>> we have seen the use of russian artillery in ukraine in the past days. i wouldn't want to speak to an individual instance today, but it certainly has been a pattern whereby we've seen firing from within russia into ukraine. and we've seen a disturbing movement of russian artillery and military equipment into ukraine as well. i'd say that this takes place in the context of the separatists dramatically losing support within eastern ukraine, and the ukrainian military making gains in places like luhansk and donetsk. the way, however, to respond to that situation and the humanitarian needs, legitimate humanitarian needs in eastern ukraine, is to pursue a path of de-escalation, not to move forward with further violations of ukraine's territorial sovereign integrity, which has only alienated russia from the people of ukraine and isolated russia in the community.

>> general dempsey said the islamic state can only be defeated if the fight is taken to them in syria. does the president agree with that? if so, how does he intend to undertake it? and would it mean a significant change in the mission against islamic state? >> we certainly agree that any strategy to deal with the isil organization has to deal with both sides of the border, iraq and syria. the strategy that we are already undertaking does address that in the sense that we are providing training and equipping and assistance to the iraqi security forces and kurdish security forces who are fighting them on the ground in iraq. we're also providing support and military assistance to the syrian opposition. what we'd like to see is those efforts squeeze the space where isil operates. but there are other elements to our strategy. one is to enlist the support of partners in the region and the

international community. because this poses a significant threat not just to the united states and to the iraqi and syrian people, but to the entire region. and there are things we can do with partners to mobilize communities in places like iraq to work to expel isil. then there's a question of u.s. military action. and the president has already authorized u.s. military action on the very specific missions of protecting our people and personnel and our facilities in baghdad and erbil. he's also authorized military action to deal with the humanitarian crisis on mt. sinjar. again, as we look ahead and look forward, we're going to do what is necessary to protect americans. so if we see plotting against americans, we see a threat to the united states emanating from anywhere, we stand ready to take action against that threat. we've made very clear time and again that if you come after americans, we're going to come after you, wherever you are. and that's what's going to guide our plan in the days to come.

steve? >> has the president signed off on air strikes against isil in syria? >> well, again, i don't want to get ahead of decisions. the president hasn't been presented with specific military options outside of those that are carrying out the current missions in iraq. but we would certainly look at what is necessary in the long term to make sure we're protecting americans. again, the long-term strategy is going to have to involve people on the ground taking the fight to isil. and that is iraqi and kurdish forces. that is syrians who we're supporting on the ground. but if we have a need to protect americans and to take action when we see plotting against the united states and our interests, we'll reserve the right to do so. but i'm not going to get ahead of those decisions. >> it's fair to say you're actively considering air strikes against isil targets in syria. >> you heard the president say we'll be relentless against isil. we'll do what's necessary to

protect americans. and see justice is done for what we saw with the barbaric killing of jim foley. so we're actively considering what's going to be necessary to deal with that threat, and we're not going to be restricted by borders. we've shown time and again that if there's a counterterrorism threat, we'll take direct action against that threat if necessary. >> last thing on ukraine, the russian convoy, do you see that as a direct invasion of ukraine? >> well, at this point, again, we see this as part of a pattern of a flagrant violation of ukrainian sovereignty. a direct incursion into their territory. they continue to have masses of military forces on border, too, that would be a further escalation were they to move into ukraine. we're giving the russians a clear message that they need to remove this convoy from inside of ukraine's borders. if they don't, we will be making determinations with our international partners about how to ratchet up the costs and consequences on them. clearly, again, this is not

something that has started today. from the arming and training of russian-backed separatists to the shootdown of mh-17, we've seen escalation, and this adds to that escalation in a dangerous way. the russians should take a path to de-escalation. if they don't, they're just going to find themselves further isolated, not just from the people of eastern ukraine, but from the entire world. michelle? >> the way the administration, including yourself, is talking about isis today, it seems like a big jump from what the president himself said in january, calling isis jv players. would you still agree with his assessment just a few months ago? >> i think what the president was speaking to a few months ago was the fact of the matter is you have many different groups operating across the middle east and north africa. as we shift from a situation in which the counterterrorism threat principally emanated from al qaeda core, we are going to need to evaluate which of these groups pose a threat to the united states, which of these groups pose a threat to our personnel in the region, and

which of these groups are more localized militia-type forces that are potentially dangerous but can be handled by local security forces. clearly, isil, which has a long history and an origin dating back to aqi, al qaeda in iraq, has gained capacity in the last several months as the fighting in syria has given them some safe haven there and as they've advanced across iraq and gained heavy weaponry and as they've become better funded through various funding streams, including what they're able to sell in terms of oil and gas, the ransoms they've been able to obtain. that has developed their capacity in a way that has increased the threat. they pose a greater threat today than they did six months ago, and we're taking it very seriously. that includes the direct military action we're taking in iraq, that includes the support -- increased support we've provided to the iraqi and kurdish forces and to the syrian opposition. and we're going to do what's

necessary to deal with this counterterrorism challenge. kristen? >> thanks. former cia deputy director mike morel said of james foley's death, this is isis' first terror attack against the united states. do you agree with that assessment? >> absolutely. when you see somebody killed in such a horrific way, that represents a terrorist attack. that represents a terrorist attack against our country and against an american citizen. and i think all of us have the foley family in our thoughts and prayers. the fact of the matter is we've actually seen, you know, isil seek to advance too close to our facilities. certainly for own comfort. so the president's decision to take military action a number of weeks ago was out of direct concern that if they were able to get into erbil, that they could pose a threat to our personnel in our consulate there. so we have seen them pose a threat to our interests in the

region, to our personnel and facilities in the region, and clearly the brutal execution of jim foley represented an affront, an attack not just on him but he's an american, and we see that as an attack on our country when one of our own is killed like that. >> how would you assess the threat they pose to americans living in the united states? do you take their threats seriously? >> well, kristen, we have to take their threats seriously. to date, they have operated much like an insurgency in syria and iraq. again, they're deeply rooted in the insurgency we faced in iraq for many years as the legacy organization of al qaeda in iraq. and they of course posed a huge threat to the people in that region. and it's important to underscore, as the president said the other day, that it's not simply the threat they pose to the united states. it's the threat they pose to the entire world. and they've killed thousands of

civilians. they've killed muslims more than any other faith. so whatever pretense they have to establish themselves as speaking for the muslim world, i think, is completely disproven by their actions in that part of the world. for americans in the homeland, i think what we'd say is we monitor very closely whether or not isil will seek to develop plots that are aimed at the west, aimed at beyond this geographic area where they've been operating. we are doing that. we're actively consulting with european partners about how to watch the threat that they could pose to the west. we take their threats seriously because we have to take every threat that's made against the united states seriously. and we're going to deal with that through our -- again, the action and strategy we have in the region to squeeze them. we're also dealing with it through homeland security and the president is going to convene at the head of state level, a u.n. security council meeting in september to deal

with the issue of foreign fighters heading to syria. we're concerned about the ability of foreign fighters to come from western countries and seek to come back. >> could they pull up a 9/11-size attack? are they capable of that? >> look, to date we have not seen them focus on that type of planning, but that doesn't mean we're not going to be very mindful that they could quickly aim to pivot to attacks against western targets outside of the region. so again, this is something we're going to monitor very closely. we certainly take seriously the fact that this is an organization that has a cadre of fighters who are clearly willing to do horrific things, as we saw in that video, and as we've seen as they massacre innocent civilians in iraq. they have a significant stream of funding they've acquired over the last year or two. again, if they show the intent or they show plotting against the united states, we'll be prepared to deal with that as

necessary. john? >> yeah, bigger picture in what we're doing in iraq. is the united states now engaged in a broad counterterrorism effort to defeat isil? >> the iraqi government is certainly at the front of an effort to defeat isil inside of iraq. and we're providing them with support in order to do that. i think the strategy is one that we want to evict isil from their safe havens and squeeze the space they're operating in. and ultimately, again, push them out of that space. our contribution to that will come in many ways. it comes in the form of the air strikes that rebound protecting baghdad and erbil that have given space for iraqi forces to push forward against isil. it comes in the form of military assistance and advice and intelligence sharing that we have with iraqi and kurdish forces on the ground. it comes with our political support and service of a new and inclusive iraqi government, which should be able to broaden

the coalition against isil so we see more of iraq's neighbors working with, for instance, sunni communities to evict isil. so this is going to have to be a team effort. but we have very unique capabilities that we can bring to bear in supporting those on ground who are working to fight against isil on the front lines. >> just a basic question. is it the objective of u.s. efforts to here to defeat isil? is that the u.s. objective? >> look, absolutely in the long term our objective would be to see an organization like isil defeated. our military objectives -- so i'm just separating out the fact that we have military objectives that the president has articulated that aim to protect our facilities in iraq and prevent this humanitarian catastrophe. in that long-term strategy of working for the defeat of isil, we will participate not just through our military action but through our training and equipping of iraqi security forces, kurdish security forces

on the ground. because ultimately, they are the ones who are going to have to work to evict isil from their communities. again, their efforts to form an inclusive government in iraq, i think, will go a long way towards enlisting the support of those communities who have been somewhat disaffected from the government in recent years. >> i'd like to get you to respond to michael foley, jim foley's brother, pretty emotional comments. he said, and i quote, the united states could have done more on behalf of the western and american hostages over there. >> well, first of all, our hearts go out to mr. foley and the entire foley family. i cannot imagine how it must feel to lose a loved one and to lose a loved one in such a horrible way. i certainly understand that any family would want to make sure that we're moving heaven and earth to find and bring home american hostages. i can assure you that we have done everything that we can possibly do to try to bring home our hostages.

it's an incredibly difficult circumstance in a place like syria, again, where you have such a violent conflict raging. but we've used all of our military intelligence, diplomatic resources we can bring to bear to try to pull a thread to find out where our hostages are, to try to rescue them when we saw an opportunity, to try to work with any country that might have any means of locating them. tragically, we weren't able to rescue mr. foley. but we're going to keep trying for all of our hostages, not just in syria, but around the world. >> how many american hostages are being held by isil? >> we don't want to put out a specific number, again, out of respect for the fact that there's sensitivities involved with that. but this is a small number of hostages who are held within syria. and we're going to continue to do whatever we can to try to bring them home. every day that they're in custody, is a day they're at risk. major? >> the president said the goal

is to contain isil. the secretary of state two days later said the goal was to destroy isil. which is it and how far and how long are we prepared to carry out which ever campaign it is? >> well, major, i think the president has spoken to the fact that our military objectives in iraq right now are limited to protecting our personnel and facilities and addressing this humanitarian crisis. we have to be clear that this is a deeply rooted organization. they have been there for ten years. when you go back to aqi. it is going to take time, a long time, to fully evict them from the communities where they operate. we can do things, though, in the immediate term to address the threat to the united states and our people and to push them back and to give space for these security forces who are taking the fight to them. we can create a coalition that can support iraqis and moderate syrian opposition and their efforts to squeeze isil. and that's what we're doing. but it's going to take time when you talk about an objective like the ultimate defeat of isil.

it's going to take time to dislodge a group that has been operating in this part of the world for the better part of a decade in an insurgency. what we can do is address the threat to the united states, give these security forces the space they need, go on the offense, push them out of the communities they're in, and work towards that ultimate goal of defeating isil. and as the president said the other day, major, this is a cancer that has to be eradicated. that's how we look at this. we have to have our near-term goals that put the safety of americans front and center, and then in the long term, we'll be working with our partners to defeat this organization. >> you're saying first contain, then destroy? >> well, i think obviously by definition, major, you need an immediate term to contain a threat. so, yes. but as you're doing that, you need to make sure there's a threat to the american people,ing that we have the ability to take action. that's what the president did, for instance, when they were bearing down on our facilities in erbil. but we are already pushing them back. you saw after we began our air

strikes, for instance, the kurdish forces with our support were able to make advances and to retake a big piece of critical infrastructure in iraq, the mosul dam. so that's a dynamic that we're seeking to foster, one that doesn't just contain but that allows those forces on the ground to go on the offense. >> obviously, the ebola crisis continues to mount in severity. what degree has the president been briefed on that? is there any serious consideration or dialogue within administration of sending additional assets to the region, such as uss mercy or uss comfort, which are platform, naval vessel hospitals that might be able to provide some assistance o some number of people afflicted in those countries by this virus? >> so we always look at whatever resources necessary to deal with an outbreak like ebola that we've seen. we have prioritized getting people and resources on the ground in places like liberia and sierra leone so we're

working to strengthen their public health architecture. there are clear steps we believe they can take to contain the outbreak and to make sure that people are getting appropriate care. that's what we focused on with the cdc and other u.s. agencies. and if there are opportunities for us to do additional things, we'll review those. but the best solution in our mind is to put the public health infrastructure in place in those countries to contain this outbreak, treat those who are suffering from it, and ensure it doesn't spread beyond their borders. >> [ inaudible question ]. >> i don't have any updates for you on additional military resources. we focus on public health resources to date. last one i'll take, mike? >> when the president announced the air strikes in iraq, he came to the american people and made a statement, and he laid out a specific case for what was happening, what was going to happen, and what was not going to happen. do you all believe that case

that he made then covers what you might do in syria as well, both from a public relations perspective on what he needs to tell the american people, and on the legal side, if you all decide to take military action in syria along the lines that you just talked about to protect american interests, would he have to come to congress, would there be additional legal -- either here in the united states or international legal authority that he would have to seek to do that? >> well, on your first question, mike, look, the president always keeps the american people updated about the status of any military action and major foreign policy and national security actions. even since he announced those air strikes earlier this month, i'd note he's spoken a number of times to developments in iraq and developments associated with our efforts against isil. so clearly, i think, any additional action he would take is one he would explain to the american people, whether it's in

iraq or anywhere else. and we will keep the american people fully informed. and i think the american people understand that this president is very deliberate about the use of force. he doesn't rush towards a military option. he takes very seriously when we put u.s. military action on the table, when we have our pilots flying missions like the air strikes we're undertaking in iraq. however, i think the american people also understand that there are some threats that have to be dealt with. we're dealing with a threat from isil in iraq by protecting our people there. and as we have done against al qaeda around the world, we'll take whatever action is necessary to protect our people. and president obama has shown he'd do that. whether it's in pakistan were the bin laden operation in yemen, somalia. we'll take direct action against terrorists who threaten the united states, even as we develop long-term solutions that empower partners on the ground.

with respect to legal matters, i wouldn't want to prejudge an action that we haven't taken. i would say that the actions we're taking in iraq are obviously at the invitation of the iraqi government and consistent with the president's constitutional authority. the action that we took to try to rescue hostages in syria was entirely legal, of course, because we were seeking to save americans from imminent danger. and that is at the core of justification for military action. i think that any additional actions that we take, we'd want to consult with congress. >> but i mean, the distinction you had drawn about iraq was that you were invited in. it in syria, that obviously wouldn't be the case. isn't there a distinction? >> i don't want to speak hypothetically about an action we haven't taken. but to take the example of what we did, you don't need to be invited in if you're trying to rescue your people from imminent danger. and so that was the basis for the action that we took to try

to rescue our hostages. going forward, we would obviously have a legal justification for any action we take. and i do want to be clear, we would consult with congress. this is, again, a problem that we have to deal with as a nation. and so whether it's our ongoing operations in iraq or additional steps that may need to be taken against isil, we would carry those out in very close consultation with congress about their support and their role in providing support for our efforts. thanks. >> does the u.s. need to review its policy of not paying ransom for its hostages? >> we obviously understand that americans who have loved ones who are in harm's way want to do anything to try to bring them home. and we provide support in any way we can with our military, our diplomacy, our intelligence resources, our law enforcement resources. but as a matter of policy, we do not provide ransom or any

funding for a terrorist organization. we feel very strongly that it is not the right policy for governments to support the payment of ransom to terrorist organizations. in the long run, what that does is it provides additional funding to these terrorist organizations, which allows them to expand their operations. it incentivizes the kidnapping of foreigners in ways that we have seen, frankly, with organizations like isil and some al qaeda affiliates. so again, as a matter of policy, i think the u.s. government remains absolutely committed to the notion we will not provide funding for terrorist organizations that we believe that only creates perverse incentives for those terrorist organizations going forward and a source of funding. and we want to cut off and choke off their source of funding. what we will do is use all the resources of the u.s. government to try to find and if possible bring home those americans who

are missing. as i said, that will include our military, our intelligence, our law enforcement, and our diplomacy. thanks. >> all right. you've just heard a briefing by the deputy national security adviser to the president, taking questions on a number of sun subjectin subjects including ukraine, ebola. but the bulk of that briefing dealing with isis, with the crisis in iraq and syria and what the united states intends to do to fight back against that terror organization, of course in the wake of the killing of james foley. joining me now is a foreign affairs expert and managing editor at the digital publication "quartz." so you heard ben rhodes hit a couple points repeatedly. he used the phrase, we want to evict isis from their safe havens and squeeze the space they're operating in. it sounds like containment, but he says it's not containment. >> well, look, if we can get isis out of iraq, that will be an enormous achievement.

yes, there's still the problem of syria, and a lot of people are sort of anticipating that and saying, well, getting them out of iraq is not enough. i agree, it's not enough. it'll be one heck of a start, though. it's already a start that isis has been pushed back from some of the positions that they held only two weeks ago. this is the first time that this organization isis has faced any serious opposition in iraq. when they took mosul, the iraqi army up and left. didn't put up a fight. when they took sinjar, the peshmerga up and left. the first time they faced any kind of resistance is with u.s. fire and the peshmerga on the ground. it shows iraqis this is not some irresistible force, that they can be beaten. that's important. because a big part of their mystique, their success is because everyone thinks no one can stop them. we've already demonstrated they

can be stopped. that's a good start. there's a lot of work to do in iraq. let's not let the best be the enemy of the good. let's not, you know -- if syria is a problem for us to worry about and what to do about isis in syria, that doesn't mean we wait for a final game plan before we start acting in iraq because there are too many lives at risk. >> but the question -- and i think what concerns a lot of americans when they look at this unfolding situation is whether -- just what you said, that the perception is that really no one can beat them but the united states, but the united states military and that what ben rhodes was talking about, which is equipping and giving training and giving equipment to fighters on the grounds, to the existing people on the grounds, including parts of the modern syrian army, that that won't be enough. in the end, they still, even with our help, won't be able to overcome ie ssis. again, it's our air strikes allowing them to get the gaining they've gotten. >> i'll tell you who's not worried about that. it's the iraqis. the iraqi towns and cities that

are not going to be overtaken by isis because american fire power was involved are not going to turn around and say, well, our soldiers didn't win this war. they'll just be grateful. the citizens of erbil right now are not complaining about american fire power. if american fire power is used to liberate some of the towns and territories that are under isis control, the people who have been under the isis' thumb so far are not going to complain. >> they're going to be glad about it. >> look, it's not ideal, but the iraqis don't have reliable fire power. the free syrian army does not have the ability to fly f-16s or launch missiles. we do. someone has to take the lead. we're taking the lead. >> yeah, and very quickly, we don't have a great deal of time, but i wanted you to unpack a little bit for people the origins of this isis group and why it's both syria and iraq they're playing in. >> the origins are in iraq. the man who started this was

jordanian. isis as it was then known as al qaeda in iraq, basically sprang up after the u.s.-led invasion that brought down saddam hussein. that's the reason why they're so effective now. this is not some sort of overnight success. they've been fighting, they've been developing, evolving for over a decade now. plus, a lot of the people who have joined isis are former iraqi military, people who we fired, put out of a job when we essentially disbanded the entire iraqi army. a lot of those people, senior people, majors, colonels, a couple of generals even, joined isis, which is why they're so successful. it's their territory. they know iraq. they're kooiiraqis, a lot of th. they have people at the highest levels of isis who know how to operate like an army, which is why they're so efficient. but that doesn't mean they're unbeatable. >> right. >> we've already seen that in a small way in the past couple of

weeks. and that gives us some reason to hope. >> absolutely. thanks very much, bobby. indispensable information. appreciate it. >> any time. >> still ahead, we will go to ferguson for the latest almost two weeks after the death of michael brown. plus, i'll talk with a state senator on her fight for a fair trial in the michael brown shooting. two medium cappuccinos! let's show 'em what a breakfast with whole grain fiber can do. one coffee with room, one large mocha latte, medium macchiato, a light hot chocolate hold the whip, two espressos. make one a double. she's full and focused. [ barista ] i have two cappuccinos, one coffee with room, one large mocha latte, a medium macchiato, a light hot chocolate hold the whip, and two espressos -- one with a double shot. heh, heh. that's not the coffee talkin'. [ female announcer ] start your day with kellogg's frosted mini wheats cereal. with whole wheat goodness on one side

and a hint of sweetness on the other, it's a delicious way to get the nutrition you want.

13 days after the police shooting of unarm ed teenager michael brown brauought what looked like a war zone to his hometown. protests last night were calm and progress. at the governor's direction, national guard troops are expected to be pulling out of town later today. as tensions ease on ferguson streets, a growing number of res debits have turned their focus to demanding that the prosecutor overseeing a 12-member grand jury be replaced. >> no justice, no peace!

>> and that is the sounds of demonstrators in st. louis county yesterday. among those leading the charge was missouri state senator jamilah nasheed, a democrat from st. louis who faced off with authorities outside the county courthouse while trying to hand deliver a petition, including 70,000 signatures demanding mcculloch step down. >> excuse me. excuse me! this is a public building. this is our first amendment right to assemble peacefully and go inside buildings that we pay taxes for. >> state senator jamilah nasheed joins me now from ferguson. he's also the chairwoman of the missouri black legislative caucus. senator, thank you for being here. >> thanks for having me. >> i want to start out by asking you, regarding that protest and the yellow tape around that government building, were you ever able to find out why that building was being closed and why you were not being allowed in? >> well, they basically said

that it was not going to be open to the public due to the protests. what we were able to do was accumulate 70,000 signatures, and those signatures was a statement of a vote of no confidence for bob mcculloch. bob mcculloch, we don't believe, you know, that he can and will do the right thing. it's like the fox guarding the hen house. the relationship that he has with the law enforcement community, it's something that's troubling for many people throughout the community here. they don't believe that he can be fair and transparent. >> and senator, i want to show -- i don't know if you're able to see this, but i want to show our viewers a map from the 2012 election that looks at st. louis county and its importance as a democratic stronghold in your state. if our viewers can see, it's a whole sea of red. that's missouri. it's got those three little spots of blue, which is how a democrat can win statewide. they have to do well in those three counties. in st. louis county, where bob mcculloch is the prosecutor, he

ran for re-election -- he's been in for more than 20 years. he just ran for re-election, literally days before the shooting of michael brown, and he won 71% of the vote against an african-american opponent. now, of course, senator, we all understand that an incumbent is very difficult to run against. it's very difficult to raise money. i understand that leslie had a difficult time raising money and getting exposure. how do you argue that somebody that broadly elected in the county doesn't have the right to continue doing his job? >> well, we look at the history of bob mcculloch in the past and how he has handled cases of this magnitude. any case dealing with police violence, he sides with police officers. so that's why the community can say overwhelmingly that he's not the man for this job when it comes to prosecuting police officers. the voter participation is a problem within the african-american community. and that is something that we're

working on. we know that we need more voter participation in order for the dynamics to change within the african-american community. however, we truly believe at the end of the day, again, bob mcculloch cannot and will not be fair and impartial to this particular case due to the fact he's dealing with law enforcement. >> and last question, senator, if, in fact, mr. mcculloch -- and he's indicated he didn't going anywhere, and the governor does not remove him, what will be your next step? >> i can't hear you. >> i'll ask one more time. if, in fact, many mcculloch does not step down and the governor refuses to remove him, what would be your next step? >> well, right now many of the community leaders are working behind the scenes. we're coming up with strategies to put more pressure on the governor. because at the end of the day, this is something that the governor can do today. he can remove bob mcculloch

based on his emergency clause. so we're going to continue to work and put the pressure on the governor and let him know that at the end of the day, we will not back down. we're going to demand that he do the right thing and remove bob mcculloch from this case. that's the only way that -- >> go on. >> that's the only way that people in this community will build confidence and the process moving forward. >> all right. we'll have to leave it there. thank you very much, state senator jamilah nasheed. appreciate it. >> thanks for having me. >> thank you. coming up, we'll continue our coverage of the michael brown shooting in ferguson and how a 25-year-old supreme court ruling could impact the shooting investigation. like a bear? how about like you're on vacation... in this place! (dolphin) sleep like you haven't seen your bed in days... no, in weeks! sleep like the kids went to nana's house... for the whole weekend! sleep like you just took zzzquil. the non-habit forming sleep aid from the makers of nyquil

that helps you sleep easily, sleep soundly, and wake refreshed. because sleep is a beautiful thing. there was like an i haderuption on my skingles. and burning. i'd lift my arm and the pain back here was excruciating. when i went to the doctor his first question was "did you have chickenpox?"

i thought it was something that, you know, old people got.

♪ ♪ ♪ trouble makers. ♪ dreamer of dreamers. ♪ ♪ we are the y-a-o! ♪ (chinese singing) ♪ oh... oh... oh... oh... for the next several weeks, a st. louis county grand jury will gather behind closed doors and hear evidence to determine whether to charge officer darren wilson with a crime in the shooting of michael brown. the key question, whether a

reasonable officer with a similar background would have responded the same way. as chief justice william western kwis wrote in the 1989 supreme court case graham versus connor, the reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene rather than the 20/20 vision of hindsight. joining me now is attorney natalie jackson. she served as a lawyer for trayvon martin's family. and midwyn charles is with me in the studio. as much as people are looking at this case and looking at all the people who are cell phone cameras and all of what seemed to be witnesses who corroborate and corroborate their stories, it's actually very difficult to convict a police officer in a use of force case. >> it is. it's very, very difficult. and part of that is because, i think, as a society there's a cultural aspect involved here. people want to believe that police officers are doing the right thing. people want to believe that a police officer discharges their firearm that they had reason to do so.

when you start to look at jury decisions and people who are sitting on these juries, when they make those decisions, i strongly believe that is something that they have in mind. >> and natalie, for the grand jury, what would they be weighing in order to overcome that desire as midwin just explained, which i think is absolutely true, of people on these juries to take the officer's word for it? what is it the grand jury needs to look at? what's relevant in a case like this? >> well, i think it's important for people to know that the grand jury, the information that will be presented to them is presented from the prosecutor. so it's supposed to be all the available evidence in the case, meaning eyewitnesses, forensics, autopsies. those sort of things. i think, you know, that is the problem with some of the people who might have some doubts that it's going to be presented. everyone -- it's the cliche saying, a happen sandwich can be indicted because the prosecution is the one that's presenting the evidence, and it's how they present it and in what light.

>> and i think that, again, it comes back to in our last block we did speak with a state senator who wants this particular prosecutor off the case because it is so much about the way that the prosecutor presents it, the narrative they give the jury. and if the family now in this case does not believe that the prosecutor will go in with the vigor and narrative that's compelling for the grand jury, then it would be not likely that you get an indictment. isn't that true? >> this is criminal procedure 101. and this is one of the first things you learn in criminal law. prosecutors have wide discretion, right. it's called prosecutorial discretion. it's one sided. it's secretive. they get to decide what evidence will be presented. now, robert mcculloch, the prosecutor in st. louis, has said he will put everything in, every witness statement, and all that. but there's no real way to know because, guess what? it's secret. so that's one of the problems that you have here. and while i can understand the community in ferguson and their mistrust of this prosecutor, because prosecutions rely heavily on the character, on the

integrity of a prosecutor in order for you to get a fair outcome. so you want to have faith in a prosecutor that their number-one job, their number one duty is justice. and that they're going to pursue that and they're going to pursue it with vigor. and unfortunately, you have a community that doesn't believe that's going to be the case. >> and natalie, having represented a family, trayvon martin's family n a similar situation where you are on pins and needles waiting for a just outcome, what you believe to be justice, how much is the family read into the process? what does the family receive? are they briefed by the prosecutor? are they involved? >> on this type of case with a grand jury, we don't no what the family gets because it is secret. i think one of the things that we neglect to mention is that the prosecutor is the only lawyer that's allowed in the grand jury. now, each witness can have their own lawyer as they testify, but after they testify, they leave. so you never know what the prosecutor is doing. and that's -- you know, that depends on trust. that depends on a community's

trust of the prosecutor to do the just and right thing. i don't know mr. mcculloch. i don't know if he's trustworthy or not. but i would guess he is since people voted for him. i guess you would give him the presumption. but this is not really about trust. this is -- at this point, this is about wether or not there's an appearance of bias, not that he's biased but is there an appearance of bias in this case and how will it affect people, how will it affect their decision and what they do. you don't just have the black community to worry about if there's not an indictment. what if there is an indictment? now you have the white community to worry about. i'm saying some, but you have that community to worry about, wether or not it was just a governmental railroading. so it's really -- you know, by him staying on the case, it's an injustice to everyone in that community. >> it's interesting because it is not just the actual fact of justice but the appearance of justice. both are important. wish we had more time. natalie jackson, midwin charles, thank you both for being here. after the break, we'll head

back to ferguson. i'll speak with two young men from the st. louis area. we'll discuss the impact of events over the last two weeks and the changes they hope to see if their community. [ woman ] the cadillac summer collection is here. ♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] during the cadillac summer's best event, lease this 2014 ats for around $299 a month. hurry in -- this exceptional offer ends soon. ♪ that would be my daughter -- hi dad. she's a dietitian. and back when i wasn't eating right, she got me drinking boost. it's got a great taste, and it helps give me the nutrition i was missing. helping me stay more like me. [ female announcer ] boost complete nutritional drink has 26 essential vitamins and minerals, including calcium and vitamin d to support strong bones

and 10 grams of protein to help maintain muscle. all with a delicious taste. grandpa! [ female announcer ] stay strong, stay active with boost. the summer of this.mmer. grandpa! the summer that summers from here on will be compared to. where memories will be forged into the sand. and then hung on a wall for years to come. get out there, with over 50,000 hotels at $150 dollars or less. expedia. find yours.

slowly but surely ferguson is getting back to normal. and while normal probably has a new meaning now and residents are still seeking closure through the legal process, younger residents in the city and surrounding st. louis county are starting to process the last 13 tumultuous days. i'm joined by two young men who live in st. louis county, wes and mustaffa. thank you for being here. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> and wes, let me start with you. tell me, what do you think people in the media who have been watching the st. louis area, watching st. louis county, what do you think people have gotten wrong about the community where you live? >> i think one of the main parts that a lot of people confuse

when they see, like, media or specific outlets is there's not -- this isn't a very violent or very nonpeaceful community. it's very -- it's very together as is. i think one thing that's stood out for me in a lot of ways, for this community specifically, people are here together. you know, people patron these stores all day. we are in it together. i have never seen the people that are brought to here until i've been here with media. before then, i had never really seen that level of crime, that level of looting. that doesn't happen here, obviously. >> so -- and mustaf fah, same kind of question to you. is it your perspective that people who don't live in st. louis county came in and took advantage of the anger that people had about michael brown? >> you know, wes was on the

ground during the nighttime. i went to specific rallies and protests and tried to show a presence. but that speaks to this being a broader narrative. people all over have a grievance, that they have a common issue and problem. there are some elements here we don't want. but also, it shows that this is a bigger community issue. so i don't want to condone anything that they are doing by any means, but i want people to understand that this is all of our neighborhoods and our communities, not something that we need to isolate ourselves from. >> i don't normally put people's ages out there, but you're 26 years old, both of you. i'm wondering what you think about sort of now that people are looking at the community there, and you guys don't live in ferguson, but when you look at st. louis county, when you look at ferguson, when you look at the low voter turnout frankly, the fact people aren't taking an interest in municipal elections elections, is that a problem, and is that something people in your generation are saying is needs to be changed? >> right, it is a problem, but here's the issue to me.

that we're being asked to suspend our judgment on the incident between officer wilson and michael brown. but the response to that incident, the escalation, the militarization of the police, we start to hear these buzz words over and over again. michael brown's body laying in the street, senator nasheed not being allowed to present her information publicly in a public space. all of these things -- this is the broader narrative that we want to speak to. >> go on. you're really hitting on something that also has come out in this. you have african-americans far more likely to be pulled over by police. do you think it's a positive thing that at least people are now recognizing that when people like yourselves are saying, no, there is this underlying problem, at least now people can see it and believe you? >> right. >> yeah, i think that was one of the biggest issues growing up in north county. you have almost no -- you never

see the highway patrol until you actually hit 270. even then, when you do encounter them, they're not only professional, but they remain courteous at all times. you never feel like you're actually being assaulted or there's not a culture of fear or harassment that a lot of the local pds and a lot of the county employ on a daily basis. >> right. so you see this distinction wes is talking about. this brings up the point that law enforcement can be done and can be done well. so we can excuse the way that it is performed in certain areas. i'm sorry that i lost my train of thought before, but now -- what i wanted to get at is that we have this forum. we have people looking in. we're being call kd on to vote and exercise our rights. but the response we were addressing, the institutions are not proceeding in a just and fair and transparent matter.

so you're encouraging people to vote. it is correct we should vote, that we should turn out. but you're encouraging people to vote but they're not seeing the system manifest what they are putting their energy into. >> exactly. >> and even to the point of having your elections in such odd ways, right, you have a november election in 2012, the presidential election, which had incredible turnout. over 75% turnout in st. louis county for the presidential election. but then when you get to the municipal elections, they're held like in april of odd years. do you recall seeing lots and lots of information about those municipal elections that are being -- that people are making sure that people like you guys, people your age, are getting the information, even when to vote, what's happening, who the candidates are. >> i honestly don't think so. i think in some of the st. louis counties, a lot of my friends and a lot of the people i grew up with and a lot of the community in general, they have no idea who a lot of the local alderman are. they have no idea who's going

for attorney general. they have no idea until something negative happens. at that point, usually by then it's already too late. and a lot of people should have been mad a lot time ago. it's moments like these that really -- it's like a ground swell movement to where you see now this is why we have to come together. >> it's an opportunity emerging from this tragedy. >> and what do you guys think that, you know -- what are you guys going to do about it? you're saying there's an opportunity. you're saying this information wasn't there before. people weren't acquainted with their local government. what are you going to do? >> well, i think, number one, me personally, i believe strongly in the idea of getting police not just ferguson, but all police, with body cameras, with some kind of surveillance that will allow us a perspective that carries. so when moments like what happened to michael brown, they don't happen again without a just understanding. a broader perspective.

at this point, everyone's upset. >> those are big actions that we can take, right. i believe in the same type of things, ways to increase and improve accountability of law enforcement. you asked personally, what can i do? i can continue to exercise my right to vote. i can protest where i see those protests are going to be beneficial. not only that, the thing that i really want to get at is wes and i have different takes. we have a common problem, but we're looking at responses that may be a little bit different. so if you're a business owner, continue to do business here in st. louis. if you are a voter, make sure that you vote. so we can take these personal things and make sure that we follow through on them. >> amen. i think there are a lot of amens going on right now among people listening to you guys. wes and mustaffah, thank you, guys. great way to close out the show. >> thanks for your time. >> that does indeed wrap i thinks up for "the reid report." have a great weekend.

i'll see you back here monday at 2:00 p.m. eastern. be sure to visit us online at thereidreport.msnbc.com. "the cycle" is next. if i can impart one lesson to a new business owner, it would be one thing i've learned is my philosophy is real simple american express open forum is an on-line community, that helps our members connect and share ideas to make smart business decisions. if you mess up, fess up. be your partners best partner. we built it for our members, but it's open for everyone. there's not one way to do something. no details too small. american express open forum.

this is what membership is. this is what membership does. nervous whitening will damage your teeth? introducing new listerine® healthy whitetm. it not only safely whitens teeth, but also restores enamel. lose the nerves, and get a healthier, whiter smile that you'll love. listerine® healthy whitetm. power to your mouthtm!

snever miss a chance to dance... ... just because you happen to sprinkle a little tinkle. introducing a revolution in bladder leak protection, from the experts in feminine protection. new always discreet, for sensitive bladders. up to 40% thinner, for superior comfort. absorbs 2x more than you may need. for dance-all-you-want protection. new always discreet. now bladder leaks can feel like no big deal. because hey, pee happens. visit alwaysdicreet.com for coupons and your free sample. losing your chex mix too easily? deploy the boring potato chip decoy bag. with a variety of tastes and textures,

only chex mix has twenty bags of interesting. pick your mix. good afternoon. i'm toure. as we come on the air today, an entire nation, a world indeed awaits the fate of that second american journalist captured by isis, mr. steve sotloff. we're praying he won't suffer the same fate as james foley, who was beheaded by militants as cameras rolled. what happened to mr. foley has set off a flurry of activity from both the pentagon and the white house. here's deputy national security adviser ben rhodes just last hour from martha's vineyard. >> i can assure you that we have done everything that we can possibly do to try to bring home our hostages. it's an incredibly different circumstance in a place like syria, again, where you have such a violent conflict raging. but we've used all of our military, intelligence, diplomatic resources that we can