[ crowd chanting "honor her wish" ] n as bob woodward, author of the new book joining us now bob woodward author of the new book "rage" and washington post associate editor. mr. woodward we begin with the headline in your newspaper. trump will not commit to peaceful transition. your insight after writing two books about the president on his comments yesterday. >> well, it's -- it makes no sense for anybody, even him, but, of course, he thinks he can

bullies with way through on this, and the information i have, it's going to be just a -- a train wreck upon a train wreck at election or after election time. how do you count the votes, how do you make sure that there is a fair and square election? we're -- we're heading into another chapter, chapter 73 of trump world and we're just going to have to watch it day by day, hour by hour. >> you spoke with the president, i believe, 19 times, for this book. how did it come about? and how did he agree to talk with you? >> well, i did a book in 2018 "fear," on his first two years, and he did not cooperate. i tried to talk to him. he regretted that he, of course,

denounced the book. said i was a democratic operative. some people close to him said, oh, by the way, the book is true, and so the president, when i wanted to do the second book, said he would cooperate. i went into the oval office, put my little tape recorder down op the resolute desk and said it's all on the record. i'm going to record it all, and the book will come out in september or october before the election, and so he -- i talked to him for 9 hours and 41 minutes. he would call me at home at 10:00 or on the weekends, or i could call. i had a number where i could contact him. so it's -- i guess what i would call a total universe portrait of his thinking about his job, the central issue of the virus,

race relations, the economy, the supreme court. we were able to go down every avenue of america. i mean, it's really a look at him and he allowed me to push him and come back to questions, and i suspect he's not very happy now, but that's what he said, and that's what i was able to find out from my other reporting. >> what role did senator lindsey graham have in the president speaking to you? >> apparently, he told the president, look, he won't put words in your mouth. you'll get a straight shot. last week the president said, hey, i said some great things in those interviews, and on the book, in the book, i let him have his say entirely. so it's -- it's as close, i

believe, having done this now for 50 years, that you can ever come to, as an outsider, what was really going on in the white house and the administration on every matter of importance. >> this is your 20th book, mr. woodward. how do you know when these former officials are ready to talk? >> well, you just keep -- the old way used to be, go to their homes and knock on the door at night, with the virus you can't do it. so you use the telephone as your entree, and people are home at night, and you can get them on the phone sometimes. sometimes for extended periods of time. sometimes for a very, very long interview. central lesson for me is, people

like to talk. thank god. i think that people are out there -- no matter what their politics, they are secret sharers in believer, as believers in the first amendment. >> we want to invite viewers to join in on the conversation. if you're supporting joe biden, and senator harris dial in 202-748-8000. supporting president trump and vice president pence, 202-248-8001. undecided, 202-748-8002. mr. woodward you write in the book in your author's note that evelyn duffy insisted everyone in this book get the fairest truth possible including president trump and kept her eyes on that prize and worked tirelessly to see it fulfilled. steve riley insists or verification. tell us about this process.

>> they're my two assistants too, and they were willing to come to my house and work in their offices on my third floor. i have an office on that floor. my wife elsa walsh has an office in the tower. we were a team working together, wearing masks, being as careful as we could, exchanging drafts. doing transcripts of all of the interviews with trump and with everyone else. elsa, we didn't have to wear a mask with each other, and we lived our lives, but we lived in that bubble of trump world for ten weeks, for both elsa and myself, and extraordinary time, because we could get not only to trump but we could get to other

people in the white house, cabinet officers, people close to the president. >> sofia up first in the bronx supporting the former vice president. you're on the air with mr. woodward. >> caller: thank you. thank you, mr. woodward. are you there? >> yes. i am. >> caller: okay. >> hello? >> caller: first i want to say this -- 50 years the job you've done. this one, you must get a nobel prize, because if you did not record him, he would have denied. sir, i voted for him. i'm one of the deplorable. i see now the last three weeks, he had all the people, my peo e

people -- he don't feel anything for them. he don't feel anything for us. even though he admitted -- to you, sir, in the interview that this is going to be bad. you understand, sir? and i hope you get the nobel prize, because somebody has to make it clear that you are brilliant. if you did not record him, he would have denied. it would have been chaos, and thank you for listening, and i hope he stops the rallies! he's going to kill us. he's going to kill us, sir, and i supported him. i'm the deplorabldeplorable, si >> so pfaokay sofia. mr. woodward? >> first of all i recorded him with his permission. frankly, when the book came out

i wasn't sure i would put out the audios. my wife elsa walsh, jamie gangel at cnn who got the book early, they said, you need to put out audios, and i've done that a couple of times on books, but only in a small way, and they said, no. it was kind of a pincher movement between elsa and jamie to say, no, you've got to do this. the context was, which we know, people don't trust the media. people don't trust much, and so being able to hear it in, with their own ears, hear president trump say these things, say to me that, hey, look, he's trying to downplay the virus. he doesn't want to cause a panic. the key to all of this, and i

start my book with this meeting on january 28th in the oval office when the national security team, adviser robert o'brien told president trump about the virus, said this virus is going to be the biggest, not maybe, will be, is going to be the biggest national security threat to your presidency. his deputy matt pottinger who had worked in china as a "wall street journal" reporter during the 2003 pandemic knew that the chinese government lied all the time. he had sources in china, and he was able to explain to president trump, not that, just trouble was coming, but a major pandemic was coming, because he had those contacts, those sources in china

in the medical community who would stand up to the chinese communist party and the chinese government and he said, this is going to be like the 1918 -- 1918 spanish flu pandemic that killed 675,000 people in this country. >> carol, royal oak, michigan. supporting the president. good morning, carol. >> caller: hi. good morning. >> hi. >> caller: i'm curious, mr. woodward. do you like the president as a person? and -- >> you know, that -- >> hold on. mr. woodward -- hold on. carol, go ahead and -- >> okay. no. >> caller: -- allow you to do what you did? you know? the president said, go ahead. turn the machine on. do you think you'd ever get a democrat to do that? >> all right, carol. >> yes.

i have many, many times, president obama. president clinton. so it's -- it's a non-partisan tape recorder, if i may say that, and my approach is aggressively non-partisan. you asked a very good question at the beginning. do i like the president? he has, as you know, he can be very charming. he would let me push him. we would sometimes even joke about things, but he knew and i knew this is not a, a joking matter. everything, particularly the virus and so he has an appeal. my wife also elsa walsh says, well, you know, she listened in on some of these calls, because i would put it on a speaker phone. i told president trump that. there were some foul language,

and at one point president trump said, i don't want your wife to hear this, or her pretty ears, i think was his term. so i was -- i was open and listening to him. we started these interviews before the virus. we talked a great deal about his relationship with north korea, and kim jong-un and the north korean leader, and i got the letters, the letter exchange between them, and president trump told me, he said, look, we've not had a war, and there was an expectation, maybe we were going to have a nuclear war with north korea, and i -- i think, and i indeed give him credit on this. not having a war. i, back in the 1960s, after i

got out of college, i served five years in the u.s. navy, as communications officer, and this was during vietnam. i saw vietnam up close. and the lies of vietnam. and the horror of that war, and so, i give president trump credit for avoiding a war with north korea. at the same time, relations between trump and kim jong-un had broken down now. we don't know where it's going. lots of experts say they don't think trump handled it right. i'm agnostic on that. i say, this is what he did. and he's very emphatic with me, in these interviews, that it was a no war strategy. and if you look over all, at the trump administration, we've not

had a new war. a lot of people expected we would have one. at the same time, the relations with some countries, trump likes autocratic leaders. he talked to me about that quite openly. and so he's picked leaders like putin to have a good relationship with him. with mbs, the crown prince of saudi arabia and his association with kim jong-un. anyway, the positives and the negatives are laid out in the book the best i could. >> you write about the letters between the leader kim jong-un and the president which will he calls love letters. the cia never figured out conclusively who wrote and crafted kim's letters to trump. they were masterpieces. the analysts marvelled at the

skill someone brought to finding the exact mixture of flattery while pelling it to trump's sense of grandiosity and being center stage. >> the letters, reaching out for trump, saying we know each other, we can trust each other, we're going to be friends for each other. at one point, he talks about, i remember, standing, meeting with you, holding your excellency's hand, and they pledged to each other. as i say in the book, it's almost like "the knights of the round table." and at the same time, when kim jong-un would not deliver on his agreement to get rid of his nuclear weapons, trump pushed him and said, now, look, you gave your word on this. you're not ready to make a deal. and so, the second meeting which

was in hanoi, vietnam, kind of fell apart. we don't know where all of this is going. it's a very dicey situation. because as i report, kim jong-un has dozens, several dozens of nuclear weapons. they're probably not, you know, big -- big busters like some of the missile -- some of the weapons that we have on our ballistic missile submarine. but they're nuclear weapons. and they're well concealed and well hidden. and so it is a very real threat that we face from them. now, history's going to determine, because as carol rowe

who is one of george w. bush's political adviser, and rove said, we're talking about the iraq war and the afghan war and other issues, and rove said, look, everything depends on outcomes in politics. and i think that's true. the outcome of the relationship with north korea, we don't know where it's going to end. >> let's go to carl who is in oxford, massachusetts, and undecided in this election. go ahead, carl. >> caller: good morning, thank you for c-span. mr. woodward, i've seen you many times on television interviews. i read one of your books a long time ago. i forget the title of it, but i'm sorry to say, i lost a lot of respect for you after -- when the iraq war started. right after it started, many people realized it was based on a lie.

and you kind of came out like a couple of years later with a book about that. i think you were on msnbc, if i remember correctly. and to me, you were just a johnny come lately. you know, correct me if i'm wrong, but that's how i feel. >> well, look, i wrote a story for "the washington post" before the iraq war started. in which i quoted a cia official saying they do not have smoking gun intelligence that iraq has weapons of mass destruction. the government, and the cia, believed that they did. but this official told me, we don't have smoking gun intelligence. and i have faulted myself mightily, for not understanding what i wrote in my own newspaper. because when somebody says we don't have smoking gun

intelligence, that means they don't have verifiable information. they're not sure, and i, quite frankly, should have realized what i wrote. but i wrote a number of books about the iraq war. the third one was called "state of denial" in which i reported with documentation and all kinds of interviews that president bush, george w. bush at the time, was not telling the truth to the american people about how bad the situation was in iraq. it had deteriorated in the years after the 2003 invasion. >> christopher. >> so, you're -- >> go ahead, mr. woodward, finish up. >> no, i was just going to say

the iraq war was really an important turning point. i've always said i should have been more aggressive about it. but i did report what happened internally. and significantly, the cia director george tenaet went to make a presentation to president bush about whether there were weapons of mass destruction. and the president doubted whether the intelligence was that solid. and george tenet stood up in the oval office and said it's a slam dunk, mr. president. it is a slam dunk. and so that was the view at the highest level in the cia, as you may recall, colin powell, then secretary of state, gave that famous speech at the united nations in which he held up a

little bottle. and said, you know, this contains a chemical weapon, and this is what iraq has. powell has since said it is his most embarrassing -- his worst moment in his tenure, not only as a military officer, but as secretary of state. so, i should have been more aggressive. i should have been, quite frankly, if that story i cited in "the washington post," i should have understood when you don't have smoking gun intelligence, you don't -- you're not sure. and you're going to go to war on that basis anyway. >> all right. we'll go on to christopher in oklahoma supporting the biden/harris ticket. go ahead, christopher. >> caller: okay. good morning to you both. and massive respect for just the

"washington journal" in and of itself for us to be able to do it. the last thing i thought i'd be doing this morning is asking bob woodward a question, okay? there's been, as we know, over 200,000 deaths to covid-19. i want to know personally, do you feel like any responsibility for publicly recalling the information that donald trump initially disclosed to you early on about the virus, like even later on, after it got time for your book to come out? but also in those initial periods, when he was telling you one thing. and then turning right around a week or two later on tv telling all of us the exact opposite. >> mr. woodward. >> okay. it's a fair question.

and when trump told me on february 7th that he knew the virus was airborne and that it could be transmitted from somebody who has, or didn't have symptoms, and that it was deadly, in fact, more deadly than the flu, we were talking about china. and he had just the evening before had a talk with president xi. and i brought a tack of this paper clipping from my newspaper, "the washington post" and "the new york times." and all through the period of january through february, they were talking about china. i thought trump was talking about china. and it was not until may that i learned that trump had been briefed. and that the centerpiece of this

is january 28th, when trump was told by his national security adviser that the virus, as robert o'brien put it to the president, is going to be not, as i say may be, but is going to be the biggest national security threat to your presidency. and his deputy, matt pottinger, laid out information that pottinger had from doctors in china. and i did not know about that meeting until may. and what's interesting about journalism, obviously, reporters like you, sir, we live our lives in chronological order. but you don't report in chronological order. and if i had known what i learned in may, i obviously would have gone and published a story. but i did not know where that

was coming from. in the context of my discussion with president trump it's china. when i learned, ah, he's talking what about he was presented on january 28th. and i've learned that by asking in may, president trump, do you remember that january 28th meeting? and president trump said, no, he didn't. but then he said, twice, he said, i'm sure it was said. i am sure it was said. by the -- that he got that warning from o'brien and pottinger. so, by may, even by march, the virus was out of control. everyone knew it was deadly. my god, in march, all of a sudden, it just came to this

country in a way exactly that the president was told. but came to this country, there were 30,000 new cases a day. i was traveling around in early march, going to california, going to florida. i had no idea. tony fauci who was the leading infectious disease official in this country, well-known on television, was saying on february 29th, oh, go ahead, there's no worry. go to the mall. go to the movies, go to the gym. so, there was no way for me -- i had no information that that's what trump was talking about when i -- you walk the cat back, and after i learned in may, i realized and i asked the president was that where you got that information? and he said, yes. he knows it was said but o'brien. sounds like a convoluted

explanation, but that's exactly what happened. and i still work at the "washington post" as an associate editor. i have access to the editor marty barren, to walk into his office or call him or email him and say, i have information that needs to go in the paper. over the decades i've done that, dozens and dozens of times, and i would have done it in this case. but i did not understand what trump was talking about. and if you go back and you look, look at these clips. every one of them in january and february is about china. because that's where -- and at one point, there was a front page story in "the new york times" saying china, because of the virus, locked down wuhan

where it started. but many other cities in china, locked down. and when the chinese government locks down, you go to your apartment and you're locked in it. 768 million people. that's twice the population of the united states. and all the discussion, all of the focus, was on china. including by me, of course, trump had participated in that critical january 28th meeting. and that is the day the trump presidency should have changed. he should have realized what was coming. actually, he did. and when he gave his state of the union address a couple of days later, you know, this is to the congress. it's about what's going on in

the world, as he sees it, what's important, what's the future going to be like. i'm sorry, 40 million people watched that speech. he devoted 15 seconds to the virus, saying we're doing everything we can. he was not doing everything he could. he could have told the country the truth about what he had learned on january 28th. he could have protected the people. he could have fulfilled his duty as president. unfortunately, he didn't. we now have over 200,000 deaths from that virus in this country. and a year ago, if we were talking and i said, oh, we're going to have a pandemic that will kill 200,000 people, you would think i was on some drug

of some sort. but that's exactly what has happened. he could have mitigated that. he could have used his knowledge. and as he told me, and we've played this audience -- he says, oh, i always like to play it down, i like to play it down, because he didn't want to create a panic. the sad element in all of this is that president trump did not understand the people he leads. people in this country, democrats, republicans, independents, undecided, people who don't vote, have one thing in common. and that is when they're told the truth, they rally around, they step up, they do what is necessary to deal with the problem. americans don't panic. maybe some people will, but by and large, and i -- if i may bore you a little bit with history because history can tell

us a lot in this case. my wife elsa walsh, we would go through all of the information we were getting from trump and other people, as i was writing this book, as she was editing it six times. and we sat at dinner one night, and she said, well, what should trump have done? what's the remedy? and she looked into history, and franklin roosevelt's favors fireside chats after one crisis or another. and go back and listen -- i mean, they will -- it will bring tears to your eyes if you listen to roosevelt talking two days after pearl harbor, after the japanese sneak attack on pearl harbor. and two days later, president roosevelt comes on in this fireside chat, and says, it's

all bad news. the most serious undertaking of our american history is before us. the very survival of our country in the world is at stake. it is going to be for ever american citizen grueling work, day, night, every hour. every minute. and then he said, government, our government, his government has confidence in your ability to hear the worst without losing heart. president trump instead approached this and said, well, i better not tell the truth. pie better play it down. because people might panic. i know one thing from doing this for 50 years, people in this country don't panic.

>> okay. >> people in this country are strong. sorry to go so long, but it's relevant. >> we'll go to carolyn who is in austel supporting the president. hi, carolyn. >> caller: good morning, president trump is doing a very good job. and we can make a whole list of all of the good things that he's done. and i know we have a lot of books coming out and that president trump seems to attract a lot of his back stabbers with information coming out. now, i have -- well, i have a minute to finish up, biden seems to have a poor sense of well-being. and i just want to know if after two years, and maybe this is something that we need to know, after two years, will harris become our first woman president? and the last question i have is for c-span. the plague always killed people which we hate.

but c-span would be good if they were to have something on the death rate in this country. my understanding from reading is that we lose about 7,000 people daily, you know, them just die daily. >> okay. all right. understood, karen. mr. woodward, we talked about the president's handling of the coronavirus. you also talked to him about the impeachment proceedings. and at one point, you are questioning him about whether or not he should apologize. and you asked him who in the world is the person that he trusts the most. explain his answer. >> well, i did. but this was in the context -- this was down at mar-a-lago. before the impeachment became an

issuement. i think the 30th of december. trump's impeachment trial was going on, and so i was able to ask him about this. it's very clear from the transcript of his discussion with the ukrainian president, that trump was asking the ukrainian president to talk to attorney general barr about the bidens and what the bidens were doing in ukraine. and i kept pressing the president, i said, do you think it's a good policy for the president of the united states to be able, or to ask foreign leaders to investigate political opponents? the president kept insisting that it was all about corruption. and i said, well, hearin shgwel transcript. you released your own words. and we got -- it was pretty contentious because i kept going back to what was in the transcript he released. i said, you gave, like richard

nixon, when nixon tape recorded his secret conversations, you gave the opposition the sword. and trump didn't believe this. and we started talking more about nixon. and i said look at nixon, a few months after watergate had come out and said, you know, this is illegal. people did things. i'm responsible. i apologize to the country. i apologize to the democratic national committee. and they had the office that the burglars broke into, and just kind of laid it out in a soulful way. now, nixon was not that soulful, but if he had done this, if he apologized and trump agreed, oh, yeah, nixon apologized,

watergate would have gone away. i said, okay, on this, if you apologize, and he said, oh, i'd never apologize. and i didn't do anything wrong. i said, well, we went back to is this a good policy? and i said, take ivanka, your daughter, walking on this beautiful property that you have down here in mar-a-lago, and have a father/daughter talk and ask her if she would recommend that you apologize. and he said, i'm not going to do that. it wouldn't make any difference what she said. i think it wasn't going to make any difference what anyone said. and this is part of the problem with trump as president. he gets things in his head, and he will not get them out. he will not listen to others. they have no process. he -- as i go through in

extensive detail in the book what his national security team tim mattis the secretary. tillerson, secretary of defense, dan coats, the director of national intelligence, that they can't get through to him, he won't listen. it's tragic. and it's particularly tragic in the context of the virus. and the 200,000 people in this country who died. and by telling the truth, the president could have averted some of those deaths. >> norman in amherst, massachusetts. the house is gaveling in at 9:00 a.m., so i need a quick question. >> caller: thank you, i studied your work while in journalism school in the late '70s. i'm worried about the future of

freedom in the press as in the julian assange case. what do you think will happen under trump, and will it be different under biden? thank you. >> well, i'm always worried about freedom of the press. as i write in the book, trump always accuses the press of being fake news and so forth. and attacks the media, but he hasn't sent the marshals or fbi agents to break into reporters' homes or arrest them. so, my conclusion is, and is this on a happy note, that democracy has held. we still have a democracy in this country. now, trump often threatens it. it's something to worry about deeply. but the problem is, and we've had a leadership failure. there is a breakdown in the leadership of this country.

and it is on so many levels, just a practical level. a moral level. a president has so much authority, they have to -- jim mattis says trump does not have a moral compass. the president needs and has a responsibility to the citizens of this country. and unfortunately, on so many levels, he's let us down. >> mr. woodward, will you write another book? >> well, i'm 77 years old. i don't know. you have to see. i didn't really think i was going to write a second trump book after doing the first one. so, you know, no plan. i'm going to take a little time off with my wife, and we're going to enjoy some other

things. when we -- during this ten months of working on the trump book and she edited it six times and things. i remember one night, because we talk about these things so much we were living them. my god, the phone would ring at 10:00 and it would be trump calling unexpectedly. i remember her saying i need one hour away from trump. in trump world. >> all right. mr. woodward, we appreciate your time. the book is "rage." come back again. >> thank you. out of kentucky, the courier journal with the head line, grand jury indicts one of three officers for breonna taylor's shooting but not her death. and the attorney general announcing the charges of one

officer of breonna taylor's death. >> after hearing the evidence from our team of prosecutor, the grand jury voted to return an indictment against detective hankison for wanton serious physical injury or death. the charge of wanton endangerment is a class d felony. and if sound guilty, the accused can serve up to five years for each count. kentucky law states that a person is guilty of wanton endangerment in the first degree when other circumstances manifesting and create a difference to the value of human life, he wantonly engages in conduct which creates a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury to another person. my office is prepared to prove these charges at trial. however, it's important to note that he is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

>> the kentucky attorney general yesterday, he also went on to talk about why the officers in the case, the other two officers, were not -- all of the officers were not indicted for homicide charges. >> through the last six months, we've all heard mention of possible charges that could be brought in this case. it's important to understand that all of the charges that have been mentioned have specific meanings and ramifications. criminal homicide encompasses the taking of a life by another. while there are six possible homicide charges under kentucky law, these charges are not applicable to the facts before us, because our investigation showed, and the grand jury agreed that mattingly and cosgrove were justified in their return of deadly fire, after having been fired upon by kenneth walker. let me state that again. according to kentucky law, the use of force by mattingly and

cosgrove was justified to protect themselves. this justification bars us from pursuing criminal charges in miss breonna taylor's death. >> the attorney general from yesterday in the state of kentucky. the "courier journal" also reporting overnight, two officers shot in downtown louisville during the protests did. they say that the interim pd chief robert schroeder confirmed two officers were shot. one is in surgery, one is in stable condition. here's the interim police chief. >> in a large crowd, shots were fired in the area. as they can deploying to investigate what was going on at first and broadway, shots rang out and two of our officers were shot. both officers are currently

undergoing treatment at university hospitals. one is alert and stable. the other officer is currently undergoing surgery and stable. we do have one suspect in custody. >> can you talk about the degree of the injuries of the officers? >> to my knowledge, they're both nonlife-threatening. >> from the last night protests there. we're getting reaction from the grand jury's decision. we'll begin with mark in melbourne, florida. mark, good morning to you. >> caller: hi, how are you? >> good morning. >> caller: my -- the way i feel is the officers were fired upon and returned fire from this woman's boyfriend and they're justified in doing that. >> what about the amount of bullets that were shot by the police?

>> caller: yeah, well, when you're in a firefight, you do what you have to do. so, to me, that's not an issue. >> mark, how do you feel about police reform? >> caller: i feel that if police officers are out of line, that they should be -- you know, they should be fired from their jobs. and possibly prosecuted. but they have a tough job. they don't run away from trouble. they run towards it. >> okay. mark there in florida. we'll go to joel in brownsville, texas. joel, good morning. >> caller: good morning, greta. >> good morning. >> caller: the justice for the american people this morning, with a lot of people not happy about it, because to start shooting, i mean, you have the right -- if i'm with my wife and someone is trying to come in, doesn't matter a cop or a thug,

i'm going to start shooting. why? because i'm going to defend my house and have the right to shoot back. that's why you're seeing a lot of protesting, i mean, you mentioned about reforms, yes, absolutely. we need to train better. you need to have like professionals like doctors, people that have mental issues. and not too long i just saw in the news some kid almost got killed. her mom called, he had like a mental problem. and they shot him many time, luckily, he survived. he was a kid. and that happens a lot. they say not to call a cop if you want to get killed. that's why i'm saying, you're seeing a lot of people protesting for justice. there's two losses, one for the cops, you have to abolish

that -- abolish that qualified immunity. that means cops with a camera, i mean, they need to serve time, too. it's not fair that they're getting away with murder, that's why a lot of people are mad. that's why you see a lot of people in the streets protesting. >> joel mentioned no knock warrants. politico reporting police reform stall around the country. they report congress and a majority of state legislatures have taken no action, even states with liberal leadership in governor's mansions have failed to move aggressively. activists tracking bills attribute the inaction to two factors, push back from unions. and at the time of george floyd's death sessions had adjourned for the year. and sessions in arizona and

oklahoma wrapped up shortly thereafter. a handful of legislatures have since held special sessions. and politico is reporting stressing how restrained individual, minnesota, floyd's home state, with legislation limiting choke holds and next restraints and banning warrior-style officer training. as you know, there was an effort on capitol hill, in the wake of george floyd's death, to enact criminal justice reform. the house controlled by democrats passed in june 236 to 181. the justice and policing act of 2020. this would reform qualified immunity. amend criminal statutes to prosecute misconduct. create nationwide police misconduct registry. mandate reporting of police use of force.

and prohibit racial and religious profiling, ban choke holds. limit transfer of military grade equipment. and over on the other side, restricts choke holds by state and local departments. increases funding for police body cams. requires reporting of uses of force that causes death or serious injury. requires states to provide data on no knock search warrants. devin, in philadelphia, good morning to you. your reaction to the grand jury's decision in the breonna taylor case? >> caller: good morning, i think it's a travesty. being a law enforcement officer, or former law enforcement officer, and seeing outcomes, yes, we take certain abuses from the public which we sign up for. we know what our jobs are when

we come in. and we take our oaths of office. but i just think that's a travesty to have -- to have an officer discharged for shooting into another person's apartment and no charges for someone illegally coming into your home. i'm just shocked, i really am. and, you know, it's -- it's sad when in 2020 we're having these same issues. and no one really is really addressing them to any solutions. but also i say this, i want to know where is the naacp? where is the congressional black caucus to spearhead? i looked at different things over many months with the president and also with both presidential candidates. and their campaigns. but you never see any input from

the congressional black caucus on anything. and i just don't understand why. >> well, the congressional black caucus, karen bass was leading the effort in the house on the legislation that they voted on. >> caller: right what i'm saying with this, with so many different things, like banning choke holds. when i was in the academy, they never told me it was illegal. state and federal training, any training we've ever had that we could choke suspects, never. so, for it to be a law to say -- to make it illegal, when was it legal? >> and devin, what do you think about the no knock warrants? >> caller: i think that's a danger. not just for officers, but also for the public. if i come into a residence, and i don't -- yes, they're good for

surprises to capture suspects. but on the flip side, that's very harmful to us because if we're going into a situation, you don't know we're coming, if you're a law abiding citizen, we make a mistake by an address, you start opening fire, we're at the wrong house, well, who's fault is that? >> so, devin, from the reports this morning, that the police officers said, according to the warrants, that they did not have the wrong address. that was the address that they had a warrant for. how could they have done it differently, though, do you think, as a former police officer? >> caller: well, you have in many departments, you have stakeout divisions to stake-out individuals. and to -- or sit on them to, you know, see if they're there. you know, if there's any movement at a particular residence or property. so, you know, just to not have

things planned properly, you'll have things like this. we had the same thing happen here in philadelphia last year. and it was -- you know, that's currently in litigation. you know, it happens. and i'm glad that the media's putting a spotlight on different incidents that's happened. a lot of times -- you know, now, i'm not saying that, like i said, our jobs are not difficult because they are. but it's a two-way street. we have to respect the public. and the public is supposed to respect us. it's not a one-way street here. and then you go into, like other countries, and how they do certain things with policing and militarization and things like that, you know. i just hope in 2020 we move forward, because this is a travesty. it just is. >> okay.

"washington post" editorial board, miss taylor's loss and legacy. six months after breonna taylor's death one of the officers will face charges. the city of louisville will implement police reforms to settle a lawful death lawsuit that was brought after the 26-year-old technician was killed in her own home by police. encouraging and noteworthy for a settlement like this to include institutional reforms. still no sum of money, criminal charges or set of reforms should change the fact that miss taylor should be alive today. tell goes on to say that louisville voted to ban no knock warrants after there was local outrage. many jurisdictions around the country have followed suit by enacting what is sometimes called breonna's law. they write miss taylor's death

was specifically tied to a specific warrant. the department has agreed to more warrants. commanding officers will approve all search warrants. and officers who repeatedly violate standards a system that might have flagged one of the officers involved in miss tay r taylor's killing. the police officers will encourage officers to live in the community and take part in community service. they argue it cannot change the fact that black women too often have lethal brushes with the law simply because of the company they've once kept. as miss taylor's case could easily have been without the tireless efforts of advocates and cannot bring her back. alan, good morning. your reaction to the decision. >> caller: good morning. there is legislation, the refusal to indict is equivalent to saying in a civil case that

you're granting summary judgment to a defendant. generally, you don't grant summary judgment, unless you know there are no disputed facts that should be submitted to a jury. i seriously question the decision of the attorney general here. to say that reports that the officers did knock and announce themselves oaudibly was an stopped fact. because other people have said these announcements could not be heard. aside from that, by saying it's a no knock warrant, they're in fact admitting in advance that they presume the right to enter without announcing themselves. how can they on one hand, we had a warrant to do something without an announcement that would let the boyfriend know that these people were officers and not criminals. and ignore evidence that they in fact never did announce themselves. once he believed they were

intruder, he was entitled to defend his home and to fire. and they should have known that any fire that they returned was the result of they're entering improperly. this should have been submitted to a jury. i find it very ironic as well, the heller decision a few years ago that turned the right to bear arms from something that is connected to a well-regulated militia to an individual right was founded primarily on the idea that individuals have a right to defend the integrity of their homes. is this something that is written only to be enjoyed and exercised by white homeowners? if these were black officers entering a white home under the same circumstance? does anyone believe that there would not be an indictment? for creating the impression that unlawful intruders were coming in that entitled the boyfriend to fire in defense of the home?

i don't think anyone can say that. both for these rank appearances of racial difference in the treatment of the right to bear and use arms and for the failure to give this question to the jury about whether there was an announcement, this is a very flawed decision. and i just hope there's a peaceful response to it. but i understand the anger. >> and "the wall street journal" notes today in their editorial, alan, that the police did knock and announce themselves. and they had a civilian with the tons corroborate it. >> caller: that they did not announce themselves? >> that they did announce themselves. that -- and that they had a civilian witness to corroborate that they announced themselves. >> caller: but i think that witness was disputed by others who did not hear an announcement. so once there's a disputed fact, that should have gone to a jury. >> and you say that because