Summary
GOP turns Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson`s SCOTUS hearing into a political stunt. Rep. James Clyburn on GOP attacks against Judge Jackson. President Biden and U.S. allies reaffirmed their unified support for Ukraine and warned Vladimir Putin against escalating his attacks with chemical weapons. During emergency meetings with NATO, the G7, and the European Union, President Biden pledged to provide more military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine.
Transcript
LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Ali. And thank you once again for your invaluable reporting from Poland. We really appreciate it.
ALI VELSHI, MSNBC HOST: My pleasure. Have a good show.
O`DONNELL: Thank you.
Well, the breaking news of the night about the Supreme Court does not involve Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, but it very much involves South Carolina justice -- Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and his wife, Virginia Thomas, who "The Washington Post" reports was texting White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, after Donald Trump lost the presidential election. Ginni Thomas was urging Mark Meadows to do whatever it takes to overturn that election.
In one text message, Mrs. Thomas said, there are no rules in war. Bob Woodward and Robert Costa reporting for "The Washington Post" broke the story saying the text messages have been obtained by the January six select committee.
Their reporting notes that while Supreme Court justice`s wife was texting the White House about overturning the election, Donald Trump said that in his attempt to overturn the election, quote, we`ll be going to the Supreme Court. And, of course, it was the Supreme Court who decided that those text messages would have to be handed over to the January six committee.
Clarence Thomas dissented in that opinion. Clarence Thomas had a stake in that opinion. Clarence Thomas should`ve been recused. He should`ve recused himself from participating in that opinion.
This is the most outrageous conduct ever documented by the spouse of a Supreme Court justice. And we have not heard one word of objection to that conduct by any of the Republican attackers of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson in the Senate Judiciary Committee. All of the foundational opinions of the United States Supreme Court and its first century of operation, including Marbury versus Madison, which established the courts authority as they are murder of all things constitutional, where wouldn`t by white Christian men at a time when no one else was allowed to compete for seats on the Supreme Court, and none of those Supreme Court justices had confirmation hearings. John Jay, John Marshall, never had to answer a question from a single senator before they were sworn in as chiefs of justice. No one ever questioned the qualifications of the member of the Supreme Court.
For the first 127 years, the Supreme Court was in operation when every member was a white Christian man, and every other kind of person was excluded from that competition. Supreme Court was an extreme form of affirmative action for white, Christian men. Then, in 1916, Senate confirmation hearing was invented for the first Jewish nominee, Harvard Law School graduate Louis Brandeis who was nominated to Supreme Court where some of the members did not graduate from law school. Those confirmation hearings were not about Justice Brandeis is qualifications, they were about venting the prejudices of United States senators. In the end, 22 senators cannot overcome the prejudices and voted against Louis Brandeis, but 47 senators did vote to confirm the highly qualified Justice Brandeis.
This week`s confirmation hearings were held in the spirit of the first confirmation hearings. There are not about qualifications, they were about venting the prejudices and rage of Republican senators who never once questioned Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson qualification for the Supreme Court.
The committee has never held a confirmation hearing for more qualified nominee for the Supreme Court. And yesterday`s most outraged questioners of Judge Jackson proved today how much they don`t care about qualifications by not even showing up for the panel of expert witnesses from the American Bar Association who testified this morning about Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson`s qualifications for the Supreme Court.
Senator Graham didn`t show up. Senator Cruz didn`t show. Senator Hawley didn`t show up. Senator Cotton didn`t show up. They refused even listen to one word about the qualifications of the nominee, which is, theoretically, what`s the hearings are supposed to be all about.
The panel of experts from the American Bar Association was led by the Honorable Ann Claire Williams, a former federal judge who was appointed to the court by Ronald Reagan, Republican voters` most beloved president until Donald Trump stole their hearts.
Judge Williams, who like Ketanji Brown Jackson, served as a trial court judge of the district court and a circuit court of appeals judge explained the American Bar Associations methodology and conclusion in their exhaustive investigation of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson`s qualifications. Here is what Graham, Cruz, Hawley, and Cotton, refused to listen to.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HON. ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION STANDING COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL JUDICIARY: For almost 70 years, the Standing Committee has been asked to present to this committee our peer-reviewed, independent, nonpartisan, comprehensive readings on the professional qualifications of lifetime appointed federal judges.
The Standing Committee is made up of outstanding lawyers from every circuit, with very backgrounds, professional experiences, and practicing in law firms with 6 to 2,000 lawyers. On eight -- March 18th, the standing committee voted unanimously that Judge Jackson earned our highest rating, well qualified for an appointment to the Supreme Court.
Why? Quite frankly, well-qualified was a rating we were compelled to reach after our exhaustive comprehensive peer review. To get that well-qualified rating, a Supreme Court nominee must be preeminent member of the legal profession, have outstanding legal ability, have exceptional breadth of experience, and meet the very highest standards of integrity, professional confidence, and judicial temperament.
Everyone we talked to, interviewed, or had substantive contact with uniformly gave the highest praise, brilliant, beyond reproach, first rate, patient, insightful, impeccable, A+. We contacted more than 2,800 judges and lawyers, including federal judges from 50 states, 13 circuits, 94 districts, as well as states supreme justices, law school dean, and bar associations.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O`DONNELL: They spoke with 2,800 judges, and lawyers, and they created teams to re-judge Jackson`s opinions.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAMS: We created three reading groups to examine over 240 of her published opinions and other writings. Two academic reading groups from the University of Illinois and Stanford co-chaired by each schools dean, working independently, 37 academic experts. An 18-member practitioners reading group reviewed the same writings.
The majority, former law clerk`s two Supreme Court justices, justices appointed by both political parties, most have regularly argued before the Supreme Court. Their words: strikingly talented, even-handed, exceptional, thorough, respectful.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O`DONNELL: There is no higher level of evaluation of a judges work than that.
Jane Veta added this finding in the ABA`s investigation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEAN VETA, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY: As part of our evaluation, we considered whether Judge Jackson demonstrated any bias that favored criminal defendants. Notably, no judge, defense, counsel, or prosecutor expressed any concern in this regard. And they uniformly rejected any accusations of bias. For example, when asked about the allegation that Judge Jackson is soft on crime, one high ranking attorney in the U.S. attorney`s office responded, I vehemently disagree.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O`DONNELL: Joseph Drayton offered more detail about the ABA`s study of Judge Jackson`s writings and then summarize the valuation this way.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOSEPH DRAYTON, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY: Our teams of law professors and legal experts from Stanford Law and the University of Illinois College of Law, as well as practitioners that includes former Supreme Court clerks, law partners, attorneys who worked at the solicited generals office, veteran evaluators of Supreme Court nominees, all of whom were impressed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O`DONNELL: The testimony about Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson`s qualifications was the shortest part of the confirmation hearing today because Supreme Court nomination hearings are not now, and never have been, about qualifications. With Judge Jackson`s qualifications established in the hearing beyond reasonable doubt, the committee moved on to a panel of witnesses, witnesses, some of whom supported the nomination, some of whom oppose the nomination. One of the witnesses chosen by the Republican members of the committee to appear in opposition to the nomination is the Republican attorney general of the state of Alabama, Steve Marshall.
[22:10:03]
Sheldon Whitehouse, a former prosecutor, prosecuted the Republican prosecutor, who clearly did not want to answer these questions under oath.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE (D-RI): Mr. Marshall, you were the chairman of the Republican Chairman`s Association and the Rule of Law Defense Fund in the run up to January 6th assault on the Capitol. And Rule of Law Defense Funds sent robocalls urging recipients to march to the Capitol on January 6th. Were you personally present in Washington D.C. on January 6th?
Your microphone should probably come on.
STEVE MARSHALL (R), ALABAMA STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL: I was not.
WHITEHOUSE: Did RAGA or RLDF have staff present?
MARSHALL: I can`t speak to that. But, Senator, what I can tell, you we denounce lawlessness, and not only is it whatever take place on January six, but also the lawlessness that continues to go on across the country with violent crime. But I would hope is to that part of this hearing, that this body is likewise questioning our nominee about her philosophy on criminal justice as it relates to decisions that will make in the. Court
WHITHOUSE: Did you personally know of or approve the text of the robocall that went out from RLDF?
MARSHALL: No.
WHITEHOUSE: Do you know how that robocall was funded? Was it a specific solicitation made to funded?
MARSHALL: No knowledge.
WHITEHOUSE: No knowledge?
Did you personally solicit funding for that robocall?
MARSHALL: Sir, I`ve made multiple comments here already. The question before this body is the nomination.
WHITEHOUSE: I get to ask questions.
MARSHALL: Yes, sir. And I`m telling you we`ve announced would took place in the days -- continue to
(CROSSTALK)
WHITEHOUSE: RLDF robocall that day. Pretty simple question. Did you personally solicit money to support the robocall that brought people to the Capitol, who then insulted the Capitol?
MARSHALL: No.
WHITEHOUSE: As you sit here, you enjoy the protection of Capitol police officers who are here, and who defended our Capitol against the assault on January 6th by the crowd your organization helped recruit.
Do you have anything to say to them, particularly to those who were injured in the line of duty on that day?
MARSHALL: Sir, I object to the premise of your question somehow that the organization that I was connected with had anything to do with the violence that took place. We denounced the violence before, as I`ve done with you here today.
WHITEHOUSE: Is Joseph R. Biden of Delaware the elected serving president of America?
MARSHALL: He is the president of this country.
WHITEHOUSE: Is he the duly elected and lawfully serving president of the United States?
MARSHALL: He is the president of our country.
WHITEHOUSE: Are you answering that, omitting the language duly elected, and lawfully serving purposefully?
MARSHALL: I`m answering the question. He is the president of the United States.
WHITEHOUSE: And you have no view as to whether he was duly elected or is lawfully serving?
MARSHALL: I`m telling you, he`s the president of the United States.
WHITEHOUSE: No further questions.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O`DONNELL: The prosecutor, who the Republicans flew in from Alabama, could not bring himself to say that Joe Biden is the elected president of the United States -- an election denier under oath in the judiciary committee, for the Republicans. That is the best they could do.
The other thing that election denier could not bring himself to do was identify a single word sentence, paragraph anything, in any, pinion any action taken by Judge Jackson that he specifically objected to. Most of the Republican witnesses today had to admit that they have not read any of Judge Jackson`s opinions. None of the Republican witnesses had the qualifications necessary to say a single word about Judge Jackson`s qualifications.
Joining us now, Melissa Murray, professor of law at New York University and an MSNBC legal analyst. Also with us, Dahlia Lithwick, senior editor and legal correspondent for "Slate" and host of the podcast "Amicus". She is also an MSNBC law and politics analyst.
And, Professor Murray, let me begin with, you and what you saw both in today`s hearing and anything you would like to comment on through the week of hearings.
MELISSA MURRAY, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I was not at all surprised to see former Judge Williams deliver the ABA`s well-qualified rating of Judge Jackson. I think it has been established by her record, her answers during the course of this confirmation, she is an absolutely superb nominee. Perhaps the best nominee we have seen in recent years. I think the treatment that she has received by some members of the Senate really belie the exceptional nature of her own credentials, her own performance before the judiciary committee, and the historical nature of this nomination.
[22:15:14]
So, I give her an A+, I give the Senate judiciary committee, depending on the members, a C minus. It was something of a spectacle, but it wasn`t because of Judge Jackson.
O`DONNELL: Dahlia Lithwick, I have read that your criticism of the Democratic members of the committee not doing the job that they have this week, which I fully agree with. But Sheldon Whitehouse, who is next in line to be chairman for the Democrats, which may take a while. There will come a day when there is a chairman of the White House in that committee, and that is going to be a different day.
LITHWICK, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: Senator Whitehouse was spectacular today. I thought exactly what you thought, that this was the most deathly trap, and he managed to illicit a match exactly when he was able to illicit. Was that the star witness could not concede that the president had been elected. I want to be clear, by no means using Melissa`s ranking system, I`m giving all of the Democrats a D-minus, on everything.
I was frustrated, and that peace reflected that I thought somebody needed to come to Judge Jackson`s rescue, in a passionate, fears, deranged way that somehow mentions the abuse that was heaped on her. I think across the board, the Democrats did really well, it really broke my heart that it took until the end, for Senator Booker from New Jersey to mount the kind of fierce passionate, personal, defense that said Judge Jackson belongs at this table. Everyone here sees that. Thank you for what you have endured.
O`DONNELL: My sense of it is is that Chairman Durbin at the beginning anyway, was hoping that he could get Lindsey Graham`s vote, because she was one of the three Republicans who just voted for Judge Jackson last year to go to the circuit court. It was very clear that, Professor Murray, in the first couple of minutes, Lindsey Graham was going to build his case for voting against this nominee.
MURRAY: I think it was very clear. More than simply building a case, he actually had to manufacture a case for his objection to that superlative nominee. Indeed, a year ago miraculously, he found nothing objectionable about here, and supported her nomination to the circuit court.
So, again, he had to find a reason, and he built it on a foundation of grievances, all the way back to Janice Rodgers Brown, who was a Republican, African American woman who was nominated to the D.C. Circuit. She ultimately did stick on the D.C. Circuit. But he noted that Democrats had given her nomination a hard time.
She was eventually seated, and she did endure some tough questions about her judicial philosophy, but nothing like what we saw today. So, again, lots of grievances, we saw Judge Kavanaugh, and the Kavanaugh confirmation. We heard about the Miguel Estrada, they`re keeping a long laundry list of grievances that they have been nursing for about ten or 20 years.
O`DONNELL: Professor Melissa Murray and Dahlia Lithwick, thank you both very much for starting off our discussion tonight. Thank you.
And, coming up, Congressman James Clyburn supported South Carolina Judge Michelle Childs to be Joe Biden`s first choice to the Supreme Court. South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham said that he would have supported Childs, but now he is attacking Joe Biden`s nominee. South Carolina Congressman James Clyburn will joins us next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:22:33]
O`DONNELL: Republican Senator Lindsey Graham was one of only three come Republicans that voted for the confirmation of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the D.C. District Court of Appeals last year. He made it very clear on his attacks on Judge Jackson during the confirmation hearings that he would judge -- among other things, she is not a person who our next guest James Clyburn hoped President Biden would nominate.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): He had many qualified African-American women to choose from. He chose you. Michelle Childs, district court judge from South Carolina, supported by Jim Clyburn, that was in the mix.
They basically said, if you pick Childs, you may have a primary opponent. The AFL-CIO said Judge Child was a union buster. The attacks from the left against Judge Childs was really pretty vicious, to be honest with you.
There has been a wholesale effort of the left, to take down a nominee from my state. And I don`t like it very much.
Judge Childs would`ve gotten 60 plus votes. There had been people in my caucus, that would have voted for her, even though we knew that she would be a reliable liberal voter, because I and Senator Scott would have stepped up.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O`DONNELL: Today, Garrett Haake asked Lindsey Graham why he voted for Judge Jackson last year.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
GARRETT HAAKE, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Everything you press her on, on the GITMO staff, on the child porn, staff that was all stuff you knew, or you could`ve known, before you voted for her last time.
GRAHAM: I didn`t even go to the hearing. I thought she was qualified to be on the circuit court, this is a different game.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
O`DONNELL: Didn`t even go to the hearing.
Joining us now is Democratic Congressman James Clyburn of South Carolina. He is the House Majority Whip.
Congressman Clyburn, thank you very much for joining us again tonight. Very eager to get your reaction to get what you have seen in these confirmation hearings this week, and particularly, the senior senator from your state, Lindsey Graham, complaining about Joe Biden not choosing a judge from your state.
REP. JAMES CLYBURN (D-SC): Well, thank you very much for having me, Lawrence.
I supported Judge Childs, that wasn`t a name that I had in mind from years ago, when I raised this issue. I raised this issue because in almost 250 years, you never had an African American woman on the Supreme Court of the United States, and I thought it was time to rectify that.
[22:25:11]
So, when I talked to Joe Biden about the issue, I did not have anybody in mind. Now, I put forth Judge Childs`s name, when I saw a dozen or so names out there, I said I got this young lady down here, in South Carolina, that I think is just as qualified as all the others. And so we put our name forward.
And, of course, as you heard, it the final three in this instance. I`m very proud of that.
Now, when I saw some of the questioning coming from the Senate. I was very disappointed because Ketanji Brown Jackson has been imminently qualified person fit for the court. There were others that were well-qualified.
So, this has nothing to do with qualifications, and I had hoped that the hearing would be a little different than it turned out to be. And I`m very disappointed that it devolved to the point that it did.
O`DONNELL: What do you make of Lindsey Graham in this confirmation hearing, for the nominee chosen by the president? One of his angles of attack is, you are not the judge from my state, who I would have supported.
CLYBURN: Well, you know, Lindsey supported Ketanji before. I really thought that he would be voting for her again. He did not get an inkling that he would, not until I saw his questioning on yesterday and the day before. Now, why he got there, I don`t know. I`d like to talk to him and find out exactly what was on his mind.
He did say that he thought some of the attacks made against her were unfair. I think that too. A lot of this is in the business of unfair. I`ve been in this business a long time.
I`m going to get up there and look for (INAUDIBLE), I try to look to survive today and live to fight again. But it may have been unfair, but that doesn`t bother me a whole lot.
O`DONNELL: Where did you learn about Judge Jackson through this hearing process?
CLYBURN: I learned that she is everything that everybody ever said she was. She has handled herself in a remarkable way. I didn`t know a lot about her, background, until this hearing. I found out even more about her background today, after the hearing was over. So, as we said down here in the South, we`ve got some good stock.
O`DONNELL: Congressman James Clyburn, thank you very much for joining us again tonight. We always appreciated. It`s an honor.
CLYBURN: Thank you very much for having me.
O`DONNELL: Thank you.
And coming u, Cal Perry will join us live from Ukraine. We`ll get the latest on sanctions. New sanctions today, including the London Instagram star, who is close enough to the Russian foreign minister to have gotten herself sanctioned today. That`s next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:33:11]
O`DONNELL: Tonight, it has been exactly one month since we, at this hour, announced Vladimir Putin`s invasion of Ukraine.
Exactly one month ago at 10:00 p.m. Rachel Maddow and I were discussing the first word coming from Ukraine about that invasion.
Today President Biden and U.S. allies reaffirmed their unified support for Ukraine and warned Vladimir Putin against escalating his attacks with chemical weapons. During emergency meetings with NATO, the G7, and the European Union, President Biden pledged to provide more military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine.
Ukraine`s President Zelenskyy spoke at the NATO summit.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): The Ukrainian army has been standing firm for months now in (INAUDIBLE) conditions. And I repeat, in order to save our people and our towns, Ukraine needs unlimited military aid like Russia is using all its arsenal - - unlimited arsenal.
NATO can show what NATO can do to save people that it is an effective and the strongest defense alliance of the world. And the world is waiting. And Ukraine is waiting for real actions.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O`DONNELL: President Zelenskyy accused Russia of using phosphorus bombs in Ukraine, which is not banned by international law but could constitute a war crime, if used to target civilians. U.S. and NATO officials have not confirmed that.
NBC News reports the White House has established a team of national security officials to strategize what happens if Russia uses chemical or biological weapons in Ukraine.
[22:34:50]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We would respond. And we would respond if he uses it and the nature of the response will depend on the nature of the use.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O`DONNELL: In coordination with U.S. allies, President Biden announced sanctions against the Russian government, over 300 Russian lawmakers, and over 40 Russian defense companies. One sanctioned rich Russian is 26-year- old Polina Kovaleva, an Instagram star of sorts, living in London, living the high life there.
She is the daughter of a woman who is the partner of Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov. And I say partner because it is unclear if Lavrov has ever divorced his first wife. The British Foreign Office refers to the sanctioned Instagram star as Lavrov stepdaughter.
Ukrainian officials said the military destroyed a Russian landing ship at a port controlled by Russia, a strategic victory that could hamper Russia`s ability to resupply troops. Ukraine`s military continued its gunner offensive, pushing Russian forces farther away from Kyiv on several fronts. Ukraine`s military says that 50,800 Russian soldiers have been killed since the war began.
The UNICEF said that over 4 million children have been displaced by Vladimir Putin`s war. That has so far, according to the official count, killed 128 children.
Today, President Biden announced the U.S. will accept 100,000 Ukrainian refugees and provide $1 billion in humanitarian assistance.
In a new video addressing his country tonight, President Zelenskyy said, quote, "With each day of our defense, we are bringing the peace that we need so much closer. We are approaching this victory because, in this war, it is simply impossible without victory. So, it will be.
And you cannot stop for a minute because every minute is about our destiny, it is about our future, about whether we live. 30th day, it`s been a month.
If Russia knew what awaited them, I`m sure they would have been afraid to come here."
We`re joined now by NBC News correspondent Cal Perry in Lviv, Ukraine. Cal, exactly one month in. What is the situation tonight?
CAL PERRY, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: I don`t think anyone could`ve imagined that we would be here. Certainly not President Zelenskyy who was downplaying this war right up until it started. Downplaying U.S. intelligence and here we are, a month later.
We can show some video from the western part of Kyiv. Ukrainian forces are on the move. This is the only part of the front lines that is no longer static. And it`s because Ukrainian forces are punching through those Russian lines.
The United Kingdom ministry of defense says that video you are looking at right there, it`s possible that Ukrainian forces will be able to encircle large groups of Russian soldiers, bringing up that toll of prisoners of war.
In the city of Mariupol, we continue to see devastation and destruction. And we need to start talking more and more about the reports we are hearing from the Ukrainian government that Russian forces are forcibly making people move to Russia. That they are actually forcibly deporting thousands of Ukrainian citizens and making their move to Russia.
Those folks who are standing in line trying to get supplies while their family members are taken from them to Russia.
Here in the city of Kyiv, we are seeing what we have been seeing for the past month. Supplies coming flowing across the border from Poland, as countries continue to sort of supply those frontline fighters, while doing so, Lawrence, indirectly. Using NGOs, using different groups to bring those supplies across because, of course, the Russians and the Russian military has threatened any country who supplies direct support, any NATO nation that they could fall under attack.
So the video you`re seeing there from an NGO, Lithuanians that came out en masse to bring that gear across, right there, that is an anti-drone weapon. They are trying to get that to Kharkiv where we are seeing the Russians use those drones.
And finally, Lawrence, one month off in this war, the highest cost is being paid by civilians and certainly refugees. Now more than 4 million people have fled this country. More than half of Ukraine`s children have been displaced. One in four Ukrainians has had their lives completely upended, Lawrence.
O`DONNELL: Cal Perry, thank you once again for your reporting. And please stay safe.
And joining us now, Rick Stengel, former under secretary of state in the Obama administration. He`s an MSNBC political analyst. Also with us Edward Fishman, who served as Russia sanctions lead at the State Department.
Rick Stengel, let me begin with you and what we saw today at that summit with President Biden and the continued and consistent unity of NATO and European partners.
RICK STENGEL, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes Lawrence, continued and consistent. President Biden is keeping the band together. But he`s got to push it forward. He`s got to get things to be a little bit more serious.
I hope the message from NATO and from President Biden to President Putin is this. Look, you can`t win this war. We are not going to let you win this war. So you need to sue for peace. You need to think about what you can do to settle things so that you can save some face in your country and preserve the integrity of Ukraine.
[22:40:01]
STENGEL: I hope that`s what`s happening. The talk has to be tougher. NATO and the U.S. have to be more aggressive. Every time we say that we will defend every square inch of NATO territory, Putin here is, well, I guess the rest is for me. We have to tell him, he`s not going to win in Ukraine. We`re not going to let you win Ukraine. You`ve got to figure out a peace deal.
O`DONNELL: Edward Fishman, what did we see that was new in the sanctions today?
EDWARD FISHMAN, FORMER RUSSIA SANCTIONS LEAD AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT: Sure, Lawrence, I think that today`s sanctions really did tighten the screws on Russia`s economy.
We heard the headlines about the 300 Duma members, we saw Russian defense companies. But I think the real major action today was actually taken by the United Kingdom. The U.K. slapped sanctions on Sovcomflot, which is Russia`s largest state-owned shipping company as well as Gazprombank which is Russia`s state-owned bank but actually receives Russia`s oil and gas revenues.
What the U.K. did tonight, Lawrence, it struck at the heart of Russia`s oil sales. This is an area that the U.S. and Europe have not really touched thus far. Yes, the United States has a domestic oil embargo on Russia but that`s just a drop in the bucket.
Oil remains the lifeblood of Putin`s economy Putin continues to make billions of dollars every week selling oil. And I think today was really the first step that was taken by the United Kingdom to actually tell Putin that no, not even your oil sales are off limits and the west is going to start sanctioning Russian oil sales.
I sincerely hope that the Biden administration and the European Union join the United Kingdom in this strong action in the days and weeks ahead.
O`DONNELL: Rick Stengel, the sanctions again expressed the unity of this group in a way that was not anticipated 30 days ago.
STENGEL: Yes. And one of the things about the sanctions that the White House is talking about is, they are going by sector. One of the things that they did today was they were sectoral sanctions against defense manufacturers in Russia. The sanctions are going to be comprehensive and will kind of tighten the noose around Putin so that he can`t operate.
But the other thing is though, in terms of what I was saying before about being more aggressive. I mean the cupboard will eventually be bare. I mean I would love, I agree with Edward, we should cut oil shipments from Russia to Europe. It doesn`t matter oil shipments to America. Only 4 percent of our oil and gas comes from Russia.
But in the European Union, it`s something like 40 percent so we need to get tougher about that. We need to really empty the cupboard and really get Putin to say, look, if you continue this, your country will be absolutely devastated.
O`DONNELL: Edward Fishman, in the sanctions regimes that we have applied now and in the past, is there a sense among you people who have operated these sanctions that there is a targeted pressure that can individually be brought to Vladimir Putin, as long as you sanction the correct individuals?
FISHMAN: Lawrence, I think at this point, we are really trying to go after Putin with all vectors of attack. So I think one of those, as you`ve discussed in the past, is the oligarchs. Certainly the very wealthy Russians as well as the celebrity (ph) who are these Putin cronies, you know, senior Kremlin officials who Putin has known since his days in St. Petersburg. They are one potential vector of influence.
But I think another even more important vector of influence is the Russian economy as a whole. Remember Lawrence, Putin treats the entire Russian economy as his personal piggy bank. So every single billion dollar of payment that is made for Russian oil, that is going to Vladimir Putin. That is strengthening Putin`s regime and is strengthening Putin`s military machine.
So I think the first and foremost purpose of the sanctions is to apply this political pressure to Putin and to try to sue for peace, as Rick put it.
But I think there`s also a secondary purpose. Even if Putin`s calculus can`t be changed, even if Putin is unhinged, and is determined to continue this war, sanctions will degrade Russia`s capacity to do harm. They will degrade Russia`s military machine and technological apparatus so that its military machine in the future won`t be able to have attacks like they have had on Ukraine.
So I think there`s a practical purpose to sanctions, even if they don`t change Putin`s calculus.
O`DONNELL: Edward Fishman and Rick Stengel, thank you both for joining our discussion tonight.
And coming up, we`ll get a live report from Kyiv, next.
[22:44:22]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O`DONNELL: The Ukrainian military appears to be making more progress in efforts to defend Kyiv. Over the past two days, they have driven back Russian forces that had been approaching Kyiv from the east.
Ukrainian and American defense officials tell NBC News that Ukraine has regained 22 miles of territory. Despite the progress on the ground Vladimir Putin`s military continues to shell the Ukrainian capital.
NBC News chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel visited the Kyiv municipal clinic in the northern area of the city and spoke to a doctor about the types of injuries he is seeing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DR. DENIS REIZIN, DEPUTY HEAD OF SURGERY DEPT, KYIV MUNICIPAL CLINIC: It is a very big injuries of the body, injuries of abdomen, of the chest, of the brain, of the limbs. It is a terrible trauma. Very big. People without legs, without arms.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[22:49:58]
O`DONNELL: Joining us now from Kyiv, Andriy Kulikov, a Ukrainian radio reporter, who has joined us before.
Andriy, the reports indicate that the Ukrainian military is having more success around Kyiv. Does it feel safer there?
ANDRIY KULIKOV, UKRAINIAN RADIO REPORTER: On the one hand, yes, because even from my own sources, for my (INAUDIBLE), I get similar reports.
On the other hand, the fact that Ukrainians were able to repel Russians from the capital, on some directions left to the (INAUDIBLE) requiring shelling and bombing of the city.
And yesterday, seven hours ago, we were warned by our mayor`s office that we would shut the windows and try to drink more water because for two days, the air in the city has become extremely polluted.
And even the dusk fell something like an hour earlier than usual, because we had so much soot and smoke in the air. And this is because there are fires in many places of the city, and also fires -- huge fires on the territory on the Kyiv region.
The key players are (INAUDIBLE) and there are forest fires in Chernobyl nuclear power plant station zone.
O`DONNELL: Is there any estimate of how much of the civilian population remains in Kyiv, the way you are remaining in Kyiv?
KULIKOV: There are no official figure, but the figure is actually dwindling. One day more, one day less. I can quote my brother who went to Austria six days ago. But he could not stay there, although he lived in a nice hotel, I had some photos from him.
Yesterday morning he wrote to me, I`m coming back. And at the moment, he is in one of the westernmost cities of Ukraine, and he plans to be in here tonight by our time.
People are moving to and from but from my own observation, I felt that probably one-third of the people are in Kyiv. Not counting the military and our territorial defense and in some places you can see quite a lovely -- lively atmosphere, like for instance in the left bank of Dnipro, exactly in the direction where the Russians were held.
I had conversations with my friend who is still there, and he said that yesterday, for instance, in the day before yesterday, there was quite a number of people in the street. Just taking an opportunity to take a walk when the danger became less.
O`DONNELL: Andriy Kulikov, Thank you very much for joining us again tonight. Your reports are invaluable to us. Thank you very much, and we hope you stay safe.
KULIKOV: I will do my best to.
O`DONNELL: Thank you.
Tonight`s LAST WORD is next on a day when March For Our Lives went to Washington once again.
[22:53:25]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O`DONNELL: On Valentine`s Day, 2018, 14 students and three adults were shot and murdered by an 18 year old former student at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.
Four years ago today, Parkland High School students who survived that shooting organized the first ever March For Our Lives800,000 people attended the Washington D.C. rally. One of the largest in the city`s history. Those of us who were there will never forget it.
In the four years since the mass murder in Parkland, March For Our Lives organizers say that 170,000 people in the United States have died from gun violence.
Today, March For Our Lives returned to the National Mall with a message for Congress.
Using 1,100 body bags that represent over 100 people each, they spelled out, "Thoughts and prayers" on the National Mall. "Thoughts and prayers" because that is all Congress has been able to offer the victims of gun violence in America.
March For Our Lives cofounder David Hogg, now a student at Harvard College, said this today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVID HOGG, CO FOUNDER, MARCH FOR OUR LIVES: What`s is unacceptable to me is when we started, we did not have a majority in the House, the Senate, or the White House. Despite changing all of those things in four years, which had not happened in a decade, still, not a single law has passed, because of the filibuster.
The thing that bothers me and worries me deeply, is that I used to think to myself, what are we not doing right. What is the movement not doing right? Why aren`t we succeeding? Why are millions of people marching in D.C. enough to get people in Congress to change how they act on this issue?
I mean it already is -- the movement is not broken, young people aren`t broken, survivors aren`t broken. Our government is broken.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[22:59:55]
O`DONNELL: David Hogg gets tonight`s LAST WORD.
"THE 11TH HOUR WITH STEPHANIE RUHLE" starts now.
STEPHANIE RULE, MSNBC HOST: Tonight, one month of war.