good evening. turn the volume down on your set and it will come across much better. >> i would like to say that i do think it was a bad ring. andel for the brown family i think the police officer was wrong. i don't think any young man should be shot for just stealing something. only judge that really knows is the good man upstairs and it will all be settled. that's all i have to say. thank you. >> let me go back and read this statement from representative marcia fudge, chair of the congressional black caucus. she issued a very strong statement just a while ago. let me read from it in part.

she said it is a slap in the face to americans nationwide who continue to hope and believe that justice will prevail. she went on to say that the decision seems to undermine the unwritten rule that black lives hold no value. my heart goes out to all the loved ones of all all the michael brown's we have buried in this country. from ohio, democrats line. what do you think? >> i think it is a sad thing to see our young men killed. thed not appreciate gentleman's comment from new york attacking liberals and how they feel about things. i think that was unjust.

but i do want to tell the parents of michael that my heart goes out to them. this young man did make a mistake. he did something he shouldn't have done. i don't feel that he should have been killed. i think he could have been shot once in the leg and it would have brought him down, and then he could have been apprehended. understood, he was shot in the top of the head. now, if he was shot in the top of the head, to me, that would be murder. feela white person, and i that no one should be killed because they rob something. there are people out here that do things wrong every day. he should not have been killed. he could have been shot in the leg and it would have took him

down. that's all i have to say. >> thanks for the call from ohio. israel.ction from steve next is joann joining us from nashville, tennessee. good evening. go ahead, you are on the air. mattgoing to go on to joining us from alabama, republican line. >> i believe what the grand jury decided to not invite was correct. i think the chairman of the black caucus, her damon was very provocative and it called for violence. i think people should have restraint. i cannot begin to understand the

pain that michael brown's family is going through over their loss. no more violence is started because of that. >> thanks for the call again. the headline from the new york times and the scene outside ferguson, missouri, as people begin to react. shooting of michael brown that took place on saturday, august night. from north dakota, jeff is next, independent line. good evening. go ahead. >> i think what happened was wrong. no man has the right to be shooting any other man. the only way to resolve things is to talk about things. if he was taught hand-to-hand combat, then why did he shoot him?

>> thanks for the call. the president calling for restraint and the brown family issued a statement saying they are profoundly disappointed, but also calling for peaceful protest and no violence in the ferguson community. texas,t from magnolia republican line. you are on the air. someone should be saying, father, into your hand, i commit my son's. . i am married to a police officer , and no one is talking about how these wonderful men and women protect us every day. they protect us when they served our country in the armed forces, they protect us every single day. you don't have time to react to, let me shoot him in the arm, let me shoot him in the leg. no one mentioned what kind of drugs he had in his system. no one talks about how he

started getting off on the wrong foot. what happened about him as a child? that's not being addressed at all. we have a system in this country that right now it's the police. that's the best we have. i have lived in neighborhoods where the houses start at a half-million dollars, and i've worked in a neighborhood where the houses are $1000. you are over there and you see people shooting each other, and they want to talk about the white officer shooting the guy? please, drive and one of those neighborhoods and see how many people you are going to see getting robbed, shot, and the first people they call are the police. what do you want them to do? i feel sorry for the officer. my husband, i tell him every day , you come home to me. i want you here. >> we are going to move on. thanks very much for the call. the grand jury began meeting in

september, had the final meeting today, and the decision not to indict the ferguson police officer, the full series of documents from the grand jury have been released by the st. louis county attorney's office for those who want to look into the case. we will have more tomorrow morning on the washington journal as well, but we want to get your reaction tonight. marsha from baltimore, democrats line, what do you think? >> i think the officer could have just shot him in the leg or the arm. and then discuss something with a man. i think the police officer needs some psychological testing. most of the officers need to talk to a psychic or something dr. that or a psychological , because when they come up against black folks, it's like

they are scared of them, like black men. it is like they have fear. that has been going on for years and years. neednk a lot of officers to go talk to doctors about how to go about when you arrest a black person or when you have a black person in custody, because i don't think they should have shot him or kill him. they shot him in the head. that is suicide. he wanted to kill that boy. he wanted to make sure he was dead. , yes, he wasre wrong for doing that. he was wrong for whatever other stuff, but getting killed, i don't think he should have got killed. i don't think the officer should have killed him. i think he should have just shot him in the leg. jerry nadler has

this on his twitter page. he's calling for a robust federal investigation. donnie is next from georgia, independent line. your reaction to this? >> first of all, i want to call for peace and calm in ferguson and around the nation. but to the lady who was saying -- i think her name is margaret -- that she kisses her husband who happens to be a police officer and asked for him to come home every day, well we, as black people, kiss our children and we want our children to come home safe to us as well. there is one thing i want white people and everybody to know. we as black people love our children just as much as they love their children and we want our kids to come home safe to us. that's all i want to say. >> how do you use this opportunity to get to that point?

to the point where there is not this constant back and forth on race relations and you have this animosity built-in between the white and the black community. what are some of the solutions? question, good because i don't know. it is deeply rooted. look at the way president obama is disrespected. governor jan brewer of arizona pointed her finger in his face. that would have never happened to a white president. so i don't have an answer to that, but i'm getting tired of unarmed black man being shot down like dogs in the street. that's all i have to say. iq. >> saginaw michigan, good evening. >> i don't think the officer should have shot him. he could have stunned him with a stun gun or something.

i also pray for the brown family and for the city of ferguson. instead of violence in progress and all of us coming together ,nd reunite as a nation everything that people work hard for. shotnk the boy that got should not have robbed that store. he should have made a different decision, but the decision cost him. we should be praying as a nation for both sides and trying to insteadand think wisely of the decisions that were made before. >> we read a portion of the do statement from senator roy blunt. lehrman casco also issuing a statement of short while ago on the ferguson grand jury -- claire mccaskill also issuing a statement.

our next call is from st. petersburg, florida. frank, good evening. but thank you for taking my call. first of all, i would like to extend my extreme feelings to the family of the victim. i called in on the republican this not that i feel crosses republican, democrat, or any other people. this is not a political issue. this is a people issue. michael brown did not behave correctly. subsequent to the events that led to his death.

but i don't feel that anyone is talking about the officer who was in the situation, and no one knows what was going through him and the emotion and the fear he may have had. ofs is probably the cause what the incident was all about. >> some of that, based on what we heard from the st. louis county prosecuting attorney will come out now in the testimony he provided, that the officer provided to the grand jury. certainly he had to be asked about that. sides,i'm not taking any because unless an individual is in that situation, they can never comprehend what that officer was going through. thug't want to label him a , like the person in new york said. yes, he made bad decisions, but we will never know what was going through that officer's mind, except the grand jury. >> again that information is now

being made public, so we will learn in the next few days exactly what the grand jury heard from the police officer. it's all about the witnesses. >> exactly, and we will see. >> congressman charlie rangel, democrat from new york, has issued a statement as well. he said, fight with peaceful protests, not violence against the ferguson decision. us iny is joining indianapolis, democrats line. good evening every >> yes. , and ifor taking my call definitely want to give condolences to the brown family. i want to say two things. laid in the street for 4.5 hours before they even moved his body. evidence toat the

support the officer was probably planted at that time. despite what the witnesses were saying. they have witnesses right there for 4.5 hours telling the officer's supervisor what happened. opportunityem the evidence,urs to plant maybe put michael brown's blood on the door or where they said it was on the car. -- just under the impression not all police officers are bad. you have good and bad apples in everything, whether it's in politics or the school board. there are good and bad apples. but i can see clearly in this situation that they were up to no good from the police department to the prosecutor. >> so you think evidence was planted or tampered with?

>> why would they leave him laying out there for 4.5 hours before they even moved his body? that gave them the opportunity to listen to what witnesses were saying and then plan or change evidence so that it matched the officers story. missouri secret grand jury was a hot jury. .- bought jury and the decision was made before they ever started. who is the secret grand jury? we don't even know who they are. they were bought and paid for. they probably all he together and play golf. eckstein's for the call. from madison, wisconsin, keith is on the air. >> i'm outraged by this. it was just an execution of a black man. this cop was upset. he was angry because somebody

reached in his car. michael brown defied his authority and he just got angry at him and jumped out of his car. shot at him, michael brown turned around, hands up. he shot him six times. he was no threat to him. the good news is, i think a lot of people are finding out that these comps are nothing more than security guards appointed by the millionaires who control the justice system. the whole system has become illegitimate. i am sick of it. i'm just totally sick of it. people should burn down ferguson. this is outrageous. >> why do you say they should burn down ferguson? what would that accomplish? it seems prescient of absolute disgust and anger toward this capitalist, unjust system. it would rally people all over the country.

this needs to stop. >> how do you channel your passion into something that is more constructive? >> we need a socialist, proletariat revolution to overthrow this unjust capitalist system. >> from usa today, no indictment for the ferguson officer. you can see the reaction on the faces of those residents in the community. .rom st. louis, there is this this after the announcement, that courtesy of the st. louis post dispatch. ron from florida. >> i think it is a real shame that this happened, but the people in ferguson are just out of their minds. what about the whites?

>> another caller from winter haven, florida. that all wanted to say this stuff that's going on in the world, why would an officer run a man down about cigars? this is ridiculous. they really need to get more training. i'm not blaming anybody for what happened, but it could have been prevented. that's all i wanted to say. >> representative lacy clay with this tweet. david from mansfield, louisiana. you are next. >> i don't agree with the looting and the burning that is going on. overis happening all america, right in california a guy in they shot

head and killed him. he didn't have no gun. they shot a 12-year-old with a toy gun. the police should be a little more trained. it is a disgrace, they are killing our children and grandchildren. i'm looking at the commercial where they are advertising for the military. every president but president barack obama. we as a people need to come together. we are all god's children, regardless of race. here is the main thing. you need to get together, every american here in the united states. brothers say, they don't care about us. you people don't care about us. you've been killing us for years. bunch katrina, you had a of policemen shot a man. this man had no weapon and they were in a circle and they shot him down. when is this going to stop?

republicans, when is this going to stop? when are you guys going to stop killing our children? >> let me turn it a little differently. how do you make it stop, the racial divide between black and white america? >> we need to come together. >> how do you do that? , town halleetings meetings, this is the only way that we are going to stop this here as a people. we are the only place on this earth that does this to our children. something, the brown family and all the others itt have been killed, i felt 14 years ago. what they need to focus on is our young african-americans with

the drugs they are putting in our neighborhood, they are killing one another. that's where the war is right here in america. all that other foolish stuff they're putting on tv, they don't show nothing positive about us as a people and it's a downright disgrace. --how would you handle it how have you felt it personally? you said 14 years ago you felt this sense of racism. >> 14 years ago my daughter was murdered by a guy that had a gun, three guns that he was not supposed to have. and i still cry. i won't no parent to go through the pain that my wife and i, my other children and family members are going through right now. we still cry. so i constantly pray for america . there are mean-spirited people in this world and we as a people on with it.

>> i'm sorry for your own loss as well. thank you for sharing your story with us. next cameron joining us from california, republican line. your reaction to the grand jury decision not to indict the ferguson, missouri police officer. what do you think? >> it's an overall passing situation that happened down there, no parent should lose their kids. at the same time, if he's out there doing wrong, he's going to have to pay the consequences. people sayingf why didn't they just shoot him in the leg or give them or training. off, because one, you only have a certain time to react. when i was trained in the military, when you have to discharge or weapon, you make sure it is a kill shot. you don't waste no time. willie are keeping track of all the members as they react to

the news tonight. she said tonight i hope we may reflect on the challenges we face and pursue change through peaceful protest and nonviolent demonstration. this was the scene outside the courthouse when the decision was announced earlier tonight. we'll show you the decision in its entirety coming up in just a moment but a few more of your phone calls. from conroe, texas. >> my focus is on people realizing that everything that police officers and deputies and law enforcement agencies do in this world to protect us. people are saying a guy need to be shot in the leg just to get him down and stuff like that. live on a split second, and that's all you have to make a decision on what to do to save your life or save other people's lives. i came from a family of law enforcement officers. i've seen him beat and shot, shot at in the line of duty.

some of the people who have done harm to officers did not have a weapon on them. it was choking them, hitting them with objects they just right after they are thrown to the ground or something like that. people are saying he could have been shot down in the leg. that he wouldow not start choking one out or stuff like that. need to realize that officers have to do what they have to do. >> thank you for the call from texas. you can continue the conversation on our facebook page. many already weighing in on the president's announcement earlier today, calling for restraint and calm but saying this is an opportunity to address the issue of the racial divide we have in our country. and you from naples, florida, democrats line. it evening.

>> i would just like to offer my condolences to the brown family. losing a son is always tragic, but authorities should rule over anything. it's not right that he charged them, and officers only have a certain amount of time to react. he should not have to risk his life. he never knows what's going to happen. he was in a bad neighborhood and he didn't know what was going on. person, wesee one don't need to see black or white. we need to think of each other as a community and come together as a community and be one. >> thanks for the call. from the st. louis post dispatch, this headline. outside ofe streets ferguson, missouri, where demonstrations are underway. ellison,ressman keith the fight for equality isn't over, he says.

we have work to do. paul from dearborn, michigan, republican line. you get the last word. good evening. >> thank you very much for taking my call. i am 65 years of age. i am college educated. i'm also a retired 27 year street veteran of the detroit police department, retiring with the rank of sergeant. i just wanted to say, and there was a call or a few calls ago who said that the reason this man was shot was because the officer was mad and he reacted in the way that he did. well, working in the city of to say the least, a challenge, especially on the streets for that long a time. i was never in the situation exactly the same as this particular situation, but i can

assure you that i was in literally dozens and dozens that could have resulted in death. andk god things went well i'm still here and so are other people as well that were -- the citizenry of the city of detroit. all i wanted to tell you was , while in our shoes, walked in the shoes of the police officer who is out there day in and day out, trying to make the right decisions. i can assure you that this officer will have this on his mind for the rest of his life. or have gleeloat in the fact that he killed this man. he will take this incident to his grave. i don't think that people gave him the benefit of the doubt from the beginning.

there was nothing but vilification of ham and hatred, and i think, walk a mile in our shoes, and you may actually have a change of heart. that's all i have to say. >> verse of all, did you have the chance to see the briefing with bob mcculloch rum ferguson, missouri? >> i did. next did you feel the grand jury did you jill a giants, that it was a thorough -- did due diligence and that it was a fair investigation? >> i think under these circumstances, they were compelled to do a thorough investigation. if eric holder and his justice department were involved in this as well, you can be assured that fact,ecision was based on and not third-party witnesses. i heard this from a friend of a friend of a friend, and

therefore they wonder why their , quoteny or observations , were discounted. i'm sure the prosecutor was compelled to do a thorough investigation, and i believe he did. >> some callers have said tonight, why did the police officer just shoot him in the leg, why did he feel compelled to shoot him in the head, and why was his body on the ground for approximately four hours before he was removed? i know you were not at the scene, but based on your experience, can you answer those questions? >> absolutely. that left his body on the scene because it was a homicide scene. evidence had to be gathered, and unfortunately, family members and what have you, relatives, friends, there is nothing worse than to see the body of a loved one out on the street being

the taking of physical evidence, photographs and what have you. but i can assure you that this decision would probably have not been made had it not been for the fact that that man was left out on that street for 4.5 hours. as painful as it was, i'm sure ithelped -- what do you call ? helped to come to solid answers and solid, crime -- concrete evidence, not just conjecture and this in that. that's what happened, unfortunately. i don't think there's a police in this country, including your federal agencies, they do not train you to shoot

to wound. there's something called a 10 ring on every target that every police officer and every federal agent has seen. they don't tell you to shoot for the hand, and they don't tell you to shoot for the leg. ring is the most important ring on that target, and it's there for a reason. until you come on some other ,eason to not utilize that unfortunately, that's what's going to happen. >> thank you very much. we appreciate it. more ofcontinue much this tomorrow morning on washington journal. our phone lines will be open with your reaction to the decision tonight. you can continue your comments on our facebook page or join the conversation on twitter. the headline from the new york

times -- we are going to show you in about a half hour the president's comments from the white house. but first, the st. louis county prosecuting attorney. he had a news conference shortly after 9:20 eastern time from clayton, missouri. here is briefing in its entirety. >> good evening. thanks for your patience. at the verytement beginning here, and then we will be happy to answer some questions when we are finished with that. first and foremost, i would like to extend my deepest sympathy to the family of michael brown. i have said in the past, i know that regardless of the circumstances here, they lost a loved one to violence.

i know that the pain that accompanies such a loss knows no bounds. on august 9, michael brown was shot and killed by police officer aaron wilson. within minutes, various accounts of the incident began appearing on social media. accounts filled with speculation and little if any solid, accurate information. almost immediately, neighbors begin gathering and anger began growing because of the various descriptions of what had happened and because of the underlying tension between the police department and a significant part of the neighborhood. st. louis county police conducted an extensive investigation of the crime scene , at times under very trying circumstances and interrupted at least once by random gunfire. beginning that day and continuing for the next three months, along with the agents of the federal bureau of investigation, located numerous individuals and gathered additional evidence and information. will he aware of the unfounded

but growing concern in some part of our nudity that the investigation and review of this fullc death might not be and fair, i decided immediately that all of the physical evidence gathered, all people claiming to have witnessed any part or all of the shooting, and any and all other related matters would be presented to the grand jury. the grand jury of 12 members of this community selected by judge in may of this year, long before the shooting occurred. expand like to briefly upon the unprecedented cooperation between the local and federal authorities. holdertorney general first announced the federal investigation just days after the shooting, he pledged that federal investigators would be working with local authorities as closely as possible every step of the way and would follow the facts wherever they would take us. as general holder and i both led , are separate investigations follow that trail of facts with no preconceived notion of where

they journey would take us. our only goal was that the investigation would be thorough and complete, to give the grand jury, the department of justice, and ultimately the public, all available evidence to make an informed decision. all evidence obtained by federal authorities was immediately shared with st. louis county investigators. all evidence was immediately shared with federal investigators. their owncted autopsy. another was done at the request of the brown family, and this information was also shared. all testimony before the st. louis county grand jury was immediately provided to the department of justice, so although the investigations are separate, both the local and federal government have all the same evidence. investigation has been

completed. challengeignificant encountered in this investigation has been the 24-hour news cycle and its insatiable appetite for anything to talk about. i recognize the lack of accurate detail surrounding the shooting frustrates the media and the public. those closely guarded details, especially about physical evidence, give law enforcement the yardstick. eyewitness accounts must always be challenged and compared against physical evidence. any witnesses to the shooting of michael brown made statements inconsistent with other statements they made and also conflicting with physical evidence. the privateesult of witnessesre released,

claim they saw officer wilson stand over michael brown and fire many rounds into his back. wilson shot officer mr. brown in the back as mr. brown ran away. once the autopsy results were released, showing michael brown did not sustain any wounds to the back of his body, no witnesses -- the witnesses readjusted their claims. some even -- some even said they did not witness the event but merely repeated what they heard or assumed to happen. fortunately, almost all initial witness interviews were recorded. the statements and testimonies of most witnesses were presented to the grand jury before the

autopsy results were released by before several media outlets published reports they received from d.c. government officials. were prior to the time information went public and what followed in the news cycle, the jurors were able to assess credibility of the witnesses, including those witnesses whose statements and testimony remained consistent throughout every interview and were consistent with the physical evidence of this case. begin presenting to the grand jury on august 20. the evidence was presented in an orderly manner. the jurors gave a schedule of when they could meet. all 12 jurors were present for every session and all 12 jurors heard testimony and examined all items of evidence. tirelesslyury worked

to examine and re-examine the testimonies of witnesses and physical evidence. they were extremely engaged in the process, asking questions of every witness, requesting specific information, and asking for certain physical evidence. they met on 25 separate days in the last three months, hearing more than 70 hours of testimony from 60 different witnesses and hearing hours of recordings of law enforcement interviews by many witnesses who testified. they heard from three medical examiners and experts on blood, dna, toxicology, firearms, and drug analysis. they examine hundreds of photographs. they examine various pieces of physical evidence. they were presented with five indictments ranging from murder in the first degree to involuntary manslaughter.

ifir burden was to determine probable cause exists to believe a crime was committed and if darren wilson was the one who committed that crime. there is no question darren wilson caused the death of michael brown by shooting him, but the inquiry does not end there. the law allows an officer to use deadly force in some aces. the law allows some people to use deadly force to defend themselves in some cases. the law allows an officer to use deadly force in some cases. so whether there was trouble both cause the darren wilson was authorized to use deadly force or if he acted in self-defense. i detailed this for two reasons. know, so everyone will there was a full investigation and presentation of all evidence

and appropriate instruction to the grand jury. there is a caution to those in and out of the media who will pounce on a single witness and decide what should have happened in this case based on that tiny piece of information. the duty of the grand jury is to separate fact from fiction. after a full, impartial, and critical examination of the , theyce and deciding that accepted and completed this monument is responsibility -- ous responsibility. they are the only people who have heard and examined every witness and every piece of evidence. they discussed and debated evidence among themselves before arriving at their collective decision. after their exhaustive review of the evidence, the grand jury

deliberated over two days, making their final decision. no probablened cause exists to file charges against officer wilson. evidenceand scientific combined with witness statements tells the accurate and tragic story of what happened. a general synopsis of the testimony of physical evidence follows. please note the evidence presented to the grand jury, with some exceptions, and the testimony of the witnesses called to the grand jury will be released at the conclusion of this statement. was1:25, aaron wilson dispatched to the apartment complex for an emergency involving a two-month-old infant having trouble breathing.

11:53, wilsonly for aa radio broadcast crime in process. the broadcast included a brief description of the suspect. a black male in a white t-shirt who took a box of cigars. other officers were dispatched to the store. officer wilson remained with the mother and the infant until someone arrived to transfer them to the hospital. the officer left in a chevy thee and drove west towards area. an additional description was broadcast at about that time. wearing khaki shorts and was with another male. was attendingson to his emergency call, michael brown and the companion were in a local convenience store. michael brown's activity was recorded by store security

cameras. the video, often played following its release, shows michael brown grabbing a handful of cigarillos and leaving without a in. as michael brown and his companion left the store, someone inside called police. in the walked east middle of the street, mr. brown directly behind his companion. as officer wilson continued west, he encountered michael brown and his companion still walking in the middle of the street. as wilson slowed, as he reached mr. brown, he told him to move to the sidewalk. words were exchanged, and they continued walking down the middle of the street. wilson noticed michael brown had cigarillos in his hand and was wearing a red hat and yellow socks. 12:02, wilsonly radioed he had two individuals

and needed assistance. officer wilson backed his vehicle at an angle, blocking their path and blocking the flow of traffic in both directions. several cars approached from east and west but were unable to pass the police vehicle. an altercation the lace with officer wilson seated inside -- altercation took place with officer wilson seated inside. two shots were fired by officer wilson by still it -- while still inside the vehicle. officer wilson gave chase. mr. brown stopped and turned back towards officer wilson. as michael brown move towards officer wilson, several more shots were fired. michael brown was fatally wounded. seconds, the assist car

arrived. less than 90 seconds passed between officer wilson first contact with michael brown and his companion and the arrival of the assist car. during the investigation, many eyewitnesses were interviewed by various media outlets. contacted law enforcement directly. witnesses were interviewed by local and federal law enforcement, sometimes together, sometimes separately. all statements were provided to the other party. all previous statements of witnesses who testified before the grand jury were also presented to the grand jury, whether they were media interviews or interviews by the fbi or the county police department. witnessesents of all were challenged by law enforcement and by the grand jurors themselves. the common and highly effective method of challenging a it witht is to compare

previous statements for consistency and to compare it with physical evidence. the physical evidence does not change because of public rusher or personal agenda. physical evidence does not look away because of events unfold, nor does it block out memory. physical evidence is a solid foundation among which cases are built. as statements changed, witnesses were confronted with inconsistencies and conflicts between their statements and physical evidence. some witnesses admitted they did not actually see the shooting or only saw part of the shooting. part of theired statements to fit the facts. their statements were completely discredited by physical evidence. several witnesses described seeing an altercation between mr. brown and officer wilson. it was described as tussling, rustling, tug-of-war, or just

some movement. several other witnesses described mr. brown is punching mr. wilson while mr. brown was partially inside the vehicle. many witnesses said they heard a gunshot while mr. brown was partially inside the vehicle. at least one witness said no part of mr. brown was ever inside the vehicle and the shot was fired through an open window while mr. brown was standing outside. the vehicle and officer wilson's clothing were examined by scientists. easter brown's blood and dna -- mr. brown's blood and dna were located on the outside of the door. they were also found at the left rear passenger door. his blood and dna was found on the inside of the drivers door. the upper left thigh of officer wilson's pant leg, the front of officer wilson's shirt and on

officer wilson's weapon. additionally, a bullet fired from officer wilson's weapon was located inside the drivers door. the shot was fired from inside the vehicle, striking the door in a downward angle at the armrest. the second bullet was not recovered. regarding the gunshot wound to mr. brown, it should be noted three separate autopsies were conducted, one by st. louis medical examiner's office, one by a private pathologist, and one by the department of defense armed forces medical examiner. the results of all three autopsies are consistent with one another in significant respects. wound brown has a gunshot . the path of the bullet is away from the tip of the hand and consistent with a close range gunshot resident in the wound. officer wilson also had a medical examination, which

indicated some swelling and redness to his face. almost all witnesses stated after they heard the shots fired while mr. brown was at the car, mostsitated and ran east. stated almost immediately officer wilson got out of his vehicle and chased after him. some stated wilson fired at mr. brown as he chased him. at least one witness said one of those struck mr. brown. others stated he did not fire until mr. brown turned and came back towards officer wilson. at least one stated as officer wilson got out of the vehicle, he shot mr. brown multiple times as mr. brown stood next to the vehicle. another witness stated officer wilson stuck his gun out a window and fired at mr. brown as mr. brown was running. one witness stated there were two police vehicles and four officers present but only one

officer fired a weapon. most witnesses agreed new the ander mr. brown stopped turned, facing officer wilson. some said mr. brown did not move toward officer wilson at all for shot multiple times as he stood at the corner with his hands raised. in subsequent interviews with law enforcement and in testimony, many of the same witnesses acknowledged he did not actually see the shooting. some were running for cover. what theyrelating heard from others or what they assumed happened in that case. maintained their original statement that mr. brown had his hands in the air and was not moving toward the officer when he was shot. --ers said he was shot several witnesses stated mr. brown did not raise his hand at all or that he raised them briefly and then drop them and turned towards officer wilson

and fired several rounds. one describes the movement towards officer wilson as a full charge. witnesses,o some officer wilson stopped fighting and mr. brown started moving toward him and resumed firing when mr. brown started moving toward him again. these witnesses did not make that statement to the media. the description of how mr. brown raised his hand or the position of his hands is not consistent among witnesses. some described his hands as being out to the side. some said in front of him with his palms up. others said his hands were by his head or his shoulders. his chestd it was by or his stomach. others described his hands as in a running position or insist -- in fists.

there are various statements .egarding mr. brown's movement several witnesses said mr. brown never move towards officer .ilson most said the shots were fired as he moved toward wilson. mr. brown's movements were described as walking, moving fast, stumbling, or full charge. like other aspects of the case, the varying descriptions were sometimes provided by the same witnesses in subsequent statements for testimony. processed byea was the crime scene unit. a total of 12 rounds were fired by officer wilson. a will andustained do his thumb while standing next to the vehicle. -- sustained a wound to his e standinge

next to the vehicle. mr. brown sustained a second graze wound to his right bicep. he also sustained winds to his chest, for head, and top of the head. -- wounds to his chest, four and top of thead head. except for the first and last wounds the medical examiners are unable to determine the order of shots. the thumb was likely the next wound. it is the only close range shot. the shot to the top of the head was most likely last. it would have rendered him immediately unconscious and incapacitated. body was located approximately 153 feet east of officer wilson's car.

mr. brown's blood was located approximately 25 feet further east past his body. a nearby tenant during a video chat inadvertently captured the final shots on tape. there was a string of several shots, followed by a brief pause, followed by a string of several more shots. as i stated earlier, the evidence and testimony will be released following this statement. i am ever mindful this decision will not be accepted as some. it may cause disappointment for others. the criminal of justice system must be determined by physical and scientific evidence, and the incredible testimony corroborated by that evidence, not in response to public outcry or for political expediency. decisions on a matter as serious

as charging an individual with a crime simply cannot be decided on anything less than a complete critical examination of all available evidence. anything less is not justice. it is my sworn duty to seek justice and not simply to obtain an indictment or conviction. i do want to say that during tense and painful time we have, the citizens of this community should be and are very mindful of the fact the whole world is watching how we respond and how we react, and i would urge each and every one of no young man should ever die. it is a tragic loss, regardless of circumstances, but it has opened old wounds and given us an opportunity to address those wounds, as opposed to the past were they just fade away. for how many years have we been talking about these issues that lead to incidents like this, yet

after a time it fades away. i urge everybody engaged in the conversation to keep that going, to stay with that, not to let that go, and to do it in a constructive way, a way that we can profit from this, a way that we can benefit from this by changing the structure, by bynging some of the issues, solving some of the issues. i join with michael brown family, the clergy, and anyone else and everyone else. the naacp, the urban league, and every government official and private citizen you have heard in urging everyone to continue, the demonstrations to continue, to continue the discussion, addressed the problems but do so in a constructive way and not a destructive way. i have time for a few questions.

we can start over here. --tleman in the back sweater black sweater. can you tell us whether you presented any charges, recommended any charges to be brought by this grand jury? >> the first question is whether the vote -- the grand jury by statute is not allowed, nor am i or anyone else allowed to ask or the vote or deliberations themselves. the grand jury is a secret ross s and it should be to protect that secrecy, -- is a secret process and should be to protect that secrecy. jury deliberations are not recorded. jury is notgrand

allowed nor is anyone allowed to arewhat the vote was, nor they allowed to ask what the discussion was almond the opinions expressed by the other grand jurors. what the discussion was, the opinions expressed by the other grand jurors. potential charges for that and presented -- in this case we presented five indictments to them. yes, sir. >> i heard you describe some problematic witnesses state -- witness statements. >> i think there are a number of witnesses that truly believed what they said. the ones who were consistent throughout, even in the face of their testimony being in conflict with the physical evidence that was there, i think they truly believe that's what they saw, but they didn't. some of the others were making

it up, but theall pretty much acknowledged he saw parts and made up other things. yes, ma'am? >> there have been many who have been critical of this process, calling it a secret trial. do you regret taking it to a grand jury? do you wish there had been some other forum for resenting this evidence? >> not at all. i don't regret taking this. -- some other form for presenting this evidence? >> all of the evidence there could possibly be, all of which will be available as we finish this tonight, so everyone will be able to examine that same evidence and come to their own conclusion. gonow people aren't going to home and read everything and make a decision based on that. you need to keep in mind these grand jurors poured their hearts

and souls into this process. their term was scheduled to end in early september, and they gave up their lives. they put their lives on hold, their families on hold, they put everything on hold so they could come and do their civic unity -- duty, and it was an emotional process for them. i met with them to tell them what the process was going to be, and i met with them after their decision, and i can tell you how emotional and how training it was for each and so to suggesthem, it is not a fair process is unfair to these people. they poured their hearts and souls into it. yes, ma'am? tell us anything more about the grand jury. we heard some basic graphics. about it?ll us more

>> i really can't. that's the information the judge beeased or allowed to released. the judge tell you is ares a grand jury, they looking for a cross-section of st. louis county. i would say almost any demographic county you can come up with is going to be represented in that grand jury. retired, still working, blue-collar, professional, almost anything you can think of is going to be at the grand jury. they tend to be across the spectrum. >> were there any african-american witnesses who testified michael brown was coming towards the officer when brown was shot? >> yes.

the ones i mentioned specifically were all african-americans. the one who indicated he came at em with a full charge and as officer wilson fired charges, he brown charged, and as started charging again, mr. wilson shot him again. there are others who have consistent stories, not just their testimony throughout, but they are consistent with several others. they are all african-american. >> i wonder if you can tell us a little bit about officer wilson's testimony and perhaps i have no tonight. >> idea what his status is, but his was -- these are

questions a lot that were asked by grand jurors, questioning him, challenging him on why he didn't run away, and rather than get into the specifics, i will say he didn't -- he did testify he was sitting in the car and was punched by mr. brown. i think all that information is out there. i specifically did it do that because -- did not do that because the target or suspect has the most interest in the case. we don't put a whole lot of stock, we cannot rely solely on that testimony. yes, sir. in the blue shirt. >> you mentioned there is video of the final 10 shots. will that be released with the rest of the evidence you are releasing? >> i will assume that microphone is going somewhere, but it is not here.

>> --.c-span.org [inaudible] >> there is not video. there is audio. ask a question. imagine what the people protesting tonight might say. they will say this jury had nine whites on it and three blacks. they would say you have a reputation of being pro-police. what do you say to somebody out there who thinks it was not justice? why is this justice? >> it's hard to boil down everything. it has to be based on the information available. you could take a witness here, a atness there, and come to different conclusion. i think everyone has to look at every bit of evidence and information and all the testimony. some i understand.

i understand some people made up their minds both ways. there is not a lot i can do. i would urge them to express those feelings in a constructive way and try to make some changes so nothing like this ever happens again. yes, ma'am. >> you just explain we need to work on issues of this kind of thing won't ever happen again. can you explain what are some of those fixes that need to happen whether or of them not they should shoot someone in their stomach or side and if they are unarmed? >> it's impossible to answer questions like that because there are so many variables that play into every case. there is just no real way to answer a question like that. so you have to look at every bit of information in every case that comes in. to avoid ever being in that situation.

>> as somebody who has had his record questioned by many members of the community with cases that have happened in the announcingo you feel this decision, and what message do you think it sends to the community who says they have had numerous members of the community, young, predominantly black males killed by the police with impunity? what kind of assets does this decision sent to -- what kind of message does this decision sent to them? >> a lot better than what you are sending, if they are being killed with impunity. we look at every case that comes in. there have been young white men killed by police officers. we look at each and every one of those and hopefully learn him each one of those to avoid being in that situation in the future. go. is the way it has to i think the people in the

community need to make their voices heard and addressed those issues. >> i think people looking at this are going to be struck by the fact there is not a single law in the state of missouri that values the life of this young man who was shot and killed dead. what do you say to people who wonder, is there something wrong with the laws that allowed this to happen? and that this is justice? is this really justice, or is there something wrong with the laws of the state? >> is another question that i don't have an answer to that question. there are no laws to protect us. every law is to protect the safety of every individual.

if those laws are not working, we need to work to change them. that's what we should be doing. that's where this needs to go from here. have been accused of some of passing the buck, of standing back and putting this evidence in front of the grand jury rather than taking a stand. is not anyone in the system as far as checks and balances we have, no one individual has the ultimate authority. if charges were filed in this toe, the case would still go a preliminary hearing or a grand jury. there's the house to be of probable cause. no intent is filed the charge and go directly to a retrial. it just cannot happen. we have an obligation to present the evidence.

can sayknow how anyone we are passing the buck by gathering this evidence and meeting with the grand jury. it's something we do on a weekly basis. it is certainly not passing the buck. yes, ma'am, back in the corner. >> d you have a specific vote breakdown, and what is the federality of a decision? >> i cannot give a vote breakdown. the federal investigation is still ongoing. they have all the evidence we have. they have it as we got it. when we finished a days worth of grand jury testimony, within a day or two of that it was in the hands of the department of justice. they did an interview within hours that was in the hands of the department of justice. he will conduct their interview and in -- they will conduct

their interview and investigation as we did. they are looking at different violations. when they will complete that, i have no insight into that. >> did any witnesses refuse to testify, and if so, how was that handled? >> i didn't hear the last part. >> if any witnesses refused to testify, how was that handled? >> there were a few witnesses who were not brought in. they were witnesses -- one did not make a statement. there were a couple who just disappeared. we spent a lot of time searching for them with the assistance of the fbi but were unable to locate a couple of them. think we had a statement from the witness. it was not presented by the grand jury. i got to say there were a couple of them. we got time for a couple more here. >> you cite officer wilson's

description of brown's movement toward him as a charge. is there any other evidence that might have led the grand jury to conclude wilson had reasonable cause for the use of force? >> i am not privy to the deliberations, so i cannot say what they saw is highly they had allbut the information, and they were told here is what the law requires and to consider all the evidence and information. just oneases it is not bit of evidence that says, that's it. that's all we need to hear. it's everything presented, which is why we need to make this as complete and thorough as possible. >> what justification are we going to be using to release grand jury evidence? there has been some is spewed over whether a court order has -- some issue over

whether the court order has been needed. >> it is a close investigation, which makes it an open file. it is a lot more complex than that. law is how the sunshine operates. when it is a closed case, it is an open file. that's the basis for the sunshine law. there is no specific request for that. inhought it was important the first place to release the information. yes, ma'am. happy with the decision tonight, especially the family of michael brown. if they were watching, what would you want to say this evening? i said at the outset my heart goes out to them. .hey lost a young man they lost a young life.

i have said many times before that the pain that goes along mostthat loss is something people cannot understand. at the same time everything was presented. everything was presented. everything was given to the grand jury. 12 people made a decision that based on all that evidence, as tragic as it is, it was not a crime where charges should have been filed. the tragedylessen by the fact it was a justifiable use of force or self-defense. there is still a loss of life. the family is going to have that lost forever. it will be with them for a long time. no young man should ever be killed by a police officer, and no police officer should ever be position.t

that is why i keep urging people to keep this talk going. so many times we have seen in the past where discussion starts and fades away, and we have the same issues, and we are back here again. i don't ever want to be back here. we have to keep that discussion going. everyone has to stay engaged. this was a horrible tragedy, and we don't want to see any repeat. thank you. >> president obama spoke with reporters about the grand jury's decision not to indict ferguson police officer darren wilson for the death of 18-year-old michael brown. the president delivered a brief statement from the white house briefing room shortly after the announcement was made.

>> good evening, everybody. as all of you know, a few minutes ago, the grand jury issued its decision. going to bet was the subject of intense disagreement, not only in ferguson but across america, so i just want to say a few words about how we might move forward. and foremost, we are a nation built on the rule of law. we need to accept this decision was the grand jury's to make. there are americans who agree with it, and there are americans who are deeply disappointed, even angry. it is an understandable reaction. i join michael's parents and asking anyone who protests this decision to do so peacefully. let me repeat michael's father's

words. hurting others or destroying property is not the answer. no matter what the grand jury decides, i do not want my son's death to be in vain. wanted to lead to incredible change, positive change, change that makes the st. louis region better for everyone. michael brown's parents have lost more than anyone. honoring their wishes. i also appeal to the law enforcement officials in ferguson and the region to show constraint in managing peaceful that may occur. understand, are police officers put their lives on the line for us every single day. they have a tough job to do, to maintain public safety and hold accountable those who break the law.

they do their jobs in the coming days, and they need to work with the community, not against the community, to distinguish the people who may use the grand jury's decision as an excuse for violence, to distinguish them from the vast majority who just want their voices heard on legitimate issues in terms of how community and law nforcement interact. finally, we need to recognize the situation in ferguson speaks to other challenges we still face as a nation. parts ofis into many this country a deep distrust too many parts of the country a deep distrust exists. tragic because nobody needs policing more than poor communities with higher crime rates. is we know there

are things we can do to help. i have instructed attorney general holder to work across the country to try to build better relations between communities and law enforcement. that means working with law-enforcement officials to make sure their ranks are representative of the community they serve. we know that makes a difference. it means working to train officials so law enforcement conducts itself in a way that is fair to everybody. means enlisting the community on what should be everybody's goal, to prevent crime. there are good people on all sides of this debate, as well as republican and democratic parties, that are interested in not only listing best practices, because we know there are communities who have been able to deal with this in an

arective way, but also who interested in working with this administration and local and startofficials to try to tackling local criminal justice reform. those should be the lessons we draw from these tragic events. we need to recognize this is not just an issue for ferguson. this is an issue for america. progressade enormous in race relations over the course of the past several decades. i have witnessed that , and to deny that is to denythink america's capacity for change. what is also true is there are , and communities of color are not just making these problems up.

separating that from this particular decision, there are issues in which the law too often feels it is being applied in a discriminatory fashion. i don't think that is normal -- the norm. i don't think that is true in the majority of communities or with the vast majority of law officials, but these are real issues, and we have to not deny them. what we need to do is understand them and figure out how to make more progress. that can be done. that won't be done by throwing bottles. won't be done by smashing car windows. that won't be done by using this as an excuse to vandalize property, and it certainly won't be done by hurting anybody. to those in ferguson, there are ways of channeling your concerns

constructively, and there are ways of channeling your concerns destructively. michael brown's parents understand what it means to be constructive. the vast majority of peaceful protesters understand it as well. those of you who are watching there isnderstand never an excuse for violence, particularly when there are a lot of people in the world that are willing to work on these issues. those that are only interested in focusing on the violence and want the problem to go away need to recognize we do have work to do here. we shouldn't try to paper it over. that, the anger may momentarily subside, but over time it ills up.

up, and america isn't everything it could be. i am confident if we focus our attention on the problem and we look at what has happened in communities around the country, we can make congress not just in ferguson but in a lot of communities around the country. >> mr. president, will you go to ferguson when things settle down? but let's take a look at how things are going. eric holder has been there. gohave had a team there. i think the vast majority is working very hard to make sure this becomes an opportunity for ando seize the moment turned this into a positive situation, but i think that we have to make sure we focus at

on alls much attention those positive activities that are taking place as we do the handful of folks who end up using this as an excuse to miss behave or break the law or engage in violence. would be very important. the media is going to have a responsibility as well to make sure we focus on michael brown's the clergy, and community leaders and civil rights leaders, activists, and law enforcement officials who have been working very hard to try and find better long-term solutions to this issue. there is inevitably going to be some negative reaction, and it , but whatfor good tv we want to do is make sure we

are also focusing on those who can offer the kind of real progress that we know is possible. with the vast majority of people in ferguson, the st. louis region, missouri, and around the country are looking for. i want to be partners with those folks, and we need to lift up that kind of constructive dialogue that has taken place. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] released alder decision, saying the shooting of michael brown remains ongoing. part -- ment says in

new york senator charles schumer will be at the national press card tuesday. he will talk about the midterm election results and the democratic agenda moving forward. we will have that live at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span. two, a discussion of the future of negotiations. the talks will be extended for another seven months. that is hosted by the brookings institution. 10: 30 watch it live at a.m. eastern. later in the day president obama will speak about immigration policy at an event in chicago. it will be at 5:30 eastern on

c-span. is featuring interviews from retiring members of congress. watch the interviews through at 8 p.m. eastern. >> i have always said the republicans have a legitimate beingnt and they are not allowed to offer amendments. they are not being allowed to offer amendments because they filibuster bills. it is a chicken and the egg thing. the best way to get rid of it is to get rid of the filibuster but to guarantee to the minority that the minority will be germaneto offer amendments to any bill on the with reasonable time limits for debate. >> probably the most eloquent orator in the congress.

i am not wild about this impeachment, but he said there are americans having served prison sentences for committing perjury. he said, how do you justify that and turn a blind eye to the president? he said, i cannot do it. >> on thanksgiving day we will ofe an american history tour various native american tribes at 10 a.m. eastern following washington journal. then attend the groundbreaking of the new diplomacy center in washington with former secretaries of state. that is this thanksgiving week on c-span. for our complete schedule, go to c-span.org. secretary ofounced defense chuck hagel is stepping

down from his post. president obama and vice president biden joint secretary hagel at the white house for his announcement. >> good morning, everybody. lease be seated. -- please be seated. about a year ago secretary of defense chuck hagel was visiting baking themn korea, for their service. they asked about the usual topics, national security, the future of our military, and then one soldier from ohio asked him what was the most pertinent question of the day, which was what is your favorite college football team? he said, born and raised in nebraska, i don't have a choice. i am a strong cornhuskers fan.

there was a time when a soldier might have been reluctant to ask that question of the secretary of defense, but chuck hagel has been no ordinary secretary of defense. the first enlisted combat veteran who served in that mention, he understands our and women like no others because he stood where they stood. he has been in the dirt and been in the mud. that has formed a special bond. them, andmself in they see themselves in him. their safety and lives have always been at the center of chuck's service. when i asked chuck to serve as secretary of defense, we were transition,eriod of the drawdown in afghanistan, the need to prepare for future missions, and tough fiscal choices to keep our nation strong and ready.

over nearly two years, chuck has been an exemplary defense secretary, providing a steady while stillonetize responding to immediate challenges like isil and ebola. thanks to chuck come a our military is on a firmer footing -- thanks to chuck, our military is on firmer footing. having guided the department through this transition, it is an appropriate time for him to complete his service. let me say chuck has been a great friend of mine. i have admired and trusted him for nearly a decade, since i was a green behind the ears freshman senator and we were both on the senate foreign relations committee. i knowe is one thing about chuck it is that he

doesn't make this or any decision lightly. this decision does not come easily to him, but i consider myself extraordinarily lucky to , and id him by my side am grateful chuck has agreed to stand by my side until i nominate a successor and that successor is confirmed by the senate, which means he will continue to guide our troops at this challenging time. i will have more opportunity to pay tribute in the days ahead. let me just say this. chuck hagel is devoting himself to our national security and men and women in uniform across the expected. he volunteered for vietnam and still carries the scars and trap now from the battles he fought. at the v.a. he fought to give our veterans the benefits they earned. as head of the uso, he made sure america honors our troops. as a senator he helped lead the post-9/11 g.i. bill

which has helped many reach their dreams of college education. as secretary chuck helped transition our military and helped bolster america's leadership around the world. during his tenure afghan forces took the lead for security in afghanistan. ends theremission next month. we will partner with afghans to preserve the gains we have made. the nato alliance is as strong as it has ever been, and we have reassured our allies with our increased presence in central and eastern europe. we've modernized our alliances in the asia pacific; updated our defense posture and recently agreed to improve communications between the u.s. and chinese militaries. chuck has been critical to all these accomplishments. meanwhile, chuck has ensured that our military is ready for new missions. today our men and women in

uniform are taking the fight against isil in iraq, in syria, and chuck helped build the international coalition to ensure that the world is meeting this threat together. today our forces are helping to support the civilian effort against ebola in west africa, a reminder, as chuck likes to say, that america's military is the greatest force for good in the world. finally, in a very difficult budgetary environment, chuck has never lost sight of key priorities. the readiness of our force and the quality of our life of our troops and their families. he's launched new reforms to ensure that even as our military is leaner, it remains the strongest in the world and so our troops can continue to get the pay, the housing, the healthcare, the childcare that they and their families need -- reforms that we need congress to now support. at the same time, after the tragedies we've seen, chuck has helped lead the effort to improve security at our military

installations and to stamp out the scourge of sexual assault from the ranks. chuck, i also want to thank you on a personal level. we come from different parties, but in accepting this position you send a powerful message -- especially to folks in this city -- that when it comes to our national security and caring for our troops and their families, we are all americans first. when i nominated you for this position, you said that you'd always give me your honest advice and informed counsel. you have. when it's mattered most -- behind closed doors, in the oval office -- you've always given it to me straight. and for that i will always be grateful. i recall when i was a nominee in 2008, and i traveled to afghanistan and iraq. chuck hagel accompanied me on that trip along with jack reed. and it's pretty rare at a time

when sometimes this town is so politicized to have a friend who was willing to accompany a nominee from another party because he understood that whoever ended up being president, what was most important was that we were unified when we confronted the challenges that we see overseas. and that's the kind of class and integrity that chuck hagel has always represented. now, chuck, you've said that a life is only as good as the family you have and the friends you surround yourself with. and in that, you are blessed. i want to thank lilibet, your son ziller and your daughter allyn for the sacrifices that they've made as well. i know that as reluctant as we are to see you go, they are equally excited to getting their husband and father back. and i'm sure the cornhuskers are also happy that a fan will be there to cheer them on more often. today, the united states of america can proudly claim the strongest military the world has

ever known. that's the result of investments made over many decades, the blood and treasure and sacrifices of generations. it's the result of the character and wisdom those who lead them, as well -- including a young army sergeant in vietnam who our rose to serve as our nation's 24th secretary of defense. so on behalf of a grateful nation, thank you chuck. [applause] >> thank you very much. mr. president, thank you -- thank you for your generous words, for your friendship, for your support which i have always

valued and will continue to value. and to my not old, but my longtime, dear friend vice president biden, who i have always admired and respected, and both the president and i have learned an awful lot from the vice president over the years -- thank you. and i want to thank the deputy secretary of defense who is here, bob work, and the chairman and joint chiefs of staff, general marty dempsey, who also is here. i want to thank them for being here this morning. i also want to thank you both for your tremendous leadership of the defense department and what you mean to our men and women and their families all over the world; and for the

honor i've had to serve with each of you and the privilege it's been in every way. and i want to thank the entire leadership team at the pentagon. without their support and wise counsel over the last couple of years our many accomplishments, and the president noted some, i have been part of that -- but it's a team. it's all these tremendous men and women, as you know mr. president, that make this happen and i couldn't be prouder of them and what we have accomplished over the almost two years that i've had the honor of serving in this position. and as the president noted i have today submitted my resignation as secretary of defense. it's been the greatest privilege of my life; the greatest privilege of my life to lead and most important, to serve -- to serve with the men and women of the defense department and support their families. i am immensely proud of what we've accomplished during this time. we have prepared ourselves, as the president has noted, our allies and afghan national security forces for a successful

transition in afghanistan. we bolstered enduring alliances and strengthened emerging partnerships while successfully responding to crises around the world. and we've launched important reforms that the president noted -- reforms that will prepare this institution for the challenges facing us in decades to come. i believe we have set not only this department - the department of defense - but the nation on the stronger course toward security, stability and prosperity. if i didn't believe that, i would not have done this job. as our country prepares to celebrate thanksgiving i want to -- you, mr. president, and you, vice president biden, acknowledge what you have done and how grateful i am to both of you for your leadership and your friendship and for giving me this opportunity to serve our

country once again. i will continue to support you, mr. president, and the men and women who defend this country every day so unselfishly; and their families, what they do for our country, so unselfishly. and as i have said -- and as the president noted -- i will stay on this job and work just as hard as i have over the last couple of years, every day, every moment, until my successor is confirmed by the united states senate. i'd also like to express my gratitude to our colleagues on capitol hill -- my gratitude to them for their support of me, but more importantly their support of our troops and their families and their continued commitment to our national security. i also want to thank my international counterparts for their friendship and their partnership and their advice during my time as secretary of defense. their involvement with me and their partnership with me -- in

so many of these important areas as we build these coalitions of common interests as you have noted, mr. president -- are so critically important and to them, i am grateful i will be forever grateful. and finally i'd like to thank my family. my wife lilibet, who you have mentioned, mr. president, who was with me this morning as she has been with me throughout so many years, and during so many tremendous experiences. and this experience and opportunity and privilege to serve as secretary of defense has been one of those; and to my daughter allyn and my son ziller. mr. president, again, thank you. to you and to all of our team everywhere, as we know mr. president, mr. vice president, it is a team effort. and that's part of the fun of it, to help build teams and to work together to make things

happen for the good of the country and make a better world. for all of that i am immensely grateful. and to all of you, your families, happy thanksgiving. thank you very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> on the next "washington journal" we discuss the resignation of chuck hagel.

a group will talk about hunger in america and some efforts to end childhood hunger. we will take your calls and look for your comments on facebook and twitter on the decision in the death of michael around. washington journal airs every day at 7:00 eastern on c-span. , we are goingght to bring new interviews with a couple of retiring members of congress. tom petri of wisconsin and carolyn mccarthy. a grand jury did not indict darren wilson in the august shooting of michael brown. we will hear from the prosecuting attorney and president obama on the decision. isgressman tom petri

retiring after six decades of representing his district. he sat down with us to talk about his time in washington. >> congressman tom petri, you have been in the house of representatives since 1979. you are down to your last few weeks, what is that like? >> it has been a good run. there is a sense of moving on. i hear that you do not use the word retirement. you use the word transition. >> will you be staying in washington? >> i am hoping to do both. my wife is initially from indiana. it goes back and forth as she can. i want to keep the family together.

i will spend a little bit of time here. >> what do you think you will most about being in congress? >> the opportunity to learn a lot and help with the problems that we deal with. different organizations and help different organizations and help the district worked their way through the washington maes and to be competitive in their businesses. is learning.ng a job like this is kind of a social connector job. you learn about all sorts of different things. you specialize in a particular area often. here you have to learn a little bit about almost everything. the things that become a concern as you are doing a congressional job. >> what will you miss the least

about being here? >> i have enjoyed the job a lot. there is not enough time in the day to deal with all that you want to deal with. each representative represents 700,000 people, maybe even a little more in some states. do a almost impossible to lot of different things. case, we have had very, very good, affective people in our offices who carry most of the daily burden. >> your arrival is almost completely quintess dental with the arrival of the televised congress. it started in march of 1979. let me talk to you about your

observations on the changing media and how it has affected this institution. it went from the televised congress to the 24 hour news channel to social media. i wonder how it affects the work you do and the kind of work that you do? house whenver in the it was not televised. , many of theyears thatdures were still those were followed before there was a electronic voting. people had to stand up to get a roll call vote. that eventually went away. are nowl votes basically automatic if anybody requests it. before, they were very rare the cousin they took so long.

you had to vote for hundred 35 names twice. when they were called in the well of the house, there was another hour when people cast their vote. it could take three or four hours. electronic voting, you do it in a minute or two. what a great deficiency it would be. there has always been a great proliferation of votes on procedural issues. do not know the number. a couple hundred votes. i am not sure that the quality of the thing has gone up. i have talked to people who served in the congress before television. you can't fight change. you have to figure out how to work it to your vantage.

the supreme court has been reluctant to televise their proceedings. they do allow them to be broadcast on radio. they are edging into it. television, -- before television, representatives would stand up and negotiate ills on the floor of the house and talk to each other back and forth and engage each other in substantive discussions. now it is pretty much a show for television. people are nervous if they deviate from something that was prepared by people on their staff, they get themselves into some sort of a pickle. here, there was actually some question as to whether you were allowed to use written material when speaking on the floor of the house.

you could put things on the record if you have them written. -- you areosed to be speaking, not your reading. now it is totally different. >> members can bring ipads onto the floor. >> they seem to be doing selfies. >> moving from a televised congress, cnn came with the 24-hour news cycle. now it is instantaneous. with social media, anything that happens will be disseminated instantly. does that affect how you do your job? >> all sorts of institutions are trying to adjust to the changes in technology and this has been going on until -- since samuel morse invented the telegraph. it has been going on in an excel are rated fashion. why does it cause anyone

problems? are in a business like the news business where you need a mediator trying to figure out what is important and what is not an trying to put into context and edit it. trying to accurately summarize and prioritize information in a particular area. instantaneously online it becomes very flat and messy. good, had, kinds of and ugly stuff out on the web. that is a problem for a lot of people in the news business and other businesses. said is something to be for the old adage, act in haste and regret at your leisure. going back to the days when we were a colony, it would take a

couple of days to get over to europe and a couple of weeks to get act. you would send one letter and then another letter. you would think about it to figure out what made sense and focus on things. people are figuring out space socan get some they can create some depth. people were impressed by whoever was president when they were first aware of this. it influences political adages throughout the rest of their life. i served in the eisenhower generation. the thought of dwight eisenhower getting up every morning and hopping on air force one flying

giving ae and 15-minute speech to be part of the new cycle, which is part of 's job hasresident become. he was never in a debate or on any of the tv news shows at all. he was just a great leader that people wanted as president. skilledot particularly as a manipulator of images and things like that. it is just a whole different approach. now we are building a memorial to him because he was a great president. certainly is not what is going on now. >> we are talking to you in a week in early october when you have had some news in your early career. you hadn't ethics investigator which you asked for which the committee decided they will continue. i will invite people interested

in the details to go online to learn about it. use -- you served on the ethics committee. did you have a reasonable expectation that it would be adjudicated by the time you are leaving? >> they set up a strange process where you have a two-tiered system and you do not always agree. the reason i asked for a review of my action is that i had gone to the ethics committee to ask if that they approve or give me guidance if i was acting on behalf of of the constituent .ompany in which i owned stock i had done it before i was in congress. stock inwn corporations in our districts. we always made sure that if we

try to help them in dealing with congressional things, we had to get it approved i the ethics committee, especially in the case of our scottish truck. the stock is down as well as up since i bought. i have not sold any. we wanted them to investigate it. questions were raised. it all happened about eight years ago. there was a question as to whether one congress can review the the havers of another congress. we had a supreme court case about adam kling powell where he was thrown out and reelected. the supreme court said no. the voters are the people that decide. this was in the newspapers for years in my district. we did not want to read the procedural questions. we wanted to stand by the advice they had given me. 's the ethics committee

purview is to oversee members of congress. how does it work when you will not be here any longer? >> that will be it. they bumped into this other panel who sole purpose is to review things and then send it to the ethics committee if they think there is anything to look at. they did that. the ethics committee says that they will take it under advisement. >> it is not that two years from now you might find out a ruling. it just ends. >> no. any jurisdiction over citizens. it is for congress. the limit's other jurors action theor that congress --

limits of their jurisdiction is for that congress. >> i wanted to go back to speaker rice. it was the first time a sitting speaker gave back his position. his speech doing that on the floor was a very dramatic and historic moment. people can see this he said history. i am wondering how through the lens of history it seems to you and his impact on congress. always thought the two jobs.mittee had if someone did something wrong in violation of the rules of the discredit upont the house to deal appropriately with that.

also, to protect members of the the scurrilous and unfounded accusations. when people would send things to the ethics committee or ask us to look something a month or two before an election we would sake, if you feel as strongly about this after the election as before the election, we would be happy to take it up. it was partisan political stuff going on, at least that is what it looked like. the speaker of the house is the leader. the ethics committee is made up of an equal number of members of both clinical parties. -- political parties. you want to make sure it is not used for political vendettas. you want it to act on the

merits, not on the politics of different things. we did that as effectively as we could in that case. did reach that conclusion because the speaker chose to resign. >> there are some congressional historians or analysts that look at that as one of the seminal moments where the hyper partisanship began. that led to the republican revolution. things have been pretty intense between the two parties almost ever since. did you have any sense that that was a watershed moment in that regard? >> that may have been the perception. the chairman of the committee was julia dixon, who was a stalwart democrat from los angeles. books thate of the

have been written said he met with wright. they said that if it was a partisan thing on the committee, nothing could be done by the committee. as the investigation went on with the ethics committee, there is another one that has not been publicized with the intelligence ownittee, members of his party decided that maybe there was something there and it led to him resigning. the bigare some of contributors to the state of partisanship in the house today? >> a little bit of media chatter mainly. my sense is that on the committees that i serve, members get along pretty well. i just saw something put out by the senior member on the transportation committee on the democrat side. praising the work of bill shuster as the chairman of the committee were working in a

bipartisan and inclusive fashion. that is the case of most committees. it is still the case in the armed services committee, they do not have a republican or democratic staff. they have a bipartisan staff. what has changed as much as anything, the speakership of representative gingrich and what has been carried on since then thehe jurist from more -- andt from the leadership the crafting of bills being done in the majority and minority leadership offices. their job is to be a party leader and build a team and keep the team together. that is fine. that is part of the deal.

the chairman's job is traditionally to get something done. with the ways and means committee. can invest in transportation and good tax law and all of the rest. what we have seen is a drift away from the committees operating from that premise and working on their own system to falling back to the party call of the leadership on scheduling bills. it is part of this new cycle is this, just like the president. it is very short-term stuff. the quality of bills that comes out has been abysmal. you look at what is obamacare. half of the problems is that it was never intended to be a bill. because of the way the politics passed the senate with

a lot of patches to get the votes they needed to get in the senate. suddenly, they lost the super majority that they needed because of senator brown's election in massachusetts. you take the senate bill and pass it through the house. it had a lot of glitches in it. anyone can tell you that that has been involved in the process. it has been done more for the politics of it than by the party leadership, whether it is republican or democrat. it is not just the members. jim over star was on the transportation committee. he was a staffer and then a member for 50 years. he knew a lot more about the in's and out's of transportation bills than representative pelosi, john boehner, or people on their staff.

we tended to move in the direction of almost passing press releases and trying to call it legislation. that works in the short run, but it causes more and more frustration and problems for people that are trying to implement the law or working on the law. quite how as the tone of the conference changed over the years? wax not a whole lot. bikes you described yourself as pragmatic and conservative. moderate voices seemed to be diminishing. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> i don't know. a lot of people in both