IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, Transcript 07/29/15

Guests: Anthony Roman, John Ransom, Ian MacDonald, Sherrilyn Ifill, ByronMaccauley, Eugene O`Donnell, Harry Black, Ken Vogel, Jeremy Peters

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: The Arctic, and right now -- over the side of the bridge early this morning and they`re just hanging there. They say they have enough supplies to last them a few days, they say they`re not going anywhere, the ship is essential to Shell being able to drill the Arctic, and right now, in order to do that, its ship will have to face a human gauntlet in order to get out of Portland. This story was fascinating from the beginning, it gets better every day. Watch this space. That does it for us tonight, we`ll see you again tomorrow, now it`s time for THE LAST WORD with Lawrence O`Donnell, good evening Lawrence. LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: Rachel, everything I know about that ice breaker, I have learned in the last minute of your show -- (LAUGHTER) The last couple of nights and thank you for keeping us up to date. MADDOW: Number one for very obscure news, thank you -- O`DONNELL: Yes, it`s a great story -- (LAUGHTER) Thanks, Rachel. MADDOW: Thanks. O`DONNELL: A Cincinnati police officer is in jail tonight, indicted for murder after stopping a driver for having no front license plate on that car. But first, we have breaking news from an island in the Indian Ocean where a plane debris found today could be from that missing Malaysian Airlines flight 370. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s a huge break in the biggest aviation mystery in decades. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Wreckage from missing Malaysia Airlines flight 370 may finally have been found. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Washed up on a French island. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The French island of La Reunion in the Indian Ocean is consistent with the Boeing 777, the same as the missing Malaysia jet. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The question is, how long has this part been sitting on that island? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: At least, we now know that Malaysia 370 did go down somewhere in the Indian Ocean. ALEX WAGNER, MSNBC: Breaking news on a fatal police shooting in Ohio. JOSEPH DETERS, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO: The most asinine act I have ever seen a police officer make. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A university police officer indicted in the killing of a driver has just turned himself in. LESTER HOLT, NBC NEWS: And for the first time, we are seeing the tape of the encounter. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The officer Ray Tensing stopped DuBose for not having a front license plate. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A pretty chicken crap stop. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He felt like he -- his life was in danger. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The video appears to contradict Tensing`s story. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We knew the video was going to vindicate our brother. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I just thank God that everything is being rebuilt. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: We finally have the first major clue in the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight 370. Sources tell "Nbc News" that investigators for Boeing have looked at this piece of aircraft debris found on a remote island in the Indian Ocean and believe that it is from a Boeing 777. They also believe it`s very likely from Malaysia Airlines flight 370 because that`s the only missing 777 in the world. The debris -- the part there is covered in sea shells and police say it appears to have been in the water for at least a year. The six foot long piece of debris is now in the hands of local authorities, it will be -- it will try to be -- they will try to match it to flight 370 using a serial number which may or may not still be on that part. Highlighted here on a Boeing 777, the part is believed by many experts to be this moving piece from the back of the wing. Flight 370 took off in Kuala Lumpur just after midnight on March 8th, 2014, it was last seen on radar at 2:14 a.m. local time. This wreckage was found on Reunion Island 600 miles off Madagascar`s eastern coast, but that`s over 4,000 miles from the jet`s last-known locale south of Vietnam. It`s also thousands of miles from where investigators have been searching for the Boeing jet off Australia`s western coast. Oceanographers speculate that these circular currents of the Indian Ocean could have pushed the possible debris from flight 370 to this island. Joining us now is John Ransom, a former commercial pilot, also with us, Anthony Roman, a former commercial pilot and an aviation expert. Also with us, Ian MacDonald, professor of oceanography at Florida State University will be joining us by phone. Anthony Roman, what`s your reading on this latest news? ANTHONY ROMAN, PILOT: Well, I think this is a remarkable development, Lawrence, and it`s the first real break I think we`ve had in the investigation concerning this mysterious disappearance. The ocean currents and the wind drift are consistent with this kind of drift pattern. And if this aircraft broke apart during its descent and it could very well have broken apart during its descent. An uncontrolled descent, an excessive speed descent, the upper winds are up to 150 to 200 miles per hour and can carry aerodynamic debris a very long way. That and in addition to the wind currents and the sea currents suggest that it could. If Boeing does identify this as a 777 wing board, it is very likely it`s MH 370. No other 777 has been lost in the Indian Ocean. O`DONNELL: John Ransom, if the plane actually hit the ocean intact, would we have a more compressed debris field? JOHN RANSOM, PILOT: Well, without having seen any other debris, it would be very difficult to tell. One thing that`s -- this piece of airplane will be able to tell us is whether or not the flaps were extended when the airplane hit the water. An all likelihood, the geometry of the break will tell whether or not the unit itself was still in -- deep into the wing where it normally sits during cruise or whether it was extended for low-speed flight. So, that may be another indication, and it could give the investigators. O`DONNELL: Ian McDonald, there are other islands in the Indian Ocean between possibly where this crash occurred and Reunion Island. What are the chances, do you think, of more debris showing up on some of these land masses in the Indian Ocean? IAN MACDONALD, PROFESSOR OF OCEANOGRAPHY, FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY (via telephone): Well, there`s a big chance. This is -- this reading has a -- like most ocean bases has a circulatory pattern, a gyre and there`s the south equatorial current which carries material from off of Australia towards Africa, toward Madagascar and Reunion(ph). And so material that landed in that gyre could have been carried westward. O`DONNELL: And given the speed of currents and the way the ocean moves there, do you have any estimate about how long it would take for something like this -- if it was traveling from, say, a couple of thousand miles away, how long it would take to get there? MACDONALD: Well, from the -- from the maps of the probable impact point, it`s over 3,000 miles of sea drift that it would have had to undergo. The pictures of the part looked to be totally covered with barnacles and other organisms, so it was in the water for a long time. It is this 777, it seems 777, it`s over a year that it`s been drifting most likely. O`DONNELL: Anthony Roman, the search now, how do you think they should concentrate their efforts with this information? ROMAN: Well, I think the primary search area was approximately 46,000 square miles, in 20,000 feet of ocean with a mountainous bottom. I think that will remain the same. They`ve completed 21,000 miles of the search, they`ve completed a mapping of the ocean floor in the search area - - monumental tasks. But the primary debris field that would sink is probably still in that area, so that won`t change. However, the surface debris, if this is found to be the debris from MH-370, the surface search could now shift along a linear course that would follow the currents. And it would be a monumental task at this point. O`DONNELL: And John Ransom, let`s go back to this piece of debris, and what are the -- what are the most of the -- what`s the most optimistic reading of what we could possibly determine about the crash just from this one piece? RANSOM: Well, unfortunately, about all you can determine is the geometry of the impact or what happened to the airplane immediately before it had the impact. It still moves us no closer to determining what caused the airplane to do what it did in the first place. So, my guess is that they will intensify a search, not only there at Reunion, but over in Mauritius, maybe over in Madagascar or even Rodrigues Island out there to see if they can find any more debris that might move them a little closer. But again, my impression is that all they`ll find is the nature of the impact and not much more. O`DONNELL: Ian MacDonald, are there any suggestions of -- that you would make about the search based on the discovery of this and the location of where this was discovered? MACDONALD: Well, I think the suggestion in looking for more debris on land, on the island surrounding Reunion is a good one. And more parts of the airplane could only help us as noted. It`s a huge area and there is still many uncertainties, but this is a really big break. O`DONNELL: Anthony Roman, given the discovery of this part, what does it suggest about the other possible parts? If this part survive, and if this part was floating, what else does that mean might have been floating? ROMAN: Well, there are a lot of pieces of the aircraft, the aerodynamic pieces that are lighter. The interior of the aircraft, the seat cushions, some of the other debris that would be very light and have buoyancy to them. They will float and follow the sea and wind current patterns. And again, depending on whether it broke up in the air or whether it broke up upon impact would scatter the debris field in a different way and expand the search or contract the search area. However, this particular part, depending on its physical condition and microscopic examination and spectrographic examination can begin to offer hints as to what may have happened. We might see some evidence of an explosive decompression or a bomb. It`s unlikely but it is possible, and it must be examined. O`DONNELL: Anthony Roman, thank you very much for joining us, and John Ransom and Ian MacDonald, thank you for joining us tonight, appreciate it. Coming up, a Cincinnati police officer is indicted today for murder of a man that he pulled over for having a missing front license plate. We will show you the video of that shooting. And later, it`s the Koch brothers versus Donald Trump, which billionaire are you going to bet on? The Koch brothers are 40 times richer than Donald Trump, at least 40 times richer, it`s coming up. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DETERS: This is the most asinine act I have ever seen a police officer make. Totally unwarranted. It was -- it`s an absolute tragedy in the year 2015 that anyone would behave in this manner. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: That is the prosecutor who had an indictment against the police officer for murder in Cincinnati today. That`s next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DETER: The Hamilton County grand jury has returned a murder indictment against Raymond Tensing who is a University of Cincinnati police officer for the murder of Samuel DuBose. This office has probably reviewed upwards of a 100 police shootings and this is the first time that we thought this is a -- this is without question a murder. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: That was the Hamilton County prosecutor today announcing the indictment of a 25-year-old University of Cincinnati police officer, Raymond Tensing. There is video from the body camera that Raymond Tensing wore on July 19th, the day he shot and killed Samuel DuBose after he pulled Samuel DuBose over for having a missing front license plate on the car. Now, warning about this video, it seems very uneventful right up until the moment where the shooting occurs and it`s easy to miss the shooting occurring. I`ve had -- I`ve had to watch it more than once to actually get a grasp of what happens in this video. You might want to record it and rewind it if you want to see it. We`re only going to show it once, it`s very disturbing when you really see what`s going on in this video. So, here is that video. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RAYMOND TENSING, POLICE OFFICER: Hey, how`s it going, man? SAMUEL DUBOSE, DECEASED: All right, how`s it going? TENSING: Good. Officer Tensing, university police, do you have a license on you? DUBOSE: Yes, what happened (INAUDIBLE) -- TENSING: OK, is this your car? DUBOSE: Yes -- TENSING: It`s going back to a female actually -- DUBOSE: Yes, it`s my wife, her name is Sandra Beasley. TENSING: OK, but you don`t have a front license plate on your car. DUBOSE: Oh, it`s in glove box, I have it. TENSING: What`s that? DUBOSE: It`s right here, I`ll get it -- TENSING: Oh, OK, that`s actually -- (CROSSTALK) That ought to go where the front plate is supposed to go. DUBOSE: No, I didn`t know that -- TENSING: You don`t have to reach for it, it`s OK -- DUBOSE: Right -- TENSING: Do you have a license on you? DUBOSE: Yes -- TENSING: What`s that bottle on the floor there? DUBOSE: Oh, it`s a bottle of air freshner. TENSING: A bottle of what? DUBOSE: You can smell it, that`s air freshner, there`s no liquor in it -- TENSING: OK, do you have your license on you? DUBOSE: Yes, I`m coming -- TENSING: OK, you know where that license -- well, that is a what? DUBOSE: I`ve got my property and stuff in there. TENSING: OK, I`m going to ask you again, do you have your license on you? DUBOSE: I have license, you can please run my name. TENSING: So, do you not have your license on you? I`m asking you a direct question, do you have your license on you? DUBOSE: It`s all -- you know how it feels -- why did you pull me over for? TENSING: Again, the front tag. DUBOSE: But it`s not illegal to not have a front tag, it`s -- TENSING: OK, actually, it is -- I`m going to ask you again, do you have a license on you? DUBOSE: I have a license, you can run my name. TENSING: OK, is that not on you then? DUBOSE: I don`t think I have it on me. TENSING: Be straight up with me, are you suspended? DUBOSE: No, I`m not suspended -- TENSING: And why don`t you have your license on you? DUBOSE: Because I don`t -- I`m sorry for that. I`m going to go to my house. TENSING: OK, where do you stay, down here? DUBOSE: Right around the corner there -- TENSING: OK, so, I`ll probably be able to figure out if you you have a license or not, go ahead, take your seatbelt off for me. DUBOSE: I didn`t -- never do nothing, what are you -- TENSING: Go ahead, take your seatbelt off. Stop -- I`m good -- I`m good - - (INAUDIBLE) -- one shot fired, (INAUDIBLE), let me shut the car off. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Go -- TENSING: You good? I thought he was going to run me over -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you, OK? TENSING: I`m good. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Just to review what you saw there, the shot occurred when the car was still stopped with the officer standing right at the window of the car and then the driver apparently dead at the wheel, slumped over the wheel, foot on the gas. The car then progressed, not so fast, down the road, hit a pole and the police officer was then chasing that car as it was going down the road. That`s what you were seeing from that body cam. We`re joined now by Byron Macaulay, an opinion writer for the "Cincinnati Enquirer", Sherrilyn Ifill, president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and a professor at the University of Maryland School of Law. Also with us, Eugene O`Donnell, a professor of law and police studies at John Jay College and a former police officer with the New York City Police Department. Sherrilyn Ifill, your reaction to what we just saw on video and the indictment today. SHERRILYN IFILL, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND: Well, you can imagine my reaction to what we saw on video. This is becoming all too familiar as we watch these encounters between police officers and members of the public. And you described it in the opening that, that split-second where things turn, and I think actually the prosecutor described it actually quite well. It`s almost impossible to imagine why this officer would believe that he had to draw his weapon. Everything about the interaction that officer Tensing had with Samuel DuBose makes very clear that Mr. DuBose is not a threat, he`s not armed, he`s not dangerous. This is a very calm conversation, there is nothing actually really that`s escalating, it`s simply a series of questions. And yet, at this moment when he doesn`t comply or want to get out of the car, the officer pulls his weapon and shoots him in the head and then the car speeds off. The prosecutor in this case, of course, you know, empanelled the grand jury and was able to come forward with an indictment very quickly which I think was critically important. He had obviously seen the video, we`ve been hearing from others including the police chief of Cincinnati that -- who had seen the video that this was going to be problematic. And I think the prosecutor standing there today and talking about what kind of stop this was, talking about his revulsion when he saw the video was really important. We of course know that an indictment is not the same as a conviction and so we don`t know what would happen to the officer in this case. But I actually think, Lawrence, the issue that I find most really disturbing is the fact that, this officer is wearing a camera. He knows he`s wearing a camera. The police report says that he believes that has been captured on his camera, and yet, he still tells the story about being dragged by this car. And there are two other officers, officer Kidd and officer Lyndon Schmitt(ph) who also corroborate. One of them, officer Kidd says that he saw this officer Tensing being dragged by the car which clearly did not happen. So, you have three officers who are willing to tell a story that appears in an official document in a police report, despite the fact that they know that there is a camera that`s going to show what accurately happened. So, we ought to be asking ourselves, why would these police officers do that? Why do they believe that their word, that what they say, even if it is untrue will somehow trump what is on a video cam -- very disturbing. And then the second issue is about who are these university police? They`re patrolling outside the campus in this -- in this instance. I know that the college president has now declared that they will only be able to patrol within the campus but they`re outside the campus. What has been their relationship with the Cincinnati Police Department? What kind of training have they received and what kind of training will they receive going forward. O`DONNELL: Byron Maccauley, how much attention was this case getting in Cincinnati before today? BYRON MACCAULEY, CINCINNATI ENQUIRER: Well, Larry -- excuse me, Lawrence, you know, it has been getting a ton of attention in all media here because, you know, when we first heard about this case, when we first heard about the shooting, it was immediately turned over. The investigation was immediately turned over to the Cincinnati Police Department. And then, in the coming days, in the -- in the days following, we were alerted by various leaders in town, say -- who have seen the video, they said, well, you know, this is bad. The police chiefs, the city manager -- this is bad. We`ve seen it. And so, we were expecting to see something remarkable. But what we have all seen now in the United States, having seen this videotape, I think we can truly say that, you know, a horrible tragedy occurred. And a lot of the points that have been made are rarely on point. I mean, we have various questions about, you know, how policing is done at University of Cincinnati. You know, what can be done to improve policing? And you know, in fact, we have -- you know, the fact is we have an African -- another African- American man in this country who`s been, you know, cut down and you know, thank God we had the video. Because if we had not had that video who knows what the outcome would have been. We would have been having a very different conversation tonight. It could have been just a simple situation of a police officer doing a great job. So, you know, those are a lot of questions that we`re going to have to face in this community, and we`re facing them. We are -- we are a much better community than we -- than we were with -- when we had our unrest in a similar situation in 2001. We`ve learned a lot from that, we`ve grown. And it shows tonight, there has been -- there have been, you know, no reported incidents of unrest, of law breaking, et cetera. We`re doing well, but this is truly been a very emotional day in this town and Joe Deters, our county prosecutor really I think did the -- did the community a service -- O`DONNELL: Well, please -- (CROSSTALK) EUGENE O`DONNELL, PROFESSOR & FORMER POLICE OFFICER, NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT: Can I just -- MACCAULEY: In the way he -- O`DONNELL: Can I just -- O`DONNELL: Well -- MACCAULEY: In just a bluntness -- O`DONNELL: Can I just add -- O`DONNELL: Eugene, before -- MACCAULEY: Yes -- O`DONNELL: I just want you to listen to an assault -- listen to what officer Tensing said on the scene immediately after the shooting. Let`s listen to this. Listen to how it lines up with what we just saw on video. Let`s listen to it. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TENSING: I think I`m OK -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What was he reaching for? TENSING: He kept reaching around. I told him to step out of the car -- he couldn`t produce the license, so (INAUDIBLE) started taking off, I reached in and I shot a lone round, Adam, because all -- he got my hand caught in the car, I almost got ran over by him. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK, yes -- (INAUDIBLE) -- don`t say anything -- (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Eugene O`Donnell, last thing we hear is a police officer telling him don`t say anything. O`DONNELL: Yes, it`s a very bad side of -- it is worth saying -- and not about this case in particular, but as we get used to these videos, there can be a good faith mistake. Somebody can misstate something that they`re involved in, that`s traumatic and police shooting research shows for a lot of the cops, it`s a blur. And so there could be a difference between what they`re saying -- I`m not at all suggesting that`s the case here. But this whole issue, plus the Sandra Bland case, you just wonder, where is the oversight? Where is the rhyme and the reason? The campus police are special purpose police. They`re there to do the job on the campus. City policing is completely different than campus policing. And when you have these special purpose police, it`s incumbent upon the leadership to tell them we don`t want you getting involved, short of this kind of an ending. Just a civil liability issues, just the university being on the hook if something wrong goes -- something wrong happens. So -- and you look at the Sandra Bland thing, this trivial car stop. What -- where is the police leadership on this stuff proactively and you almost wonder whether the camera should be on the decision makers when they`re making or failing to make these really important decisions. And you know, you see things like the cop reaching in to the vehicle to get the keys. This is a text book thing you shouldn`t be doing. On the other hand, this is -- he`s a campus police officer, street police people in big cities would know that. I don`t know that a campus police person, who probably has very rudimentary training would know that at all. That is a very bad, very bad and very dangerous thing. By the way, Cincinnati had a cop killed in 2000 in a remarkably similar situation where he reached in and was dragged 800 feet and killed. So, it`s a very dangerous text book thing not to do. O`DONNELL: All right, we`re going to take a break here, we`re going to be back with more. Byron Maccauley and Eugene O`Donnell, thank you for joining us for that segment, I appreciate it. Up next, the community in Cincinnati and the black lives matter movement. How that has effect in the situation there. Cincinnati City manager Harry Black will join us to react to the indictment. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE PROTESTER: I am Sam DuBose! UNIDENTIFIED GROUP OF PROTESTER: I am Sam DuBose! UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE PROTESTER: I am Sam DuBose! UNIDENTIFIED GROUP OF PROTESTER: I am Sam DuBose! UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE PROTESTER: I am Sam DuBose! UNIDENTIFIED GROUP OF PROTESTER: I am Sam DuBose! (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Tonight, protesters gathered peacefully for a black lives matter protest in memory of Sam DuBose. Here is Sam DuBose`s mother and his sister at a press conference this afternoon. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) AUDREY DUBOSE, SAM DUBOSE`S MOTHER: Seeing that video let me know that my son did absolutely nothing, nothing. Nothing to even provoke this man. TERINA DUBOSE, SAM DUBOSE`S SISTER: I was not even really being on video cams but every now, I am going be marching for video cams, because my brother was being prosecuted for trying to kill a police officer. He dragged him. He assaulted him. He gave him alcohol when there was never an open container of alcohol. He was everything violent because he had children and a weed ticket -- some weed charges. That man shot my brother dead. People do not listen. They just look at stereotypes. And, my brother was about to be just one other stereotype and that is not going to happen. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Joining in discussion now Harry Black. He is the City Manager of Cincinnati and back with us, Sherrilyn Ifill. Harry Black, what is the difference in the training for the university police there and the city police and what is the overlap in their jurisdictions and their duties? HARRY BLACK, CINCINNATI CITY MANAGER: OK. There is a difference between the two from a training standpoint. Clearly, City of Cincinnati Police Officers go through a rigorous initial training in terms of psychological, physical, situational and in terms of the Cincinnati -- University of Cincinnati Police, I am not totally clear on the specifics of how they are trained. But, it is clearly nothing near what our police officers go through and our police officers undergo ongoing training from an in-service training perspective throughout the entire year. Clearly, we have offered technical and advisory support and assistance and an invitation to the University of Cincinnati to take advantage of our training resources, retrospectively as well perspectively speaking. O`DONNELL: And, the university has announced that they are no longer going to have their officers doing any kind of patrol work outside of the campus. Is that something that you and city government recommended to them as a result of this situation? BLACK: Yes. Yes. That was our recommendation to the president and his leadership team at the university is that they step back. They are undergoing a self examination, self reflection period. This gives us an opportunity to do a reset of the operating relationship between the university and the city police departments in terms of giving the university an opportunity to do an assessment of the policies and procedures; Its training policies and procedures, as well as the relationship in general from a day-to-day operational standpoint, with an eye towards learning from this tragic incident in terms of what can we do differently? How can we get better in terms of jointly policing this perimeter of the university? O`DONNELL: Sherrilyn Ifill, I cannot help but wonder are we looking at a procedural win for black lives matter? Meaning the aftermath of the shooting has been handled in a virtually ideal way, given that it is a bad shooting, being a judged to be a bad shooting. We have this being disclosed with speed, with efficiency, with very clear language on the part of the prosecutor. No question from the prosecutors and investigators about what they believe they have found. And, I have never seen this kind of high-speed clarity from an investigation of this kind before. IFILL: Well, I think you first saw it in the case of Walter Scott in South Carolina. I think there is no question that the Black Lives Matter Movement and all of the grassroots activism, whether associated with the particular Black Lives Matter Group or not, has really raised the consciousness of this country and made people stop and think. It is making prosecutors stop and think. Hopefully, it will make police officers stop and think. That being said, I think we want to be very careful about how we look at this case and whether it is ideal, because as I suggested earlier, I think this question about these other officers, who surrounded Officer Tensing is really a critically important one. Because in order to send the proper message, in order to really get at the culture of policing, which is what we have been talking about for the last year, it is not just getting the individual officer. It is about getting the culture that allows those others officers around him. You know, we have heard all these about bad apples. O`DONNELL: Yes. IFILL: The problem is all the apples who pretend they are not bad apples, the good apples who do not tell the truth about the bad apples. And, we saw here these other two officers corroborate what was clearly an untruth and be willing to advance that on behalf of Officer Tensing. So, I am hopeful that the prosecutor in this case will be looking at the false statements that were issued by those two officers, will be looking at obstruction of justice, will be looking holistically at how we get at what was advanced. The story that was advanced about Samuel DuBose. The other thing, I think that is really important Lawrence is to remember that the city of Cincinnati was subject to a pattern and practice investigation by the department of justice in 2001. They ended that consent decree in 2007. And, they had very specific practices about how you deal with traffic stops. One of the specific things they said was that allowing a suspect to temporarily evade arrest is sometimes appropriate, except the Cincinnati Police at the university were not included in this whole process. So, we see that there can be gaps. And, going forward, as we look at places like Baltimore and others who engaged in process, we want to be looking at school police and university police and other smaller police jurisdictions that now we realize have to be part if we are going to seal this, have to be part of the effort to transform policing. Here something happened, a group of police were left out. And, we saw this group of police perform in this way that they did that resulted in the death of Samuel DuBose. O`DONNELL: Harry Black, your reaction to what Sherrilyn said? BLACK: If I may respond to that. I want to go back to the fact that in 2001, the City of Cincinnati had a very challenging situation on its hand, very similar to this situation. The city elected -- it was at an inflection point. It decided to go in a positive direction. Obviously, there was a consent decree. The Department of Justice was involved. There was a collaborative agreement that emanated from this very, very tragic situation in 2001. What happened today and during the course of the investigation involving the University of Cincinnati, the City of Cincinnati Police Department and the county prosecutor validates that all of the good work that has been done with all of the stakeholders in Cincinnati since 2001 has paid off, just based on the expediency in which this matter has been handled. Again, the University of Cincinnati is a state entity. OK? The collaborative is working as it relates to the city of Cincinnati. The president of the University of Cincinnati has agreed to bring in an outside third party assessor to assess the department, its practices, its policies, its training. And, we are going to be supportive of that as a city. And, they have also agreed to look at our collaborative agreement and to look at ways to adapt elements and tenants of that agreement. And, we will be working with them very closely to be supportive and helpful to them in that regard. But, again, this is a University of Cincinnati incident within the City of Cincinnati, tragic but justice has been served today. harry black, thank you very much for joining us and sherrilynifill, thank you for joining us again. Of cincinnati incident within the city of cincinnati tragic but justice has been served today. O`DONNELL: Harry Black, thank you very much for joining us and Sherrilyn Ifill, thank you for joining us again. I appreciate it. IFILL: Thank you. O`DONNELL: Coming up. It is the Koch brothers versus Donald Trump and the Koch brothers are -- get this at least, 40 times richer than Donald Trump. So, who are you going to bet on in this fight? (MUSIC PLAYING) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) O`DONNELL: The Koch brothers really do not want Donald Trump to be president. And, the problem for Donald is they are at least 40 times richer than Donald Trump. And, Donald Trump believes that human value is measured by wealth and you can tell how smart a guy is by how much money he has. So, by Donald`s own formula, the Koch brothers are like way, way smarter than Donald Trump, and they are determined to stop Donald Trump. The Koch brothers versus Donald Trump. That is our next discussion. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PRES. BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: And, Donald Trump is here -- Still. Anyway -- it is amazing how time flies. Soon the first presidential contest will take place, and I, for one, cannot wait to see who the Koch brothers pick. It is exciting. Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker. Who will finally get that red rose? (LAUGHING) (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: And,now it is the Koch brothers versus Donald Trump. The fight everyone has been waiting for. The Koch brothers who are at least 40 times richer than Donald Trump have no use for him as a presidential candidate. The Koch brothers have in effect declared him one of the obvious losers in the presidential primary by not inviting him to their republican candidate roundup this weekend., where the Koch brothers and other real billionaires will listen to the candidates who will be in effect auditioning for the massive campaign contributions that the Koch brothers and the other rich invited guests can provide to the campaigns. Joining us now, Jeremy Peters, political reporter for the "New York Times." He is also an MSNBC Political Analyst and Ken Vogel, Chief Investigative Reporter for "Politico." Ken, it is a very interesting list of who is in and who is out at the Koch brothers` big show. But, Donald Trump is definitely out. It seems like the Koch brothers would like to get past the Trump phase of this campaign as fast as possible. KEN VOGEL, CHIEF INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER OF "POLITICO": Yes, that is right. And, what is interesting here, Lawrence, is that in some ways being snubbed by the Koch brothers plays right into Donald Trump`s messaging that is, that he is not beholden to big donors unlike his rivals and particularly Jeb Bush, who he has hit over and over again for his fund-raising ability and for raising more than $100 million in the Super Pacs from very wealthy donors. But this is about more than the money. The Koch brothers control really among the most powerful, if not, the most powerful political apparatuses on the right. And, what they are depriving Donald Trump is not just potential to raise big Super Pac contributions from wealthy donors but rather the data that they have assembled and the analytics through this private company I-360, that is controlled by the Koch brothers network as well as the ability to speak to somebody`s grassroots gatherings put on by groups in the Koch`s network. Donald Trump and his campaign have actually asked to be included both in the I-360 data and in some of these grassroots gatherings and been told, no. And, that is something that is more valuable in some ways than money. O`DONNELL: Yes. And, Donald have responded to the snub by the Kochs in a tweet. He said I really like the Koch brothers, but I do not want their money or anything else from them cannot influence Trump. It turns out, Jeremy we just heard he does want something else for him or at least his campaign does, whether they have told Donald that or not. But, the Koch brothers can bury, bury Donald Trump in negative advertising. If it comes to that, if he has to be taken out with negative advertising, they can outspend him like he has never seen. PETERS: I do not think the Koch brothers are the only ones who are capable, or willing and eager to do that. But it certainly -- you do not need the Koch brothers to do that. I think Donald Trump in a lot of ways does that himself with his own words. I do think that as we look at the impact that the Koch brothers are going to have on this election, one of their lasting legacies is going to be this shadow party that they have assembled. As Ken was talking about, they have a very extensive network of not just volunteers but paid staffers and a lot of these early primary states, a lot of swing states like Florida. And, that is something that I think we are going to be talking about long after we finish talking about Donald Trump. O`DONNELL: And, Ken, it looks like the Koch brothers favorite is Scott Walker. How does that affect the others when they go out there knowing that the Koch brothers already have a favorite? VOGEL: Well, it certainly does seem that way. But, I think Marco Rubio in particular has found himself gaining some traction in that network. And, frankly, among large donors really across the conservative political landscape. He has been so acidulous in his courtship of these big donors. He went out to the Koch brothers last seminar in January and really put on a show, impressed a lot of the donors there. And, incidentally, impressed them in a way that Rand Paul, who in some ways would seem to be very well suited to gaining support from that network, the libertarian, sort of philosophy under girding his brand of republicanism does seem to be one that dovetails rather nicely with the Koch brothers. But, he was rather unimpressive out there and a lot of donors felt he was not only unprepared but additionally gave answers that suggested that he was not as closely aligned with them. And, so Marco Rubio, I think surprised a lot of people and has a potential to continue to gain traction this coming weekend out there in Southern California. O`DONNELL: All right, after a pause, we are going to come back and consider someone else who is banned from the Koch brothers big event. But that one, that candidate might not be the loser that the rest of the people on that list turned out to be. That candidate who is banned from the Koch event could possibly be the Republican presidential nominee. That is next. (MUSIC PLAYING) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) O`DONNELL: Which republican candidate for president should the democrats fear the most? The answer is next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) O`DONNELL: It is entirely possible that the winner of the republican presidential nomination will not be on the big debate stage next week in Ohio. Ohio`s Governor, John Kasich, is moving up in the polls but possibly not fast enough to make it in to the top ten for next week`s debate. John Kasich has the most impressive governing resume of any republican candidate by far, and may be the one to watch. He just might be the one to watch when the Trump dust clears. Back with us, Jeremy Peters and Ken Vogel. Ken Vogel, interesting that John Kasich is also banned from the Koch brothers candidate show. What did he do to the Koch brothers? VOGEL: Well, his great hypothesis from their perspective is his support for the expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare in his state, of course, he stood firm and said that this was a decision that he made as a sort of a good faith. He has, actually, invoked his faith in explaining why he did it. He expanded health care access for thousands and thousands of low-income Ohioans and that, nonetheless, was an anathema to the Koch brothers and some of the Koch brothers groups that were active in Ohio, including America`s for prosperity, very vigorously opposed that. John Kasich stood by his guns. That is something that is potential challenge for him with republican based that Medicaid expansion; but I think it probably plays a little better with independent voters, who would obviously be key in a general election. O`DONNELL: Jeremy Peters, John Kasich, according to some democrats is the one they should be the most afraid of, the one they most do not want to see with that nomination because of what Ken just said, there is a possible appeal to independents. He was not one of these hard-core guys on the Obamacare. And, so, he would have an appeal that democrats worry about. And, he is polling ahead of Hillary Clinton in his home state of Ohio. PETERS: He is. You know, I think there are a lot of republicans who are a little bit more appealing to independent swing voters, too. You have -- I mean Jeb Bush who is going to -- of course have a larger appeal to the Hispanics. Marco Rubio, you could say the same thing about. So, I do not think John Kasich by any means has a lock on, you know, the title of the republican that Hillary Clinton should fear most. I do think, though, it will be interesting to see how much more his popularity grows. He has been steadily gaining. Now, he waited a long time to get into the race. And, everyone said that, that would hurt him and it has. But, I was up in New Hampshire on a reporting trip last week, and I started to see the fruits of his, you know, almost $3 million ad buy in that state. He is playing a campaign for New Hampshire. He is not running a national campaign. So, that is why, you know, you are not really seeing his popularity reflected in national polls, but you are seeing it in New Hampshire poll s. And, he is polling up there, whether that is lasting. I do not know. But, he is definitely one to keep your eye on. O`DONNELL: Yes. Ken, in the latest poll in New Hampshire, Kasich is now running third. He has gotten up to 7 percent behind Jeb Bush at 12. In the latest poll there. And, he is doing a pretty heavy T.V. campaign advertising effort up there. I see it on Boston Television, since unfortunately when you are campaigning in New Hampshire, you have to buy expensive Boston T.V. also for the ads. So, he is making his bet on New Hampshire. VOGEL: Yes, and it is a risky strategy. I mean you do not have to look too far back to see a number of other candidates who did similar things. Jon Huntsman comes to mind in 2012, obviously not successful there. This time you have Chris Christie, Carly Fiorina, Rand Paul also betting it all in New Hampshire. So, John Kasich really has to breakthrough there in a big way for this strategy to be successful. O`DONNELL: Ken Vogel and Jeremy Peters, thank you both for joining us tonight. Chris Hayes is up next. END