Summary

Gunman kills four people at Tulsa, Oklahoma hospital complex. New

video of Uvalde, Texas school shooting. Uvalde school police chief makes

first public comments since shooting. Bipartisan senate group working on

gun reform legislation. Politico: Tapes reveal GOP plan to contest

elections. Jury finds both Heard and Depp liable for defamation. Russia

accuses U.S. of 'pouring oil on the fire.'

Transcript

STEPHANIE RUHLE, MSNBC HOST: Tonight, as victims of gun violence are laid

to rest in Texas, yet another mass shooting in this country claims even

more lives. Can lawmakers meet somewhere in the middle and finally do

something on gun safety.

Then Republican operatives caught on tape outlining a strategy to challenge

free and fair elections in democratic districts. Can you really be sure

your vote will count?

Plus, the divided verdict in the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard trial and what it

all means in Me Too era, way beyond the headlines as the 11th hour gets

underway on this Wednesday night.

Good evening, once again. I`m Stephanie Ruhle. And for the eighth

consecutive night, we start this evening`s broadcast covering a shooting.

Another one in a nation still reeling from massacres in Buffalo, in Texas,

and has happened yet again. This time on a hospital campus in Tulsa,

Oklahoma. Authority say the suspect carried a rifle and a handgun into a

medical building next to the hospital and opened fire.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ERIC DALGLEISH, DEPUTY CHIEF TULSA POLICE DEPARTMENT: The officers that did

arrive were hearing shots in the building, and that`s what directed them to

the second floor. Right now, we have four civilians that are dead. We have

one shooter that is dead. And right now we believe that is self-inflicted.

Officers had not been interviewed, but we`re certain that`s a self-

inflicted gunshot wound on his part.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RUHLE: This latest bloodshed comes after the school shooting in Uvalde,

Texas where 19 children and two teachers were brutally killed last Tuesday.

Newly obtained video shows that attack unfolding. We can see officers

moving toward the school as terrified children try to escape. We`re also

learning new details from Uvalde`s mayor who says he heard a negotiator

trying to reach the gunman on the phone.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DON MCLAUGHLIN, MAYOR OF UVALDE, TX: The only person I had in communication

when the negotiator was trying to get the shooter on the phone and so

forth. I was in the room. No wouldn`t answer. The chat is -- every number

they could find, we negotiate with, at the moment he went in that classroom

they started calling from, his main goal was to try to get this person on

the phone.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RUHLE: The mayor also says he does not think the negotiator knew that there

were children inside the school desperately calling 911 at that time. And

there are still many, many questions surrounding the Uvalde School District

Police Chief Pete Arredondo, he has now been criticized for waiting too

long to send in officers. And there have been reports he`s no longer

cooperating with state investigators. He denied that report today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE ARREDONDO, UVALDE SCHOOL DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF: Just so everybody

knows, we`ve been in contact with DPS every day, just so you are, every

day.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They say that you`re not operating?

ARREDONDO: I`ve been on the phone with the mayor every day.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They`re saying you`re not operating?

ARREDONDO: Just so you know, we`ve been talking every day.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What is your reaction --

ARREDONDO: No, have a good day.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RUHLE: Meanwhile, in Washington House Democrats are pushing ahead with gun

safety legislation. The judiciary committee expected to vote on a new

measure tomorrow. And tonight, NBC News reporting a bipartisan -- I wish I

had a bell to ring, a bipartisan group of nine senators has reached what

they`re calling a framework for a new gun measure.

Earlier this evening. One of those senators described that process.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHRIS MURPHY, (D) CONNECTICUT: I`ve never seen more Republicans at the

table willing to talk about changes in our gun laws than I do today. We`re

talking about a comprehensive package that will allow Republicans to take

that step forward and learn that in fact, there`s political gain to be had

in attaching yourself to the 90% of your constituents who want us to do

something about gun violence.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RUHLE: All right, then. With that, let`s bring in our lead panel this

evening, Geoff Bennett, Chief Washington Correspondent for PBS Newshour and

MSNBC Political Contributor, Matthew Watkins, Managing Editor for The Texas

Tribune and Barbara McQuade, Veteran Federal Prosecutor and former U.S.

Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan. She worked with the

Department of Justice during the Biden transition, and she`s now a

professor at University of Michigan`s School of Law.

Barb, let`s start with what just happened in Tulsa. Where does the

investigation go from here?

BARBARA MCQUADE, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Yeah, well, you know, in these early

stages, I think some of the things that they`ll want to do is try to

identify whether this shooter was acting alone, what motivated him and

other issues, whether there was a mental health issue, how he got his gun,

and any other things that could explain how we got from there to another

round of these deaths.

[23:05:05]

But, you know, Stephanie we can always try to solve these as crimes one at

a time, you know, it`s like plucking the babies out of the river as they`re

coming downstream. It seems to me that the better approach to all these

things is figuring out who`s throwing the babies down the stream in the

first place and stopping them. And so I`m sure they`ll do what they do in

all these cases. They will investigate and try to hold people accountable

who can be held accountable. But until we get a handle on prevention, I

think we`re just going to continue to see the same headlines again and

again.

RUHLE: Now we`re actually starting to see that happen possibly in

Washington. Jeff, when I hear that there`s this framework on new

legislation, I`m sort of amazed by it, but I want to share what we heard

last night from a former GOP Congressman, his assessment of this

bipartisanship.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mitch McConnell knows that Republicans are out of step

with most Americans on this issue. We know Mitch McConnell cares about one

thing, winning elections. And that`s why he`s pushing Cornyn and other

Republican senators cut a deal with Democrats, let`s do something

meaningful here. Take this issue off the table ahead of the November

elections.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RUHLE: Jeff, do you think that`s what we`re seeing here? Many people were

saying this is just Mitch McConnell. It`s just talk, talk, talk, they`re

running the clock, nothing will happen. Or will something, could

Republicans finally be coming to the table on gun violence?

GEOFF BENNETT, PBS NEWSHOUR CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: I think that`s

a fair assessment. And whatever measure that this group ultimately ends up

with, Mitch McConnell is going to have to give his blessing in order for

that bill to get the 60 votes, it needs to get beyond the filibuster and

ultimately end up at the President`s desk.

Now, when you hear Chris Murphy who by the way came to Congress,

representing the Sandy Hook community, when he talks about how Democrats

and Republicans are working together on this framework, one of the reasons

they have been successful so far, Steph, is because this is a fairly narrow

set of measures. They`re not talking about banning assault weapons, they`re

not talking about raising the age to purchase AR platform weapons from 18

to 21. What they`re talking about is expanding background checks. They`re

talking about creating an incentive program for states to implement red

flag laws, so that law enforcement could confiscate weapons from anyone who

might pose a threat to himself or to others.

And then you have Republicans in that group who are also talking about ways

to fund -- to add more funding to mental health services, and to boost

school security, which you often hear Republicans talk about following mass

shootings, because they`d rather talk about that than focus on direct gun

control measures in and of themselves.

And so I think there`s a concern that granted, we don`t know what will come

of this legislation. But there is a concern that any compromise bill would

be so watered down to the point potentially of being an effective while

giving Republicans the room to run in this election year and say, hey,

look, you know, we -- we sort of we`ve -- we`ve found our way, and we

supported this commonsense gun package, in the event that this thing might

not actually be the kind of legislation that gun advocates say would be

needed to stop another mass shooting.

RUHLE: Gun safety advocates, I think you mean. Matthew, I want to go back

to Uvalde because there are still so many unanswered questions about the

shooting. At this point, what is the state`s response? What`s Governor

Abbott doing?

MATTHEW WATKINS, TEXAS TRIBUNE MANAGING EDITOR: Well, Governor Abbott came

out today asking the leaders of the Texas House and the Texas Senate to put

together a special committee to look for solutions to keep Texans safe that

included gun legislation, although it seems as though Abbott and other top

Republicans have taken, you know, real gun control measures off the table

coming into this.

And then on the other hand, we`ve just continued to see kind of mixed

messages continuing kind of walking back of prior statements about what

actually happened on that day and what`s going on in the investigation. You

mentioned, of course, the crisis negotiator at the top of the show. We also

heard recently about details where state officials had said that a teacher

had propped a back door open to the school, that turned out to not be true.

The door was propped open, but it was then closed before the gunman entered

the door just didn`t lock.

RUHLE: Matt, I got to ask you about this police chief because despite this

massive controversy surrounding him, he was sworn in as a city council

member Monday night and event that was supposed to be public. But, of

course, given all this, it was closed, how are Texans viewing this?

WATKINS: That`s right. I mean, I think there`s a lot of kind of confusion

around this chief altogether. I mean, you know, still a lot of unanswered

questions about why he didn`t, you know, order police officers or go into

the school himself. He was elected before the shooting occurred on May 7,

and a pretty small election. There were less than 200 votes for that seat

in which he was running. And, you know, they basically decided to forego a

public ceremony. Of course, there`s a lot of kind of raw emotions around

this understanding believe so. But he is now a member of the city council

and he, you know, will likely be at a city council meeting when they meet

for the first time later this month.

[23:10:09]

RUHLE: Barb, we know that the DOJ is now investigating the police response,

do you think that`s why we`re hearing so little from the chief?

MCQUADE: It could be. You know, I think that there is very little for him

to gain by speaking and great risk if he does, so. You know, we typically

expect our leaders to be transparent in these situations, and share with us

everything they know, but I suppose for him, he also has some legal

exposure, potentially even criminal exposure, more likely civil exposure.

And so I suppose if I were his lawyer, I would advise him that at the

moment, your legal troubles are far worse than any of your PR issues, and

it`s probably best to keep your mouth shut at the moment.

RUHLE: Matt, how much of an impact is gun safety going to have on the

upcoming governor`s race? Beto O`Rourke now coming in hard after the

governor. Where the Texans actually come out on this?

WATKINS: Well, if you look at the polls, most voters support some type of

measures, you know, limiting access to military style rifles, the AR-15s,

the AK-47`s and things like that. But of course, it`s complicated because

most of the statewide elected officials are more concerned about their kind

of right flank than the general election. Beto O`Rourke, of course, ran

close in 2018 when he ran for U.S. Senate, but this is a different year.

And I think Republicans are looking very confident.

You know, Governor, Greg Abbott does not seem concerned about the gun issue

being brought against him very much. In fact, he was kind of wielding it

against Beto O`Rourke, for Beto O`Rourke`s comment when he was running for

president saying, you know, he wanted to take away people`s AR-15s. So

we`ll see. I mean, right now, it looks like Abbott feels comfortable

saying, you know, we`re not going to put new restrictions on guns.

RUHLE: Geoff, House Democrats are about to pass yet another gun safety

measure, really good effort. They`re getting a lot of support for it.

However, it`s meaningless, unless the Senate gets on board. Why not wait

and see what the Senate`s next move is?

BENNETT: Because House Democrats have already passed two pieces of

legislation that basically never made it across the threshold of the Senate

chamber. And so you`re right, right now, Congress is moving on three

parallel tracks. You have the bipartisan Senate group that we talked about.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said today that the house is going to consider

legislation to ban AR assault style weapons, she says very soon. And then

you have the House Judiciary Committee tomorrow, marking up we`re

considering this mega bill. It`s a piece of legislation that rolls in eight

pieces, eight separate pieces of gun legislation that do everything from

making it a felony to traffic guns that establishes a new felony for that

and another felony for selling or transferring high capacity magazines, it

increases the age of purchase from 18 to 21, a number of things.

But to your point, it`s going nowhere in this 50/50 Senate. And I think

Americans could be rightly cynical that here again, there could be another

-- a number of mass shootings and Congress could do nothing. After

Columbine, Congress talked for months about expanding background checks,

did nothing. After Newtown, same deal, talked for weeks and months about

expanding background checks. Background checks ultimately arrived nowhere.

After Las Vegas, a gunman shot more than 50 people, shot and killed more

than 50 people, injured another 700 people, we often forget about those who

are injured. Congress again talked about banning bump stocks, did nothing.

That had to be done through executive action.

After Parkland, Marco Rubio, Republican introduced a Red Flag Law, Steph,

that in that bill was introduced on the Senate floor twice, and never got a

vote. And now here we are, after Buffalo, after Uvalde, after Tulsa, and

you have members of Congress, basically hoping that they`ll be able to get

their act together and do something because of Republican obstruction, the

way that that has been over the last two or three decades. And so we`ll see

what comes of it.

RUHLE: Then what about executive action? Does this White House have a game

plan? We know the President is unhappy with his thinking poll numbers, he`s

dealing with all sorts of issues, couldn`t this be something that he could

step in and say, step up and say, well, I`m going to make a difference?

BENNETT: I haven`t covered President Biden for as long as I have. He does

not insert himself into conversations where he does not think he can be

helpful. And right now, he believes -- and I`m told this this is based on

my reporting, that this bipartisan Senate group that this is the best shot

right now to have some enduring legislation, whether or not it`s

comprehensive enough whether or not it has the sort of teeth, that gun

safety advocates want that this is the thing that probably has the best

chance and that for him to sort of step into this process could really

throw the whole thing off the rails because then it all becomes about

President Biden and about partisanship. And so right now the goal, and

they`re not doing this forever, the Senate comes back on June 6 and Chris

Murphy -- Senator Murphy has said that he`s not going to give Republicans

all day and all night to work on this, that if he gets -- if he gets the

sense that they`re not serious, then they will go sort of move ahead on

their own.

[23:15:20]

But again, there are -- the votes for Democrats to move on their own. And

so that would ultimately be yet another show vote for Democrats do a lot of

posturing and messaging, but ultimately aren`t successful because of

Republican inaction, Republican obstruction.

RUHLE: How about this novel idea, public safety need not be partisan?

Crazy. Geoff Bennett, Matt Watkins, Barbara McQuade, thank you so much for

starting us off tonight.

Coming up, you`ve got to stay exactly where you are and hear about this new

Republican plan to contest elections and guess where? Swing states.

Republicans are getting ready to fight. The question is, are Democrats

ready to fight back?

And later, a huge win for Johnny Depp. Why the outcome is so much more than

a celebrity trial. THE 11TH HOUR just getting underway on Tuesday night.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:49]

RUHLE: It is said to be a Republican plan to challenge elections in mostly

democratic places, using a so called army of poll workers. According to

tapes obtained by Politico, the RNC strategy is calling for installing,

'trained recruits as regular poll workers and put them in direct contact

with party attorneys.'

Party Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel is pushing back on this reporting, same,

'The RNC doesn`t conduct poll worker training, we just facilitate.' So

let`s find out what this all means.

Joining me now, let`s dive in Michael Steele, former Chairman of the

Republican National Committee and former Lieutenant Governor of Maryland,

and Kurt Bardella, Adviser to the DNC and DCCC. He is also a contributor to

the LA Times and USA Today. And he once served as a senior adviser and

spokesperson for the House Oversight Committee Republicans.

Michael, let`s start right there. Ronna McDaniel, she`s arguing, we don`t

train poll workers, we just facilitate. And Democrats, they`ve had poll

workers for years, are you buying what she`s selling?

MICHAEL STEELE, FORMER RNC CHAIRMAN: Yeah, both parties -- yeah, I`m not

buying any of that. Because I can tell you as a former county chairman, a

state chairman and national chairman, she`s right on one thing, the part is

typically do not train poll workers. But you have to understand the

difference between a poll worker and a poll watcher, poll workers are hired

by the county state elections board, typically, or the state election

board. And they work for them. They don`t work for the party. So they are

paid by county and state officials out of their budgets. So they have very

specific duties and responsibilities. The parties go out and find poll

watchers, they`re the ones who work, you know, walk in the room,

representing their particular political interest, making sure that there`s

no shenanigans going on and can challenge the election.

So when Ronna is saying that, well, we`re you know, we`re not training poll

workers. Yeah, but what you`re doing is you`re taking poll watchers, and

you`re putting them in the poll worker slot. So a lot of these folks that

they`re training the 850 that we just read about out of Michigan, those

folks are largely QAnon, election deniers, folks who think the election was

corrupted, who are now going to be trained as poll workers sitting there,

having their hands on the ballots, taking in the information from the

voters.

So when there`s a challenge, they can reinforce that challenge. And as

Heidi Przybyla noted in her point, in her piece, rather, excellent piece.

This is the gum up the works, to create the chaos within the system at that

polling place to put those ballots aside so that they can be addressed or

hopefully thrown out later on. So this is a very tactful and strategic

effort to be on the ground. The party has never focused in this area before

until 2010, believe it or not. Why didn`t have to go out and hide such

shenanigans. We went out and got the workers that worked, got those to the

county, they took care of that. We got the pole work -- the pole watches

that we need it. You didn`t hear any claims of fraud and conniving and

crazy, but it`s a different environment now. So Democrats, y`all better

boot up baby because it`s coming.

RUHLE: What does that look like? If you ran the DNC, you read this

reporting, what would you do, Michael?

STEELE: Oh, right now, I`d be having all kinds of meetings across the state

of the country with all of my state party chairs to understand exactly what

their strategies are on the ground. What do you have in place?

Now, you know, what the Republicans complain about is in a place like

Michigan, they were outnumbered. OK, they were, you know, 5000 -- you know,

5400 Democrat poll workers to 170. Well, that`s when the party, you know,

to help facilitate to get their people interested in the party has never

really kind of done it or they fallen off from that, that`s on them. The

Democrats have been very good about that over the years.

[23:25:01]

I know firsthand here in Maryland how well organized they had been in the

past. So as a county state chairman I had to step up my game. I had to go

out and meet them where they were and go out and find the workers that we

could then, you know, shuttle off to the election board, y`all take care of

them. And then we also get our poll watchers to be there on election day,

to make sure that our folks were well represented. But they need to drill

down on their operations right now.

RUHLE: Speaking of Michigan, I want to share a bit of a recording of the

RNC`s election integrity director in the state of Michigan. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEW SEIFRIED, RNC ELECTION INTEGRITY DIRECTOR, MI: Truly, it`s going to

be an army, right? We are going to try to recruit lawyers. We`re going to

have lawyers that work early to build relationships with different judges,

so that when that happens, we`re going to have lawyers that have

relationships with the police chiefs in the different areas, with the

police officers in the different areas. So, when that happens, those pre-

existing relationships already established.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RUHLE: Kurt, what worries you most about what you`ve just heard?

KURT BARDELLA, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE ADVISOR: What we`re hearing is

a deliberate, systemic organized effort by the Republican Party, to target

democratic precincts, to target communities of color, and put a plan in

place to try to influence and impact their ability to turn out and vote and

participate in the democratic process. This is very black and white here.

Ronna McDaniel is nothing more than a dishonest smear merchant. She knows

exactly what the party is doing. This is deliberate. This is what Steve

Bannon then that very political piece is referred to as the precinct plan.

It is systemic, it is at the heart of the organization of the Republican

National Committee, and their one and only goal and purpose is to

disenfranchise voters to make sure that what happens in 2022 and beyond is

not what we`d had in 2020, which was a free and fair election.

They`re installing people who believe in the big lie, people who want to

throw democracy. They`re installing them in positions where they can

contest ballots, they can challenge voters, they can create chaos, they

create havoc on a democratic process. Because then what they will do,

Stephanie, is they will say, look, there`s all these complaints in this

precinct, this election isn`t valid, these votes shouldn`t be counted. This

is not legitimate. It is a rerun of what we saw in 2020. But this time,

they have had the time, the preparation, the manpower, the resources to

install the big lie into the entire apparatus of the Republican Party at

the state, the local the national level. And it can be very well possible

if Democrats do not measure up to this. If they do not see this as a red

flag warning that this is a red alert time, the 2020 could very well have

been the last free and fair election will ever have if Republicans are

allowed to operate this way.

RUHLE: All right. Well, speaking of Democrats and red flag warnings, Axios

is reporting that if Republicans take back the House in November, you

better expect a whole lot of investigations into the Biden administration.

This could be Benghazi on steroids. Given that, should Democrats be getting

a lot more aggressive now, especially on things like tightening up the

rules on oversight and ethics, things they complained about over and over

when Trump was in the White House saying they were going to change things

when they were in charge, Michael?

STEELE: They should have -- they should have been tight over a year ago.

This is political malfeasance that in my view at this point, it`s been

people have been saying it forever and a day, what`s at stake here and what

this looks like.

What we`re talking about right now, folks is a preview. This is the 2020

preview. This is the beta version of what`s going to happen in 2024. And so

the reality of it is and this is the critical part of why these other

pieces are important that they`re focusing on. So they get the -- they get

the police on board, right? We want to get the police there. They know

what`s going on at the voting booth. So when they call -- when they`re

called, they know what`s going on. So they`re in on the game. Then they get

the lawyers are also in play, and then place who then has already lined up

the judges who are in play in place.

So as you go through that chain, unlike what we saw in 2020, where judges

60 of them, many of whom were Trump appointed judges said, no way in hell,

there`s no fraud and get out of here. Now, they`re looking -- they`re

trying this is a grotesque form of foreign shopping, where they`re trying

to get their judges, their lawyers and police in place beforehand. This is

all run up to 2024 folks, y`all better pay attention because it`s common

live and large.

RUHLE: The message from Michael Steele and Kurt Bardella, hey, Democrats

tighten up your game. Gentlemen, thank you both.

Coming up, Amber Heard calls it a setback for all women. Johnny Depp calls

it speaking the truth. We`re going to break down today`s defamation trial

verdict. And while it`s much broader than a celebrity trial, the

implications are huge when THE 11TH HOUR continues.

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you find that Mr. Depp has proven all the elements

of defamation? Answer, yes. Do you find that Mr. Depp has proven by clear

and convincing evidence that Ms. Heard acted with actual malice? Answer,

yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RUHLE: Hours ago, the jury and the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard defamation

trial announced its verdict, ruling in favor of Johnny Depp. Heard was fun

liable for defamation against Depp in ordered to pay $15 million in

damages. But because of Virginia`s cap on punitive damages Depp will get

closer to 10 million bucks. Depp was also found liable for defamation

against Heard, but the damages were considerably smaller.

[23:35:17]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Against John C. Depp II, we, the jury award

compensatory damages in the amount of $2 million.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RUHLE: As NBC Legal Analyst Katie Phang pointed out well, this trial turned

into a circus in part because of the celebrity status of Heard and Depp.

The verdict will have real world consequences for survivors.

Katie Phang joins us tonight, MSNBC Host, and Legal Contributor and Liz

Plank is here., author and MSNBC Communist. She co-host the amazing Man

Enough podcast.

Katie, let`s start right there with your quote, 'real-world consequences

for survivors.' What do you mean?

KATIE PHANG, MSNBC HOST: Well, the concept is that normally in a defamation

case, it`s just such a high burden when you`re dealing with public figures.

And so we definitely had two celebrity figures that were at war in court in

this particular case, but they`re both claiming to be survivors of domestic

violence, they`re both claiming to be survivors of a particularly violent,

emotionally and physically abusive, tumultuous relationship.

And so if you now have an outcome that we`ve seen today, with not only the

damages amounts that were awarded by the jury in this case, which frankly,

Stephanie, were a little bit odd, the fact that originally the jury came

out with a verdict form that was empty when it came to the number of

damages. So it kind of makes you wonder, did they really contemplate the

amount of damages truly, because they came back very quickly later on with

it.

But when you have an outcome, like you have today with the amount of

damages, and you think about the fact that actual malice was found by a

jury, the fact that a public figure was able to prove that on the other

side, the other side acted with the knowledge that what they were saying

was false. Well now, has that now basically created a burden that has been

lowered for people that are otherwise not going to be public figures. And

you also have an attorney, frankly, who was found to be liable for doing

something on behalf of a client. So there`s a lot of ramifications that are

coming from this particular verdict today.

RUHLE: Liz, even before the verdict was announced, Monica Lewinsky was

thinking the on the trial, she wrote a really compelling piece for Vanity

Fair. And in it, she writes, 'It`s the larger implications for our culture

that concern me the most, the ways we have stoke the flames of misogyny,

and separately, the celebrity circus.' I mean, it`s especially telling for

Monica Lewinsky, someone who truly knows both of those issues, to write

this, how seriously should we take there, her concerns?

LIZ PLANK, MSNBC COLUMNIST: We should take them very seriously. And so much

of this trial has felt like it`s a peephole into the private lives of, you

know, wealthy and sort of out of touch celebrities, but it`s really

actually been much more of a mirror. It`s reflected ourselves back at

ourselves, right? We`ve been able to see where we`re at, as a society that,

you know, a society that is not just interested, but actually enjoys the

humiliation of a woman in the way that we`ve seen it, you know, not just

happen on the internet, but even across conversations, and, you know, the

way that it`s been portrayed in the media is very worrisome.

You know, the math just doesn`t add up for people to take this on as their

main, you know, huge issue. There, you know, women have a much higher

likelihood of being a victim of domestic violence than an innocent man

being accused of abuse that he did not do. It`s not to say that it never

happens. But it is it is not -- it is very rare. And so this backlash that

we`re seeing, right? This backlash is not because women are equal, it`s

because they`re dangerously close to being equal. And that scares a lot of

people. And so they`re latching on to this case in a way that, you know,

really, again, reveals where we`re at, when it comes to all of these issues

that yes, the Me Too movement has been immensely and enormously impactful

for women`s rights. But we`re still not there yet.

RUHLE: This has been a brutal six years, six weeks for the two of them.

Katie, is it fair to say either or in during this trial, Amber Heard has

been silenced because both parties literally just had their day in court?

PHANG: I don`t think it`s a fair statement to say that Amber Heard was

silenced in any way. And recall also, Stephanie, there was a similar

lawsuit brought by Johnny Depp in the United Kingdom where he lost, where

he sued the Sun Tabloid for the same concept and a judge in that case said,

uh-huh, I find 12 separate incidents of domestic battery committed by you,

Johnny Depp, the differences you had it in front of a jury and the court of

public opinion as I write on my piece basically says the court of public

opinion crucified Amber Heard before this case was even brought to the jury

to decide and that`s a critical kind of takeaway from this case as well.

[23:40:11]

The fact that according to, Liz, and she`s right, this people into this

very sort of relationship that existed between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard

was then well publicized, allowed a lot of the court of public opinion to

weigh in. But I also want to say very quickly too, Stephanie, this Op-Ed

was an Op-Ed. So another kind of huge legal ramification is the idea that

you could have legal exposure when you write an opinion article and a

paper, because normally that`s protected First Amendment free speech. So

now we`re creating this precedent now that you could go out and make this

comment about another public figure, and you could have legal exposure, and

that is a very slippery slope.

RUHLE: Liz, this trial, it`s fair to say has taken on a life of its own.

How did Johnny Depp now become sort of the face of this reactionary

political movement?

PLANK: Yeah, yeah. I mean, we -- there`s reports that, you know, there`s

conservative outlets like the Daily Wire that have been pushing on, you

know, the anti-Amber Heard hashtags. Today, the GOP judiciary committee,

for some reason tweeted a GIF of Johnny Depp, you know, in Pirates of the

Caribbean being this amazing, you know, sort of glamorized man. And so it`s

very troubling, right? Like the pleasure with which we`re humiliating Amber

Heard is just as I think, troubling as the glamorization of Johnny Depp in

this story.

So it`s, again, it`s revealing this misogyny, this Depp seated misogyny in

our society, and I really have to agree with Katie, you know, defamation

trials, are a weapon that are -- that could be levied against survivors of

abuse more often. We know that Marilyn Manson, for example, who is friends

with Johnny Depp, is pursuing that with his ex-fiancee, who you know, and

she`s accusing him of abusing, and he`s been accused of abuse by several

other women. So it`s very worrisome to be entering this kind of territory.

And it`s worrisome to be -- to see it take these political ramifications,

right, that people are projecting things onto this trial that just aren`t

there. And I have to say, I`ve written about a lot of things. I write about

guns, I write about abortion, I`ve never had as many emails, as I`ve

received about this very topic. I`ve heard from men who have been abused.

I`ve heard from women who are survivors who don`t believe Amber Heard and

say she`s hurting survivors. So there`s a lot of feelings out there. And

it`s time for us to have that complex conversation about domestic violence.

That`s what I was hoping this trial would mean.

RUHLE: Well, that`s what we`re doing. We are talking. Liz Plank, Katie

Phang, you both make us smarter every time you are here.

Coming up, how Russia is responding to the news that the U.S. is sending

long range missiles to Ukraine. We`ll ask Ambassador Michael McFaul if this

is enough to stop Putin from gaining ground, when THE 11TH HOUR continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:47:39]

RUHLE: Russia is accusing the U.S. of pouring oil on the fire by sending

advanced rocket systems to Ukraine. The Pentagon announced a new $700

million weapons package to Kyiv including precision guided rockets that can

travel more than 40 miles.

With us tonight to discuss Michael McFaul, former U.S. ambassador to Russia

and MSNBC International Affairs Analyst. He wrote the must read book, From

Cold War to Hot Peace: An American Ambassador in Putin`s Russia.

Ambassador, a senior Ukrainian official told NBC News he is still worried

even with this new aid. Do you think he should be or does he have to say

that?

MICHAEL MCFAUL, FORMER AMBASSADOR TO RUSSIA: Great question. And I don`t

have a great answer. Here`s what I would say. So they`ve been having a

debate, the Ukrainians have wanted what you just described, you just had on

the board, they`re called HIMARS, right, M142s. These are long range rocket

systems, guided rockets. That will now after this delivery will go much

farther than what the Ukrainians have 70 kilometers. But the Ukrainians

wanted the rockets that will go farther 300 kilometers. So whether you`re

satisfied or not, the Ukrainians, of course, publicly are always asking for

more. The way I would describe it as this, they`ve gone much farther than

before, and not as far as the Ukrainians would like.

RUHLE: They have to keep asking for more. If they say thanks, we`re all

set. We`re surely going to stop. What is it going to take though? Is it

this last shipment that`s going to make a difference? What will stop Russia

from gaining ground in the east?

MCFAUL: Again, I don`t know. I think we`re probably going to be talking

about this Stephanie for a long, long time, weeks, if not months. There is

a major war underway in Donbass, it`s mostly artillery and these kinds of

rockets that we`re talking about, and they`re just firing back and forth.

Dozens of people are dying on each side every single day. Russia makes

incremental gains in one part of the front, and then Ukraine makes a

counter offensive and another part of the front. So we`re going to learn

the names of these little cities that will sometimes be taken by Russians

and a counter offensive on it. But with the Ukrainians, I don`t know in the

long run, who wins that war.

[23:50:00]

RUHLE: Your latest column in the Washington Post is pretty interesting.

You`re calling for the West to help those in Russia who are opposed to the

war, why is that important, A, and B let`s get real, do you think there`s

any shot, you`re going to see widespread support in the West to help

Russians? I mean, people are growing weary of high gas prices here. And

that`s just to help Ukraine?

MCFAUL: Well, I two things I would say, number one, yes, there are 1000s,

10s of 1000s, maybe hundreds of 1000s of Russians that don`t support this

war. They just don`t want to go to jail for 15 years. So remember, that`s

the cost, even saying the word war in Russia today can get you 15 years in

jail.

Number two, there`s also 10s of 1000s of Russians that have left Russia.

They`re in places like Armenia, Kazakhstan, Israel, Cyprus, stuck in places

that they don`t want to be, and don`t have visas to work there. Those are

Russians that we should help to, because they`re the ones who said, I can`t

bear to support this war, they fled. And now I think we should help them to

make a better life outside of the country. And Stephanie, many of those

people are journalists. They`re the people that ultimately over the long

haul, will begin to report from the outside get news into Russia, that most

Russians can`t read right now about what is actually happening in Ukraine.

RUHLE: I`m out of time. But then I have to ask, if merely saying the word

war, could land you in jail for 15 years, why on earth do so many Russians

support Putin? Wouldn`t they just think that fact is enough to be like,

this doesn`t smell right?

MCFAUL: You know, what I think most a lot of Russians don`t support Putin,

and we don`t know it, if you`re going to go to jail for 15 years for saying

that you`re probably not telling pollsters what you really think about

Putin. Think about that. We probably don`t know what they really think. And

one day we finally well.

RUHLE: Now that is a compelling answer. You will have us thinking about

that one tonight. Ambassador Michael McFaul, thank you for joining us.

MCFAUL: Thanks for having me.

RUHLE: Coming up, the stunning reality check on decades of school shootings

in America when THE 11TH HOUR continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:56:50]

RUHLE: The last thing before we go tonight, this is not a movie, the

production company Eleven Films is out with a powerful new video asking us

to wake up to the horrible reality of school shootings in America. Watch

this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m done. OK, I`m done. I had it (bleep) failed our kids

again. You know how many more times

JOE BIDEN, (D) U.S. PRESIDENT: I had hoped when I became President, I would

not have to do this, again. To lose a child, it was like having a piece of

your soul ripped away.

BARACK OBAMA, (D) FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: Every time I think about those

kids, it gets me mad.

BIDEN: There`s a hollowness in your chest, and you feel like you`re being

sucked into it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How am I going to plan a funeral? What kind of casket. I

have to write a eulogy. All I did was send them to school.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: 90% of us are living under the tyranny of 10%.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sit down, you`re out of line.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They seemed angrier at Beto O`Rourke than they were at

the massacre of 19 children and two fourth grade teachers.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And I`m trying to figure out at what point in time

this became so normalized?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The AR-15 shreds the human body, just think about

that. Think about what that would do to what little 10-year-old body?

BIDEN: What in God`s named you need to solve before except to kill someone?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And you read their age, 10, 10, 10.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I have a fourth grader. And she put her hands in her

friend`s blood and then smeared it. She`s had all over her body. She wanted

to look like she was dead.

SEN. CHRIS MURPHY, (D) CONNECTICUT: What are we doing?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And we were all hiding behind the stage.

MURPHY: What are we doing?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He said, Bro, he said, Bro, red flag.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why only in America? It is just an American problem sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (Inaudible) us to scream for them right now.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We were getting shot all around me.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When are we going to do something?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah, I was bullied in school too, I never shot at my

classmates, next (bleep) excuse.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So honestly, to hell with anybody who says don`t

politicize this?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is about semi-automatic weapons and military

weapons that are killing our children in school.

[00:00:12]

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RUHLE: A plea for meaningful gun reform from Eleven Films takes us off the

air tonight. And on that note, I wish you all a good night and from all of

our colleagues across the networks of NBC News, thanks for staying up late

with us. I`ll see you at the end of tomorrow.