The January 6th Committee announces next public hearing on Thursday. The district attorney in Fulton County, Georgia had sent so-called target letters to prominent Republican leaders in Georgia that involves fake electors. The families of 19 children and two teachers killed at Robb Elementary School are demanding answers and accountability after seeing the video of police waiting more than an hour to confront the gunman in the classroom. After watching dozens of highly-trained, heavily-armed officers from local, state and federal agencies fail to stop a mass shooter in Uvalde, Texas, Democratic Senator Chris Murphy says it`s very clear the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to stop him from getting that gun.
AYMAN MOHYELDIN, MSNBC HOST: That does it for me tonight. Rachel will be back here on Monday and I`ll see you tomorrow night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on my show, "Ayman," right here on MSNBC. Now it`s time for THE LAST WORD. Jonathan Capehart is in for Lawrence tonight. Good evening, Jonathan.
JONATHAN CAPEHART, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Lawrence -- Lawrence. Good evening, Ayman. Thank you very much. Have a good Friday night. The January 6th Committee has made it official. The next public hearing will be Thursday night at 8:00 p.m.
After seven bombshell hearings, this is expected to be the last of the committee`s slate of summer hearings, we think. Members of the committee has stressed through this process that they`ll schedule additional hearings should their investigation warrant.
REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): We are far from wrapping up our work. The investigation goes on and we might have had some anticipation that we would be closer to the end of the investigation by now. But the reality is witnesses continue to come forward. And so, we are reserving the right to do more hearings as these witnesses come forward. And I think, hopefully, we have a lot of work remaining to do.
CAPEHART: One of those witnesses is Patrick Byrne, the former CEO of Overstock.com. He testified before the committee earlier today after his name come up at Tuesday`s hearing. Witnesses for the committee testified that he was at an unhinged Oval Office meeting in December 2020 along with Rudy Giuliani, Sydney Powell and Michael Flynn.
What does a former furniture CEO have to do with January 6th? Here`s what former Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone told the committee on Tuesday.
PAT CIPOLLONE, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: I opened the door and I walked in. I saw general Flynn. I saw Sydney Powell sitting there. I was not happy to see the people in the oval office.
CIPOLLONE: Well, again, I don`t think they were providing -- well, first of all, an Overstock person, I`ve never met, I never knew who this guy was. Actually, the first thing I did, I walked in, I looked at him and I said, "Who are you?" And he told me. I don`t think any of these people were providing the President with good advice.
CAPEHART: The Overstock person. It was immediately after that meeting that Donald Trump sent his infamous "will be wild" tweet that led to an army of his supporters showing up in Washington on January 6th. Meanwhile, in Georgia, the criminal investigation into the effort to overturn the 2020 election results is heating up.
Michael Isikoff reports for Yahoo News, quote, "Fulton County Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis has sent so-called target letters to prominent Georgia Republicans informing them they could be indicted for their role in a scheme to appoint alternate electors pledged to the former president despite Joe Biden`s victory in the state, according to legal sources familiar with the matter."
Isikoff is reporting that a number of people on the receiving end of those target letters are prominent Georgia Republicans including State Senator Bert Jones, Governor Brian Kemp`s running mate for lieutenant governor. David Schaffer, the chairman of the Georgia Republican Party and State Senator Brandon Beach.
Both Jones and Schaffer reportedly participated in the fake elector`s scheme that Trump and his allies cooked up as a way to flip the results of the election. "The Washington Post" previously obtained an e-mail that was sent out by the Trump campaign to the fake Trump electors. The e-mail said, quote, "I must ask for your complete discretion in this process. Your duties are imperative to ensure the end result -- a win in Georgia for President Trump -- but will be hampered unless we have complete secrecy and discretion. Please, at no point should you mention anything to do with presidential electors or speak to the media."
Sounds totally legal and legit. News of the target letter sent out by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, alongside the explosive revelations from the committee`s hearing is increasing the pressure on Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Department of Justice. Here`s how a trio of former justice department officials described the situation.
"For the past 18 months and presently, Trump himself and his supporters have been engaged in concerted efforts across the country to prepare for a similar but better planned effort to overcome the minority status of Trump support and put him back in the White House. The tradition of not prosecuting a former president must yield to the manifest need to protect our constitutional form of government and to ensure that the violent efforts to overthrow it is never repeated."
But even if the DOJ decides not prosecute, the January 6th Committee`s investigation is already being felt, particularly by the guy at the center of it. The hearings have reportedly made Trump desperate to change the subject. Fox`s Tara Palmieri reports, quote, "Advisors I have spoken with say Trump is desperate to turn the national conversation away from January 6th. He is also obsessed with the perception that January 6th is hurting him with big donors, who are tired of the antics and worry about how his January 6th baggage will impact the presidential election if he decides to run."
Trump has reportedly already made up his mind about running for president again. It`s just a matter of when at this point. So, color me surprised to find myself agreeing with something former Trump attorney Ty Cobb said the other day. He told NBC News, quote, "A 2024 declaration of his candidacy serves no interest but his self-defeating and overwhelming need for relevance, attention and money. Such an announcement also does not inoculate him from criminal investigation. The big lie should be disqualifying for Trump and his political acolytes and would have been at any other time in our history. To modify a well-known Seinfeld quote, serenity now!"
Joining us now, Tim O`Brien, executive editor of Bloomberg Opinion and author of "Trump Nation." He`s also an MSNBC political analyst. Tim, with Trump banned from Twitter, we don`t have the hourly insight into his psyche that we had when he was president. But if he`s calling a witness, he is watching and he is worried, right?
TIM O\`BRIEN, MSNBC ANALYST: Oh, he is desperately worried because Donald Trump is an ignorant man. He is not sophisticated about many things, but he is a lifelong student of celebrity, the power of media, the power of performance art, and the power of TV.
And the January 6th hearings are the most effectively staged congressional hearings in our modern history. And they have been pointed, sharp, informative, well-staged and very, very damaging to Donald Trump, and he is very well aware of that.
And I think the reason he has lofted this idea that he is going to run again is precisely to try to deflect attention away from the January 6th Committee, raise this idea that if he runs again, he will have the insulation and the majesty of the White House around him to protect him from some of the consequences of what the January 6th Committee is showing everyone in America, which is that Donald Trump was at the top of a criminal conspiracy, and he tried to stage a coup.
And the only thing right now that`s keeping Donald Trump from being prosecuted, I think, is more steel on the part of the Justice Department and Merrick Garland. And up to this point, you know, Trump has always benefited from his deference, which is understandable. But it is a tradition among law enforcement officials not to aggressively take on the executive branch.
But I think what we`ve learned from the Mueller investigation was that Mueller`s deference to the White House took some of the teeth out of what he found in his own investigation. I think the Manhattan District Attorney`s Office ended up in the sort of plotting place for similar reasons.
And now you have it with Garland. And I think Trump knows that by holding on to the presidency he continues to raise money, he continues to get attention. And I think he thinks, falsely, you know, if prosecutors show some steel that he can do another end run around the reach of the law and prove to Americans an unfortunate lesson, which is that the presidency is above the law, which it shouldn`t be.
CAPEHART: And then there is this, Tim, from "Puck." "January 6th hearings have reinforced his toxicity to some mega-donor Republicans, but one top bundler stressed to me that a mass exodus has not yet occurred." So, Tim, do you see a change in the conservative donor and media worlds towards Trump? And the idea that the committee hearings are damaging to his 2024 chances, is it more damaging than the fact that he got shellacked in 2020?
O`BRIEN: Well, I mean, you know, we`re seeing a lot of evidence in polls and polls are never bulletproof as we all well know. But independent voters are moving away from him.
You know, there is now a more blue tone to some of the midterm possibilities than there were, I think, just months ago. I don`t think that`s only because of the January 6th Committee hearings. I think gun violence and the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade on abortion rights, reproductive rights are factors in all of this, deep factors in all this as well, and Trump is paying attention to this.
The problem is, you know, remember in 2016, Trump effectively consolidated enough of the vote during the primary to keep everyone else running against him at bay. No one else could consolidate the sort of fractured opposition to him in other parts of the party. That could very well happen again.
I think we won`t know this until its road tested and I think that`s why some donors are hesitant to completely flee him. On the other hand, there is ample evidence that voter`s minds have changed about him in significant ways and not just about him, but about the Republican Party.
But that`s going to be in play, I think, because of the economy and inflation, that that is just going to be such a strong determinant of where voters land in all this. But Trump is scared. And he`s doing everything that someone who is scared does.
He`s trying to run for cover. He`s trying to create his own megaphone. And he is spinning a false narrative of his own to, I think, escape the long arm of the law.
CAPEHART: Tim O`Brien, it`s my first opportunity to congratulate you on your elevation to executive editor at Bloomberg Opinion. Congratulations. But that also means that your predecessor is now my new boss come September, David Shipley.
O`BRIEN: That won`t save you, Jonathan. If this is an attempt for, you know, you would just get, you know, wonderful treatment from the great David Shipley, I don`t know if I can deliver that.
CAPEHART: I`ll take my chances. Tim O`Brien, thank you very much. Have a good weekend. Joining us now, Harry Litman, former federal prosecutor and former deputy assistant attorney general, and Joyce Vance is a former federal prosecutor and MSNBC legal analyst.
Harry, I`m going to start with you. Let me get your reaction to Michael Isikoff`s reporting that Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis has sent target letters to a number of prominent Georgia Republicans.
HARRY LITMAN, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: So, target means she`s really considering seriously indicting them and it makes a lot of sense, Jonathan. These jokers were in the room that it says clean a case of sort of false electors, phony electors as we know. Schaffer, the head of the Republican Party there was literally doing the counterfeit stuff in the room saying nobody say anything.
A woman happened by and they lied to her and said, oh, it`s about education, et cetera. So, it`s understandable that they should be in her crosshairs. It`s also interesting to me because it suggests the seven people who were subpoenaed last week are not targets. She sees them now as witnesses, otherwise, she would have provided them the same treatment.
But these guys are front and center in the middle of the scheme to do phony electors. And you can really understand why she is doing it.
CAPEHART: And Joyce, District Attorney Willis has also reportedly considering requesting testimony from Trump himself. What kinds of things would she need to take into consideration before making that decision?
JOYCE VANCE, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: One of the most important considerations is whether the potential benefits that she would get from the subpoena if, for instance, she were able to get the former president in front of her grand jury, if that benefit would outweigh the downside, and the downside here would be delay.
Because we know that Trump would fight the subpoena. He would take it into court, it could be a lengthy battle, although Fani Willis is in Fulton County, which leans very democratic in terms of the makeup of its elected judges. That`s not true when you get out of the county into Georgia`s appellate courts.
So, this could get bogged down. She could even potentially suffer a lawsuit. It will be a very finely tuned decision for her to make about whether she would get some benefit from going through the process with Trump.
CAPEHART: Harry, I`m going to get you on something about the Secret Service. Congresswoman -- congresswoman -- Congressman Jamie Raskin said today that the committee intends to get to the bottom of those deleted Secret Service text messages from January 5th and January 6th. Do you buy the agencies explanation that this was simply part of a planned technology upgrade?
LITMAN: Look, who knows, and especially this upgrade occurred after they were already notified to do it. It doesn`t -- it certainly has an odor about it right now. Normally, you might give agencies the benefit of the doubt. But in Trump era, how can you? The head of the detail here is super cozy with Trump, might have been involved.
And remember, Mike Pence says, don`t take me away, Secret Service. He apparently has some doubts. They could be in on things. On the other hand, the OIG here has a history of being kind of squirrelly himself and being taken to task. So, something irregular. We have to get to the bottom of it.
It just says, it ought to be able to what would otherwise be routine in Trumpland just is anything but, and we have not begun to get to the -- to plumb the depths of the deep Secret Service`s role in those, especially final days culminating in January 6th.
CAPEHART: And Joyce, with the final January 6th hearings of the summer scheduled for Thursday, what more would you like to hear from the committee, and what do you think Attorney General Merrick Garland will be looking for?
VANCE: Hard to know what the attorney general hopes to get out of these hearings, Jonathan. What one hopes he is not looking to get his evidence because it would be extraordinarily unusual for DOJ to be depending on another part of government to deliver its evidence. DOJ has far greater investigative tools, including grand jury subpoenas, which are readily and speedily enforceable.
And so, DOJ can obtain the testimony of virtually anyone it wants to, although it, too, has to deal with some concerns about people who have privileges, like the attorney client privilege typically would prevail. But the DOJ`s ability to obtain the sort of information and evidence is far superior to Congress is and that`s something I think that has troubled many of us throughout this process.
The fact that we have not seen much indication that DOJ is using the grand jury. You might expect to see witnesses move to quash subpoenas. So, what do we look for this week? We look for the final icing on the cake. This notion that the president who had a duty, a sworn duty to uphold the Constitution and to take due care, that he did nothing while the capitol was under attack.
CAPEHART: Joyce Vance, Harry Litman, thanks for joining us tonight.
CAPEHART: Coming up, Republicans have shown a brutal creativity in policies and laws to police groups they don`t like, including women who want to retain control of their own bodies. After the Dobbs decision, pro- choice advocates are getting creative to get around those laws. Professors Michelle Goodwin and Mary Ziegler will join us on that, next.
CAPEHART: Twenty-one days since the Republican-appointed justices on the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, and we are in uncharted waters, I mean, a patchwork of laws and legal muddiness, pro-choice advocates are getting creative in their efforts to find workable solution since there aren`t 60 votes in the Senate to pass of federal law protecting abortion access.
An OB/GYN in California is raising money to float ship in federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico to provide abortion and other reproductive health care services. Currently, all gulf states, except Florida, ban abortion. But if Republicans pass a federal abortion ban which Mitch McConnell says is possible if Republicans take control of Congress and the White House in 2024, that reproductive health care ship in federal waters will figuratively sink.
A pregnant woman in Texas was pulled over and issued a ticket for driving in an HOV lane. She argued that Texas`s abortion ban meant that she could count her unborn baby as a person. But a fetal personhood standard would impact other things like in vitro fertilization, treatment of fertilized embryos, and abortion bans in cases of rape or incest.
Some elected officials have suggested building abortion clinics on federal land. But that has the potential to violate a number of state laws that could be prosecuted by federal authorities and put the lives of real people needlessly at risk. Which is why the Biden administration won`t even entertain it.
But the urgency is real especially as the revocation of a right collides with other policies in red states, including a law in Missouri that prohibits pregnant women from getting a divorce. Michelle Goodwin, Chancellor`s Professor of law at the University of California, Irvine, and the author of "Policing the Womb: Invisible Women and the Criminalization of Motherhood."
Also joining us, legal historian and law professor Mary Ziegler. She is the author of the new book "Dollars for Life: The Anti-Abortion Movement and the Fall of the Republican Establishment." Thank you both very much for coming here tonight.
Professor Goodwin, I`ll start with you. This Missouri law seems to ignore circumstances Republicans don`t want to see like an abusive marriage or a pregnancy within a marriage that might have -- but might not have been consensual, no?
MICHELE GOODWIN, LAW PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE: That`s right and they get it straight from Justice Alito`s opinion in the Dobbs case. Justice Alito cites legal scholars who supported and wrote about marital rape as being nonexistent because a woman is the property of her husband and therefore is one with him, and a person can`t rape himself.
Marital rape laws stood in the United States up until just a couple of days -- decades ago. A man could rape his wife and not be punished or the same is true in cases of incest. There were fathers that were able to defend themselves against cases of incest because for a father to be punished under such -- committing such egregious crimes, it would create disharmony in his household.
And so, the absurdity of all of this you are so absolutely right. And what`s so tragic about it is that it`s been built in, and baked in to American law, and even most recently, given support in the Dobbs decision at least, by the, way that Justice Alito cites these arcane lawyers who, you know, supported these arcane principles, barbaric principles.
CAPEHART: And Professor Ziegler, here`s the irony of ironies. According to a Missouri lawyer quoted in the "Riverfront Times." "The whole basis of Missouri putting the pause on a divorce proceeding until the child is born is because Missouri law, quote, "does not see fetuses as humans." But for the purpose of Missouri abortion law, they are seen as human?
MARY ZIEGLER, LAW PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS: Yes. One of the things that we see coming out of this is that, really since the 60s, the anti-abortion movement has been a person who had movement, but no one really worked out exactly with that meant, right?
No one figured out how it would be enforced, no one figured out exactly what kind of rights person that would confer, which is why we are seeing all of these different challenges pop-up where the people are saying, okay, well, if the fetus is a person, then does that mean I get child support when I`m pregnant. Does that mean I get to drive in the HOV lane? Does that mean I get to have a divorce when I want?
And the answer in state law is who knows, right, because the focus has been on criminalizing abortion and sending doctors and people who help them to prison. And the rest of the story, I think, has been left with significant gaps.
CAPEHART: And Professor Goodwin, we understand the desire to want to take action. But some of the solutions being proposed could backfire. A 1948 statute called the Assimilative Crimes Act says, "The federal government can prosecute state crimes committed on federal property within that state if there is no federal law authorizing such activity."
So, what would a Republican administration do and could it do so retroactively?
GOODWIN: Here is the tension, is that there are real urgent needs in these spaces. Lives are at risk. We have incredibly high maternal mortality and morbidity rates in the United States. So, those that are seeking solutions are recognizing that literally there are people who are suffering and dying now and want to provide relief for them.
And they are pushed to do so for medical ethics reasons. We can understand that. And the challenge that even you`ve presented in your writings is that, well, what happens when a democratic administration is gone and a Republican administration is in place? And some say, well, let`s just wait until that time and save the lives that are necessary to save today and wait about that tomorrow.
I think one other point is that our courts are unsteady now. The rule of law is unsteady now after this Dobbs decision. The Supreme Court had said that (inaudible) is not a principle that they are willing to uphold, privacy isn`t one that they`re willing to uphold. And that`s what also makes it a challenge. If these issues come to court, we have no certainty how courts will decide given this Supreme Court.
CAPEHART: We don`t know how the courts are going to decide given the Supreme Court, but also those lower court judges, conservative judges, and how they might rule. Professor Zeigler, what worries you the most in this legal wild west that we are in? Are their opportunities for say civil disobedience to change public opinion or the laws themselves?
ZEIGLER: Yes. I mean, I think what worries me most is not just what we are likely to see from conservative judges but the uncertainty it`s creating because that`s adding a layer of danger for patients. As Michel described, you know, doctors operating in an environment of uncertainty are going to be afraid to treat patients, even patients who would be illegible for lifesaving care under, you know, very restrictive state laws.
So, I think this is an area where we`re also seeing supporters of reproductive rights and justice looking for ways to add clarity for patients and for doctors. So, even more unnecessary tragedies don`t occur. Having said that, I think we know that there -- that civil disobedience does make a difference.
Many of the relevant actors here are politicians who some of whom maybe true believers, many of whom are not in this for that reason and are doing this quite simply to send a message that they think they can, right? They think there are no consequences.
And so, I think we have seen impressive mobilizations on the right of very impassioned, but relatively small majority minorities.
We know there`s a majority of progressives who support abortion rights. So, I think that an equally impressive mobilization would obviously be really powerful.
CAPEHART: Professors Michele Goodwin and Mary Zeigler, thanks for joining us tonight.
ZIEGLER: Thanks for having me.
CAPEHART: Coming up, the district attorney for Uvalde is claiming that charges could be possible in the mass murder at Robb Elementary. The killer is dead, so who could be charged? That is next.
BERLINDA IRENE ARREOLA, GRANDMOTHER OF UVALDE VICTIM AMERIE JO GARZA: It was horrific. It was disturbing. It was the worst thing that I could have possibly seen.
I am so disappointed. I was already disappointed. This just confirmed my disappointment. It just added fuel to the fire. Just, there are no words to explain, honestly, the anger that I feel right now.
CAPEHART: The families of 19 children and two teachers killed at Robb Elementary School are demanding answers and accountability after seeing the video of police waiting more than an hour to confront the gunman in the classroom.
The video from inside the school`s hallway capturing a growing number of heavily armed officers standing around for 77 minutes was released by the Austin American Statesman on Tuesday.
Vincent Salazar, whose granddaughter Leyla Salazar died in the shooting, told the "New York Times, quote, "They went to where they were supposed to be. But they didn`t go in for action. It`s like it didn`t matter about these children, the way they responded. They were just standing there."
On Sunday, a special Texas House Committee investigating the shooting will show the video to the families and is expected to present the findings of this preliminary report before disclosing it to the public.
Joining us now is Tony Plohetski, investigative reporter for the Austin American-Statesman.
Tony, thank you very much for being here. First things first, how much confidence do you have that the Uvalde -- that the investigators are going to show, or were going to show the families the video that you and the newspaper released on Tuesday?
TONY PLOHETSKI, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN: What I can say is that the pressure to show this video to the families had been increasing over days. And there had been a growing chorus, even among state officials, including Governor Greg Abbott for this video to be released.
Now, let me say Jonathan, I think one of the big questions that remains, as we sit here tonight, is how much of that total video will be shown to those families on Sunday? Will it be the entirety, or will it be, for example, just a portion of the video that shows the law enforcement response, and not what preceded the law enforcement response, which, of course, is that 18 year old walking down that hallway of an elementary school with an AR- 15.
CAPEHART: Now, since the release of the video, there has been a lot of anger, hurt, and upset in the Uvalde community that the video was released. But I`m wondering does the community trust these investigators to tell them the truth when they gather on Sunday to watch the video and hear this report from investigators?
PLOHETSKI: One thing I want to say is that we know that many of these families have been heartbroken by what they have seen in this video. We feel that, we hear that, we know that.
But to answer your question, I think that that is really a mix because, what we know from day one is that investigators have provided conflicting accounts. They have made statements that have needed to be corrected or retracted, or amended.
Keep in mind that began with Governor Greg Abbott the day after the shooting, telling the public that but for the heroic actions of these law enforcement officers, more people and more children may have died inside that school.
So what the families, many of them have said publicly, is that they don`t have a lot of faith in the investigations and there are multiple investigations (INAUDIBLE) and Jonathan, that is why this video is so important. It helps tell the story of that terrible day.
CAPEHART: And Tony, let me get you in on one more thing, this is from the "Uvalde Leader News" reports, that district attorney Christina Mitchell Busbee said she has been silent because, quote, "possible criminal charges could stem from the investigation into the mass shooting at Robb Elementary School and she must avoid saying anything that might jeopardize any potential case."
What is your reaction to this given that the shooter is dead? Who could face charges?
PLOHETSKI: Well, that is certainly a question that we have taken to legal experts who know Texas law inside and out. And what they say, many of them, not just one or two but several that I have talked to, is that they truly can`t think of any applicable law on the books here in Texas that might apply.
And so that has deepened questions about why there is all of this secrecy around information from that terrible day when, in fact, there seems to be difficulty prosecuting anyone in this case. Although, I suppose it is possible that she could try to potentially charge someone, as you mentioned, though she has certainly not said that publicly.
And if that is the case, I think that is an answer to a major question that many people here in Texas, and particularly in that city, would like to know.
CAPEHART: Very interesting. Tony Plohetski, thanks for joining us tonight.
CAPEHART: Coming up, after Uvalde, it`s clear the way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is to stop the bad guy from getting the gun. That is next.
CAPEHART: After watching dozens of highly-trained, heavily-armed officers from local, state and federal agencies fail to stop a mass murder -- a mass shooter for more than an hour in Uvalde, Texas, Democratic Senator Chris Murphy says it`s very clear the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to stop him from getting that gun.
SENATOR CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT): It is proof that this myth perpetuated on the country for 30 years, that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is good guys with a gun was a gun industry fiction created to sell more weapons.
If one teenager with a high-powered weapon is so scary as to prevent all of those highly-trained adults from going in and saving lives, maybe we should try to stop those teenagers from having those kind of guns in the first place because clearly we can never have enough good guys with guns.
CAPEHART: Joining us now, Texas state representative Gina Hinojosa and Gilberto Hinojosa, chairman of the Texas Democratic Party. Thank you both for being here.
Chair Hinojosa, do you agree with Senator Murphy`s comments about the myth of the good guy with a gun?
GILBERTO HINOJOSA, CHAIRMAN, TEXAS DEMOCRATIC PARTY: Yes. Because we have proof that that`s really the case. When these weapons of mass destruction, these assault weapons were banned from 1994 to 2004, these mass shootings went down precipitously. We did not see what you have seen in the last few years, once there was a wholesale use of these weapons all over the country, because of the promotion by the big -- gun manufacturing companies and the NRA.
So, there is no question that the proof is out there. The only experience that we have had in recent memory is that, when they don`t have access to those guns, people are not engaged in mass shootings.
You are exactly right. When you have an AR-15 and you start shooting a police officers, they duck and they hide because these weapons are so powerful. They are designed to kill human beings. They are designed to cut human beings in half. And it is very difficult for law enforcement officers to jump into this.
CAPEHART: And State Representative Hinojosa, after previous mass shootings in Texas, there has been the brief lip service by Republicans to address the issue. But then the state legislature has loosened gun laws in Texas.
Do you have any sense that this time is different for Republicans?
GINA HINOJOSA (D-TX), STATE REPRESENTATIVE: It is different if Texans vote our values. If Texans turn out this November, which I believe we will.
What else is a fiction, what else is a myth is that in Texas we are so tied to this gun culture that we can`t accept any reasonable compromise when it comes to gun safety legislation.
That is a lie. Before 1995 in Texas you could not even carry a handgun. Not until we had our first Republican governor in recent time, George W. Bush, did we pass a law that even allowed for that. So no, Texas, don`t love our guns over our kids, our families. We are people of integrity who put family and community first and we will vote that way come November.
CAPEHART: State representative Gina Hinojosa and Gilberto Hinojosa, Chairman Hinojosa -- thank you both very much for joining us tonight.
We have some breaking January 6th news. The January 6th committee just tweeted that it has subpoenaed the Secret Service for records. This is after learning that text messages from January 5th and January 6th 2021 were reportedly erased.
CAPEHART: An open act of terrorism -- that is what Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is calling Russia`s deadly missile attack that left at least 23 people, including 3 children dead in the city of Vinnytsia in central Ukraine. Four-year-old Liza (ph0, seen here on her mother Irina`s (ph) Instagram account was one of those children killed by Russian missiles. Liza, who has Down`s Syndrome, was nicknamed Sunny Flower. She was pushing a stroller on her way to speech therapy when she was killed. Her mother survived and is in an intensive care unit in Vinnytsia.
Olena Zelenska, Ukraine`s first lady asked her Twitter followers to quote, "Look at her alive, please. Crying with her loved ones."
The attack came as European Union officials convened at the Hague to discuss Russia`s war crimes in Ukraine. The Associated Press and PBS` frontline have documented 346 incidents involving potential war crimes since Russia invaded Ukraine nearly five months ago.
Joining us now, Damon Wilson, president and CEO of the National Endowment for Democracy. Damon, what is your reaction to President Zelenskyy calling yesterday`s attack, as "quote" open act of terrorism?
DAMON WILSON, PRESIDENT/CEO, NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR DEMOCRACY: Jonathan, it`s a pleasure to be with you.
and my reaction to President Zelenskyy is that he is speaking, plain language, the plain truth. And I think that there is something powerful in recognizing that Russian attacks on shopping malls, on hospitals, killing innocent civilians, that this constitutes war crimes, it constitutes terrorism. And for far too long in Ukraine, we had trouble just saying the truth, that Russia was invading Ukraine. For a long time we couldn`t say that after 2014. And I think what we`re hearing from President Zelenskyy is the simplicity of calling out what we see, Russian use of military means to conduct terror against the Ukrainian population.
CAPEHART: And so President Zelenskyy has accused Russia of primarily targeting civilians. What are you hearing from your National Endowment for Democracy partners in Ukraine?
WILSON: I think this is very much the case. You can see in the Donbas in the east that there is a more traditional military confrontation taking place for the front lines, as many people are used to understanding the concept of war.
But what we are seeing the Russian tactic is to terrorize the population across Ukraine, all across the country to send a message that the country is not safe.
We are seeing anti-ship missiles used to strike a shopping mall in (INAUDIBLE) where 20 people were killed on June 27th. We have seen individualized attacks going against civil society.
The endowment has partners all across Ukraine. Many of our partners flee occupied territories. They had seen their colleagues detained (INAUDIBLE). They had seen their own apartments busted into. We`ve seen residential complexes, hospitals attacked throughout this war. There are places that have been attacked that are small, almost resort towns in the Black Sea, which have absolutely no military value.
If the value to Russia is to show that Ukraine is unlivable, to chase the population, perhaps to put a burden on Europe, and to try to force, intimidate, coerce the government in Kyiv into a negotiation into giving up.
CAPEHART: So then, Damon, given every horrific thing you have just described, do you think America should designate Russia a state sponsor of terrorism?
WILSON: I think it`s pretty important to call out what we see. I think it`s pretty clear to say that these constitute war crimes and it constitutes terrorism. This is a different kind of war, a different kind of military combat than we have seen. It is so focused on terror (ph) civilian. It fits the actual legal definition in the United States law of how we define terrorist acts of coercion and intimidation with violence against the civilian population to achieve political ends.
And so I think there are a whole set of issues and legal issues that unfold at this state designation of terrorism. We need to start with calling a spade a spade and here, Vladimir Putin, the Russia regime is using terror against the Ukrainian people and we shouldn`t shy away from speaking plainly and clearly about that.
CAPEHART: And one last question for you, Damon, real quickly, you visited Ukraine in May. As Russia`s war in Ukraine enters its fifth month, what does support for Ukraine look like these days?
WILSON: You know, it`s really remarkable. When you`re still traveling across the United States, seeing Ukrainian flags. We`ve seen opinion polls in Germany showing really strong support for Ukraine.
The support is not just support for military weapons but is support for the humanitarian, it`s support for Ukrainian civil society as to empower the Ukrainian people to really shape their own destiny here.
And I think right now there is a real focus among our partners in thinking about how do we build not just what was in Ukraine but how to rebuild a future Ukraine that is a stronger democracy. And that will ultimately be a victory over Putin.
CAPEHART: Damon Wilson, thank you very much for joining us tonight.
That is tonight`s LAST WORD. I will see you this weekend on "THE SUNDAY SHOW" starting at 10:00 a.m. Eastern here on MSNBC.
Much more on the breaking January 6th news on the Secret Service subpoena on "THE 11TH HOUR WITH STEPHANIE RUHLE" which starts right now.
STEPHANIE RUHLE, MSNBC HOST: Tonight, breaking news as we come on the air.