard so many lies by this war criminals and they do not deserve to be called anything else. They have attacked our country eight years ago. They planned to do it for all previous 30 years. They have again waged a full fledged war on Ukraine almost 100 days ago, destroying residential areas, destroying hospitals, destroying schools, destroying our museums, killing, raping, torturing children and men and women.
I don`t think in this situation, it really matters what they think about it. They have to get out. They have to stop the aggression.
A hundred and forty-four countries in the U.N. condemn this. The International Court on 16th of March ruled that they have to stop and they have to get out. So, you know, whatever few they`re talking about, they have to stop the war crimes they`re committing in Ukraine and they have to stop the aggression.
MOHYELDIN: Madam Ambassador, can I ask you — as you I`m sure fully aware, Secretary of State Tony Blinken said that the U.S. received assurances from your government that Ukraine will not use these new mid-range munitions that the U.S. provided to hit targets inside Russia. Can you confirm that that is the case, you will not hit targets inside of Russia with these American provided weapons? And does that also include Crimea, which is, you know, Ukrainian territory occupied by Russia?
Will you attack Russian troops in Crimea?
MARKAROVA: Look, first of all, since the war started and since Russia waged war on us and occupied Crimea and Donetsk and Luhansk in 2014 and `15, we always had legal rights to retake it by military force and we never did it. We always have chosen the diplomatic solution and we try to restore our territorial integrity and sovereignty through diplomatic means.
During the last hundred days, regardless of how brutal it was, Ukraine has been strictly uh doing everything according to international law. We were fighting on our territory, were are defending our territory, we never planned to attack Russia and we still do not plan to attack Russia.
So we need all the equipment regardless of the range in order to get Russians out from our territory and in order to defend our country. And, yes, Crimea is Ukraine. And Donetsk and Luhansk is Ukraine.
MOHYELDIN: All right. Ukrainian ambassador to the United States, Oksana, Markarova, I appreciate your time, Madam Ambassador. Thank you so much.
MARKAROVA: Thank you very much.
MOHYELDIN: Up next, a stunning new report on the Republican plan to challenge the results of future elections in this country. That`s straight ahead. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:34:05]
MOHYELDIN: So in Virginia last year, in particular in the Democratic bastion of Fairfax County, Cleta Mitchell, one of the Trump lawyers, who tried to overturn the 2020 election, helped organize groups that trained 4,500 poll watchers and election workers and organized local task force.
Although their stated goal was to fared out supposed fraud in the Virginia gubernatorial election, the county registrar at the time said that the operation ate up county workers time with dozens of information requests as well as informal interrogations. Everything they saw that they didn`t understand was fraud in their minds. It was always accusatory.
That county registrar resigned in March in large part because of how difficult these people had made his job.
Cleta Mitchell is now holding up that work yet again in Fairfax County, Virginia, as the national model for how Republicans should handle elections this year.
[21:35:05]
And it seems that the Republican National Committee has a very similar idea. This year, its multi-million dollar investment includes hiring 18 state election integrity directors and 19 state election integrity lawyers. The party has so far recruited more than five thousand poll watchers and nearly twelve thousand poll workers.
So, today, “Politico” got its hands on audio and documents from meetings where Republican Party operatives involved in this RNC effort outline their plan. The idea is to use rules designed to provide political balance among poll workers to install party-trained volunteers prepared to challenge voters at Democratic majority polling places. And then to back up those party-trained poll workers with a, quote, army of party-friendly lawyers and district attorneys ready to help those groups take their challenges to court.
In a PowerPoint presented at one of these meetings by the RNC`s Michigan election integrity director, the volunteers are instructed on how to challenge a voter particularly a voter`s citizenship, their age, their residency, even their registration. A few days ago, that same RNC Michigan election integrity director submitted an initial list of more than 850 Republican poll workers to the Detroit clerk.
The chair of the RNC disputes all of this — all of this reporting out of “Politico” today. I think that it shows extreme bias and that “Politico” is distorting the facts. But how will this actually impact Michigan come November? How could it potentially impact other states where this could be taking place as well?
Joining us now is Jocelyn Benson, Democratic secretary of state for the great state of Michigan.
Secretary Benson, it`s great to see you again. Thank you so much for making time for us this evening.
You have faced an avalanche of voter fraud conspiracy theories in Michigan after and during the 2020 election. What is your reaction to this new reporting that Republicans are essentially trying to start earlier this time, training teams of volunteers and poll workers to look for fraud even before and during the actual election and voting process? How will that impact your line of work?
JOCELYN BENSON (D), MICHIGAN SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, thanks for having me and for covering this really important story. I think it`s — to be clear, it`s important and it`s not a bad thing in and of itself to be recruiting election workers and poll workers. We know a lot of organizations do it. What`s problematic here is that these individuals are being fed misinformation and potentially being prepared to interfere with the elections processes themselves as your as you know the story out of Virginia illustrates.
From our standpoint however, we`ve been working with clerks, and in fact we have meetings next week with clerks on this issue to essentially protect the integrity of the process from any interference and also recognizing that, you know, our expectation is that anyone working as an election worker or a poll worker in any election regardless of their political affiliation follows the law and they will be removed if they don`t.
MOHYELDIN: What makes this plan feel like an escalation from previous plans? To me I guess is that the supposed election integrity groups and the RNC aren`t just uh training poll watchers which is as you`re saying supposed to be apolitical while they carry out their work but actual poll workers. What kind of powers do poll workers hold that poll watchers wouldn`t? What`s the distinction between those two, a poll worker and a poll watcher?
BENSON: Yeah. It`s an important distinction. I mean, first, poll workers are actually employed by the election authorities locally. So they are selected and appointed and an answer to their employers, the local clerks. And in that regard, they must follow the procedures, they`re responsible for checking in voters, checking their identification, giving them a ballot, making sure essentially that things run smoothly.
Now, we also have in our law, in the interest of ensuring transparency, the opportunity for poll challengers to be appointed by political parties in which people can come and observe the process. Those individuals are often empowered to talk to election workers and potentially challenge the eligibility of citizens to vote. And so that`s also where our concerns are.
We know I`ve talked to clerks. They are getting a significant uptick in applications again in and of itself. Not a bad thing to see people applying to be poll workers, but when there`s a nefarious intent involved, we have concerns and when and if individuals with a nefarious intent are not hired to be election workers or are removed for any sorts of violations of the law, it is possible that others who are pole challengers could be there and potentially interfere with the process as well.
We have eyes on all this and really from our standpoint in Michigan, our procedure will be just as it was in 2020, to have a plan for rapid response if and when there`s any interference any escalation of intimidation or threats against voters or poll workers on election day or before.
And so, our plan is similarly to increase and escalate our work to be prepared for anything to happen on election day and rapidly respond and address it as effectively as possible to ensure that no eligible voter no matter where they live or who they vote for is blocked from voting.
MOHYELDIN: Can I ask — can I just zero in on this for a moment? The ability to challenge a voter, for example. I mean, from “Politico`s” recordings of the meetings that the RNC`s Michigan election integrity director held, it sounds like part of this plan is for poll workers and the watchers to basically challenge ballots by literally standing up and saying I would like to challenge this voter.
And as you`re saying, that is part of the process, but are you concerned that they could just overwhelm the entire process, that by overwhelming it, they clog it up, they delay it, they undermine um the veracity of the vote, they make people lose confidence in the process?
BENSON: Yes, absolutely, and clearly, that`s part of the goal, as it was in 2020, to create chaos and confusion, through even just the threat of interference that causes people to, you know, be reticent to vote or perhaps not show up to vote at all for fear that something might happen if they do.
Now, under our law, there are specific ways in which and reasons in which someone can be challenged and so keeping an eye on again the abuse of that very important transparency mechanism is something we`ll be doing throughout election day. It`s also important to recognize, in Michigan, voters have the right to vote absentee prior to election day and return their ballots through the mail at a drop box at the local clerk`s office and we already see more and more voters doing that in 2020 and in subsequent elections.
So, one option for voters to think about if they`re in any way concerned about things that they`re hearing could happen at the polls is for them to vote prior to election day absentee. That said, we`ll be ready on election day as well to have eyes and ears on the ground to essentially if we see any abuse or interference or intimidation of voters too swiftly in partnership with local law enforcement and others address it and ensure that it doesn`t interfere with our elections process.
MOHYELDIN: All right. Jocelyn Benson, Democratic secretary of state for the state of Michigan, Madam Secretary, thank you as always. It`s a great pleasure. Thank you for your time.
Still ahead, today, we got a preview of the arguments that some prominent Democrats will be making as voters head to the ballot box. By the looks of it, they`re not mincing their words. Is this a sign of what to expect as we head into the midterm elections?
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:47:12]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. KAY IVEY (R), ALABAMA: You don`t know who`s got in their purse? Lipstick, an iPhone, or, maybe, a little Smith and Wesson 38?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I am going to Washington to stop the Pelosi agenda.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Silence, or sometimes, getting a bad rap.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did we mention, he owns a gun range?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Time to bring out the big guns.
REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R-GA): In 2022, I will blow away the Democratic socialist agenda.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MOHEYLDIN: All right. So that is how Republicans were running for office in the lead up to the Uvalde massacre filling their ads with as many guns and gunshots as possible. According to “The New York Times”, guns have been featured in over 100 Republican ads this cycle. There have been over a hundred ads just like that and the election is still five months away.
And today, we got some of the first general election ads from Democrats in this upcoming cycle and some Democrats appear ready to make Republicans pay a political price for their controversial stances on things like guns and abortion.
Take a look at this new ad from Democratic candidate for Georgia governor, Stacey Abrams.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AD ANNOUNCER: Four years, Brian Kemp is taken Georgia backwards. He put us backwards on guns, said law enforcement, and made it easier for criminals to carry guns in public. He wrote back women`s rights, vowing to make abortion a crime with ten years in prison. Just when we need to move forward, Brian Kemp keeps taking us back.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MOHYELDIN: It is rare to see Democrats in swing states actively putting guns and abortion at the center of their campaigns but this as you very well know is not going to be your typical election cycle. Today, we got another bold ad from Democratic Kentucky Senate candidate Charles Booker and I must warn you, that there is some disturbing imagery in this ad and the ad opens with a trigger warning, but not because anybody in the ad is going to start pulling the trigger. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHARLES BOOKER (D), KENTUCKY SENATE CANDIDATE: The pain of our past persists to this day. In Kentucky, like many states throughout the South, lynching was a tool of terror. It was used to kill hopes for freedom. It was used to kill my ancestors.
Now, in a historic victory for our commonwealth, I have become the first black Kentuckian to receive the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate. My opponent, the very person who compared expanded health care to slavery, the person who said he would have opposed the Civil Rights Act, the person who single-handedly block an anti-lynching act for federal law.
[21:50:13]
The choice couldn`t be clearer. Do we move forward together, or, do we let politicians, like Rand Paul, forever hold us back, and drive us apart.
In November, we will choose healing. We will choose Kentucky.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MOHYELDIN: A very powerful ad there. And we should note that while Senator Rand Paul did in fact block that anti-lynching bill last year, he did go on to support a narrower version of the bill this year.
Joining us now to tell us what all of this means for the midterms is Democratic pollster and MSNBC contributor Cornell Belcher.
Mr. Belcher, it`s great to have you on. Good to see you again.
Let me start by asking you about that Stacey Abrams ad that I just played. Is it smart for Democrats to center issues like gun control and abortion rights in a swing state like Georgia front and center of their campaign?
CORNELL BELCHER, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: No, I mean, absolutely, it is. I think, you know, Democrats have to change the fundamental dynamic of the midterm and they`re not going to do that unless they — unless they get jarring and throw the long ball.
I want to first I kind of say watching those Republican ads, you know, those ads when you watch those Republican ads and you think about what the typical, you know, woman voter is a mom with kids, you know, it`s kind of jarring and it`s disconnecting. And you watch those ads and you think, oh, well, let`s mix the politics of big lies, grievance, division and replacement theory with white nationalism and a culture that glorifies and normalizes weapons of death, what could possibly go wrong in this country, right?
I mean, it is — it is very jarring. And so I think Democrats do have to make them pay for being so far outside the mainstream on these issues.
MOHYELDIN: Let`s talk about Kentucky for a moment. That ad that we saw there from Charles Booker, very powerful ad. Even if you don`t live in Kentucky, I mean, I was just moved by the imagery and hearing that narration. Who is Kentucky Senate candidate Charles Booker trying to appeal to in that ad about lynching? Is it different than let`s say other candidates in the past, Amy McGrath and others that tried to go up against Mitch McConnell?
BELCHER: Well, I would just — I would decouple the two. As the Abrams ad I think is putting front and center the issues of gun reform and women`s rights in a way that puts — that has an opportunity to put Republicans on the defensive. I understand the Kentucky ad because in Kentucky, understand Kentucky is very different than Georgia.
You know, Kentucky`s not a battleground state. Kentucky no one`s calling Georgia — you know Kentucky a 50/50 toss-up. The Booker campaign — look, I think I actually think it`s really smart because they have to get attention and they have to raise money. Watching that ad, hey, I`m going to go there — to their ad, to their — to their to their post — to their online and maybe donate money. So I think it`s a really smart from that point, but they also have to jar the electorate and throw the long ball in a way Stacey does not.
MOHYELDIN: Will the fact that Republicans have been jockeying and you saw in those ads that we played there jockeying throughout the primaries to try and seem more pro-gun than their opponents? Could that come back and hurt them in November given the trauma that this country is going with right now, that they`re going through right now after all these mass shootings?
BELCHER: That is the million dollar question and it becomes the question of whether or not Democrats will make them pay a price for it. I think Stacey Abrams` campaign has opened it up and said, absolutely, we`re going to we`re going to take this fight to them and make them pay a pay the price for it. Look, h a lot of these congressional races and certainly the Senate races are going to hinge on what suburban women do.
And when you think about moms, so suburban moms who are literally praying and hoping that no one shows up at their school with their kids school with an automatic weapon today, you got to think, they are misaligned and quite frankly immoral to those moms who are going to decide this election.
MOHYELDIN: Let me ask you finally because, I mean, poll after poll shows that voters number one issue is still the economy and I`m curious to get your thoughts because I`m one of these people who feels that this midterm and the 2024 presidential race, those are existential races for the future of our democracy. I mean, it is the future of our democracy that is at stake here. Should Democrats be going out there with a unified message about the economy trying to you know change the narrative about the inflation that Republicans are ginning up?
[21:55:02]
Or should they be talking about the fact that we could very well have a Republican Party that never has another democratic election after these midterms, based on what we`re just hearing today, trying to rig the election and suppress voting rights and all the other things that are a threat to our democracy?
BELCHER: Look, I`ll say it like this — if the election is about a referendum on Joe Biden and the key issue is inflation which voters are frustrated with, Democrats are going to get their tails kicked, right? It is politics 101, he or she who defines the debate wins the debate.
If this election is in fact about women`s right to do what happens with our body, and our ability to pass common sense gun reforms, helping keep our kids safe, and helping stop our streets from being a war zone, I think that Democrats have a chance to change history. They need to take that chance. I take that look at George Bush, he changed the dynamic of his race going into his midterm.
And, look, the economy was tanking at that time, we forget the economy was tanking at that time, and instead of talking just about the economy, do you know what George Bush talked about? He talked about national security. He talked about an issue where they had the advantage. He defined the debate, set that midterm, and they changed history.
MOHYELDIN: Yeah, it is one of the critiques of people have of Democrats, that they are not just waking up to this in the moment, and taking this threat to our country, and, on so many levels, the health of the communities, the lives of women, the lives of our democracy, much more seriously.
Cornell Belcher, Democratic pollster, MSNBC contributor — greatly appreciated. Always good to see you, my friend.
BELCHER: Thank you.
MOHYELDIN: We`ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MOHYELDIN: That does it for me tonight. We`ll see you again tomorrow.
Now it`s time for some special programming on MSNBC, “Field Report with Paola Ramos” starts right now.