tv The 11th Hour With Stephanie Ruhle MSNBC July 14, 2022 11:00pm-12:00am PDT
new york attorney general, letitia james, was held today at the tops supermarket, which is scheduled to be re-open for business for the first time since the mass murder, tomorrow. that is tonight's last word. the 11th hour with stephanie ruhle starts now. >> tonight, secret service text messages from january 5th and sixth, deleted, as new details of the former guy's apparent attempts at witness intimidation emerge. and as more disturbing details surface from the january six committee, how much longer can republicans remain silent? plus, biden's first visit to the middle east as president, is underway. what can we expect from his difficult meeting tomorrow? as the 11th hour gets underway on this thursday night. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> good evening once again. i'm stephanie ruhle. there are major developments in
the january 6th investigation tonight. according to a letter obtained by nbc news, the secret service erased, i'm gonna say it again, erased text messages from january 6th, 2021, and from the previous day. the letter to house committees from homeland security watchdog says, those messages were deleted, after being requested as part of an investigation into the capitol riot. that inspector general says he was told, many of the messages have been erased as quote, part of a device replacement program. tonight, the secret service issued a statement, saying this. that insinuation the secret service maliciously deleted text messages following a request is false. in january 2021, before any inspection was opened, the secret service began to reset its mobile phones to factually settings, as part of a preplanned, three months system migration. in that process, data on some
phones was lost. there's also new reporting that efforts to get testimony from the two most important figures on january six are now under serious consideration. the wall street journal says the house committee is now weighing whether to push for interviews with donald trump and mike pence. remember, adam kinzinger told the paper the committee could decide to requested with an interview with mr. pence. it could also discuss whether to issue a subpoena to the former vice president. kinzinger also said, he expects the committee will likely decide to make a criminal referral to the justice department, about trump's own actions on the sixth. that will be the focus on the next hearing, exactly one week from tonight. meanwhile, there are more questions about the witness donald trump allegedly tried to contact. that witness was reported to be a member of the white house support staff. today, the committee chairman added this -- >> it was a white house employee. i don't know how you classify support staff.
>> it comes as a trump ally, longtime trump ally, steve bannon, prepares to go on trial for refusing to talk to the committee. today, a judge denied his second request to delay that trial, and is set to begin on monday. also tonight, former president trump's first wife, ivana trump, has died in her home in manhattan. they were married from 1977 until 1992 and had three children, don junior, ivanka, and eric. her cause of death is unknown, but in your city official told nbc news there was no indication of any foul play. ivana trump was 73. with that, let's get smarter with this evening, with the help of our lead off panel. jacqueline alemany joins us, congressional investigations reporter for the washington post, and then msnbc contributor. dan goldman, former assistant u.s. attorney for the seventh district of new york. he also served as general counsel for the house intelligence committee during
trump's first impeachment. he's not running for congress in new york's tenth congressional district. and my girl, former u.s. attorney, joyce vance, who spent 25 years as a federal prosecutor. she's also a law professor at the university of alabama. mr. goldman, let's talk about these text messages. my boy, walk me through this. why would any organization, the secret service or otherwise, think it's okay to go through a routine system upgrade that might compromise data, data from january 6th, when there was a riot on the u.s. capitol. are we really supposed to believe this? >> so many questions, stephanie. the first of which is, is it only january 5th, and sixth, that happened to be deleted? i mean, i think clearly the most
damning part of that letter is the allegation that these text messages were deleted after their request to preserve them was given. when that happens, when there is a request for text messages, there's something generally called, a litigation hold. but whenever anyone makes a request, you hold on to things, and you don't destroy them. so, it's highly suspicious. it's conceivable that they were doing some sort of a routine phone migration. but it is unusual that they would do that, after a request has been made to preserve the text messages, or to turn over the text messages. so, it is highly suspicious, as you point out. >> but joyce, they had to know that we would find out, but -- that the messages were deleted. given that they were comfortable with that getting out, what does that tell you about what could have been on those messages, that they are willing to accept the wrath of everyone knowing that this mass deletion happened?
what does that tell you about what must have been on there? >> so, i think, as dan is saying, it's tough to know exactly what went on here. and the one certainty that we have at this point is the secret service will now have to engage in a full accounting of how this happened, because, stephanie we've, had issues with data migrations and the law enforcement community, when cell phone usage was new in federal law enforcement. and so, it's tough to believe that this happened accidentally in 2021, but that said, it's always possible. there are always these technical glitches. as dan says, what i will look for the most clearly is whether the time covered is only the fifth and a six, or whether it's other dates. because if it's just those two dates, then you have to be deeply concerned about the kind of communications between agents, that could have been involved in those deleted messages. and whether they might, for instance, corroborate some of
cassidy hutchinson's testimony. but until we know the full length of, you know, the full scope of these deletions of messages, and whether it's a benign like the secret service says, or whether it's something more devious like the ig implies, we won't really be able to assess this. >> cassidy hutchinson's testimony, and you remember, over a week ago, we were told that trump secret service person, anthony ornato, he was going to refute what she said, what hutchinson says. yet, we haven't heard from him. and our michael beschloss pointed this out tonight. in december 2019, trump tweeted that tony ornato, that secret service guy, would become his deputy chief of staff. for donald trump to name a secret staff member to a job like that, especially on the eve of a reelection campaign, that is abnormal. should that not have raised a serious red flag? >> daniel?
>> oh, is it to me, i'm sorry. i think, you know, the relationship that tony ornato had with donald trump and with the white house is incredibly unusual. the secret service and those who work for the secret service are supposed to be nonpartisan. they are supposed to simply either protect the president, or some of them are investigative agents. and the notion that tony ornato would have become such a die hard trumper, to the extent that while he was protecting trump, he made that known, then so much so that he was hired as the deputy chief of staff, is very unusual. and it is somewhat, it is highly suspicious. so i think, given his background, and then, ultimately what his job is, if he does testify, i do think that his, you have to question a little bit of what his motives were, and motives are. it is noteworthy that he hasn't
come through. there is other reporting that indicates that the allegations, the testimony that hutchinson made about whether or not ornato told her about the limousine, the beast, going to the capitol, and that altercation, it's corroborated by at least one police officer. not a secret service agent, but a police officer was there. so, a lot still remains to be seen, as to what exactly what happened. i do want to make one point here, which, and they've been a lot of allegations about hearsay related to cassidy hutchinson's testimony, as if that somehow diminishes her testimony. the reason why hearsay is not allowed in court is not necessarily it's not reliable. it's because you cannot cross examine a person who made the statement. so, the notion that just because some evidence is hearsay, it means it's not reliable is wrong. it may not be reliable, but it very well may be, and it's no less reliable than any other testimony that might be subject to cross-examination. and that's the real reason why it's kept out.
engle, directly, the two people that cassidy had reference to, and you have witnessed the former president's behavior during that time period. you saw on that last hearing, actually, that cassidy and >> okay, jacqui, let's say hutchinson's testimony is unreliable or untrue. why hasn't ornato or anyone else in the secret service come forward, and agreed to testify under oath, and refute her statements? >> two things here, steph. i think the further we get along here, the more the narrative and the notion that cassidy hutchinson is not reliable is being disproven, without cooperation from people like, tony ornato, and bobby engle, directly, the two people that cassidy had reference to, and you have witnessed the former president's behavior during that time period. you saw on that last hearing, actually, that cassidy and tony had a pretty seemingly friendly
relationship. after that seven minute montage that outlined the tumultuous, quote unquote, unhinged meeting on december 18th, in the oval office, with president trump, sydney, flynn, michael powell, that's a blown, the kushner meeting. the committee threw up a text message from cassidy to tony ornato, the two of them going back and forth, with cassidy urging toni to get to the white house asap. so clearly, it goes to they have a relationship, they had some record, and i think it just makes the notion that cassidy would sort of pull this anecdote out of there, that must be harder to believe. that said, i do want to add a word of caution here. we've been reporting the past few days, actually from the secret service spokesperson, that tony and bobby engle are still available to testify. and if they've heard from an informal channel that there was maybe some potential to get that, another private deposition on the books, as they previously promised. but as off at least yesterday.
we did not call up on that today. the committee have not formalized a specific date, and given them a final invitation to come and give another deposition before investigators. >> joyce, how about this news that the committee is seriously considering trying to get testimony from donald trump and mike pence? help me out here. i'm a mere mortal. why wouldn't they want to sit down with these two, a year and a half ago? if i showed up dead tomorrow, the first people to police would talk to would be my husband and my mother. they wouldn't say, well, grieving husband, we will leave him out. these are the two key players here. what are we waiting for? >> exactly. i think that that's a fair point. there is no reason that the committee shouldn't voluntarily request, and promptly follow up
with a subpoena for the testimony, of both pence and trump. because this is not a court of law. this is not a case where we have to worry about who is a witness, who's a subject, who's a target, who could be a defendant down the road? the committee's purpose is to get to the truth of the matter, and to create a historical record permits them to address ongoing problems. but pence and trump, should be subpoenaed, and that bare minimum, the public record should reflect their failure, their lack of willingness to testify, if that's the case. otherwise, they can show up, like any other witness in this proceeding, have a closed or sit down with committee staff, under oath, answer preliminary questions, and the committee can take it from there. but there is no reason that they should be treated differently from any other fact witness to the big lie and january 6th. >> jacqui, given your sporting -- do you have any reporting on that? >> this is been a topic of conversation for really months
now, and previously, when this issue was raised, we heard from h two former vice president pence that there was no way he was going to cooperate, and that's why we heard from people like rex jacobs, or marc short, who appeared in a video taped deposition previously, people who had been willing to cooperate with this investigation. but not the former vice president himself. we worked all the time that he felt that testifying before the committee, himself, was sort of beneath the office, and that these people who are around him at the time had just as much of a preview to what was taking place during that time period, as he did. that being said, as we've learned throughout these seven blockbuster hearings so far, there's nothing really more powerful than hearing a firsthand account of something that happened from the person who experienced it himself, regardless of whether or not it's rehashing a story that we think we already know about. i think that joyce is also right, that the committee potentially needs to get these two people on the record,
potentially, rejecting the opportunity to come forward, and say their piece. and at the end of the day, as the committee is obviously sort of implementing a reverse department of justice strategy here, i think, ethically, there's also some obligation to offer the former president to at least give some answers here to the allegations under oath. department of justice strategy here, i think, ethically, there's also some obligation to offer the former president to at least give some answers here to the allegations under oath. >> then why wouldn't this committee, daniel, want that to happen? want these two people to be called, to answer questions, and if they refuse, let the country know that, right? there is a very good chance, both mike pence and or donald trump would like to run to be the next president. shouldn't we know if either of these men is unwilling to talk to the january 6th committee about something they were directly involved with?
>> i think part of the strategy may be to wait for these public hearings, and just like all of a sudden, that's up alone decided that he was going to cooperate after skating for several months, there's a lot more public pressure on someone like mike pence, to come and testify, after we've seen these hearings. and everybody was being such close attention, and they're so compelling. if mike pence had been subpoenaed before, we knew all of this evidence, and he had said, no, i don't think it would have made much of -- anyway wouldn't be that surprised. now, if he doesn't want to come in and describes conversations that he had with the secretary of defense, that he had with other cabinet officials, that his own lawyer and chief of staff did not listen to, there is information that mike pence has that no one else has. and there's a lot more pressure on him now, because of these compelling hearings. so, i do think the strategy of
waiting until the hearing, so that the american people understand all of the evidence, and then, asking trump and pence to come testify, has a lot of strategic merit to it. >> okay, then i have to ask. i know we are out of time. but when daniel is talking strategy, joyce, it's got me wondering. is this the exact strategy that department of justice always wanted, right? an overwhelming amount of evidence comes out. it's the january six committee, over the course of seven, eight hearings, laying it out for the american people with mostly, trump appointees or employees, and overtime, you are hearing more and more republicans, whether they're established republicans, it can serve as judges, saying trump did something seriously wrong. some even saying he should be charged. is this what the department of
justice wants? so when it comes time for them to drop the hammer, it's gonna be very hard to say that this is a partisan hiccup. >> the doj made benefit in the most unusual way from the committee's proceedings. but typically, if you are doj you don't want any investigators to get out in front of you, and that's because of technical reasons involving evidence that you have to turn over, and defend them in the course of the criminal prosecution. for instance, here is an obligation to turn over any other statements that your witnesses have made. so, as a prosecutor, the last thing i want to see happening is to see congress interviewing my witnesses, under oath, for hours, and generating written transcripts. that's just really anathema to prosecutors. so whether this was intentional from the outset, that seems very dubious to me. whether doj might benefit from
it in the long run is an entirely different question. >> well, there is nothing unusual happening here. jacqueline alemany, dan goldman, joyce vance, thank you all so much for being here. before we have time for jackie to tell us what is in the cupcake tonight. >> you know what, jacqui, we're out of time. i'm getting you to open it, photograph it, and tweet it for us. >> coming up, with so much damage information coming out about donald trump and january 6th, we are gonna go dig deep into what republicans are saying about it. and he was a quick spoiler alert, the answer is nothing. and later, biden is set to meet with saudi arabian leader, after once promising to make the country a pariah. and ben rhodes is here on the president's high stake middle east trip. the 11th hour, just getting underway on this busy thursday night. ♪ ♪ ♪
amazing things we're gonna learn. through projectup, comcast is committing $1 billion so millions more students can continue to get the tools they need to build a future of unlimited possibilities. >> president trump tried to call a witness in our investigation, a witness you have not yet seen in these hearings.
that person declined to answer or respond to president trump's call, and instead, alerted their lawyer to the call. their lawyer alerted us. and this committee has supplied that information so the department of justice. >> the shocking revelations about the former guy keeps emerging to radio silence the republican party leaders. but those same leaders are expected to be in attendance, when trump returns to washington on july 26th, to address the america first policy institute. so, let's discuss. a. b. stoddard joins us, veteran journalist and columnist for real clear politics. and david jolly, who i have not seen in quite some time, former publican congressman from florida. he's now chairman of the serve america movement, and msnbc political contributor. david, what's with the radio
silence from republicans. elise stefanik was the one we thought was gonna be in charge of sort of the counterattack, the messaging on the other side of these hearings. and it's as though republican leadership is all away at summer camp. >> well, because it's going so disastrously back for the former president. and stephanie, i don't know that going into the hearings, we knew the exact strategy this committee would take. but this is now unfolding more like a grand jury indictment. i mean, and they are singularly isolating donald trump as the culpable actor. this is not a thorough examination of the wider network, though that is touched on. every hearing points to one individual, donald trump. and so, republicans have very little in the way of defense. and look, many of them have actually been with him. this is the caucus that enabled him as his covid policy led to the death of americans, as he did nothing about school shootings, as his immigration policy separated families, and led to the death of children. so, the notion that the former
president was risking lives and laying harm to fellow countrymen on january six, that's just far from the course of this republican party in the former president. >> well, this guy lost the election, lost, before january 6th even happened. so, now, if you think about how america, as a whole, feels about him, a. b., we know he is reportedly determined to announce his 2024 candidacy, someone rather than later. is that what republicans want, or are they watching these hearings? after watching this guy lose an election, and say, please, don't do it. anybody, but you. >> oh, just look to the anonymous vote and that base on the report that he's so tempted to not even make it to september to announce his next presidential campaign, from some top prominent republican strategist, talking about how selfish donald trump's. donald trump has not cared about the republican party since 2015, when he talked about this, 2016 when he went through the nomination, throughout his presidency, and beyond. if he has to make their public own party to serve his psychological needs, he's happy to do so. and they know this. that's why, there's some kind
of bulletin points, steph, where no one, even someone liberated, is retiring like senator blunt, or senator portman can talk about the hearings. everybody has to be mob because their single focus regaining control of the house, and help the majority in the senate. so they're so afraid of running up their chances in november, they've all been told to be silent, pretending that been busy, they haven't seen it. and that's why it's really important. because doing damage to his big, you see it in the polling, it's important to note, there are people who believe, focus groups -- it's not to let them that they know that his damaged by this. that's why desantis is on the rise, and it will make him even more vocal about his new big lie, which is the january six committee. he is gonna be, you, know announcing his run for the presidency. anything he can to regain the spotlight and attention, and to the core of the republicans told to be silent, pretending that been busy, they haven't seen it. and that's why it's really important. because doing damage to his big, you see it in the polling, it's important to note, there are people who believe, focus groups -- it's not to let them that they know that his damaged by this.
that's why desantis is on the rise, and it will make him even more vocal about his new big lie, which is the january six committee. he is gonna be, you, know announcing his run for the presidency. anything he can to regain the spotlight and attention, and to the core of the republicans, and of course, by abiding and abetting him, they all deserve it. >> david, if the republican plans to stay silent, should democrats plan to really get loud? because these midterms are not about policy. what are you doing on the economy? how are you facing inflation? our democracy is in danger. we are hearing throughout the hearings about how close we were to losing our democracy. and while that is happening, the supreme court's rolling back civil liberties. the gop, taking three measures against abortion. blocking a bill, today, to protect women who travel for abortion. are democrats -- effectively how dire the situation is. this ain't no regular election. >> yeah, it's not. i love that question, stephanie,
because most elections in modern political history are turned out elections. you get your based base riled up, you get them upset, angry, motivated, whatever might be. this is actually one of the rare elections where they may be persuadable constituency. to your point, if you can speak to the american people on, in a way where they understand that some of their very rights are now hanging in the balance, based on who can fill the levels of government in a way that we've not seen for perhaps, 50 or 100 years, now you have persuadable voters, go to the dobbs case for instance. this is the perfect example. we know the two sides are going to motivate their base. they feel strongly about it. but coming out of dobbs, there are tens of millions of americans who previously may have never identified themselves as pro-choice. and perhaps, it was just kind of turn to their orientation, but they are realizing they were pro roe all along. if democrats can have conversations with those constituencies, and say, look,
there republicans are really reaching for fundamental rights, and you are at risk of losing them, then i think democrats can turn around the way, it seems to be going a few months ago, it might have a more favorable november. >> a. b., yesterday, the house passed a bill that would create an active alert system for active shooter situations. and 168 republicans voted against it. who are they doing that for? i'm thinking of all sorts of suburban republicans, who six months ago, love talking about how you woke america was getting, and they needed to start voting for republicans again, because things were getting to progressive. all of those people, they care about active shooter situations. >> that is true. and that's why, steph, it's not just zero, which i think, you know, the data is showing, which is extremely energizing for voters in every age group who are pro-life people, who believe that abortion should be safely rare, but do not want to be it illegal, and realize now
they are pro roe, pro-choice, soft republicans, independent democrats never planned to vote in these midterm elections. i think in addition to that, the findings, the revelations from these hearings on january 6th, and the coup that began in november of 2020, or before, and took place all through november, and december, and led to the failed coup on january six, and all these mass shootings. and the republicans response to that, collectively, they are extremely galvanizing, as a collective. and so, there are people who really cannot tolerate the republican response to mass shootings anymore. now, where they are turning on the republican party for that reason. and then, they of course, you have shock in response to what they're hearing about trump and his abettor is on january 6th. and then, of course, the reaction to row, i think it's a basket of things that are making people curious. and they didn't expect
inflation was so -- was so infuriating. i think that they just didn't expect that they would have these issues, that might turn out new voters. the inflation voter as i said, it's probably still turning up. but i think, it weakened the different set of voters, which aren't gonna tolerate, you know, action or inaction on these issues anymore. and that's why, i think it's gonna be a different makeup of the electorate. >> this is an election about democracy. a. b. stoddard, david jolly, thank you both for joining us tonight. i appreciate it. great to see you both. coming up, president biden's high stakes trip to saudi arabia. our dear friend ben rhodes is here, to break down why he thinks this visit is quote, sadly inevitable, when the 11th hour continues.
>> the president's first visit to the middle east, since taking office, has gone off largely without a hitch. but tomorrow, president biden is set to meet with saudi leaders, including crown prince, mohammad bin salman. with us tonight to discuss is ben rhodes, former deputy national security adviser, for president obama. ben and, really glad you are
here tonight. this is a very complicated trip. during his campaign, biden promised to make saudi arabia, a pariah. but you say this meeting was inevitable. >> well, i'm not happy about it. i wish this meeting wasn't taking place. and look, i've been in the white house, and what happens is, you are looking at a lot of problems coming at you. and they're thinking, we have a huge problem for inflation, if you can get the saudis and opec to do any more production, maybe that would help. we have a huge challenge for the war in ukraine, and we don't want the saudis and the emiratis, who've been kind of been sitting on that war, to drift in the direction of russia and china. we've got this abraham accords, it's a trump initiative in which the gulf states are trying to get closer to israel. that's a lot with iran, and offsetting iran. so there's all of these short term reasons, to compel president to say, it's easier to just make up with mbs and the saudis, get this over, with rip this band-aid off. but the bigger problem, stephanie, is that you know,
the two essential challenges that we face as a country, that we feel every day is the collapse of democracy all around us. and climate change. and in the long run, those short term impulses that i think are compelling this trip, you know, they end up winning the day over the things that we really have to do in the long run. and at some point, i really think that has to change. >> i hear you, then, but here is the problem. we live in a world of short, short term-ism. and these long term solutions that we desperately need, president biden, or other democrats aren't even gonna get the chance to address those things, if they get wiped out, come november. so, once this war took place in ukraine, isn't it sort of all that's off, and if biden doesn't address things surrounding inflation, than all of the other things thing is
gonna look to get done, we're gonna get a whole heck of a lot harder. he certainly not saying, oh, mbs, is my boy. i'm all in. he's got a problem. he's got -- >> yeah, i think that's definitely what tipped it for them. i think the war in ukraine in the shortages with the russian oil coming off the market to the u.s. and europe is probably the thing that kind of tipped over policy decisions, that joe biden probably didn't want to make, and going to see mbs. i also think those, stephanie, if you look at this, you know, most analysis is, there's not that much increase production capacity that can come out of saudi arabia and the uae. our final reserve, clicking in the 95% as. there's just broader shocks of global energy markets, and you know, there is increasing reluctance from the saudis to kind of bail us out. i think on this trip, you'll probably hear some good top out of saudi arabia, but you know, i don't think mbs is a reliable actor here.
and the question is, is he gonna follow through on that top? and somebody was invested two billion dollars, in jared kushner's investment knowledge, is that person really someone wants to help joe biden along what i'm saying, make it through the midterms, make it in 2024? i just don't trust the guy. and i do think at the end of the day, when you are framing this rightly, it's a question of democracy versus autocracy. in this country, and around the world. you know, mbs is on the wrong side of that debate. >> so, that's right there, do you think this is a bigger risk? you go to saudi arabia. you try to play ball. they don't want to play ball. i mean, truly, mbs wrote a massive check to jerry kushner. jared kushner, during stop the steal, that's where he was. he was overseas locking in his next career, so is this administration foolish to think it could ever get anything done with somebody like mbs, especially given who he is to the trump family? >> i think that they have to have -- and probably do have pretty low expectations. but just how much they can get
out of mbs here? they will get a little bit more in the normalization process with israel. which frankly was already in a train. because the saudi has backed the abraham accords. they might get some positive statements, on energy markets, and they can help in the immediate term. in the long run, you have the image, of the president of the united states, going to mbs after the murder of jamal khashoggi. frankly, after a lot of other problematic behavior, multi year war in yemen. the mistake for the obama administration. in the steak continuing u.s. support ever since then. you have saudi sport so supporting from the iran deal, and i ran on the door of having nuclear weapons. again, i just don't think in the long run. the costs of those images with mbs. and how that's going to completely laundering of his reputation. he's been trying everything, from a gulf lead, to a justin bieber conference. he's been trying everything, to open back this floodgate. and businesses, investments, coming back in saudi arabia. that's what's in it for mbs. and that's a lot here. and i think, in the long run, he's not a reliable partner and
friend of the united states. certainly, not of a democratic president. but, you know, as i said. reasons you have cited. i just think, at some point, -- we have to address this, gap between what we say, the story we tell about who we are in the world, democracy, climate change. what the world sees us doing. >> ben rhodes, every time you are here, you make us smarter, i am really grateful you joined us tonight. >> thank you stephanie. >> coming up, a cloud of controversy hangs over police for their delayed response in uvalde, texas. state senator roland gutierrez is here to talk about all of it. when the 11th hour continues. h hour continues that's been saving people money for nearly 60 years. i gotta go, ah. for a great low rate, and nearly 60 years of quality coverage, go with the general. >> what a grade did you just
finish? >> fourth. >> so tell me about what happened at the end of your school year? why are you here today? >> so we can ban weapons now. >> and why is that so important? >> so no one has to go through what i went through at school. >> that's a ten year old survivor of the massacre in uvalde, texas. the community now demanding answers after a disturbing video from inside robb elementary school, was edited and released by the austin american statesman, here is how governor greg abbott responded when he was asked about the video. >> obviously it's disgusting,
to see what happened. it's clear, that what was shown on the video, was the exact opposite of information that i was given on the day i went out and explained what happened. during the event. none of the information that was in that video was shared with me on that day. so it was shocking. >> shocking, with us tonight to discuss texas state senator roland gutierrez. his district includes you've all day. thank you so much for being here. i know what's a brutal last two months you have had. help me understand this. the governor is saying he is shocked. he is a disgusted by what he saw in that video. it's the opposite of what he was told that they. he is the governor of texas, why didn't he see this video anytime over the last seven weeks? i would think he, or any other official in the state should have seen that too? >> that's right stephanie.
i saw snippets of it when i wanted to see all of it, i was asked to sign an nda. and i refused. my constituents wanted to see the truth, they wanted to know the truth. and they wanted to do it in the right way. so i ended up filing a lawsuit against the dps. greg abbott is ignorant because he wants to be, he doesn't want to know the truth, he actually does know it. he hasn't been back to you uvalde since day three. never went to one single funeral. i don't think that he cares enough about the kids of texas, because he has failed to call a special session, to bring us back. and put an end to having 18 year olds have access to these types of weapons. he refuses to do that. >> i need to interrupt you -- you wanted to see a video, you are an elected official. uvalde is in your district. you wanted to see a video, of what happened inside that school. and they ask you to sign an nda! what was the rationale?
>> it's the state we are living here in texas. this is the kind of stuff that happens in venezuela, and russia. and unfortunately, it happens here in texas. the facts are, the reason i saw three minutes of the video, is because i barged into a dps trailer, had an argument with one of their pios. as i walked out, i saw about three minutes of a different video. the video i saw was closer to the room that this man had sheltered himself in. and as he fired out to the police. you could see construction material, sheet rock flying in over their heads. they are not showing you that video, because they don't want people to see the awesome power of fear for horrible power, of these ar-15s. we saw all sorts of props in these investigations, and in these hearings, and in the senate and house of representatives. but we never saw an ar-15. because they don't want to be having that discussion, stephanie. >> so what information are
these families getting? if you, an elected official, can't get information. what are the mothers and fathers, what are they being told? >> half truths, innuendo, finger-pointing, this is the worst response in law enforcement history. in our modern times in the state of texas. absolutely. the fact is, there were 12 dps troopers, even in the video. that made for tv video, we don't see those 12 troopers. the only reason that came, out was because i cross-examine steve mccraw to that, during his testimony in the senate. this is where we are at, this is the kind of government we are dealing with in texas. >> so where are we going to go from here? are police going to face any consequences? is this current texas government going to face any consequences? or not, if they keep getting reelected? >> that's the unfortunate thing,
it's my hope stephanie. that people finally get tired of. this they finally get tired of the neglect. and as i have done my own investigations, you will start to see very soon, that in texas. there are many things, that light up to this massacre. including the, fact that greg abbott knew about the failed radios, the other thing that was important about that video. everybody was on their cell phone. they were on their cell phones, because of the radio systems didn't work. the governor has known that for seven years, and he's been asked for money, to fix those radio systems for seven counties. and he has refused. >> can -- >> this is a story of neglect. >> those kids just went to school that day. two days left in the year. senator, thank you for joining us tonight, i really appreciate it. roland gutierrez i appreciate it, i wish i wasn't saying you. that is actually how i feel. >> thank you. >> coming up, how a buffalo
>> the last thing before we go tonight. love beats hate. it has been two months since a gunman opened fire at a tops supermarket in buffalo, new york. killing ten people, and leaving a tight-knit community in mourning. today, the justice department announced that a federal grand jury charged the 19-year-old gunman of 27 counts of hate crimes and firearm violations. he also faces ten counts of first degree murder, and ten counts of second degree murder in the state of new york. in moments of silence and prayer, was held today, outside the tops of friendly market story. to honor the victims, employees impacted by the shooting. now, fully remodelled, the store will be open to the public for the first time tomorrow morning. shoppers will be greeted by this water wall memorial.
inscribed with a poem by julian hans worth, a poet laureate from buffalo. it reads in part, let the hopeful waters flow, cleansing all pain and fear. all hurt and regret. let the water heal our were people. buffalo's mayor spoke about the importance of the stores reopening at the prayer service today. >> how everyone has come together, for the opening of our tops on jefferson avenue. is proof positive that love beats hate. we will take this place of tragedy, and in the days, the weeks, the months, the years to come. it will be a national and world wide example, of a place of triumph. >> amen to that. love beats hate, east buffalo, new york, tonight. may that be a lesson to us all.
on that note, i wish you all a very good night. from all of our colleagues across the networks of nbc news, thank you for staying up late with us, i will see you at the end of tomorrow. >> tonight on all in -- >> after our last hearing, president trump tried to call a witness in our investigation. >> who did the ex president call, and will there be legal consequences? >> it's highly unusual to do that, and that's why we will put that in the hands of the justice department. we're not gonna make that decision. >> tonight, new reporting that the january 6th committee might try to call trump as a witness, and subpoena mike pence. then -- >> and what's trump's gonna do is just declare victory, right? he is going to declare victory. but that