face-to-face summit with putin in europe this summer. anderson? >> alex marquardt, appreciate it. thanks. the news continues. i want to hand it over it to chris for cuomo prime time. >> thank you very much. i am chris cuomo and welcome to "prime time." critical body cam video has been released of another police killing. the victim in this case is a 13-year-old named adam toledo. this happened on march 29th in chicago. there is closed circuit camera footage, and body camera footage showing different moments before and after the shooting including the foot pursuit of an officer chasing the boy and also the shooting itself in an alley on chicago's west side. here's what we know, police responded to reports of gunshots, when they responded to the scene, they came upon toledo and a 21-year-old man. both ran. the 21-year-old was arrested at the scene. one of the officers chased adam and shot him after issues a

command to him. all of these take place are painful to watch. i understand that. but imagine how difficult these situations were when we didn't have them, and please appreciate the help they are in understanding what happened. the tape has been released two ways, in realtime, as it actually occurred, and in slow mo. and the police have pointed things out that they believe are relevant in the analysis on it that you'll see. i'm going to show you both. first, real speed. at the point where the pursuit became a shooting. >> police, stop. stop right now. show me your -- stop, stop. [ gunshot ] >> shots fired, shots fired, get an ambulance over here now. look at me. look at me. you all right?

>> the main question, was the officer justified in firing the single shot that killed the 13-year-old? the answer is not as simple as you may think. the critical issue is going to be whether or not the officer reasonably believed that adam was holding a gun. here is another look at a critical moment. you see the officer running through. this is the alley. it's obviously at night. he's charging toward the boy. and then says, now this has been pointed out by the police, okay, they are saying that this is the firearm on the left is a close up. on the right is the regular frame. the police have indicated the arrow with firearm. okay. he's obviously charging towards the boy. he then says, hey, show me your hands. at that moment, you see the tape is frozen. you can see there does appear to be something in his toledo's hand.

the police say it was a firearm. cnn, however, cannot confirm that. police say that it was a gun that was later recovered from behind the fence where they're running now. now, let's look at the rest of the tape that turns to a different angle. okay. here it is. this is from farther away, obviously, from a school nearby. now, what the police here are highlighting, what they believe when he dropped the gun. after the cop had told toledo to drop his weapon. but the officer then shoots him and you can see toledo running from a back angle. okay. this is where he stops in front of him. this is the back alley. this is his back angle running. okay. police did identify a firearm after the shooting on the other

side of the fence. the question is that the same gun? did toledo throw it when the cop came? there's the gun. found facing but up against the fence. now, the family for adam toledo has a different reckoning than what the police have laid out. here's what the attorney said. >> those videos speak for themselves. adam, during his last second of life did not have a gun in his hand. the officer screamed at him, "show me your hands." adam complied, turned around. his hands were empty when he was shot in the chest. if he had a gun, he tossed it. if he asked him to toss it and show his hands and the kid complies, then he shouldn't be shot. >> so that's going to become a question of fact in the

investigation here. and that's where we are. all right. have clear eyes on this situation. it's horrible. it's horrible that a kid is gone. 13 years old. but why? and this is an investigative phase. the policeman did command him, drop it, drop it. we hear that, right? so did he throw the gun away? was it still in his hand as he was turning? these are the questions that investigators are going to have to answer to make sense of whether or not the officer acted reasonably under the circumstances. now, the freeze frame of the boy's hand is going to be big in the investigation. as will the question of whether the officer should have reasonably seen that action by adam as either complying with the command to shoot, with the command to turn. okay. here are the two things. i want to be clear about this.

did the officer reasonably believe that adam was turning to shoot and not turning to obey the command after having dropped the weapon the way the lawyer for the family argues. also, the nature of the discovery of the gun and any evidence of that boy's prints on that weapon that was found will be very important. now, we have in-depth coverage coming from a lot of different angles, but please, again, be clear. there are a lot of questions here that we have to answer, that the investigation must answer before we can really know what this was about. now, on its face, it looks bad, and it's even worse because of the timing. it comes on the heels of these two other big cases that at this point present much more grave legal developments, and as you know, both are in minnesota. the first case involving the death of daunte wright saw the ex-officer today accused of his killing making her first appearance in court.

she has been charged with second-degree manslaughter. no plea yet in the case. prosecutors say kim potter's culpable negligence, which is another way in other jurisdictions you'll hear criminally negligent homicide, her culpable negligence caused wright's death on sunday when she fired her glock while shouting taser. tonight, night five of protesters gathering in brooklyn center, minnesota. they are there in demonstrations that are an outcry of pain and cries for change. in that moment, the mother of daunte wright addressed the press right before potter's court appearance today. >> but unfortunately there's never going to be justice for us. i do want accountability, 100% accountability, like my sister said, the highest accountability. but even then when that happens,

if that even happens, we're still going to bury our son, so when people say justice, i just shake my head. >> the prosecution in that case is at the beginning, and the case that started our current focus that roiled the country since this summer, the murder case of george floyd, that is now in its final phases, prosecution and defense both rested. closing arguments will be monday. they will be critical. derek chauvin invoked the fifth amendment today, his right against self-incrimination. he's not going to take the stand in his own defense. we saw his face and heard his voice live for the first time during the trial. >> have you made a decision today whether you intend to testify or whether you intend to invoke your fifth amendment privilege? >> i will invoke my fifth amendment privilege today. >> is this your decision not to testify? >> it is, your honor. >> all right.

do you have any questions about your right to remain silent or to testify on your own behalf. >> not at this time, i don't. >> it was an interesting delivery of that decision, but it was not a surprise that he wasn't going to take the stand. it's too fact sensitive. there's too much for him to answer for, and really, his defense seems to be pointing at the forensics as their best chance to create doubt along with trying to create an image of who george floyd was. now, while that wasn't a surprise, the don't testify decision, there was a surprise today, and it was when the judge threatened to declare a mistrial. we're going to take you through that all tonight, but i do want to start with what we understand about this shooting in chicago of the 13-year-old named adam toledo. we have an important guest tonight. john catanzara, the president of the chicago police union. appreciate you being with us on "prime time." >> thanks, chris.

>> help us understand why the union wants people to see this shooting as a regrettable but justifiable use of force by the officer? >> well, time lapse photo shows that that officer had 8/10 of a second to determine if that weapon was still in his hand or not, period. there's no way a rational person can say they can process that and their muscle reaction would be less than one second. the officer does not have to wait to be shot at or shot in order to respond and defend himself. there's no obligation whatsoever. >> so just help us understand. what you're saying is whether the 13-year-old had the gun or not doesn't matter? >> at the point he got shot, i'm in the saying it doesn't matter. the reality is the officer responded to a shots fired call. there was no doubt that that weapon was used, shell casings were recovered at the location of the shot spotter where it went off, where they were

shooting at a passing vehicle, which is all we're looking at this whole situation. there's a bunch of different components to the whole situation. the officers were pretty close by when the shot spotter alert went off. they responded to the scene. of course the offenders took, you know, flight and left. there was no one else out on the street corner at that time. it was pretty obvious when the officers got there that they had something to do with the shots going off. they took off on foot. the officers gave chase. you can clearly see an object which is a gun in the offenders hand, in his right hand as he enters that open fence area. now if you go back to that video from the school that shows the long shot, he absolutely has something in his hand. you could see him extending his right arm behind the fence and coming up with an empty hand. whatever he had in his hand was gone. the gun what was recovered. it wasn't recovered later. it was recovered immediately.

the officers saw the gun right away, as soon as they started rendering aid ten seconds after the shots were fired. again, from behind a fence, to this, in less than a second. in reality, an average human being could not block someone from slapping him in the face in less time than that. let alone deciding and registering that it's a good reason why the officer only shot one. he would have been justified to shoot multiple times. we're trained to basically shoot two and reassess. that didn't even happen because by the time he had shot the first time in justification, he realized the gun was out of his hand, he didn't shoot a second time. >> that's the part i just want to understand. look, this is in an investigative phase and i do understand from my own reporting that yes, the officer did immediately start to render aid. there was discussion about, you know, how their equipment was, and then afterwards, he went and recovered the weapon. now, here's the part i just want you to explain, if you would. if the kid was responding to the command, stop, show me your hands, drop it, and as you say,

you can see from the camera that the kid threw it behind the fence, if you believe that it was obvious that the kid threw the gun behind the fence as we see from the long shot from the school, why are you so quick to say it was obvious that the officer had to shoot. >> because there was no way the officer could see where his arm went behind the fence panel. it was totally blocked by the fence itself. there is no reason -- and i'll tell you, we're coming up on the 20-year anniversary of a friend of mine who was shot by a gang banger. officer brian strauss shot in the middle of the night. june 30th of 2001, brian didn't make it out of the alley. we do not have to wait to be shot to respond. the officer had every reason to believe that that offender was turning and pointing the gun at him. monday morning quarterback it all you want, but according to illinois statute, you only need to have a reasonable belief in

order to take deadly action. and no person in their right mind would not say that they would have been in fear of their life in that same situation in less than one second to react on whether that gun was still there or not. >> and it was the same officer that rendered aid to the victim right after the shooting. that's an important fact as well. do you have any questions -- >> and if you watch that whole video, it wasn't just him. i mean, everybody that responded to that scene was cheering the kid on to keep fighting and stay alive. this isn't like, you know, officers they like to be vilified like we're out there hunting gang bangers. you know, and that's not discussed either. this subject was a latin king gang member. he did have a fresh tattoo on his arm that wasn't even healed it was so fresh. you know, let's put the spotlight where it's at. the gangs take advantage of these poor misguided young kids, and they use them for their own gain. they let them hold the guns all the time because they know they're not going to get charged juvenilely with a crime, but the reality is the one part that's

not discussed now or almost ever is the repercussions of that officer's justified decision to take a life, and the guilt that they have to live with for the rest of their life. the mayor came out at a press conference today and talked about how traumatic it was to watch this video and urging people to take a second thought about doing it. what do you think the officers who responded to that scene and were rendering aid and trying to save his life are stuck with for the rest of their life. and they got to bring that home to their families, and then their families are affected by this. again, it's just a bad situation all the way around. the poor young kid misguided made a horrible decision that cost him his life, but it was justified, and the officer did everything he possibly could to the letter of the law and the guidelines of the chicago police department. >> i understand where you're coming from on it, and i understand the sympathies, and i understand why you want people to appreciate how hard of a job it is. what i don't understand is why does it matter, i mean, i don't know, and i haven't been able to

confirm that the kid had any kind of gang affiliation, but even if you're right, why does that matter? >> why does it matter that they were shooting at a passing vehicle? nobody talks reckless conduct that lead to this whole thing. so it's okay to shoot at a vehicle? >> hold on. but you know why. john, hold on, john, you know why. i'm not talking about precede ent event because it's irrelevant to what happened in the alley. i'm not talking about whether the kid is in a gang. >> no, chris, that's not true because if someone's willing to shoot at a passing vehicle, there is a simple expectation that they're certainly willing to shoot at anybody, including a police officer. so it is relevant. >> but i'm saying to you that the condition for the officer in the alley in terms of his legally justification is he's reasonably suspicious that the person he's pursuing has been involved in a felony. i'm giving you that here. they responded to shots fired, they run. i'm saying i don't know why it is necessary to paint the kid one way or another.

he answered the command the way he did. the officer had to make a decision, and you're saying the decision was justified. i don't understand why the fact that the kid's a gang banger, because i believe that gets perceived as you trying to smear the kid. why is there a need for that? >> i'm just stating facts. i'm not smearing anybody. i'm stating facts. >> is it relevant? >> it is relevant. >> what if he was a priest running down the alley with a gun in his hand, and if told to stop and drop it. he did what the kid did and got shot? >> what if he was a 40-year-old male, would we be having this conversation right now? probably not but the fact that he's 13 makes everything different. that's not fair either. but here we are. >> well, does it make it fair, no, but no matter who the kid is, no matter who the man is, it should matter that the decision in the moment was justifiable. i'm sure you would agree with that. >> i started my dissertation with saying it is 100% justified. that officer's actions were actually heroic. there's a very good reason why he only shot once.

like i said, he could have been shot multiple times. the officer assessed in a split second. unfortunately he committed to the first shot already justifiably so. >> and look, i appreciate you on that. and you just said something that i haven't been able to confirm so i'm wondering if you know something i don't, the gun that was discovered at the scene, you said there were shell casings found, do you know that there's a ballistics report that says that was the gun that was at the scene and that the kid's prints are on the gun. >> well, there's a video of the two offenders standing on the corner of 24th and sawyer. the northeast corner of that intersection as they're firing, you can't tell who's firing, but the eight rounds are fired at the vehicle as it's passed by. the casings were recovered in that same area, so it wasn't the cars shooting at them, they were shooting at the car. >> okay. >> that's what triggered this gun spotter.

that's what sent the police over. >> i don't disagree with any of that. i'm wondering if you knew this weapon goes with those cases? do you know that? >> i don't have confirmation yet. >> i don't want to bet for it or against it. i would love for you to tell me when you know, and i appreciate you coming on laying out the case, and sensing and reminding people of the situations on all side of how hard a situation this is. i appreciate you doing that. >> you know, i will say, he is 13 years old. we talk about the public school system in chicago specifically. he should have been in school. but we're not in school learning now are we. the cps came out right away and started talking about cpd being killers. you know, the officer's accused of being an assassin, if the school was doing its job and teaching students in person, maybe a counselor would have been able to reach this kid and the gangs didn't. >> i understand your point. but again, you understand why i'm not making any of these points? >> i understand. >> i don't want to judge the officer. i don't want to judge the victim. i just want to judge the situation and whether it was reasonable in its midst.

i appreciate your commentary. for me i want to stick to the facts. sand what was right in this situation. >> i challenge anybody to try to make their mind up. i challenge anybody to try and make their mind up, life or death in less than 8/10 of a second. >> understood. i appreciate you, and thank you for coming on the show. >> thank you, have a good night. >> it's a hard situation, and i understand the defensive posture of someone from the police union, and i understand how ugly this stuff can get. got to see through it. we have to see past it. we have to see the facts for the situation that is before us and that's how the investigation goes. so i want to bring in van jones and a former top official at a big city police department who had to handle exactly these kinds of situations in baltimore. okay. now, is the shooting different from other law enforcement confrontations that we have been covering. yes, the question is how. let's discuss next. one on one is brought to you by applebee's, 8.99 irresistibles.

you say ♪ ♪ your purple prose just gives you away ♪ ♪ the things, you say you're unbelievable. oh! ♪ applebee's irresist-a-bowls are back. vo: president biden's bold new jobs plan - it rebuilds our country irresist-a-bowls are back. and tackles climate change with clean energy jobs. biden: the american jobs plan will lead to a transformational progress in our effort to tackle climate change with american jobs and american ingenuity. vo: this is our opportunity - our moment to fight climate change and build back better. biden: it's big, yes. it's bold, yes. and we can get it done. - [narrator] grubhub perks give you deals on all the food that makes you boogie. (upbeat music) get the food you love with perks from- - [crowd] grubhub.

keeping your oysters business growing - grub what you love. has you swamped. you need to hire. i need indeed indeed you do. the moment you sponsor a job on indeed you get a shortlist of quality candidates from a resume data base claim your seventy-five-dollar credit when you post your first job at indeed.com/promo

your mission: stand up to moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis. and take. it. on... with rinvoq. rinvoq a once-daily pill can dramatically improve symptoms... rinvoq helps tame pain, stiffness, swelling. and for some, rinvoq can even significantly reduce ra fatigue. that's rinvoq relief. with ra, your overactive immune system attacks your joints. rinvoq regulates it to help stop the attack. rinvoq can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious infections and blood clots, sometimes fatal, have occurred as have certain cancers, including lymphoma, and tears in the stomach or intestines, and changes in lab results. your doctor should monitor your bloodwork.

tell your doctor about any infections... and if you are or may become pregnant while taking rinvoq. take on ra. talk to your rheumatologist about rinvoq relief. rinvoq. make it your mission. if you can't afford your medicine, abbvie may be able to help. - my family and i did a fundraiser walk if you can't afford your medicine, in honor of my dad who has alzheimer's. i decided to make shirts for the walk with custom ink and they just came out perfect. - [announcer] custom ink makes it easy with simple design tools, individual shipping, and hundreds of products, including masks. start today at customink.com.

at the heart of this story in chicago is a 13-year-old, and a deadly interaction with police. let's take a deeper look at the forensics and what the video reveals. we have anthony barksdale, the acting commissioner of police in baltimore, and van jones, who we all know very well. what was your take on what the head of the police union had to say about the shooting? >> i understood his passion. i understood some of the things he was saying, but i've been this that position myself. and in a foot chase, juveniles and adults turn with the weapons in their hands and i didn't shoot. i didn't fire a shot. and that's where i have a problem. officers have what is called ooda loop, when they go into a

situation like that, and you've got the shots fired, eight shots were fired, you know there's something going on there. there's a gun that's letting loose. so you have to observe, orient, decide, and act. so you pull up. you observe, you see people fitting the description where the shot spotter went off. you orient. you say where am i versus where are they. you decide, i'm going to get out of this car, and if they run i'm running with them. if i see a gun, i'm going to shoot. if i see a gun, maybe i'll take cover. if i see a gun, maybe i call more units and we just try to cut this person off, and you act, you go into action. and it happens in a split second. and that is where when the kid, because he is a kid. when that kid turns, what you're

watching in an incident is hands, hands, chris, this is what is going to hurt you. when the kid turns, i don't see a gun in his hand. that's where i have a problem. had people throw guns on me, so be it. so be it. my job is to see the gun in the yard over there, he threw it over the fence, but you have to watch the hands. >> i understand. >> and when the kid turns, i don't see it. >> does it change the analysis if you give the benefit of what the officer said, which seems to sound like, you know, stop, show me your hands, drop it. drop it. does that seem to suggest that he thought there was a weapon in the hand, hence the drop it part? >> it is really important, you can get tunnel vision. if you're in a situation like that, depending on the individual, my response is going to be different.

so if this officer was afraid. if this officer had more information about that area, had there been shootings, is he alone, is he scared, and there's nothing wrong with saying you're scared, and then you react. that's possible. but i'm speaking, i've been there numerous times, and during my career. and this one, when the kid turns with nothing in his hands, no lethal force. >> van, you heard the conversation. >> i did. you know, it's heartbreaking. you know, my little boy, who you know is 12, he'll be 13 this summer. he's not doing that kind of stuff but he does dumb stuff all the time. kids do dumb stuff all the time. and some kids get to survive their mistakes, and some kids don't, and you know, my heart goes out to the family. my heart goes out to the officer. i mean, you can see the officer was disturbed afterwards, he did his best to try to save that life.

there's something that's going on that's wrong here, where the presumption is always negative with our young people. now, in this situation, you know, some people are going to see it one way. some the other way. what i will say is simply this, i saw a video and i sent it to you, chris, of a white guy in a truck running over cops. he wasn't shot. >> dragging that cop, running away, and they wound up taking him into custody. literally dragged the cop on the side of the truck, out of the picture. >> yeah, and so when you're seeing -- i think part of the problem is, you know, the tunnel vision that happens is we kind of look at these situations, the kid shouldn't have been running, shouldn't have had a gun, you pull back, you see videos of white people like complete idiots, and attacking cops, and cussing them out and being drunk about and they don't even get a scratch on them. >> the push back is the stats as you know is that more white people get shot, and you'll say well it's disproportionate, and they say you guys are involved

in a lot more police contacts because of criminality, and the conversation goes woo woo woo, where do we go? >> i tell you, in these situations where you have, you know, young people in chicago and other cities, who are doing dumb things and desperate things and we talk about these kids more than we talk to them. and we tell them all the things they shouldn't do, but we don't give them opportunities to do more of the right things, when you're pulling back on scholarships, pulling back on programs, but still increasing the amount of cameras and everything else. it's not just the kids. the kids need to do better and the adults needed to a lot better. i don't want to jump on this one cop because we don't have enough information, and i didn't like him jumping on the kid. some of the kids are making bad decisions but the adults are clearly making much worse decisions because it keeps happening over and over again. >> i'm with you. look, there are a lot of

different takes on the situation. i know it's still early but from what you have seen at this point before hearing any in-depth debrief from the officer, do you believe this is an investigation that should yield that there should be a charge here or no? >> i'm going to say no. it may be justifiable based on what the officer articulates, but here we go again with the, to me, diminishing a life. i didn't need to hear anything about a gang. it didn't even matter to me. it's a kid. why? why do that? and so, yeah, he can articulate it, the cop, he can articulate this one. it's ugly, and chicago need to do some training just like minnesota and they need to get serious about it. because van is right. we're seeing this over and over again, and it's sickening. >> anthony, barksdale, thank you very much. i appreciate it. van, as always, i appreciate you brother, thank you.

these are hard times. and i just hope we can hold together case by case. you got to talk about the shootings. you can criticize a lot of things, i'm not going to hear your criticism about what you shouldn't cover. i have the police perspective, we talk about what the fears and concerns are for the community, and the fact that it just keeps happening, and we don't seem to figure out how to get better. and we all know we have to do better. we'll be right back. ♪ smooth driving pays off. saving is easy when you're in good hands. allstate. click or call for a quote today. this is how you become the best! ♪“you're the best” by joe esposito♪ ♪ [triumphantly yells] [ding] don't get mad. get e*trade.

let's bring in former federal prosecutor elliot williams, joining me now. we are now at the beginning of the end with the closing arguments coming next on monday. today we got an interesting presentation of what was expected in this trial which is that the defendant officer chauvin would not take the trial, but here's how they explained it. >> do you understand if you choose to execute that right to remain silent, neither the state or court can comment on your silence as a sign or indication of your guilt, meaning they can't say he didn't get up and defend himself, so equate your silence with guilt. do you understand that? >> yes. >> have you made a decision today whether you intend to testify or whether you intend to invoke your fifth amendment privilege? >> i will invoke my fifth

amendment privilege today. >> why do you think they decided to do it this way? >> now, look, chris, so defendants very rarely testify, regardless of what you see on television, what you see on law and order, testimony is fraught with peril for defendants and it would have been really bad for derek chauvin if he were to try to testify. it's his right under the constitution, and we should frankly embrace that because no one ought to be compelled to testify against themselves. but look at how the cross-examination would have gone. starting with every bit of training he has received as a police officer. as a rookie, you were trained on cpr and how to restrain people, then just sort of confront him with every one of those. >> just the tape. >> just moment by moment of the tape, you're still doing it, you're still doing it. >> i get it. i'm saying why do it that way with the counselor interviewing him? >> yeah, every time he's been disciplined over the course of his career, walk him through

every one of those, and then finally, minute by minute through that tape, and it would have been devastating for his case. >> right. i'm just saying -- i don't understand why defense counsel wanted to interview him that way before the bench, instead of him saying i'm not going to testify or telling the bench he's not going testify. >> it creates a record for the court just so it's clear that this was a knowing and voluntary invocation of his fifth amendment right. he's just putting it on the record more than anything else. >> what do you think the big stroke is going to be for each side on monday? >> oh, if you're the prosecution you just tell the jurors to leave all the nonsense behind, push aside the defense's arguments that they tried to muddy the waters with and what did you see, you watched a nine minute video of an individual killing another individual which exceeded the bounds of training he had received as a police officer. full stop.

if you remember jerry blackwell in his opening statement had said he didn't let up and he didn't get up. sort of in a pithy cute way of putting it that will ring in jurors minds. what the defense has to do is muddy the waters and throw all of the arguments, some of them nonsense like the carbon monoxide argument that george floyd might have died of carbon monoxide, enlarged heart, methamphetamine and all of the above and hope one of them sticks and gets in at least one juror's mind. >> i mean, they dramatized it but having him not on the stand was easy, deciding how to do their focus because you can't, you know, in a closing, it's got to be compelling for that jury. it can't be and here's another thing and another thing, eventually, the old rule, when you have so much, it means you have nothing. they're going to have to make choices on the defense side about what you have to think about when you go back in that room that wasn't made clear beyond a reasonable doubt. what is that for the defense? >> yeah, and look, you know, the defense doesn't really have to prove anything, and it's not -- the prosecution had a better case here. they had a stronger presentation. but this isn't like boxing where

if you knock the guy down three times you automatically win. and merely having the better argument doesn't win a case, and the defense can simply say the prosecution hasn't met their burden because, by the way, george floyd happened to have an enlarged heart. every medical witness that has testified for the prosecution has made clear that most of these factors did not significantly contribute to george floyd's death, and so they got to muddy the water, but we'll see. >> one other quick thing, the prosecution's decision to charge three crimes that all involve the same behavior. ordinarily you have multiple charges for the different phases of what it did. first you hit them, and then you robbed him, and then crow went in the house, and that's burglary, he died, it's felony murder. here, the same behavior will have to be explained in three different charges, each or all could apply. is that a tricky thing? >> well, it's a clever decision

by prosecutors often because sometimes jurors can't agree on the higher charge. they can't agree on the intent that's necessary to hit, say, a second-degree murder charge, but they might say, look, this was so criminally negligent or reckless that we could convict him of second-degree manslaughter, that is not uncommon. it's the same fact pattern for all of them, but it's just sort of a different thing in the defendant's head and a different intent. if a juror is wishy washy and on the fence, maybe he or she might wish to convict on manslaughter or lower charge as opposed to the higher one. it does give a little bit of room to the prosecutors. >> some say that could be confusing. i think it's the opposite. it allows people in the jury room to say okay, fine you disagree with me on that one part. we're still in the same place, and it's this one instead of that one, but it's not a completely different universe of conversation. elliot williams, thank you very much, we'll see how it rolls on monday. >> yep. >> all right. now, i want to talk to another big problem that we're all facing. okay.

we have a moment of complete covidiocy ahead, being an idiot about covid, and it happened on the hill. and it was a beautiful demonstration of when ignorance turns into arrogance, when it goes against the facts and science, next. you can try to predict the future or you can create it. we're driving it. everywhere. we emit optimism, not exhaust. we plug in our vehicles as naturally as we charge our phones. we. we are generation e. we want smart. clean. and safe. to also be fun, easy and powerful! ultium! a battery that charges fast. runs long. it fits everyone. nobody will be left out. and that, changes everything. ♪ ♪

at aspen dental, today is the day to take back your smile. why wait? we're here nights, weekends and right now, to give you exceptional care and 20% off your treatment plan. new patients, take the first step with a complete exam and x-rays

that are free without insurance. because our nationwide network of over 1,500 doctors at 900 locations all have one goal — to make you smile, today. start now. call 1-800-aspendental or book online at aspendental.com [sfx: psst psst] allergies don't have to be scary. spraying flonase daily stops your body from overreacting to allergens all season long. psst! psst! all good

solidarity behind science. we know that that's what it takes to bring covid numbers down. and we know that is what is needed to end this pandemic. all of us know it. so what was all this when do we get our liberty back on capitol hill today by republican congressman jim jordan, it's people he believes that don't want to get the vaccine. why is he talking about giving us the rest of our liberty back. instead, he decided to blame dr. anthony fauci, the nation's top infectious disease expert over when, tell me when, when do we get it back? listen. >> what measure, what standard, what objective outcome do we have to reach before americans get their liberty and freedoms back? >> you know, you're indicating liberty and freedom. i look at it as a public health measure to prevent people from dying. you're making this a personal thing and it isn't. >> it's not a personal thing. >> you are. that is exactly what you're doing. we're not talking about liberties. we're talking about a pandemic that has killed 560,000

americans. >> and i get that. >> that's what we're talking about. >> i get it, i get it. it's a big deal. no, it's not, not to you. you want to make it about division. that's why he took several minutes of time that he could have been saying to people, hey, listen to fauci, get the vaccine, let's get through this. but it was democratic congresswoman maxine waters who had the last word. listen to what she said. >> you need to respect the chair and shut your mouth. >> there's nothing wrong with wanting to know when this could all end. but it's hard to see how attacking fauci helps. you know when it ends. it ends when we get our crap together, right, and you get the vaccines and you get to a certain point, and you have too many people on the right who don't want to get the vaccine. science tells us cases are rising because the variant is bad. and you have 23% of americans fully vaccinated. now a lot of that 23% are the older and vulnerable, and that's going to help us but if we don't get 50, 60, 70%, it's going to

take more time, and people know this. so that's why it is baffling when you have people like senator ted cruz joining rand paul in ditching his mask as they walk the halls of congress. cruz explains at this point, i've been vaccinated, everybody working in the senate has been vaccinated. no, not your staff. not a lot of people in the media. they haven't gotten it. and the current cdc guidelines states very clearly if you're vaccinated you got to still keep taking precautions like wearing a mask. you can still get sick, you won't be as sick but you could give it to somebody else. he's not just wrong but he's doing it for the wrong reason. and he knows experts are still learning how vaccines affect covid spread. we know this. we know it's not 100%. the cdc data makes it all very clear, all right? 5,800 people who have been fully vaccinated against covid have gotten infected anyway. look, it's nothing, it's a little fraction of tens of millions who were already vaccinated but the only way to keep the number down is to

listen to science. they all know it. they're just playing politics, and people are dying. we now have a president, though, who believes in science, and who also holds russia accountable for its nefarious actions. how is he doing? hits or misses on the world stage, next. now roomba vacuums exactly where you need it. alexa, tell roomba to vacuum in front of the couch. and offers personalized cleaning suggestions for a clean unique to you and your home. roomba and the irobot home app. only from irobot.

so what's going on? roomba and the irobot home app. [dog] i'm a talking dog. the other issue. [dog] oh...i'm scratching like crazy. you've got some allergic itch with skin inflammation. apoquel can work on that itch in as little as 4 hours, whether it's a new or chronic problem. and apoquel's treated over 9 million dogs. [dog] nice. and... the talking dog thing? is it bothering you? no... itching like a dog is bothering me. until dogs can speak for themselves, you have to. when allergic itch is a problem, ask for apoquel. apoquel is for the control of itch associated with allergic dermatitis and the control of atopic dermatitis in dogs. do not use apoquel in dogs less than 12 months old or those with serious infections. apoquel may increase the chances of developing serious infections and may cause existing parasitic skin infestations

or pre-existing cancers to worsen. new neoplasias were observed in clinical studies and post-approval. most common side effects are vomiting and diarrhea. feeling better? [dog] i'm speechless. [dog] thanks for the apoquel. that's what friends are for. ask your veterinarian for apoquel. next to you, apoquel is a dog's best friend. look at that scuffed up wall. embarrassing you. that wall is your everest. but not any more. today let's paint.

behr. exclusively at the home depot. the biden administration announced sanctions on russia, for messing with the 2020 election. the massive solarwinds hack. the occupation of crimea, which is ongoing. the sanctions, also, mark the first time the federal government formally acknowledged russia's interference in the 2016 election. here to help is the president and founder of the eurasia group, ian bremer. good to see you. right move? wrong move? >> yeah. pretty good move. i mean, it is a bit of a climb-down, to be honest. we announced there was a bit set of sanctions. we kicked out some russian diplomats. we hit some of their companies with sanctions. but -- and we even hit -- but it could have been a lot worse for them. they know that. and also, let's keep in mind that, you know, we engage in

espionage against the russians just like they engage in espionage against us. we are not destroying critical infrastructure on either side. we don't want to say that publicly but that's the reality. >> where does he score points on this? because the trump folk don't believe russia was involved. they don't like that russia was involved. they'd rather talk, today, about having to back off on the story about russia putting out bounties on u.s.-service members. so where is the win? >> they know that the russians are in crimea and southeast ukraine and that's something that we need to sanction. they weren't particularly happy about the russians making inroads with the nord stream 2 pipeline. biden administration is opposed to, too. interesting thing here, chris, is that on the substance of actual policy. not the twitter-sphere, not cable news but the substance of foreign policy. actually, the trump administration and the biden administration, in areas like russia, aren't that different. trump, personally, wanted to cozy up with putin.

but the administration never did. and this isn't a huge change. the relations are in the toilet, chris, there is no question about that. u.s.-russia relations, today, are at their worst they have been, at any point, since the early '80s. u.s.-china. worst since the massacre. u.s.-turkey, in '74. that -- that's the backdrop that biden becomes president into. >> all the big brains keep saying, you know, russia is the least of all worries on that. yeah, putin was talking a miracle because they have got that deal on the gas pipeline so he is looking for a friend but he's not going to find one. should really focus on china, and forget about russia. what do you think about that? >> you can't forget about russia. they have got cybercapabilities that are close to equivalent with the u.s., they are willing to use it. they have military capabilities they are more than happy to engage in proxy wars against americans and american allies in the middle east, in ukraine.

>> can he make it better with them? >> you know, you'd like to have a better relationship, given that our relationship with china's so lousy. but putin does consider himself a true antagonist of the united states. so, i don't think a reset is plausible. but having said that, biden's speech today was all about, hey, we are putting sanchtions on them. but i also invited putin for a meeting, for a summit meeting at a third country. and the u.s. had talked about sending ships through the black sea. we decided not to do that. so, i mean, frankly, this. it wasn't a climb down. but the markets, the rouble took a big dump. i don't think we made relations worse, today. >> you know, 2016-foreign policy was the third choice of preference for voters. 75%. this election was at 57. what do you think they care about? and where does biden have to show that he can do it? >> well, as much as foreign relations with key antagonists

are horrible right now. the united states, at home, is showing they can do a lot more. and -- and that's one of the reasons why biden's approval ratings are around 60. i mean, when the united states, today, actually has the best-vaccine response of any-major economy in the world. we're going to be in a position, to lead the world in vaccine export, by summer. no one was saying that a few months ago. they were saying the chinese were going to eat our lunch and dinner. the united states also has the best-economic response, domestically, to coronavirus, of any-major economy in the world. that started off, bipartisan, under trump. it's continuing, basically, party-line vote, under biden. but it really matters and some of that is going to lead to foreign support, too. so, while i do agree with jake sullivan, national-security adviser, that you have to make americans feel like you're taking care of them, before they care about the rest of the world. that's why, maintaining troop presence, even though it's only 2,500, after 20 years and a

trillion dollars spent, in afghanistan, is enormously unpopular among americans. because they're looking to say, why would you spend that? when you don't care about me and the working-and-middle class. that is starting to change, chris. >> well, we know what happened there. the taliban walked away so you can extend the timeline but they call that place the graveyard of empires for a reason. nobody's made it better. it just makes everybody who goes in there, worse. ian bremmer. thank you very much for your head on this. you be well. we'll be right back.

not everybody wants the same thing. that's why i go with liberty mutual — they customize my car insurance so i only pay for what i need. 'cause i do things a little differently. hey, i'll take one, please! wait, this isn't a hot-dog stand? no, can't you see the sign? wet. teddy. bears.

get ya' wet teddy bears! one-hundred percent wet, guaranteed! or the next one is on me! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪