Top Story with Tom Llamas - Thursday, February 8, 2024

Episode Date: February 9, 2024

Tonight's Top Story has the latest breaking news, political headlines, news from overseas and the best NBC News reporting from across the country and around the world.

And good evening. President Biden will face no criminal charges over his handling of classified documents. But the special counsel report raises major concern, saying Biden's practices, quote, present serious risks to national security. They added that the president showed diminished faculties in faulty memory when he was interviewed, adding that if they were to bring charges, Biden would likely present himself to a jury as a sympathetic, well-meaning, well-mean elderly man with a poor memory. These are some of the pictures from that report boxes in the president's Delaware garage,

some containing classified documents related to Afghanistan. Agents discovered numerous documents in unlocked and unauthorized locations. This filing cabinet containing daily memo notebooks from when Biden was vice president. Former President Trump weighing in saying, quote, this has now proven to be a two-tiered system

of justice and unconstitutional selective prosecution. The report lays out the differences between Trump and Biden's classified document investigations, arguing Trump allegedly obstructed justice after being given chances more than once to return those documents. And tonight, President Biden giving rare remarks at the White House. NBC's Gabe Gutierrez has it all. Tonight, the long-awaited report by special counsel Robert Herr concludes that no criminal charges against President Biden are warranted. But the investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen, including

marked classified documents about Afghanistan and notebooks with sensitive intelligence sources and methods which he shared with a ghostwriter. The report says that pose serious risks to national security. And at a time when polls show, most Americans have concerns about the 81-year-old president's mental and physical health, the special counsel's report offers scathing details of what it calls his diminished faculties and faulty memory. Writing, if charged, Mr. Biden will likely present himself to the jury, as he did during his interview with our office, as a sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory.

It would be difficult to convince a jury they should convict him. According to the report, Mr. Biden did not remember when he was vice president, forgetting on the first day of the interview when his term ended, and forgetting on the second day of the interview when his term began. He did not remember, even within several years, when his son Bo died. How in the hell dare he raised that? Frankly, when I was asked the question I thought to myself, it wasn't any of their damn business. I don't need anyone to remind me when he passed away. After in the press conference, President Biden referring to the President of Egypt as the president of Mexico. As you know, initially the president of Mexico, Sisi, did not want to open up

the gate to allow humanitarian material to get in. The extraordinary circumstances here require the appointment of a special counsel. Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed the special counsel in January of last year after President Biden's attorneys first discovered classified documents at one of his former offices on November 2nd, 2022. The White House waited until after the midterm elections to tell the public. And the report includes these photos of where prosecutors say more classified documents were improperly stored in a badly damaged box near a collapsed dog crate in Mr. Biden's Delaware garage. A separate special counsel investigated former President Trump for allegedly mishandling classified documents found that his Mar-a-Lago estate.

Some boxes found inside a bathroom. Mr. Trump was charged with 40 criminal counts to which he's pleaded not guilty. Tonight, the former president is calling the lack of charges in the her report a two-tiered system of justice. But the report argues that two cases are different. And that while Mr. Trump was given multiple chances to return classified documents, he allegedly did the opposite and obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence. In contrast, the report says Mr. Biden alerted authorities. The president says he cooperated completely. All right, with that, Gabe Gutierrez joins us now live from the White House North Lawn. Gabe, I know you have some new reporting. I want to go back to something that you highlighted in your piece that the special counsel in the report said.

They said this. Let's put it on the screen here. Mr. Biden, quote, did not remember when he was vice president, forgetting on the first day of the interview when his term ended and forgetting on the second day of his interview when his term began. He did not remember even within several years when his son Bo died. So, Gabe, and I know you have the new reporting on this. How is the White House, or rather the re-election team, responding to this? Well, Tom, as he just heard, the president is trying to play up the fact that there were no criminal charges. But as you said, it is hard to ignore that point. The president's attorney is calling the report investigative excess, basically that the special counsel took cheap shots.

A source close to the campaign tells me GOP attacks on the president's age are nothing new. And Democrats are arguing Robert Herr is not a doctor, so it's inappropriate for him to determine the president's fitness. Still clearly, this will be another challenge that Biden campaign faces, Tom. Yeah, we're going to talk about that in a moment. You also mentioned former President Trump's legal troubles. When is the next court date over his classified documents case down in Florida coming up? Well, Tom, that case is scheduled to go to trial in May, but that could change depending on a scheduling conference in March.

But, Tom, the Trump campaign is already having a field day with this report. The former president is renewing calls for special counsel, Jack Smith, to drop his case immediately. Gabe Gutierrez for us tonight. Gabe, we appreciate that. For more on the report and what it means for President Biden, moving forward. I'm joined tonight by Katie Tchaikaski. She's a former federal prosecutor and criminal defense attorney. And Julia Manchester, she's a political reporter at the Hill, and NBC News White House reporter Catherine Doyle,

who just posted a story with a team of ours from Washington about the political fallout of the document on NBCNews.com. We thank you all for joining Top Story tonight. Katie, I'm going to start with you. At the heart of this issue are two things, right? whether or not Biden willfully disclosed about the classified documents. I want to put on the screen here what came out of the special counsel's report. And basically what they're saying is that there was evidence that when Mr. Biden decided to post this up here,

and I'm just going to grab my notes here, he willfully retained his classified notebooks. That is, he knew he kept classified information in notebooks stored in his house, and he knew he was not allowed to do so. They go on to say we conclude that this evidence does not establish Mr. Biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We therefore declined prosecution of Mr. Biden based on his retention of his notebooks and disclosure of information in them. Katie, explain what they meant there, the legal argument for this. Well, it's actually really interesting because under the federal statute, in order to have a completed offense of retention of classified documents, you really only need to remove them with the intent to retain them, and that is the complete offense at that time.

It doesn't take into account your state of mind down the road or at the present moment, but really at the time that the offense was committed. Essentially, what Robert Hur was saying here, though, is that even though they do have essentially enough evidence to meet the elements of that statute, that they feel that a prosecution could result in an acquittal because there is some reasonable doubt about some of his state of mind down the road and maybe even at the time, given his status, working for the government. So it's kind of a circular argument. Ultimately, prosecutors have discretion, even when they do have evidence that meets the elements of a statute and they could indict, but they chose not to do that here. Right. So they said he did it, but they chose not to indict, not to criminally charge him. And here's the reason why the special counsel also wrote about this. I want you to walk us through this. They addressed the likelihood of Biden ever facing prison time or fine, saying, quote, and this is it here, at the time of any trial or sentencing Mr. Biden would be well into his 80s at an age when relatively few people are prosecuted. He has no criminal record, and he is highly unlikely to be sentenced to prison or assessed a significant fine. Mr. Biden has served the nation for nearly 50 years as president and vice president of the U.S.

Unbalance, his record of service also supports a decision to forego criminal charges. What do you make of that argument as well? Did they somewhat feel sorry for him or they just didn't think that he deserved to be charged? I think that they didn't want to open the can of worms of indicting him on this. I think that on a prosecutorial analysis, they certainly could have. And those considerations are really not directly applicable to whether there is probable cause, which is the standard you need to act. actually indict, but certainly they've raised some concerns about proceeding practical considerations,

really, but they're not really legal considerations per se. So legally a great outcome for the president, politically not the same. Julie, I want to bring you into this part of the conversation. This is what the special counsel had to say about Biden when they were interviewing him, and this is the political fallout from this. Mr. Biden, quote, would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview with him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory. How do you think this affects Biden politically when focus groups, the first word that they usually say, according to NBC News is reporting, when Democratic focus groups, when they ask voters how to describe President Biden, the first word they say is old. And poll after poll has concerns

over his age. Well, Tom, it certainly gives father to his opponents. And we know that a pro-Trump super PAC is already pouncing on this, you know, talking about his age and how he was described. And You know, Nikki Haley, he's still in the Republican primary, and polls show her in a head-to-head matchup with Biden, beating Biden. She has also pounced on the president's age as well as the former president's age in a recent ad campaign, calling them grumpy old men. So this is something that I think, you know, politically, definitely is not a victory for him. On top of that, we heard in some of his reaction to this report, President Biden, talking about how he was able to, you know, do these interviews. on October 8th and October 9. That's important because that's a day, two days after the October 7th attack on Israel. Now, Biden said he obviously had a lot going on and he was able to cooperate

despite, you know, his government and, you know, national security apparatus and such being very much consumed by that. But at the same time, I think critics could probably look at that and say, you know, this attack had happened and you were taking part in this interview and there were questions about your memory and maybe your cognitive awareness in those that interview. So I don't think it's politically great for the president. I'm not surprised the White House is very much hitting back on this, but expect Trump and Haley to definitely zero in on it. Catherine, you and our team in Washington have just dropped a very big story on NBCNews.com. I want to put it up on the screen now for our viewers so they can see the headline.

It reads a nightmare special counsel's assessment of Biden's mental, fitness triggers Democratic panic. I want to read a portion here because this is just very, the reporting is incredible here. This is a quote. This is beyond devastating, said another Democratic operative speaking on condition of anonymity to talk candidly about Biden's shortcomings. It confirms every doubt and concern that the voters have. If the only reason that didn't change is because he's too old to be charged, then how can he be president of the United States? Asked if hers report changes the calculus for Democrats who expect Biden to be the party's nominee, said, quote, how the F does it not?

Another Biden ally called it, quote, the worst day of his presidency. Catherine, talk to us more about some of NBC News's reporting now in the political fallout. Politically, it's a devastating report for Biden. His allies, even some in the House, allies across the country are figuring out how to respond to this, how they can defend him in an upcoming election year where he's going up against Trump and voters are already concerned about his age, and they're seeing him on the road occasionally, but they want to see more of him. And his allies are wondering how they can tell voters that even with a prosecutor, even with a report like this,

talking about his faculties, they can defend him and say that he's capable of running and serving his president for four more years. I mean, we heard from sources who described the report as a nightmare. They called it devastating. Another Biden ally called it the worst day of his presidency, which is a pretty damning assessment given some of the things that have happened over the last years. And one of them said that they really, he needs to come out and show that this is a false characterization if that's how they feel they need to respond to it.

And to do that, he needs to appear before the public and really rebutts, of the assessments that appeared in the report concerning his. Yeah, yeah, Catherine, no, no, all important reporting there. Julia, I do want to ask you, the New York Times just has a story up now as well. Legal exoneration, political nightmare. There's still 270 days to go until the election, right? Voters tend to forget things at times. Will they forget this?

Will this just be a moment in time and we'll move on? Or do you think this sticks to Biden over the next few months as we head into November? Yeah, Tom, I don't think they're going to forget this. because Republicans and President Biden's opponents won't let them forget it. They're going to be running this in ads and, you know, bringing it up in interviews. Trump's going to continue to be talking about it. I think the White House, their strategy, is to hit back in terms of talking about the president's achievements and his record in the White House and even as vice president. So, you know, they're not going to, they're not going to be able to forget this.

There's just so many instances, even earlier this week of President Biden, mixing up Angela Merkel for a former chancellor of Germany, you know, in so many instances of him having these missteps that it's very easy to put together opposition research, an ad, you know, what have you, on the president and to make this case about his age. You know, Katie, I know you're here for the legal perspective, but the story has sort of become the political fallout here. And as we heard in Gabe's report, they're already attacking the special counsel, Robert Hur, essentially saying a couple of things. One, he would appointed by former President Trump, but a reminder, he was also appointed by Merrick Garland,

right, the AG. And then you also have, obviously, the point that he's not a doctor, so he can't really diagnose any kind of mental capability. From reading the report by the special counsel, what was your take? Did you find it to be biased or was it fair? Well, the reality is that a lot of people are going to see this as special treatment, especially when President Trump is facing very similar allegations that President Biden could pardon him for at this point. In terms of the analysis of Biden's mental health and facilities or faculties, I think that her was actually throwing him a bone because in order to explain why there was potentially reasonable doubt in the case, and in order to justify, not indicting, he had to give some sort

of explanation about that. And a large part of his report relied upon the idea that Biden would present to the jury in a manner that was confused. They couldn't establish the intent, the mens rea of the offense, and a lot of problems with prosecutions come about with the intense element. So, I mean, in a sense, I think that that was the best way he could actually throw him that bone and not recommend prosecution here. So to be clear, did the special counsel do anything that was unethical or anything that was out of bounds by talking about the memory gaps and then talking about the sympathy issue with the jury? Not in my view. I think that that was a reasonable explanation. He had to go through detailed analysis about what he thought about

prosecuting this case. And not only was there a probable cause, because obviously there is, but can you get a conviction here? What is this going to look like? in a trial. And that's a practical question for him to analyze if he's going to move forward, especially with a sitting president, and former president, as it were. Our great legal analyst, Danny Savalos, here at NBC, he always likes to remind us that federal prosecutors only bring cases they know that they're going to win. They usually win, I think, more than 90 percent is what he says usually on our show. And we're going to hear from Danny in a second.

But I want to ask you, do you think it was a fair assessment if they would have brought this case to a jury they would have lost? Not necessarily. That's not my view at all. I think that it's very clear that they can meet the elements of those offenses. You think they could have gotten a guilty verdict? They could have very well, because I've prosecuted classified cases. There are many lower-level executive branch employees that retain classified information, and they prosecute them all the time.

And so certainly, there is absolutely a basis to proceed with something like this. Now, when you have something... Wait, so are you surprised they didn't bring the case then? Not necessarily because there are so many considerations with his status. And a big part of hers justification was that because he had been working in the government for so long, he had had access to these things for so long. He was subject to a security clearance. He's subject to the rules that are required to keep classified information in secure areas.

And so that establishes the actual elements of the offense. But certainly because the report explains, there's many other considerations aside from just the bare minimum evidence for those things. Katie, Julia, Catherine, we thank you all for joining Top Story tonight. There was a lot to get to there. We appreciate it all. Still a lot to get to in this show. We turn out of the other big headline today, the Supreme Court hearing arguments about whether Colorado can ban Republican frontrunner Donald Trump from the ballot.

The justice is sounding skeptical after a day of arguments. NBC's Laura Jarrett has more. Tonight, the Supreme Court weighing a monumental decision that could decide the presidential election, whether Republican frontrunner Donald Trump should be banned from the ballot. But many of the justices today seeming highly skeptical of Colorado's decision to disqualify him. It just doesn't seem like a state call. The justices forced to grapple with Mr.

Trump's eligibility for office after six voters in Colorado successfully sued to get him removed from the state's primary ballot by pointing to his actions on January 6 and a provision in the 14th Amendment that disqualifies those who engaged in insurrection or rebellion from holding public office again. The attack was incited by a sitting president of the United States to disrupt the peaceful transfer of presidential power. All nine justices, both conservative and liberal, appearing to bristle at the potential far-reaching consequences of Colorado's argument. The question that you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States.

That seems quite extraordinary, doesn't it? Chief Justice John Roberts later raising the idea of the 14th Amendment being used as a political weapon by Democrats and Republicans alike. It'll come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the president. election. That's a pretty daunting consequence. Mr. Trump's lawyer arguing Congress, not states, must decide who's eligible for the presidency, and that the former president did not engage in insurrection. This was a riot. It was not an insurrection. The events were shameful, criminal, violent, all of those things, but it did not qualify as insurrection.

But 91-year-old Norma Anderson, one of the voters who brought the case, says she's not backing down, even if she loses. We just have to work hard to beat Donald Trump because he will destroy our democracy. At the ballot box as opposed to at the courthouse. Mr. Trump also reacting to today's oral arguments. I thought our arguments were very, very strong. Can you take the person that's leading everywhere and say, hey, we're not going to let you run? You know, I think that's pretty tough to do, but I'm leaving it up to the Supreme Court.

Laura joins us outside the Supreme Court tonight. So, Laura, we know sometimes it can take time for the Supreme Court to reach a decision, but this one may come a little faster? Oh, I think for sure, Tom. The justices are well aware of the political calendar, just as any of us are. We know that Super Tuesday is just around the corner on March 5th when dozens of states, including in Colorado and Maine, which have tried to disqualify the former president from the ballot, are set to go forward.

So I imagine we are going to see a decision well before then. And then, Laura, if you can explain to our viewers, to be clear, We saw this ruling in the state Supreme Court in Colorado and also Maine. When the Supreme Court makes this decision, will it be a blanket ruling and affect all of our states? It's one of the things I'm going to be looking for to see just how sweeping it might be, Tom. You can imagine a situation in which they realize that there are dozens upon dozens of lawsuits coming behind this one in Colorado. And so if they decide to rule in the former president's favor, they might not want this issue to come back up. And so they're going to want to resolve it for all states.

Okay, Laura, Jared, at the Supreme Court for us tonight. Laura, thank you for that. For more on this historical Supreme Court case, I want to bring an NBC News legal analyst, Danny Savalos. Danny, I want to listen to some more sound from the courtroom today as I'm getting handed some notes here over what we're about to see. I want to talk about insurrection, right? Because a couple of the justices had questions about whether this was even an insurrection.

Let's listen. If we review the facts, essentially de novo, you want us all to just watch the video of the ellipse and then make a decision without any deference to or guidance from lower court fact finding, that's unusual. If the concern you have, which I understand, is that insurrectionists should not be able to hold federal office, there is a tool to ensure that that does not happen, namely federal prosecution of insurrectionists.

And if convicted, Congress made clear you are automatically barred from holding a federal office. So I didn't go to law school, but tell me if I'm understanding the arguments here. the attorneys for the state of Colorado, essentially, he hasn't been prosecuted yet. He hasn't been found guilty of being an insurrectionist yet. How can he then be an insurrectionist? Yeah, these are both really versions. They address different issues, but they can be boiled down to really the same theme, which is it's a familiar Kavanaugh refrain, which is who decides.

So in the Amy Coney-Barritt portion, you see her asking about, do we look at this de novo? She's saying essentially, well, how do we analyze whether the district court got it right? But remember, appellate courts do not normally reevaluate the conclusion that the district court arrived at as to the facts. The facts are essentially set in stone by the time you get to the appellate court. So Amy Coney-Barritt is saying, well, what tests are you asking us to apply? You're asking us to look at the district court's facts de novo? That's not really what we do.

At some point, one of the justices said, do we have our own mini trial here at the Supreme Court, which happens, actually, not to get into it, it can happen in the Supreme Court, but extremely rarely, and not in this circumstance. And then you have Kavanaugh asking a similar question. Well, what is insurrection? Does it require conviction under a separate federal insurrection statute? Or can you just say, hey, I'm a secretary of state, and I now deem that you committed insurrection? It all comes back to who decides in very complex analyses that we heard today.

But that's really how you boil down. Who says thou art an insurrectionist? Right. I want to get our next soundbite ready to go. It's going to be from Chief Justice John Roberts, but I want you to set it up here. This is where essentially a Chief Justice asks, if we rule on this, there's going to be a precedent here, and it could affect elections through the rest of time. Let's listen to it. I would expect that a goodly number of states will say, whoever the Democratic candidate is, you're off the ballot, and others for the Republican candidate, you're off the ballot. It'll come down to just a handful of states that are

going to decide the presidential election. That's a pretty daunting consequence. Well, certainly, Your Honor, the fact that there are potential frivolous applications of a constitutional provision isn't a reason. Well, no, hold on. I mean, you might think you're frivolous, but the people who are bringing them may not think they're frivolous. Walk us through this, Danny. What do we just witness there? Yeah, I think Justice Roberts is concerned, really, that if they decide in favor of keeping the Colorado Supreme Court decision, does it mean that every state, depending on whether they're run by a Democrat or Republican, we can just expect that there will be no of the opposite party on the ballot in that state and no candidate

for president from the opposite party on that state. And I think the attorney's response, I think, was, look, sometimes you get confronted with a tough question. This was a tough question. And the response, Justice Roberts saw right away that it wasn't a strong one. And because you can't just say, hey, well, if that happened, it would be frivolous. Yeah, well, just because you think it might be frivolous doesn't mean that people won't bring that case and the result won't happen. In other words, a safeguard against this rule isn't simply saying, oh, it won't happen. There's nothing to worry about because that would be frivolous. Hey, people bring a lot of frivolous litigation. What is frivolous to you isn't frivolous to somebody else. And nowhere

is that truth more stark and more true than with people of opposite parties. Who had the better day today in court? Unquestionably, the Trump team. And I think, Not because the lawyers all did a fine job. I think that ultimately there are too many opportunities for the court to find in favor of Trump. And on the contrary, for the Colorado Supreme Court decision to stand, too many things have to go right for them, if that makes sense. That being said, this was the question I was setting you up for, was that Team Trump today at the Supreme Court was much different than Team Trump in New York, in Florida. I mean, the president wasn't there. The former president wasn't there.

First of all, there was no sort of outburst. It seemed like his attorney, who was defending his case, was on top of everything, was respectful of the justices. Is this something the former president you think is going to pick up on? You probably can't answer that. But talk to me about stylistically the difference between this and some of his other court cases. I don't think Trump, I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't even listen live. I don't think he takes any cues from his attorneys. I agree with you that his attorney took what I think was a very effective approach, which was he made concessions.

And look, I've done appellate court arguments. It's one of the scariest things that you can do because a smart judge will hone in on the weakness of your case and ask you questions, set a trap. And he did something that very few attorneys do that I found admirable. He made concessions. He essentially said, look, I agree that what we're urging here is a strange outcome.

For example, that everybody else in the federal government could be barred from holding office except the most important office. That may be an outcome, but guess what? legislation, including amendments, they often go through, and they're weirdly worded, and they result in weird effects or weird outcomes. And that may be the case here. Strange it is, as it is, blame the framers. He didn't say that, but I'm paraphrasing what he was saying.

I thought that was a really important moment of honesty. I think the justices, if you listen back, I think they reacted well to that. And I think they were a little tougher on the other side. But I think the other side had a harder argument to make. Okay, Danny Savalos, always great to have you here. We appreciate it. When we come back, an NBC News exclusive, you'll first see here on Top Story. Five women who were sexually assaulted by a New York OBGYN, sitting down with our Ellison Barber.

The reports and pleas, they say, were ignored, allowing him to prey on hundreds of women for decades. This is a story you're not going to want to miss. Plus, a tragic update on the Marines who went missing in a helicopter crash in California. The grim recovery operation. underway. And Trader Joe's customers listen up the nationwide health alert about a product that may be in your freezer right now and could possibly contain rocks. We're going to explain. We'll have the details next. Back now with an NBC News exclusive, you're seeing first on top story. Former New York City

OBGYN, Robert Haddon, convicted of taking advantage of women when they were most vulnerable. sexually assaulting them under the guise of medical care while working at a prestigious hospital here in New York for more than two decades. Tonight, for the first time, we're hearing from a group of women who finally put a stop to it. They sat down with our Ellis and Barbara to share their stories.

We want to warn you, the details are disturbing. I just thought no one was going to believe me. I was assaulted by my gynecologist. I was molested by Robert Haddon in 1993. Two days before the birth of my son, he sexually assaulted me. What is shocking to me is how little accountability there has been. Yeah, hi, Lori. It's Dr. Haddon calling. You know, I just got word that you called the office and you're upset and you're calling the police.

What the heck happened? What's going on? That's a voicemail from Laurie Kinyak's then gynecologist, Columbia University Dr. Robert hadn't. When he left, just hours after sexually assaulting her at a postpartum checkup. Please, can we talk? I'm very upset. I don't know what's going on. So please, please, please call me back. There was no one else in the room. I was naked in a paper gown, and here's a man that had the guts to orally assault me. All these things go through your mind. Who do I speak to? How do I get out of here? who's going to believe me. It's my word against his. But Kenyak's word was the truth. She contacted the police and set off a decade-long struggle for justice.

A disgraced doctor will be trading in his hospital scrubs for a prison jumpsuit. Robert Haddon was sentenced to 20 years behind bars today. In the end, it wasn't just her word against his. More than 700 women came forward to say they too were abused by the OBGYN over the course of his 25-year career. Five of them shared their stories with us. I think at that moment, I was frozen, and I couldn't do anything or say anything. The way I want to be remembered is that I did say something. Do you feel like he manipulated the systems, or do you feel like the system was set up in a way that just made this type of predatory abusive behavior easily achieved in this context? I think he picked a system where he knew he could use it to his advantage. He was

opportunistic, but he was methodical. Sometimes there were people in the room. Sometimes there wasn't. Was he really using gloves? No. Is that possible? Like, you would question it, but then he would keep moving through it. In 2023, Haddon was sentenced to 20 years in prison after federal prosecutors proved he'd sexually abused patients between 1987 and 2012. The abuse was inexcusable the moment it began. But these former patients say Columbia, had the chance to stop it years ago. I was molested by Robert Haddon in 1993. I wrote a letter of complaint to Columbia University

detailing what he did. And the acting head of OBGYN wrote back and said, we'll be investigating this thoroughly, and he never contacted me again. And Diane Monson's 1994 letter, reviewed by NBC News, she cited a number of troubling irregularities, including an unusually long breast exam,

and a pap smear that left her feeling violated. I did try to speak up when it happened in the hospital, and I was just told that I was overreacting, that it had to do with me just giving birth a few hours before. If we really want to move forward from this, we need to be able to reflect on what happened, how it happened, and how we can prevent it from happening again. I shouldn't have been assaulted.

I shouldn't be sitting here right now. Days after Laurie Kenyak spoke to the police, Hatton was allowed to return to work. seeing patients with the chaperone in the exam room. I would have friends call the office to try to make a fake appointment to just gauge how much longer they were going to allow this to happen. The next month hadn't went on leave, and he never returned to work at Columbia. But four years went by before he was forced to give up his medical license.

And four more before federal prosecutors got involved. Kinyuk settled with Colombia in 2018. I was told I was the only one that's ever. mention this to anybody. They told me, you're a single mom and a dancer. This is a lot of money for you. Go raise your daughter. The arrogance in that, as if they had done me this huge favor. The reality was they'd failed to protect you in the first place. They'd had a heads up, a very detailed heads up, and they just ignored it. More than 220 survivors have now settled with Columbia. The ones we've spoken to,

say it's not enough. I feel like no amount of money is going to make me feel comfortable when I walk in a clinic. A spokesperson for Columbia University Irving Medical Center says the institution is taking a series of actions to, quote, repair and rebuild trust, including committing to an external investigation, notifying former patients that hadn't was convicted, establishing a $100 million survivor's settlement fund and reviewing its patient safety protocols. The spokesperson says Columbia, quote, recognizes that it was a failure not to take these actions earlier and is committed to charting a new path forward.

How has this experience changed the way you all approach getting medical care? Completely for me. I think I can come with two hands, the amount of times I've seen the doctor since I was 18. So now, and I just don't trust doctors. Going to gynecologists after that, I never. told the doctors why it was traumatic. I just, it was always like a meltdown. Would I have had more children, maybe, but I avoided OBGYNs, avoided doctors. That is something that he and Columbia very tangibly took from us. Reflecting back on it, hadn't did a lot of

sexual grooming over the years? What do you mean by that? The grooming behavior was the very long breast exams. Checking to see if you have moles. we're asking you questions about your sex life. He was my first OBGYN, so I didn't have the standard of care or kind of the information. He didn't care of your spouse was there, your mom was there, the chaperon was there. He had the ways to do it for no one to notice. I feel like something really important for institutions to do, and Columbia certainly to do, is to educate women and girls with actually written material that explains this,

This is the sequence of what will happen in your exam. So that there's some way of knowing what's normal. In 2022, several of the women abused by Haddon lobbied for passage of the Adult Survivors Act in New York, which gave victims of sexual assault a one-year window to sue their abusers, regardless of how long ago the assault happened. But the window closed last November. shouldn't be no expiration day on you coming forward on an abuse that you suffer what would be your message to another person another young woman if there was a patient of had him and you're

watching and you're listening you are most likely abused every single appointment that he had with a woman was an intention to abuse reach out to us don't be afraid you're not alone There are currently at least 20 civil lawsuits that were filed under that Adult Survivors Act here in New York, still pending against Robert Haddon. But one important caveat there, survivors are not eligible for a payout from Columbia's new $100 million settlement fund if they've previously settled with the university or filed any legal claims related to the former doctor. Lawyers for Haddon did not respond to NBC's multiple request for comment. Tom? Alison, there's such powerful accounts here, and you cannot believe that this happened over decades. From your conversations with these survivors, do you get a sense that they have any hope, any belief that the system will change? You know, I asked them that, and some of them said, maybe not in our lifetime, but what they're hoping is that it'll change for the next generation, for their children.

You have to remember all of these women, they're parents now, and they have children at different ages, and so many of them talked about having a daughter themselves, having to share their story with them. them as they approach their teen years and also try to give them guidance they didn't have about what a visit with an OBGYN is supposed to look like because it's uncomfortable for every woman to begin with. And sometimes you don't know what is normal, what is not, or you second guess yourself. So they're trying to eliminate that. They also say there was a protest at Columbia with medical students. They'd heard there were going to be about 30 people wearing their white coats as a silent protest for the new president who was being honored inaugurated, if you will. And when they got there, they said hundreds of current medical students showed up to be a part of that silent protest.

And they said that moment was the one throughout all of this that gave them hope that maybe things will change because with the next generation of doctors, maybe they will do something differently. There were so many impactful moments from that interview. And I know you spent a lot of time with these five women. What's going to stay with you? You know, it's mind-boggling to just think how many of them looked at each other. and they have this support system together, but the reality still is that there was that one woman, Diane Monson, who we spoke to, who said, I reported this in 1994. None of these other women had to be here. And the pain of that is something that is hard to get out of your head.

But there's also just this amazing courage and optimism amongst these women about changing things, moving forward, and continuing on being good moms, living their life, despite the trauma that they went through. And Haddon is in jail now, but there is still a lot. they believe that Columbia needs to do to prevent this in the future and also other medical institutions need to take a look at. Ellison, we thank you and your team for putting together that powerful report. Thank you for that. And we will be right back.

All right, we are back now with Top Stories, Newsfeiting. We begin with a tragic update on that military helicopter crash in California. All five Marines who were on board are now confirmed dead. And operation is now underway to record. cover their remains. They have not been identified yet. The aircraft was flying from an Air Force Base in Nevada to Miramar, California when it crashed in a mountain's area of Southern California.

A woman rescued from a sinkhole in Los Angeles today. The woman became trapped in a sinkhole that was 25 feet deep after it opened next to her home. A firefighter attached a cable was lowered into the hole and they were both pulled out. She was taken to the hospital but is expected to be okay. And a nationwide public health alert has been issued for a frozen chicken product sold at Trader Joe's. The Department of Agriculture says it has received multiple reports of rocks. Found inside Trader Joe's ready to eat chicken pilaf. The product is no longer for sale, but customers are urged to check their freezers.

Just last year, Trader Joe's issued similar recalls after reports of several products containing rocks, metal, and insects. Okay, coming up, Israel's new offensive. Israeli forces preparing for a new attack on southern Gaza to try and weed out the moss, But more than a million Palestinians who have fled fighting in the north have been sheltering there. Our team on the ground finding one family hiding out in a chicken coop. The U.S. tonight warning of disaster. Stay with us.

We are back now with the latest on the war in Gaza. Israel says it's now planning a new offensive in Rafa, the southernmost part of Gaza, on the Egypt border. The IDF says Hamas is hiding out there, but also one million Palestinians who have fled. And now they will be left with nowhere to go. The U.S. issuing a warning to Israel late today. NBC Foreign Correspondent, Raf Sanchez, picks it up from there. Tonight, as fighting rages in the city of Han Yunus, Israel threatening to mount a major new ground assault,

this time on Rafa, Gaza's southernmost city, wedged against the border with Egypt. Our soldiers are now in Han Yunus. Hamas is main stronghold. They'll soon go into Rafa, Hamas's last bastion. Israel says many of Hamas's surviving fighters are hiding in the city. But more than a million Palestinian civilians, half the population of Gaza, are also sheltering in Rafa. Many of them already displaced from their homes in the north by the fighting.

It's also home to the border crossing with Egypt, Gaza's vital lifeline for food and international aid, and the only way out of the strip. With housing in Rafa desperately short, this family taking refuge in a chicken coup. Live birds sleeping a few feet away. Lena and her little sister picking a spot out of the rain. I want to see our home in my school. I want to go back to playing games with my siblings. I want to go back to our home and to our beds, she tells us.

The White House tonight sounding the alarm over a potential assault. Any major military operation in Rafa at this time, under these circumstances, with more than a million, probably more like a million and a half, Palestinians who are seeking refuge and have been seeking refuge in Rafa, without due consideration for their safety, would be a disaster. Our cameras were at Rafa's Kuwaiti hospital as the wounded from one strike were rushed in. This was the moment Dr. Rame Abulibde realized his own son, Muhammad, was among the injured. Where's your mom, he asks?

The whole house came down. replies. It's only later he can get out the words. She's injured but alive. We headed into southern Gaza with Israeli forces, following them into a tunnel they say was used by Hamas leaders. The scale of these tunnels is just stunning. You walk in the darkness minute after minute and the tunnel goes on and on and on. Israel believes many of Hamas's weapons were smuggled into Gaza across the Egyptian border near Rafa. How can you fight there without? causing mass casualties of innocent people. We'll have to find a way.

If we go there, I'm a military commander. In a democratic country, I take my orders from my democratic government. But you know as a soldier, there's no way to fight in a place where there were a million civilians without a lot of innocent people being killed. I agree. But we're fighting Hamas, who's hiding among civilians. And I think you have to refer that question to the Hamas on why are they high? fighting among the civilians. A million civilians in the line of fire with nowhere to run.

Raf Sanchez joins us once again tonight from Tel Aviv. Ralph, it's sort of interesting. I was watching your report there. And when we first started reporting about this war, Rafa was going to be the safe zone where people in Gaza could flee and then hopefully try to get out of Gaza into Egypt and then head to other countries. We're now talking about fighting in Rafa. So what are the Egyptians saying? And what is this going to do to the dynamic of this war? Well, Tom, the Egyptians are deeply concerned. Their first worry is that you were going to see a flood of Palestinian refugees crossing over the border into Egyptian territory. That border is sealed.

The Egyptians have been reinforcing it with walls, with concertina wire. But they believe if those 1.3 million people in Rafah are desperate enough, they will find a way through that border. They're also deeply concerned that Israel plans to establish a permanent military. presence on the Ghazan side of the border. The Egyptians are saying that is a red line for them. So this potential assault on Rafa is putting a lot of strain right now on the relationship between Israel and one of its key Arab neighbors. Tom.

OK, Raf, we thank you for that. We want to get a check of what else is happening around the world, so it's time for Top Story's global watch. We start with the former president of Brazil, Jair Bolosanaro, now accused of planning a coup with his allies. Brazilian police seizing Bolsonaro's power. and arresting four people in his inner circle. He's accused of drafting a decree to overturn election results,

plotting to jail a Supreme Court justice and pressuring military leaders to join in the coup. OK, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky removing his top general as the war with Russia approaches two years. It's said to be the most significant shake-up in leadership since the war began. In a statement announcing the decisions, Zelensky said urgent changes were needed to overhaul Ukraine's military,

the Iron General is a popular figure among Ukrainians for overseen the war effort. He will be replaced by the head of Ukraine's ground forces. And Olympic athletes who take home a medal this summer will also take home a piece of history as well. Organizers revealing the design for the 2024 Paris Olympic medals will each have a small piece of the Eiffel Tower inside of them. The pieces of iron used in the medals were removed and replaced from the iconic landmark during a renovation, NBC, and Peacock will be the home of the Olympics when they kick off in July. We can't wait to see that. Okay, when we come back, a volcano emergency we want to tell you about large rivers of lava.

Look at this. Covering Iceland's southwest for a third time in just two months. The country's iconic Blue Lagoon closes again. We hear from one tourist who was awoken by hotel staff and told that he had to evacuate immediately. His story and more pictures next. Finally, tonight. Iceland once again living up to its name as the land of fire and ice. A volcano erupting for the third time since December, shutting down iconic landmarks and forcing residents

and tourists to evacuate. Megan Fitzgerald has the details. For the third time in just two months, part of Iceland's iconic landscape covered with rivers of lava, striking new images showing a road to the massively popular Blue Lagoon cut off by a sheet of glowing molten rock. The top tourist destination forced to close again for the third time since December after more volcanic eruptions in the country's southwest. There was just this hot air that we could feel

just coming from that direction, and it was quite shocking. Mark Gibbons is visiting the country from Canada. Hotel staff racing to wake him and other travelers up. I guess it's the end of the Blue Lagoon for today. telling them they had to evacuate immediately. We gathered our belongings as quickly as possible. There's a great big window at the end,

and we saw the sky was all red, and it seemed very close. And it was at that moment that we saw, you know, that this was serious and very real. Mark capturing the fiery smoke as he fled the area. As we were driving, we could see the fissure just expanding. and the lava rising upwards in these giant fountains. So far, no one has been confirmed dead,

but a worker who fell into one of the fissures of lava is still missing. What's happened today is it's basically a very coarse repeat of what happened back in December, and it's linked very strongly to what happened in an eruption in January. The volcano's effects felt far beyond the lava's edge, the eruptions cutting off a pipeline to nearby towns, leaving residents scrambling. We don't have any hot water because the lava field is over the pipes, so it's very difficult. The string of eruptions destroying homes and sending thousands fleeing, leaving a wasteland in their wake.

An area once again shut off by lava, and experts warn this is not the end. Erruptions could go on for decades, if not centuries, sporadically in this particular peninsula. Megan Fitzgerald, NBC News, London. London. All right, we thank Megan for that. And we thank you for watching Top Story tonight. I'm Tom Yamison, New York. Stay right there. More news on the way. Thank you.