New details in Logan Circle shooting; McLean dad charged over teen party speaks

A lot to get to on this Friday. Welcome into the DMV zone. I'm Marina Morocco. Let's get to it as new details are emerging tonight about that deadly shooting rampage at DC's Logan Circle yesterday. Investigators say the gunman, Dr. Matt Lambert, appeared to have planned the attack lying in wait at that Vita Fitness Center for an hour before allegedly killing his building manager and then shooting people outside from his apartment balcony. Any surveillance video capturing part of the ambush as police continue piecing together what led to the violence that killed one person and wounded five others There is video from inside the gym, it does capture the shooting, it does show the suspect shooting the victim. There doesn't appear to be any sort of conversation. He walks up behind him, so I'm not even sure that the victim knew that he was behind him. 46-year-old James Stewart, the property manager who had worked for EGF Real Estate Services for 13 years. Colleagues describe him as respected and a beloved member of their team, saying his death was a senseless act of violence. Police believe Stewart was the intended target of the attack. We've got Vice President of Strategy Zero Eyes and former Air Force Intelligence Officer Mia Linka joining us here. And you hear the chief say it appears as though the victim here essentially executed with no chance to defend themselves. There's not much more you can do here. No, thank you for having me on. I think you really said it. You know, there's not a lot of chance to defend yourself in this type of situation. The best thing that you can do is respond quickly. The police arrived, first responders arrived in less than a minute, and you really can't ask for much more than that. We've learned that there was an additional victim who appears did not even know they were shot. Probably a graze wound is what afflicted them inside the gym. To your point, that response there, incredibly swift. By D.C. police and by all the metro partners, and to that point, we've been talking at large about having National Guard presence in D.C. at our metros. We're seeing FBI agents and other law enforcement stepping up and trying to handle some of the assessment there for who comes in through metro stations, et cetera. People who live in D.C., many of them don't want that presence, and yet in situations like yesterday's, it allows for such a swift response. Absolutely. So there, I think, are two factors there. One, you've got a lot of law enforcement presence in the area, which was one of the reasons they were able to get a response to that location so quickly. But good security doesn't always have to be in your face. Some of it can be invisible. There are a lot that business owners and property managers, other facilities can do without having armed personnel right outside their doors, which is not always It's always practical, especially for other places in the country. It appears to have been a targeted attack, at least based on everything that we know at this point, given the fact that Dr. Lambert had sued his homeowners association and this person has worked for that building management company. The presence of the National Guard continues to be long disputed. How long will they remain in the District of Columbia? The Trump administration seems to believe indefinitely now. Does this give motive to continue to have their presence or are these two separate things that should be talked about separately? I think these are two separate things. So the attack really shows that it can happen anywhere to anyone and that... You know, just it happened to be in D.C. They had a quick response. But again, you can't you can't have that type of law enforcement presence everywhere in the country. Gun violence happens very fast. Even having them around the corner isn't necessarily going to prevent an attack. But there are two things that need to be discussed separately. Yeah. And to that point, I mean, I think looking back, I suppose you could say there were some warning signs to some degree because of the dispute. It doesn't appear as though these guns were procured in D.C. At least there were not licenses for them in D.C. We spoke and heard from Dr. Lambert's attorney yesterday, and he said that he seemed to be in good spirits. He was starting a new job. He had been in a good place after filing this lawsuit. So even to call them red flags would maybe be a stretch at this point. Yeah, that's a good point. It's still a... Valid concern for people who are seeing people with grievances. You know, workplace violence is a very common, unfortunately, concern for a lot of businesses. So it's still important to look for red flags. And if you notice threats escalating, report them through appropriate channels. All right, Mia Link, we so appreciate the insight. Thank you. Thank you for having me. Fox News Alert at this hour. Fox 5 News Alert as a McLean homeowner speaking to Fox 5 after he and his wife were charged with hosting an out-of-control teen party. Fox 5's Homa Bash speaking with them in the last hour. The reality is this could happen to anyone because we had zero idea that 9th and 10th and 11th and 12th graders would come to an 8th grader party. But they did. And we're going to work this through. Back on November 6th, police say 45-year-old Lisa Vaughn and 55-year-old Aubrey Vaughn organized the gathering on Woodacre Drive. Police responding there say they found up to 300 teenagers, underage drinking and fireworks. An attorney for the couple says an invitation to a party for their 13-year-old son spread and older teens who were not invited showed up. Trial attorney Dimitri Pikrolidis is with us here to discuss this. What do you make about that statement that you just heard? Parent, Aubrey Vaughn make. Welcome to the world of social media, where 20 invitations can become 200 people in a matter of minutes. Um... Let's keep in mind this is an arrest. An arrest is an accusation. It's not a conviction. These people are presumed to be innocent. Yeah. It just got out of hand for them really quick. And it's sad that they got arrested, frankly. A lot of people saying in the neighborhood, listen, all the kids had spilled out of the home. They were in the cul-de-sac here. There was clearly alcohol. I imagine to some degree there's got to be, based on the charges, some probable cause here that maybe the alcohol was supplied by these parents. Well, it's not necessarily a problem to cause, but since it was alcohol, again, it's an accusation and we need to let the evidence come out. The fact of the matter is this, it got out of hand quick, and any family in Northern Virginia, and frankly, in the surrounding area, could have been in this position. The question is, when should they have called the police? And I think they did. They just probably did it later than somebody would have preferred. But that's why we have trials and see what ends up happening. So what do you make, then, of them having to turn themselves in? Is this an overzealous prosecution? No, it's not a prosecution because the Commonwealth Attorney's Office wasn't involved in this. They were charged and they had to turn themselves in. That's just process, police process, if you will. But But, you know, yes, I mean, it's a wake-up call to every parent listening that when you host a party in this day and age, You know, people are going to party crash, especially if you put something on the internet. And perhaps, again, they should have stopped things a little sooner, but that's for the evidence to determine. It sounds to me, and I have every reason to believe their attorney, who I spoke to earlier today, that these folks were just having a party for their middle school kid. Okay, so they are going to try, I mean, what is the process now? Well, I mean, they're going to have a court date. I mean, ultimately, there'll be a trial date. So there will be a prosecution unless the charges are dropped. Yeah, I mean, Mr. Discano's office can drop the charges if they so choose, but I suspect that they'll go through the process and have a court date. I spoke to their attorney. He's a fine attorney, and he will negotiate on their behalf, explain, bring his evidence. Here's the invitation. Here's what happened. Here's where we're going to provide a timeline. And, you know, reasonably minded prosecutors might say, hey, we're not going to process this. And not move forward. That's a possibility here. But there is a process that has to take place. It just doesn't happen automatically. All right. We'll wait and see what comes of, of course, the process. And we'll check back in with more on that interview coming up here on Fox 5 at 4, 5 and 6. Thank you so much, Dimitri. Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen launching his own bid to become Senate majority leader. The senator announcing today he is now no longer looking a run for president in 2028. He's focused on congressional leadership. His plans contradict what he told us just last week. I've made clear that I'm not looking to be the next Democratic leader. Yes, I am planning to run for the Senate majority. Does this close the door on the 2028? The announcement comes after some newly elected Democratic senators have declined to support Chuck Schumer's reelection bid. Joining us now, Congress accountability and enterprise reporter for The Washington Post, Alexi Kossoff with us here. Alexi, what is Congress, Capitol Hill saying right now? What's the talk, especially amongst Democrats, about what this looks like, Schumer versus Van Hollen? At least for now, there could be another person coming in soon. Yeah. I mean, this is a bit of an unexpected development. Obviously, Democrats are coming off a great election where they had victories beyond their wildest imaginations. And so for this to now enter the infighting stage just a week later is surprising. It's amazing. There was a lot of external pressure to get a progressive challenger to Chuck Schumer. And Chris Van Hollen is the one who's answered that call from activists and other people across the Internet. internet, but There's not been a huge amount of his colleagues who are running to support him today after he's made this announcement. So far, we've only seen three other senators who've endorsed his bid. And so if he's really going to be able to make this challenge to Chuck Schumer, he's going to need to start picking up more support very quickly. Right. I mean, the thought here being that Van Hollen would be, I suppose, more progressive than Chuck Schumer and therefore would be the better fit. Van Hollen seems to claim that he's got the support of at least 10 senators. And you say right now the count looks like at least publicly three. There would be some sort of like private ballot vote here to determine that. Is he really that much more progressive than Chuck Schumer, especially with this incoming House of Representatives and senators? I think ideology is just one way of looking at it. Part of what people who want a new Senate majority leader are looking for is someone who will be a fighter against Donald Trump. That's something that the activists who are out there calling for a new Senate majority leader have emphasized. And certainly, Senator Van Hollen has gotten that reputation over the last few years, in particular when he flew down to El Salvador to meet with Kilmar Abrego-Garcia, the immigrant who was wrongly deported there last year. That made him sort of of this champion on the left. And so regardless of the actual ideology of Chuck Schumer versus Chris Van Hollen, there is a certain image there that people are really responding to and part of why they drafted him into this fight. Is this a moment for the Republicans to seize on, given the fact that, to your point earlier on, that there could be potential infighting here amongst Democrats to reveal what is a more progressive wing of the party? I mean, certainly there is opportunity here, whatever the outcome is, for Republicans to pounce if Chuck Schumer. holds on and remains Senate Majority Leader, his status is still slightly weakened by the fact that there are many people in his caucus who've said that they don't stand behind him. And if Chris Van Hollen pulls it out, you know, he's going to do so by very narrow margins and he's going to have to put a lot of work into unifying the caucus going forward. So it's definitely a difficult position to be in for both of these men. Right now. But there's also lots of time until the new session starts next year and time for Democrats to unify, come back together and get on the same page about their agenda. Let's see if they can make that happen. We so appreciate it. Thank you, Alexi. Check out your reporting there with The Washington Post. We'll be right back here on the DMV Zone.