THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL
July 9, 2013
Guests: Gary Casimir, Ken Padowitz, Cecile Richards, Ed Smart, Steve
Clemens, Douglas McNabb
LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, HOST: Today was the longest day in the trial of George
Zimmerman. As a matter of fact, it just ended a couple of minutes ago,
making it a 13-hour court day. And tomorrow could be the last day of
testimony.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ALEX WAGNER, MSNBC ANCHOR: The defense in the George Zimmerman trial
continued outlining its case this morning.
ANDREA MITCHELL, MSNBC ANCHOR: Court is back in session in the George
Zimmerman trial.
WAGNER: By calling a forensic pathologist.
CHUCK TODD, MSNBC ANCHOR: Their third day of calling witnesses to the
stand.
WAGNER: To analyze the gunshot that killed Trayvon Martin.
DR. VINCENT DI MAIO, FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST: My name is Dr. Vincent J.M. Di
Maio.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Testimony has just wrapped up from a forensic
pathologist.
MITCHELL: The defense turns to the forensic evidence from the shooting.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who as you may have heard, specializes in analysis of
bullets and firearms.
DON WEST, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: The muzzle of the gun is against clothing --
BERNIE DE LA RIONDA, PROSECUTOR: It also could be consistent that they
were facing each other.
WEST: That is part of the firing process.
DE LA RIONDA: Is it this angle?
WEST: There will be a hole made in the clothing.
LISA BLOOM, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: This is the kind of hard scientific
evidence that jurors tend to like.
WAGNER: Most of the morning, however, was consumed with a hearing without
the jury.
TODD: The court is considering several motions.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is all about the animation, including whether to
allow an animated recreation.
CHRIS JANSING, MSNBC ANCHOR: An animation of Zimmerman`s version of
events.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The jury is not in the courtroom for any of this.
MITCHELL: We have the 11th day of testimony in the George Zimmerman trial.
THOMAS ROBERTS, MSNBC ANCHOR: It`s day three of the defense testimony.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The case is just now days away from wrapping up.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Both sides are making their closing arguments shortly
thereafter.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
O`DONNELL: George Zimmerman`s defense team today literally called on the
man who wrote the book on forensic pathology.
Gunshot wound expert, Dr. Vincent Di Maio, testified today that the gunshot
wound on Trayvon Martin`s body is consistent with George Zimmerman`s story.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DI MAIO: Based upon the concentration marks and the size of the pattern
(ph), it`s my opinion that the muzzle of the gun in the case was two to
four inches away from the skin. So the barrel of the gun was against the
clothing, the muzzle of the gun was against the clothing. But the clothing
itself had to be two to four inches away from the body at the time Mr.
Martin was shot.
So, the wound itself, by the gap, by the powder tattooing in the face of
contact of the clothing indicate -- indicates that this is consistent with
Mr. Zimmerman`s account that he -- that Mr. Martin was over him. Leaning
forward at the time he was shot.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O`DONNELL: Dr. Di Maio also testified that he believes that Zimmerman had
at least six injuries on his head and that some of those injuries could
have been caused by hitting against concrete.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DI MAIO: I think you have six identifiable injuries, the two lacerations
on the back of the head, the impacts in both temple regions. That is four
(ph), the nose is five, and the forehead is six. So there is definite
evidence of six impacts. That does not mean that there were only six.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O`DONNELL: Here is Dr. Di Maio under cross-examination by the prosecution.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DI MAIO: I`m saying that the physical evidence is consistent with Mr.
Martin being over Mr. Zimmerman.
DE LA RIONDA: And is it not also consistent with Mr. Martin`s pulling away
from Zimmerman on the ground, and you would have the same angle. He is
pulling away, and Zimmerman is shooting him at that time?
DI MAIO: Yes.
DE LA RIONDA: Let me make sure, I understand what you`re saying. That you
can hit somebody and not leave any bruising on your knuckles, correct?
DI MAIO: That`s correct, sir.
DE LA RIONDA: In other words, George Zimmerman could have hit Trayvon
Martin and not leave any bruising on his knuckles.
DI MAIO: That`s correct, sir.
DE LA RIONDA: A photograph (INAUDIBLE) at the scene --
DI MAIO: Yes.
DE LA RIONDA: I`m sorry, of the defendant, I apologize, where you got
blood there, right?
DI MAIO: Right.
DE LA RIONDA: OK, I put the hand over that, right?
DI MAIO: OK, yes.
DE LA RIONDA: What do you expect my hand to have on it?
DI MAIO: Blood.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O`DONNELL: Joining me now, MSNBC legal analyst, Lisa Bloom, Gary Casimir,
a former New York City prosecutor, who does criminal and civil litigation
now, and Ken Padowitz, former homicide prosecutor.
Lisa Bloom, the big testimony of the day, what`s your overall assessment of
how that went in?
BLOOM: I think it went in very well for the defense because the
prosecution didn`t go for the jugular.
O`DONNELL: What should they go for that they should have?
BLOOM: Dr. Di Maio is not familiar with the hoodies. The hoodies in this
case are gathered at the bottom, and therefore they bunched up, they`re
oversize. All his testimony really showed was that the bullet touched the
edge of the fabric, which was about two inches from Trayvon Martin`s body.
Why? Because he is wearing two baggy sweat shirts. That would have
happened if Trayvon Martin was upright. He could have even been down and
bunched up because the two of them were fighting.
O`DONNELL: So, he`s got two baggy sweat shirts on, which sweat shirt was
he talking about?
BLOOM: The outer one.
O`DONNELL: The outer one --
BLOOM: Yes.
O`DONNELL: -- has to be at least two inches away.
BLOOM: Right. And he demonstrates using his men`s dress shirt that he`s
wearing in court, which is of course fitted. So, to do his demonstration,
he has to pull it out. It`s the most ridiculous, unscientific,
demonstration. I would have nailed him on that.
Dr. Di Maio, you put bullets in the brains of animals to prove your
scientific theories about gunshots. Why?
O`DONNELL: That`s what he did for the research on his book.
BLOOM: He said that in his testimony. Why? Because scientific testimony
to prove your theories is that important that you would kill innocent
animals.
All right, did you do testing on hoodies? Did you go online and buy a
couple of those them, put them on a guy the size of Trayvon Martin, have
him move around, see if it touches his body every time he`s upright? No,
he didn`t do any of that, before he came in and testified on behalf of this
accused murder. I thought that this was absolutely shocking that none of
this was really gone into in any detail on cross examination.
O`DONNELL: Gary Casimir, I was struck, too, about how much rhetorical
excess that the doctor played with on the witness stand. He actually at
one point said something about, I can rip your heart out and you can run
down the street. And nobody said to him, when did you ever see somebody`s
heart ripped out by hand?
I mean, I have seen lawyers when guys take the lead off the bag like that I
have seen lawyers really cut them down.
GARY CASIMIR, FORMER PROSECUTOR: I think the prosecution did go after him
and ask him, with reference to the idea that if I took your heart, you
could keep reading for 15 seconds, but that`s not the point here. I think
what the defense was trying to establish and I think they did very well,
today was their day, is that the evidence, the scientific evidence tends to
show that Zimmerman was below, and that Trayvon Martin was on top. That
the distance was very short whether it is two or three inches or four or
five inches.
Second, it won`t make that much difference in the jury`s mind as to what
happened, because you have to understand, the defense is trying to
establish that Zimmerman was on the ground, and he was in sort of in the
submissive position and that he was losing this fight and he had basis to
fear for his life. And the testimony that he is giving is consistent with
the guy, leaning back and shooting up.
That was important for the defense, and no one can deny that they
established that.
O`DONNELL: Ken Padowitz, if that was what was important for the defense,
what was important for the prosecution in that testimony? And working
backwards from what we just saw, how about that final moment where we just
saw where we see the blood on Zimmerman`s face, Trayvon Martin`s hands are
supposed to be on his face, or trying to muffle his ability to make any
sounds at all and no blood on Trayvon Martin`s hands?
KEN PADOWITZ, FORMER HOMICIDE PROSECUTOR: It was a good point and they
needed to bring out some points. But I was disappointed in the cross
examination by the prosecution. I prosecuted 35 first degree murder trials
here in Florida and the first thing I do in a high publicity case, is hire
my top expert to help me formulate questions for cross examination, because
you can`t go head to toe, or toe to toe with an expert of this caliber.
This was a dream witness for the defense. I mean, he had a resume longer
than Rapunzel`s hair. And the cross-examination really kind of fell flat.
They didn`t make the points they need to make. And the defense had a
fantastic day with this witness.
BLOOM: I think we could have gone toe to toe with him. You know, he
talked about testifying in the Phil Spector case and in the Drew Peterson
case. The prosecutor just left at that, which give the impression, wow,
he`s a profile guy, testified in big cases.
I would have said to him, you were retained by accused murderer, Phil
Spector, weren`t you? You were paid to say that Lana Clark killed herself?
That`s what you testified, right?
(CROSSTALK)
BLOOM: How did that case come out?
(CROSSTALK)
BLOOM: It turned out he was found not guilty not withstanding your
testimony. In other words, he didn`t believe you.
How about the Drew Peterson case? He`s accused of killing his third wife
in a bathtub. You testified for the accused murderer in that case? How
did that turn out? Oh, he was convicted, as well. In other words, the
jury again didn`t believe your testimony.
(CROSSTALK)
CASIMIR: And that sounds really good, but no judge is going to let
testimony about other murders in some case. Look, the idea is the science
crazy? If the best answer to the science is -- you don`t know hoodies,
doctor, I don`t think you`re getting very far.
O`DONNELL: All right, let`s listen to Dr. Di Maio on the question of how
could Trayvon Martin have been conscious after this bullet.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DI MAIO: If I, right now, reached across and put my hand through your
chest, grabbed your heart and ripped it out, you could stand there and talk
to me for 10 to 15 seconds or walk over to me, because the thing that`s
controlling your movement and ability to speak is the brain. And that has
a reserve supply of 10 to 15 seconds.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O`DONNELL: Ken Padowitz, what was the net effect of his testimony about
what Trayvon Martin was physically capable of after that bullet entered his
body?
PADOWITZ: Well, it was very effective, because the defense was trying to
show how Trayvon Martin could potentially have moved his hand underneath
his body and therefore support George Zimmerman`s account of what happened.
But the problem is, like all experts, that some people may say, was a cocky
statement by the expert, because the next cross-examination prosecution
should be, how many people have had their hearts ripped out and walk down
the street?
O`DONNELL: Right.
PADOWITZ: And you could ask six more questions like that to expose the
fact this doctor was now going too far. He`s extending himself too far,
and calling his credibility, some of his questions into play.
But the prosecutor didn`t do it. So, Lisa is correct. They should have
been going for the jugular, and yet, they kind of just tip-toed around and
really didn`t make that much traction.
CASIMIR: I want to say something, the defense here was trying to establish
after the shot, Zimmerman said that Trayvon Martin stated something to the
effect, "You got me," or you had him. And that was the point, seconds of
statement here. I don`t think they`re trying to prove that Trayvon Martin
was still fighting on defending himself.
BLOOM: I think you could concede that. It`s not important.
(CROSSTALK)
O`DONNELL: We don`t have the toxicology report in the case of Trayvon
Martin having some marijuana in his system, which is a very interesting
component at that level, anyway, of consciousness under these situations.
If there is an effect of any kind from this marijuana, it couldn`t animate
him more.
BLOOM: Right, if marijuana is known as a depressant, right, and if Trayvon
Martin is walking around, looking in windows, taking 45 minutes to walk a
mile, talking on the phone with Rachel Jeantel, he was a little stone, that
can`t be the guy who then sucker punches Zimmerman and is pounding and
grounding him MMA style just a couple of minutes later. It`s inconsistent.
O`DONNELL: We`re out of time for tonight. We`ll be back with this
tomorrow, obviously.
Lisa Bloom, Gary Casimir and Ken Padowitz, thank you very much for joining
me tonight. All of you, thank you.
BLOOM: Thank you.
O`DONNELL: Coming up, Cecile Richards will join us with the latest from
Texas and the legislative fight over women`s reproductive freedom there.
And there is news tonight from WikiLeaks, indicating tomorrow will be a big
day for Edward Snowden.
And in the "Rewrite" tonight, a classic American movie rewritten by its
star, Dustin Hoffman. In Dustin Hoffman`s own words, you will hear the
artist work on the road to discovery of the essence of the character he was
playing. And in this case, the character he was playing was a woman in
"Tootsie" and what he discovered brought him and maybe you to tears.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O`DONNELL: When Florida Governor Rick Scott signed a bill banning Internet
cafes and slot machines in April, he may have inadvertently banned all
computers in the state of Florida. Florida`s Republican legislature passed
the bill after Florida`s Republican Lieutenant Governor Jennifer Carroll
resigned in disgrace over a charity she was connected to that was allegedly
using Internet cafes a front for Internet gambling.
But according to "The Miami Herald," the bill was written so poorly that it
defines slot machines as system or network of devices that may be used in a
game of chance.
A lawsuit challenging the bill by an Internet cafe owner who is now losing
her business claims that the definition is so broad that it bans any
computer or device in the state of Florida, which is connected to the
Internet like -- you know, even one of these.
So when people do not respect the complexities of government write
legislation, mistakes will be made.
Up next, Republicans in Texas don`t know how to write legislation either.
But that has never stopped them. Cecile Richards will join me next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O`DONNELL: Breaking news in Texas: just moments ago, Republicans in the
Texas House provisionally approved a restrictive anti-abortion bill after
10 hours of debate today. A final formal vote in the House is scheduled
for tomorrow morning. The Texas Republican`s failed attempt to pass the
bill last month captured national attention and turned Democratic State
Senator Wendy Davis into a national political star after her successful
filibuster.
It also brought national attention to the Texas Republican who sponsored
the bill, Representative Jodie Laubenberg. You remember her as the
representative who doesn`t really quite understand rape kits.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ST. REP. JODIE LAUBENBERG (R), TEXAS: We have hospital emergency rooms.
We have funded what is called rape kits that will help a woman basically
cleaning her up.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O`DONNELL: Today, on the floor, two of her Democratic colleagues kind of
tried to help her understand.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLPIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The author of this bill stated that a rape kit was
used to clean a woman out.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A rape kit is used for forensic evidence.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you know what a rape kit looks like?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, I do.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you see anything in these envelopes that would
potentially allow for cleaning a woman out?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Not at all.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O`DONNELL: But, it turns out rape kits are not all the author of the Texas
anti-abortion bill is confused about.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And I want to call your attention to page four of the
bill. Because I`m confused by this section. Line 24, except as otherwise
provided by section 171.046 A-3, a physician performing an abortion under
subsection A shall terminate the pregnancy in a manner that in the
physician`s reasonable medical judgment provides the best opportunity for
the unborn child to survive. What does that mean?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What is your question?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What does it mean?
LAUBENBERG: OK, that means that if the physician determines that, you
know, the pregnancy through (INAUDIBLE) is going to --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I`m sorry, I can`t hear your answer.
LAUBENBERG: Cause the life of the mother, then he would do the abortion in
the way that would not --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Not result in an abortion.
LAUBENBERG: No, try to save the baby. He would do the termination as I
see in a way -- let me rephrase that.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You know that doesn`t make sense, the termination of
the pregnancy but that would result in non-termination of a pregnancy?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O`DONNELL: That was Texas Representative E. Sarah Davis (ph), a
Republican, the lone Republican to vote against the anti-abortion bill. If
the bill is passed tomorrow it will go to the state senate, where Wendy
Davis and her allies are ready to stand with women.
Joining me now from Houston is Cecile Richards, president of the Planned
Parenthood Action Fund. She is in front of the Stand with Texas Women bus.
Cecile, so, we just had this action in the House. What do you anticipate
happening tomorrow?
CECILE RICHARDS, PLANNED PARENTHOOD ACTION FUND PRESIDENT: Well, we are on
this bus tour with a lot of the senators who have been fighting against
this bill for months now. And we stopped here tonight in Houston, more
than a thousand people greeted the senators. Now, we`re on to Dallas and
Ft. Worth and we`re basically taking this bus around to the state of Texas.
What the Democrats have asked for is they`ve asked for hearings so that
people`s voices could be heard in this debate. And yet, they have been
shut down at every point. And as you just reported, the House has reported
an almost strict party line bill, an approval of a vote that will close
dozens of health centers in the state of Texas. But I have never seen in
my years of organizing, the kind of outpouring of outrage and concern,
people waiting hours and hours to testify before the legislature against
this bill and this legislation.
O`DONNELL: Cecile, you must be encountering in your travels on the bus in
Texas opponents of your position, supporters of this bill. And what I am
wondering about is the kind of ignorance, just basic raw ignorance that is
being demonstrated by the sponsor of the bill, not understanding what rape
kits are. Not understanding what happens after rape when it is
investigated. Thinking --
RICHARDS: Right.
O`DONNELL: -- thinking now, as the bill says that there is a way to
perform an abortion to save the life of the fetus, are you encountering
that kind of ignorance out there when you find yourself in discussions with
supporters of the bill?
RICHARDS: Actually, no, what we`re finding is that there is overwhelming
opposition to this bill, all across the state. And that is, of course, why
we`re trying to make sure that folks are heard. In fact, I know you spoke
about the lone Republican who voted against this bill whose amendment
failed. In fact, every amendment failed. An amendment that was trying to
protect the life of women and also to ensure that rape victims can have
access to legal and safe abortions, that failed, as well.
I think what happens here the bill couldn`t get passed because it was so
extreme. Couldn`t get passed in the regular session, couldn`t get passed
in the last special session, and now, the legislature is trying to move
this bill through without hearing the voices of Texans because they know it
is wildly unpopular, and not just by Democrats. I will say we have
Republicans here tonight with sings saying, Republicans that support
Planned Parenthood, that oppose this bill, we`re hearing from Republicans
all across the state of Texas were saying, this party and this kind of
extreme legislation is unrecognizable to them as Republicans and as Texans.
O`DONNELL: Cecile, their strategic plan for passing this bill did not
include this kind of attention as you just suggested. They tried to get
this done in a way that would just slide by.
Now that it has gotten national attention, now that you`re there with all
of your supporters and you got the bus tour going, have the tactics changed
on the other side in trying to pass this bill?
RICHARDS: I think all they`re trying to do, Lawrence, at this point, is
just get it done as quickly as they can. They have tried to shut people
down from testifying. I mean, we have had people waiting hours and hours
at the capital and then denied the ability to testify.
They`re just trying to get this done and over with, because they know that
if it is in the news and more people understand actually what`s at stake
for the women of Texas, the more opposition is growing.
And that`s what we`re seeing. We`re seeing in the capital. Now, we`re
seeing it on the road. And I think, of course, ultimately, their concern,
the folks who are pushing this bill forward they`re concerned it will have
severe political consequences. And I think it is, in the state of Texas.
Again, not just Democrats, Republicans, independents, young people, we`re
seeing folks who said they cannot believe we were to go back to the day
when abortion was unavailable for women in the state of Texas.
O`DONNELL: Cecile Richards, on the Stand with Texas Women bus tour --
thanks for joining us tonight, Cecile.
RICHARDS: Good to see you, Lawrence. Thanks a bunch.
O`DONNELL: Thank you.
Up next, WikiLeaks has promised big news about Edward Snowden tomorrow.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O`DONNELL: In the spotlight tonight, the Edward Snowden travel plan. A
couple of big tweets had to be deleted from the Snowden file today.
First, a senior Russian member of parliament tweeted that Edward Snowden
had accepted an asylum in Venezuela, then a few minutes later deleted that
tweet.
And then WikiLeaks tweeted that Snowden had not yet formally accepted
asylum in Venezuela.
And then, WikiLeaks deleted that tweet.
And then tonight, WikiLeaks tweeted this: "Tomorrow, the first phase of
Edward Snowden`s flight of liberty campaign will be launched."
No word on whether that is a fundraising campaign to pay for what could be
a very expensive trip from Russia. Moscow to Venezuela is 6,000 miles by
air, unless the plane is diverted by the United States and its allies who
could deny access to their air spaces. That is what France, Spain and
Portugal did just last week to the Bolivian president`s plane because of
the mere suspicion that Edward Snowden might be on board. And that plane
was then forced to land in Austria.
Chartering a jet for the 6,000-mile version of the flight would cost over
$180,000. And that private jet company could lose the right to operate in
the United States after transporting a known fugitive.
Joining me now, international criminal defense lawyer, Douglas McNabb, and
the Washington editor at large for "The Atlantic", foreign affairs analyst,
Steve Clem3ns.
Steve, do you have any sense of what the WikiLeaks tweet means for
tomorrow? I mean, it says the flight of liberty campaign. Is that a
flight that is going to happen tomorrow?
STEVE CLEMENS, FOREIGN AFFAIRS ANALYST, THE ATLANTIC: We don`t know if
this -- yes, we don`t know if this is misinformation. And to be candid,
you know, anything that we offered would be completely speculative. There
have been so much out there saying that Havana is one of the only by-points
that he could possibly get to, re-fueling is not too far away, of course
from Caracas, and we don`t know exactly which countries may he had taken.
Three countries Bolivia, Nicaragua and Venezuela, have all offered Edward
Snowden asylum. And so, there is a lot out there we don`t know and I don`t
know any more than anyone else.
O`DONNELL: Douglas McNabb, let`s talk about what we do know of how you
would actually try to pull off a flight in a situation like this. What are
the possibilities?
DOUGLAS MCNABB, CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER: Well, he is going to take a
flight, either it would be a private jet, it would be a commercial
airlines, or perhaps a presidential plane. If he were to take a private
jet as you had indicated that could be very, very expensive. I read that
somewhere in the neighborhood of $22,500 an hour, so somebody has to pay
for that. but there are couple of issue with regards to whether it is a
commercial or even a presidential plane flying over air space that may be
denied, whether the U.S. or a European state.
O`DONNELL: And what would happen if you deny the plane the right to fly
through your air space and the plane still chooses to fly through your air
space? What options exist then, Douglas?
MCNABB: Well, that is going to be -- that is the stuff of movies. So if a
presidential plane, for example, is approaching the air space of let`s say
France, for example, and the French traffic controller says you`re not
allowed to enter our air space, and the presidential plane does so anyway,
could France send up some jets? I guess they could do that. Could the
jets then sort of caution that the plane needed to land? They could do
that, I guess. If the plane didn`t and continued on and if the plane felt
threatened, might we see jets coming from Ecuador or Argentina or some
other because the Latin countries were very, very upset with regard to how
president Morales of Bolivia was treated. And president Morales indicated
that he felt like his life was threatened. And so I can see jets screaming
from south America on up to try to protect their Latin comrades. So it
could get very, very messy.
O`DONNELL: Well, let`s listen to what President Obama said he is not
willing to do in the pursuit of Edward Snowden.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No, I`m not going to be
scrambling jets to get a 29-year-old hacker.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O`DONNELL: Steve Clemens, if the 29-year-old hacker is in the air as we
just described, what should -- this is such a strange thing to contemplate
occurring. But what should the United States` response be under all the
circumstances that we currently know about and with all the international
sensitivities that we know about?
CLEMENS: Look, that is the question we`re all string with. In my view,
half of Edward Snowden is a real hero. He is somebody who triggered the
debate in this country which the nation needed to have. Which the
president of the United States said we need to have. And certainly Barack
Obama didn`t initiative on his own on the degree t which, you know, our
private data should be a must on a regular and daily basis and kept by, you
know, sort of a national security bureaucracy. And I think that is
important.
He has gone across the line in my view, in sharing other information staffs
net and spying on other major league countries. And now, we`re in this
bizarre case where illiberal countries are giving a guy who, you know,
allegedly believes in great liberalism refuge.
And so, it is become a very messy story for all of us. And in my view, the
U.S. government long ago should have done something about the massive
expansion of official secrecy which has led to phenomenon like Snowden and
like WikiLeaks and it is behind the ball on that.
I think that, you know, that at a certain degree, they need Snowden to sort
of go away. They`re not going to get him back quickly in my view unless
something is, you know, done this quite horrible to him. And you know, I
don`t know to what degree he is going to continue to tell his story over
and over again, but in my view, the president should look at the commission
that looks at secrecy in this country, and how; it is undermining much of
what the country is about. Even the president has intimated that on that
such a case. And then trying to take some of the pressure and the steam
out of this particular man begin addressing the issues that this was about.
O`DONNELL: Doug McNabb, just one technical point, you always hear about,
you know, they forced the jet to land. There is no actual way to force a
jet to land without firing on it. I mean, they have all of these
techniques where they fly close to them and they`re basically, you know,
giving them all the signals like you must land. And that is normally
obeyed. But it does come down to a voluntary decision by the pilot that
they`re pursuing.
MCNABB: And if the pilot of the presidential flying lacks knot to land,
what happens next.
The presidential plane continues on its way. He is either going to flying
in my example, through French air space on to another European air space or
some other action is going to be taken in an effort to try to stop him.
And the concern, of course, as I had indicated earlier is what action are
the other Latin American countries going to take, as well?
O`DONNELL: Steve Clemens, and Douglas McNabb, we`re going to learn a lot
more about this tomorrow.
Thank you very much for joining us tonight.
CLEMENS: Thanks, Lawrence.
MCNABB: Our pleasure.
O`DONNELL: Coming up, Dustin Hoffman will take you inside his process.
This is really must-see video of how one of America`s great artists
approaches his work. Now, you probably didn`t cry watching him in his
Oscar nominated performance in the movie "Tootsie," but you will see why he
cries when he talked about that wall, 16 years after making the movie.
In the "rewrite," you will understand the movie which is why, of course,
that is in tonight`s "rewrite."
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O`DONNELL: It got wicked hot in the Boston courtroom today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE REPORTER: A dramatic day in the trial of Whitey
Bulger. A war of words between two old friends bringing the courtroom to a
boiling point. The alleged crime boss swearing at a key witness there for
the prosecutors.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O`DONNELL: Kevin Weeks, who was once like a son to Whitey, a son who
Whitey would of course eventually want to kill, Kevin Weeks has turned on
Whitey and testified for the government about the murders he helped Whitey
(INAUDIBLE) commit. Because the trial is in federal court tragically we
have no video of what happened in the court today. But I can assure you
that nothing like it has ever happened in a Boston courtroom before.
During his testimony, Kevin Weeks said we killed people who were rats and I
had two of the biggest rats right next to me. Kevin Weeks didn`t realize
at the time that Whitey Bulger and Steve Flemmi were both FBI informants.
Rats, when Weeks referred to Bulger as a rat in court today, the 83-year-
old rat yelled to the witness, "you suck" to which Kevin Weeks yelled "f
you." And Bulger then yelled in the courtroom, f you, too! Then Weeks
said what do you want to do? And the judge Denise Castro has to steps in
and says hey, Mr. Bulger, let your attorney speak for you. Mr. Weeks,
here`s how this works, you answer the questions, OK?
When Whitey`s lawyer asked Weeks on the cross examination how he liked
being called a rat now that he is testifying against his old partner in
crime. Weeks said why don`t you call me it outside when it is just you and
me and see what happens. Weeks also says you can`t rat on a rat.
Oh, yes, you can, and that happened in Boston today. That is what
happened, is two cowardly rats who could never feel tough without guns in
their hands, they faced each other. They did their tough guy acts in a
federal courtroom where they knew there was absolutely no risk that they
might have to prove how tough they actually are without guns in their
hands. The rat on the witness stand will continue to testify against the
rat defendant tomorrow.
The "rewrite" is next.
And Dustin Hoffman is going to "rewrite" your understanding of one of his
Oscar-nominated performances.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O`DONNELL: In the "rewrite" tonight, it is movie night. The star of one
of American`s institute 100 greatest movies of all time, is going to
rewrite that understanding of that movie. The 1980s were great years for
Dustin Hoffman. He began the decade with the 1980 Oscar for best actor in
Robert Phantom`s "Kramer versus Kramer" He closed the decade with the 1989
Oscar for best actor in Barry Levinson`s "Rain Man." And in between, he
was nominated for best actor in 1983 for his role in "Tootsie," where for
the first and last time, he played a woman or actually he played an out of
work actor and just for to get work who decided he got a better chance
auditioning for parts for women.
Here is that out of work actor tricking his own agent into believing that
he is a woman.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m new in town, and I`m awfully lonely, I wonder
if you wouldn`t mind buying me lunch.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My favorite -- how are you?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Last time he got me a j --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Swear to God?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: God, I begged you to get therapy.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Jesus Christ. Do you think this is going to make a
difference?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O`DONNELL: The agent was played flawlessly by the Oscar winning director,
Sidney Pollack, who was actually nominated for an Oscar for directing
"Tootsie." All right, of the top players in "Tootsie" were nominated.
Jessica Lange won the Oscar for best actress in a supporting role. The
brilliant Terry Garr was also nominated for the best actress in a
supporting role. The world loved Terry Garr and not in every movie the
most days in genius, Larry Gelbart was nominated for best screenplay on
with (INAUDIBLE). It was that kind of movie everybody saw and everybody
loved it. And just about everybody involved with it got nominated for an
Oscar, but the movie almost didn`t get made because Dustin Hoffman had
trouble believing that he would convincingly play a woman, that he could
convincingly play a man playing a woman in a world that really would be
fooled into thinking that he was a woman. He explained his apprehension in
an interview for the American film institute 16 year after the movie was
made, an interview that is gaining some new life online these days.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DUSTIN HOFFMAN, ACTOR: I did go to Columbia. And I asked them if they
would spend the money to do makeup tests so that I could look like a woman.
And if I couldn`t look like a woman they would agree not to make the movie.
And they said what do you mean? I just somehow intuitively felt that
unless I could walk down the streets of New York and not have -- dressed as
a woman, and not have people turn and say who is that guy in drag? Or turn
for any reason that you know, who is that freak, unless I could do that I
didn`t want to make the film. I didn`t want the audition to suspend their
believability.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O`DONNELL: And there is that woman walking down the streets of New York.
(VIDEO CLIP PLAYING)
O`DONNELL: Tootsie, one of the greatest comedies ever, or was it? The
screenwriter, Larry Gelbart, was one of the great comedy writers of all
time. And script was funny from beginning to end. But 16 years after
making "Tootsie," Dustin Hoffman explained why for him, it was not a
comedy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HOFFMAN: I said now you have me looking like a woman. Now, make me a
beautiful woman. Because I thought I should be beautiful if I was going to
be a woman. I would want to be as beautiful as possible. And they said to
me, that -- is as good as it gets. That is as beautiful as we can get you.
Charlie. And it was at that moment that I had an epiphany, and I went home
and started crying talking to my wife and said I have to make this picture,
and she said why. And I said I think that I`m an interesting woman when I
look at myself in the screen and I know if I met myself at a party, I would
never talk to that character because she doesn`t fulfill physically the
demands that women have to have in order for us to ask them out. She said
what are you saying? And I said there is too many interesting women I have
-- I have not had t experience to know in this life because I have been
brainwashed. And -- that was never a comedy for me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O`DONNELL: Up next, the three young women held hostage in a house in
Cleveland, they -- since they were teenagers. They`re speaking out for the
first time. You`re going to see that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O`DONNELL: Michelle Knight was kidnapped in August 22nd 2002 when she was
21-years-old. Amanda Berry was kidnapped on April 21st, 2003 when she was
16-years-old. Gina Dejesus was kidnapped on April 2nd 2004 when she was
only 14-years-old.
Two months ago they were suddenly freed from the secret prison where they
were being held by Ariel Castro. Gina is now 23-years-old, Amanda is now
27-years-old, Michelle is now 32-years-old. They have understandably
refused all requests for interviews since they were freed. But last night
they posted a video where we hear them speak for the first time.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMANDA BERRY, KIDNAP SURVIVOR: First a foremost, I want everyone to know
how happy I am to be home with my family and friends. It has been
unbelievable. I want to thank everybody who has helped me in my family
through this entire ordeal. Everyone who has been there to support us has
been a blessing to have such an outpouring of love and kindness. I am
getting stronger each day. And I`m having my privacy has helped immensely.
I ask that everybody continue to respect our privacy and give us time to
have a normal life.
DINA DEJESUS, KIDNAP SURVIVOR: I would say thank you for the support.
MICHELLE KNIGHT, KIDNAP SURVIVOR: I just want everyone to know I`m doing
just fine. I may have been through hell and back, but, I am strong enough
to walk through hell with a smile on my face and with my head held high and
my feet firmly on the ground. Walking hand in hand with my best friend? I
will not let the situation define who I am. I will define the situation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O`DONNELL: Joining me now is Ed Smart, whose daughter, Elizabeth Smart,
was kidnapped in 2002 and found nine months later.
Ed, what is your reaction to seeing that video with your understanding of
what these kinds of experiences can be like in some ways?
ED SMART, FATHER OF KIDNAP SURVIVOR: You know, I just cheer them, all
three of them. I think they have done an outstanding job. And how
important it is for them to have their privacy. I think it was great that
they decided to come forward and say thank you, and let people know that
they`re OK. And that they`re moving on with their life.
And I just have to smile as I hear Michelle, because I think it reminds me
so much of Elizabeth, that you know I am not going to let this define the
rest of my life. And I think that is really the key in their healing and
in their moving on with life in determining that you know, this episode as
horrific as she as it was mentioned, was just walking through hell, is not
going to define the rest of their lives.
And I think that is just outstanding. I applaud them. I wish the very
best for them. The, you know, the road to healing and happiness and to
life for them is very individualistic, there is you know, one fits all in
that path. But I think finding and reconnecting with people, being able
to have those relationships and be able to trust again, I think that is the
biggest issue, is learning to develop a trust with your friends, with your
family, with other people that you come in contact with.
You know, to have been violated and put through such hell for so long, you
know, to be able to trust someone and to develop that new normal
relationship is I think, key to healing and key to being able to move on.
O`DONNELL: Ed Smart, thank you very much for that important last word
tonight.
Thank you, Ed Smart.
SMART: Thank you.
Chris Hayes is up next.
CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST, ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES: Good evening, from New
York. I`m Chris Hayes. Thank you for joining us.
And tonight, on "ALL IN", the Republicans` all-out war on abortion rights
is raging on, spreading to statehouses across the country and each fight
seems dirtier than the last. We will take you to Texas and North Carolina.
END
Copyright 2013 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>
'The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell' for Tuesday, July 9th, 2013
Read the transcript to the Tuesday show