[0:00]It's Thursday, February 12th. Was it a failure to communicate? We start here. The FAA abruptly closes then reopens the
[0:12]airspace over El Paso, Texas. >> Army said, "Nope, we're not talking about the FAA said, "We think you're endangering the flying public." >> Sources tell ABC News it was a fight between the FAA and the Pentagon over
[0:21]shooting lasers. Attorney General Pam Bondi is called before Congress, and she doesn't hold back. >> You don't tell me. Oh, I did tell you because we saw what you did in the Senate. >> A lawyer? Not even a lawyer.
[0:33]>> A congressional hearing devolved into a partisan shouting match over the Epstein [music] files. And more evidence is released in the shooting of a woman in Chicago by US Border Patrol. >> All right, it's time to get aggressive
[0:44]and get out. >> Body cam video and texts emerge providing new details about the incident. From ABC News, this is start here. I'm
[0:54]Anne Flity. Hey, Brad's out today, but I've got you covered in the meantime. Yesterday, there was major confusion
[1:05]after the Federal Aviation Administration suddenly closed the airspace around El Paso, Texas, saying it was necessary for the next 10 days, and citing only quote special security
[1:15]reasons. Local officials and US lawmakers were baffled. >> There was there was people coming to El Paso. Our airport was in chaos. Our community was scared. What I can tell
[1:26]you with absolute certainty is that the FAA did not notify [music] anyone locally. >> And for several hours, no one could say exactly why all aircraft, even medical
[1:37]transport, were prohibited from flying in or out of the El Paso airport. Eventually, the FAA abruptly reversed course, opening the airspace, and the administration issued a statement
[1:47]blaming Mexican cartels. But sources tell ABC News there was another reason. a dispute between the FAA and Pentagon officials that wanted to allow the use
[1:57]of a high energy laser to shoot down drones crossing the US border. Now, to explain all this, let's bring in a former Marine fighter pilot and ABC News contributor, Colonel Steven Ganard.
[2:09]Colonel Ganard, can we start with the administration statement on this? Here's what they told us. Quote, "Mexican cartel drones breached US airspace. The Department of War took action to disable
[2:20]the drones." Now, the statement goes on to say there's no threat to commercial travel, but do you buy it? >> Actually, we I do buy it. Um I'm not sure that's actually what they were
[2:30]doing in this case, but the we know that the Mexican cartels regularly violate US airspace. So, we figured it out. Something like almost 150 drones a day
[2:40]penetrate uh US airspace coming up from Mexico. So, um, are these bases that are along the Mexican border, such as Briggs Army Airfield, which is where this, uh, where the Army outfit was operating out
[2:52]of, could that be where they were launching drones towards, it could be, uh, could the Army have been defending themselves against these drones coming close to the close to the air base?
[3:02]That's possible. It just seems that it was a little bit strange that the FAA decided they'd shut this down with an hour and a half warning, middle of the night. seems like, hm, why are you doing it this way? If it were truly a national
[3:14]security problem, it probably would have been an immediate shutdown. They would have cleared the airspace. But the fact that we have two different stories by two or actually three different stories from three parts of the administration
[3:24]sort of points to what we would call a failure to communicate. >> But it's also a 10day shutdown. I mean, that is extraordinarily long. Let's talk about the impact that that would have.
[3:34]Why was this such a big deal? >> I think we need to go back and think about why the FAA did this. So, it seems that the army refused to talk to the FAA about why they were shooting these
[3:45]lasers close to the El Paso International Airport. Now, Briggs Army airfield is only 3 miles away from a major metropolitan airport where commercial aircraft are flying 24 hours
[3:56]a day. So, I don't think it's unreasonable for the FAA to say, "We would like to know when you're shooting these lasers, when you're blowing drones out of the sky because you're only three miles away and we have to protect the flying public and we want to make sure
[4:08]that one of your lasers doesn't hit a commercial airplane." And the Army said, "Well, it's classified. We don't want to talk about it." And so, it became a standoff. And the Army said, "Nope, we're not talking about it." The FAA said, "We think you're endangering the
[4:20]flying public." And so the FAA did what they're perfectly uh able to do in terms of of legality and they said, "We're going to shut down the airspace because we think that you Army are violating the
[4:30]safety standards that we need to put in place for the flying public." Now 3 miles means that when they put a 10mi bubble around El Paso International, it means that the Army base is within that
[4:40]10 mile bubble. So they essentially shut down everything the Army was doing as well. >> Yeah. and and we were told by sources that the 10 days was very deliberate because the FAA and Defense Department
[4:51]were scheduled to meet on February 20th. So that would have essentially prevented them from uh potentially hurting a civilian aircraft with this laser, right? >> You know how it is when somebody blows
[5:02]you off and they say, "I'd like to talk to you." We'll talk to you in 10 days. So the FAA goes like, "No, you don't you don't understand how serious we consider this. So, if you're not going to talk to us tomorrow, then we're going to shut
[5:12]you down for 10 days until you readjust your your perception of how serious we take this. >> But these kind of inter agency disputes, I mean, are they common? Have you seen anything like this? >> Very uncommon to for it to get public
[5:23]like this. So, and to make that decision middle of the night. So, apparently the FAA administrator signed off on this decision. He was probably getting an earful from the folks on the ground, the FAA folks on the ground, saying, "Look,
[5:34]this is serious. And this these lasers they're shooting three miles away. They can melt drones. They will blast drones out of the sky. And we don't know when they're shooting them, and we don't know
[5:44]what they're shooting at. We think it's a safety issue and we don't want to have another, you know, DCA incident where the army interfered with the safe
[5:54]conduct of commercial aircraft around a major airport. Using lasers for defense against drones, uh, still has the limitations of the laser itself, how
[6:05]powerful that laser is, but it can still go out half a mile, maybe a mile. Uh, but if you're operating in close proximity to a commercial airport, you could still blind pilots. You could damage the aircraft. Remember, these
[6:17]lasers burn so hot that they actually melt the drone and knock the drone down. So, you don't want something that powerful. It's like it's like shooting off a weapon, you know, around an
[6:27]airport. You just It's just a bad idea. Um, so there is a there is a possibility here that a you know an aircraft could fly into an area where a drone was attacking this army base and somehow it
[6:38]would would affect that aircraft. Is it likely? No. Uh [music] but there should be communication. There should be at least some means for the army and the FA to deconlict commercial aircraft with
[6:50]their counter drone operations. So the other thing to think about here is what happens to these drones when they get melted out of the sky. They don't just vaporize. they come down and they crash.
[7:00]So, some of them can be quite large, 10, 15 pounds. Uh, you don't want that coming down in the middle of of El Paso. So, there's there's considerations here about where do you knock these drones
[7:10]down? Uh, who makes the determination that this drone here is such a threat that we're going to risk civilians being hurt on the ground when it drops? And if it's near an airport three miles away,
[7:22]then maybe you're endangering flying public as well by by bringing down drones near uh near commercial airports. >> Steve Daniel, thanks so much. >> Thanks. >> Next up on Start Here, lawmakers still
[7:33]have a lot of questions about the Epstein files, but they're not getting a lot of answers. [music] After the break [music] this week, we learned from sources that
[7:46]a federal grand jury declined to indict six [music] Democratic lawmakers for sedicious conspiracy. Multiple sources told ABC News that this all stemmed from that video posted to social media,
[7:57]saying service members should refuse illegal orders if they are given. >> You can refuse illegal orders. >> You can refuse illegal orders. [music] Senators Mark Kelly and Alyssa Slotkin,
[8:08]who were among the six, blasted the Justice Department. Kelly, who was in a legal battle against the Pentagon over attempts to censure him and reduce his rank, called it an outrageous abuse of power.
[8:18]>> We fought our country's enemies. This doesn't intimidate us. >> As that fight played out in the courts, another one was on full display on Capitol Hill.
[8:28]>> We welcome our witness and thank her for appearing today. We will begin by swearing you in. Would you please rise and raise your right hand? >> Lawmakers yesterday got their first chance to grill Attorney General Pam
[8:38]Bondi on the administration's handling of investigative files in the Jeffrey Epstein case, [music] and it very quickly turned into what can only be described as a partisan brawl. To break
[8:49]it down for us, let's bring in ABC Capitol Hill correspondent Jay O'Brien. Jay, let's start with who was there. I'm hearing Epstein survivors were present. >> Yeah, so there were Epstein survivors
[8:59]sitting in the gallery of this hearing. They were dressed in white. And at one point early on, Pam Bondi acknowledges those survivors and all survivors of
[9:11]Jeffrey Epstein and all victims of crime. >> I am deeply sorry for what any victim any victim has been through, especially as a result of that monster.
[9:22]>> And pretty soon that point really brings the hearing off the rails. Democratic Congresswoman Permila Gyipol asks the Epstein survivors in the room to stand
[9:32]up and raise their hands if they have not had a meeting with Pam Bondi's Department of Justice. They all stand up. They all raise their hands and Permila Gyipol says to Pam Bondi, "Do
[9:44]you want to apologize to these Epstein survivors?" And there it really devolves into a shouting match. >> No, I'm answering a question. >> Will you restore her time? The witnesses
[9:55]that are up there with this woman Let me have my >> And that really set the tone for this hearing. Time and time again on a number of issues, but particularly on the
[10:06]Epstein issues, Pam Bondi deflected. >> I don't believe you asked Merrick Garland these questions when he was um attorney general and set before >> I agree with you. I reclaim my time. I
[10:18]agree with you. And even one Democrat, Ted Lou, said in his view, Attorney General Merrick Garland and other attorney generals before him, Republican and Democrat, dropped the ball. >> Merrick Garland dropped the ball as did
[10:30]Attorney General Bill Barr, as did Alex Acasta. A whole string of failures, but you are in charge. You have the power to change things, to hold these men accountable, and you're doing the opposite. You're protecting them.
[10:42]>> There was this consistent effort of deflection, and you're exactly right. There was partisan brawling back and forth. It appeared the attorney general even came prepared w with opposition
[10:52]research on the members on the committee and was trying to again deflect time and time again when in particular Democrats brought up these pointed questions about Jeffrey Epstein.
[11:03]>> And just to point out this is really unprecedented because the Justice Department is supposed to be an a-olitical body. I mean, this is not a usual thing for an attorney general to
[11:14]really get into it with Democrats, right? >> I mean, the entire circumstances of all of this are deeply unusual. And that was something that we saw come up in this
[11:25]committee time and time again. What Democrats argue is a politicized Department of Justice under Donald Trump. What the attorney general argued was the exact opposite. She said that
[11:35]the quote unquote weaponization of the Department of Justice had been removed o on her watch. But this issue that they kept coming back to in addition to this kind of myriad of problems that
[11:46]Democrats say they have with the DOJ and wins that Republicans say the DOJ is executing on. They kept coming back to this issue of Jeffrey Epstein. And there
[11:56]was one exchange that really illuminated that. It was with Republican Congressman Thomas Massie. He's one of two lawmakers who crafted this law compelling the
[12:07]release of the DOJ's Epstein files. >> This cover up spans decades and you are responsible for this portion of it. >> And at one point he pulls up these big
[12:18]poster boards and he says you redacted the names of people that according to this FBI document are potential alleged co-conspirators of Jeffrey Epstein that
[12:28]the FBI at one point at least was looking into. But you did not redact in a separate document the names of Epstein survivors. >> A lot of these people didn't want to be known and we know you touched the
[12:39]document because you redacted one name and you redacted the lawyer's name, but you left the survivor's name there. >> The law requires you protect the survivor's identities, but it explicitly
[12:50]prohibits you from redacting things that are not tied to survivor identities or ongoing investigations or national security. And the DOJ said it didn't withhold anything for national security.
[13:01]All of that to say, Thomas Massie is saying, "You've made some serious mistakes with these redactions. Why are you doing that?" >> Within 40 minutes, Wexner's name was added back.
[13:12]>> Within 40 minutes of me catching you redhanded, >> red, [laughter] there was one redaction where he's listed as a co-con and we
[13:22]invited you in. We This guy has Trump derangement syndrome. And even that devolved into a back and forth and it ended with Pam Bondi saying that Thomas
[13:32]Massie has Trump derangement syndrome. >> What was her argument on that? Because the Justice Department has said, "Look, we've released 3 million files. We're trying to be transparent here. They call themselves the most transparent
[13:43]administration in history." How did she defend that? >> The DOJ has said, and this is what Pambani came back to a number of times as well, that this was a massive undertaking, right? It was millions of
[13:53]pages of files. 3 million pages more than that is what they released. Just about 3 million. And they had to go through and painstakingly look at every document. And so there was a possibility
[14:04]that things would have been redacted that shouldn't have been and vice versa. But the mistakes were still made. They were made after the DOJ missed the
[14:15]deadline, the legal deadline to release these documents and had more time and overtime to go through them. And again, Thomas Massiey's point is everyone wants
[14:26]to protect the identity of the victims. Why was in his view more attention paid on redactions that have things to do with other individuals who by the letter of the law should not have their names
[14:38]blacked out and less attention given to protecting these people that we wrote the law to say you should protect? >> So, did anybody come out of this hearing satisfied? >> No, absolutely not. And again, it was
[14:49]probably one of the more bruising political hearings I've seen in a while because the attorney general made a point to come in guns blazing. And by the way, members of Congress went in
[15:01]guns blazing as well before you started. >> You don't tell me. >> Oh, I did tell you because we saw what you did in the Senate. >> Lawyer, not even a lawyer. At one point, she shouted at Jamie Raskin, the top
[15:12]Democrat on the panel, "You don't tell me anything." And Jamie Raskin shouted back too in his parts. And I do tell you this, and they were talking about the the order and procedure of the way the hearing is supposed to play out by the
[15:24]rules of the Congress. All of that to say, this was a hearing to conduct oversight over the Department of Justice. [music] And when you ask
[15:34]about what the DOJ is saying, we didn't learn very much about what the DOJ's point of view is because the attorney general so often attempted to deflect here. And frankly, we didn't zero in on
[15:46]one topic. While Jeffrey Epstein kept coming up, there were a number of topics that Democrats kept bringing up because they have all of this constellation of issues of concern with DOJ. So, there
[15:56]wasn't one big through theme that came out of this. There was just a lot of chaos, but as you say, not a lot of people satisfied with the result. So, Jay, thanks so much.
[16:07]>> Thank you. Months before the killings of Alex Prey and Renee Good in Minneapolis, there was another shooting in Chicago that sparked
[16:17]a debate about the use of force. >> All right, we got shots fired. Shot. We need that. >> Back in October, immigration officials accused a woman of being in a convoy of
[16:28]protesters that rammed into a federal vehicle. DHS called it an ambush. That woman, US citizen Marimar Martinez, was shot by an agent five times and
[16:38]survived, only to be charged later with assault. A month later, in a dramatic reversal, the government asked a judge to dismiss the charges. >> I feel bullets continue to pierce my body.
[16:49]>> Recently, Martinez testified about the whole ordeal. >> The mental scars will always be there as a reminder of the time my own government attempted to execute me. And when they
[17:00]fell, they choose to vilify me. >> Now, as her lawyers say they want justice, new evidence has been released, painting a clearer picture of what happened leading up to and during the
[17:11]shooting. ABC immigration reporter Armando Garcia has followed the story since the beginning. He joins us now. Armando, first off, based on this new footage, walk us through what happened exactly.
[17:22]>> Yeah, and so in October, Marimar Martinez was shot five times. She survived. Now, new evidence that was just recently shared seems to cast doubt on what DHS was claiming initially. The
[17:33]US Attorney's Office in Illinois uh released at least three videos um showing the moments leading up to the shooting. Perhaps the most eyebrow raising is body cam footage from the
[17:44]perspective of an agent who was in the back passenger seat. >> All right, it's time to get aggressive and get out cuz they're trying to box us in. as agents were being followed by Martinez. You can hear an agent say that
[17:56]they're going to make contact um claiming that they are getting boxed in. >> We're going to make contact and we're box in >> and then you actually see agent Charles
[18:06]XM swerve to the left colliding with Martinez. DHS has been saying all along that she was trying to ram some of these agents as she was following them. Her attorneys
[18:18]say that this proves that they actually swerved into her. >> He tells the FBI agent who's interviewing him, "I veered into her to create space." Okay, that is completely inconsistent with Marramar hitting the
[18:29]hitting them. Now, 6 seconds after the crash, you can hear the agent firing five shots, >> five gunshots that actually struck her. And in previously released text
[18:40]messages, we've also heard from Charles Exum uh essentially boasting, bragging. In one text message, he said that he shot her five times, making seven holes. >> We did not get shot at. We did the
[18:51]shooting. >> DS initially claimed that she was partaking in domestic terrorism, that she was also armed with a weapon. We now know that that weapon was actually holstered and according to her attorney,
[19:02]she had a license to carry that weapon. She had a valid CCL. She's a young single woman who lives in Chicago, uh, where many people are armed. Um, and her
[19:12]handgun was in her purse, never taken out. Agents never said she took it out. >> And she never faced any kind of weapons offense as well. >> And it wasn't just video, Armando, that was released, right? Did we learn
[19:24]anything new from the rest of the evidence? >> Yeah. Also among the evidence, Border Patrol commander at large Greg Bavino, who has been tasked to oversee all of these enforcement operations that are popping up across the country. You you
[19:35]see him uh email Agent Exom about 4 hours after the shooting, offering to defer his retirement, saying, quote, "In light of your excellent service in Chicago, you have much yet left to do."
[19:46]He shot somebody. That's it. That's the only job that Favino knew that he did. They don't know whether Myar is going to live or die, and he's being promoted. I mean, that's disgusting. Now, while Bavino does not reference the shooting,
[19:58]a text also released show Exom telling others that Bavino, Secretary Noom, and other top Trump administration officials were supporting him. >> And we should say, we heard yesterday
[20:08]from a CBP spokesperson that agent Charles Exum had been placed on administrative leave. So, where does the case stand against Martinez at this point? Or rather, where does her story go from here?
[20:19]>> So, back in November, the Department of Justice asked the judge to basically dismiss the case. And that's exactly what happened with Prejudice, meaning that this case cannot come back up. Now, her attorneys did say that they're
[20:30]taking the very first steps to file a civil lawsuit against DHS and the agent, saying that they're going to be asking for tens of millions in damages, saying that not only was she physically injured, but also her reputation.
[20:42]>> This agent should be off the streets. I believe he should be criminally prosecuted. We have none of those powers. We can hold them accountable monetarily.
[20:54]In the wake of two fatal shootings over the last month or so, that's Renee Good and Alex Prey. You know, the tactics of federal immigration agents are really coming under the microscope. While we debate nationally whether ICE agents
[21:05]should have body cameras, which I think we all think they should, uh, we need to make sure that they're instructed to hit the on switch because Agent Exom was outfitted with one on this day. He just never turned it on. >> Sometimes there's video, sometimes
[21:16]there's not. I think in this case there was limited video and obviously uh her attorneys went to great lengths to make sure that the public was able to see this. So this is really just kind of another example of these cases popping
[21:27]up here and there where uh people who have been injured in the course of immigration enforcement actions are challenging what the Department of Homeland Security is saying about them. >> Right. And the use of force this debate
[21:39]over the use of force coming uh just ahead of the midterms where it's no doubt I think going to be very much an election issue. Armando, thanks so much. >> Thanks, Ann.
[21:50]>> Okay, one more quick break. When we come back, we remember the man behind Dawson Liry and his cancer journey. One last thing is next. And one last thing,
[22:04]>> James Vanderbeek, the actor best known for starring in the teen TV drama Dawson's Creek and films including Varsity Blues, has died. He was 48 years old.
[22:15]You can call me an eternal optimist, but I have faith. >> It was in late 2024 when Vanderbeek disclosed publicly that he had been diagnosed with stage 3 colarctile
[22:26]cancer. In an interview with Good Morning America, shortly after his diagnosis, the father of six told co-anchor Robin Roberts that he still felt strong. >> Physically, I'm great. I'm feeling
[22:36]really [music] good. Um, emotionally, you know, it's a lot. It's really uh it's really a ride. But he also described what he called the full-time job of having cancer, having to sign up
[22:47]for various medical portals and time spent on the phone with his insurance company, of course, setting up medical appointments. He [music] became a fierce advocate for getting checkups and early detection. According to the American
[22:58]Cancer Society, colurectal cancer is the third most common cancer diagnosis among men and women in the US. >> My message would be first of all, get get tested.
[23:09]The Vanderbeks were open about the financial strain caused by [music] his cancer diagnosis. Last year, the actor announced plans to auction off keepsakes from Dawson's [music] Creek and Varsity Blues to help pay for his medical
[23:20]treatment. Items included in the auction were his trademark flannel shirt, a white sweater, and bedroom decorations. [music] Vanderbeek spent his final years away from Hollywood on a ranch in Texas
[23:31]devoted to his family, including his wife Kimberly and their [music] six children. >> You had your wife Kim. She was there. You said that she has been your rock. How has she helped you? >> She's
[23:43]this is where I'm going to lose it. Um [laughter] >> she's she's been amazing. Um she's really taught me what um
[23:54]unconditional love is. >> Vanderbeek is remembered by fans [music] and friends for his brave cancer journey. In a message on Instagram, his family saying he met his final days with
[24:04]courage, faith, [music] and grace. Now they're raising money for his medical expenses with a GoFundMe. [music] So if you didn't grow up watching
[24:15]Dawson's Creek, this is the 1998 show that launched careers [music] for Katie Holmes and Michelle Williams. It was a really smart teen drama ahead of its time. It was something that I certainly watched and I [music] couldn't help but
[24:27]smile when I found my own teenage daughter catching the reruns on streaming. [music] Turns out Dawson's Creek and Vanderbeek have inspired a whole new generation of [music] fans, which is not a bad legacy
[24:38]at all. For live news anytime, you can watch ABC News Live on Hulu and anywhere you stream live news. [music] I'm Anne Flity in for Brad Milky. Have a great
[24:47]day.