warrants today. so, the question is asked, why were we able to charge this case now? so, i want to explain that we have already had an opportunity to speak with three of the witnesses in this case and those are the three witnesses who were from west memphis, tennessee, and we have had an opportunity to conduct interviews with seven other witnesses other than the three witnesses from tennessee. we also had an opportunity to view -- let's see if you can turn it on.

so, we have had an opportunity to review eight videotapes, two atlanta bodycam tapes, two atlanta -- we also had an opportunity to review a surveillance tape from wendy's, we also viewed three citizens' cellphone videos, with many of the videos we had the opportunity to enhance the videos so that we could get a better look. the other thing that we have had an opportunity to do is, view some of the physical evidence, the chevrolet trail blazer was a vehicle that was in the line at

wendy's on the night of this incident and it received a shot from officer rolfe's gun. we have had an opportunity along with gbi few that trail blazer, my office has had an opportunity to inspect the crime scene, we have conducted a canvas of the area. we started our investigation at about 1:15 a.m. on saturday morning and we have been working on this case around the clock since that time. go to the next slide. we have spent some time examining the taser evidence in this case. we've actually examined and possessed the two tasers that were used, we have also had an opportunity to examine the taser logs that are prepared as the tasers are used and we have also

consulted with a taser expert from the company that manufactures the tasers. we received a preliminary medical autopsy. we've received a preliminary ballistics report and in reaching our conclusions today, we have worked with both the georgia bureau of investigation as well as the atlanta police department. this will be the fourth time that we have asked that arrest warrants issued in the case before an indictment, this lists the other three cases that we were involved where an arrest warrant was issued prior to indictment. unfortuna unfortunately, this marks the 40th prosecution of police officers for misconduct here in our county and this is the ninth

time that we've prosecuted a homicide case committed by a police officer, eight of those cases involved black males and one of those cases involved a black female. so, in reaching our decision there considerations that we considered important and one of the things that we noted from our evaluation was that mr. brooks, on the night of this incident, was calm, he was cordial and he really displayed a cooperative nature. secondly, even though mr. brooks was slightly impaired, his demeanor during this incident was almost jovial. also, we noted that he received many instructions from the

atlanta officers and he was asked many questions, some of the questions he was asked repeatedly, but for 41 minutes and 17 seconds, he followed their instruction, he answered the questions, the fourth thing we noted is that mr. brooks was never informed that he was under arrest for driving under the influence. and this is a requirement of the atlanta police department when one is charged with dui, the atlanta police department's only procedures require that that person is informed immediately that under arrest. then he was grabbed from the rear by officer rolfe who made an attempt to physical restrain him after the discussion.

we concluded and considered it as one of our important considerations that mr. brooks never presented himself as a threat. at the very beginning he was peacefully sleeping in his car. after he was awakened by the officer he was cooperative and he was directed to move his car to another location he calmly moved his car. mr. brooks was asked whether or not he had a weapon. he indicated that he did not. without any resistance, he passed his driver's license to the officers. and the officers then asked mr. brooks whether or not he would consent to a patdown or a body search, and mr. brooks allowed them to search him and the search yielded no weapon.

it was interest, they noticed that there was a bulge in mr. brooks' pants, they didn't pull that testimony out of his pocket. they took mr. brooks' word that was bulge represented a number of dollar bills. but mr. brooks never displayed any aggressive behavior during the 41 minutes and 17 seconds. now, this is another important consideration that we discovered as we evaluated this case. once mr. brooks was shot there's an atlanta policy that requires that the officers have to provide timely medical attention to mr. brooks or to anyone who's injured. but after mr. brooks was shot for some period of two minutes and 12 seconds, there was no

medical attention applied to mr. brooks. but when we examined the videotape and in our discussions with witnesses, what we discovered is during the two minutes and 12 seconds that officer rolfe actually kicked mr. brooks while he laid on the ground. while he was there fighting for his life. secondly, from the videotape we were able to see that the other officer, officer bronsan actually stood on mr. brooks' shoulders while he was there struggling for his life. we were able to conclude that based on the way that these officers conducted themselves, while mr. brooks was lying there, that the demeanor of the officers immediately after the

shooting did not reflect any fear or danger of mr. brooks, but their actions really reflected other kinds of emotions. so, as we are drawing our legal conclusion in this case, we were led by the two foundational cases in this matter. one being tennessee versus garner. and what that case points out is that when an officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, that the officer may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses an immediate threat of death. or, of serious, physical injury to that officer. the next foundational case that we use in our analysis is graham

versus conner, this test is based on upon a reasonable us aer on the scene and not the individual officer, but a reasonable officer on the scene. we've concluded at the time mr. brooks was shot that he did not pose an immediate threat of death. or serious physical injury to the officer or officers. if you would get the photograph. yeah. this is the first photograph

we were able to -- what this photograph illustrates is the point that officer rolfe at this point was firing that taser. mr. brooks was firing a taser as well. i don't know if you can see it cle clearly -- the taser were actually fired above officer rolfe's head. also look at the position of officer rolfe and mr. brooks, they are here next to this red

automobile. if we look at the next photograph -- if we look at the next photograph, we'll see the positions of both parties, they've changed, mr. brooks has now moved away from his original position and we estimate the distance is probably about 12 feet androlfe has moved about ten feet from the position which is our exhibit number 1. the second video or second still

shows the very instance that the shot was fired into the back of mr. brooks. and we have also calculated the distance and the distance that they record to alt that time was 18 feet, 3 inches at the time this shot was fired. so, based upon that information, we have concluded that mr. brooks was running away at the time that the shot was fired. mr. brooks was shot twice in the back. one of the shots was a center shot to the back. that penetrated his heart. it was done by a 9-millimeter glock. one of the things that we also relied upon in our conclusion something that's called under the law, referred to an excited

utterance. that's when someone makes an immediate statement and because it's made without the ability to consult with counsel or think about it under the law, excited utterance is considered highly reliable. at the time the shot was fired, the utterance made by officer rolfe was, i got him. that was the statement that was made at that time. we also noted that officer rolfe was firing a taser at mr. brooks, the city of atlanta's sop prohibit officers from firing tasers at someone who's running away. the city of atlanta said you can't even fire a taser at someone who's running away so you certainly can't fire a gun,

a handgun, at someone who's running away. so in addition to our findings, as many of you already know, the atlanta mayor, keisha bottoms and the police department concluded that officer rolfe's actions were excessive and in violation of s.o.p., 4.1.1. after their analysis that the actions were excessive, officer rolfe was fired. we have also concluded that rolfe was aware that the taser in brooks' possession that it was fired twice. and once it's fired twice it presented no danger to him or to any other persons.

now, we have had quite something remarkable happen. it involves the testimony of the other officer, devin bronsan. because officer bronsan has now become a state's witness, he has decided to testify on behalf of the state in this case. what he has said to us, within a matter of days, he plans to make a statement regarding the culpability of officer rolfe but he indicated that he's not psychologically willing to give that statement today. officer bronsan, however, has admitted that he was in fact standing on mr. brooks' body. immediately after the shoot.

-- shooting. these are the charges that we have had filed today. signed by one of our superior court. the charges against officer rolfe, first charge is felony murder. the death as a result of an underlying felony, in this case, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. the possible sentence for a felony murder conviction would be life, life without parole or the death penalty. now, he's also charged in the arrest warrant with ingaggravat assault with a deadly weapon. and this is count charging him for the shooting of mr. brooks. and a possible sentence for aggravated assault is 20 years.

the second of the third aggravated assault account is for the shooting towards oregon in the direction of mr. evans, mr. evans was the person who was seated in the car -- if we have the picture. >> and if you would point out this automobile is the place that mr. evans and his two companions were driving and the shot was fired. i ibelieve we also got a photo f the shot that ended up in the vehicle. i think you got it.

stand it up. and so, with count four -- in the passenger side of the front seat of the car, next slide. count five, aggravated assault charge and this was a charge for shooting towards or in the direction of michael perkins, mr. perkins was seated in the rear of this same vehicle at that time. officer rolfe is also charged with seven violations, one to five sentences.

these are violations of his oath of office, arresting mr. brooks for the dui without immediately informing him of the arrest. shooting a taser at mr. brooks while he was running which again is a violation of atlanta's own s.o.p. thoroughly excessive force when shooting a firearm at mr. brooks. and number four is the failure to render timely medical aid. those are the four violations of oath. the eighth is for kicking mr. brooks and the possible sentence for kicking mr. brooks is from 1 to 20 years. and we actually have a photograph of the

-- and these are the charges for officer brosnan and there are a total of three charges and the first charge is for aggravated assault and this is for standing or -- the possible sentence for this crime is 1 to 20 years and this is a photograph of officer

brosnan, who you can see to the right and at the time of the photograph, he is standing on the body of mr. brooks. and as i've indicated earlier in our conversations with mr. -- with officer brosnan, he has admitted that he stood on the body of mr. brooks. he says that he believes that he was standing on mr. brooks' arm but that is what the photograph shows. we've also charged him with additionally two violations of oath. one is for the standing on the shoulder. that is an unauthorized, weaponless control technique, which the city of atlanta prohibits and the second violation of oath was for the failure to render timely medical

aid to mr. brooks. we are asking officer rolfe and officer bresnan to surrender themselves by 6:00 p.m. tomorrow because officer brosnan is now becoming a cooperating witness for the state, we are asking the court to grant a bond of $50,000 and to allow mr. -- officer brosnan to sign that bond. as i indicated that he would become one of the first police officers to actually indicate that he is willing to testify against someone in his own

department. as for officer rolfe, the person who fired the two bullets, we are ask iing -- we are recommending no bond for officer rolfe. if he is given a bond, that would be done by one of our superior court judges, but because of the severity of his act and then following up that act with kicking mr. brooks, we are asking that he not be granted a bond. i do want to ask mr. sean williams -- mr. williams represents melvin, who was driving the vehicle from memphis. i have already apologized to mr. evans on behalf of the people of fulton county and the city of atlanta. he was only down here for a short while and it's really unfortunate that he was -- his

vehicle was fired upon that night. >> thank you, mr. howard. i first want to -- on behalf of all three of my clients who not only witnessed this horrific and tragic killing of this young man, i want to officer the condolences from them to the rayshard brooks family, and particularly his daughter. it has been very difficult for each one of my clients, because they witnessed it. and they, themselves, have a lot of emotion on what they saw and what they was a part of, unvoluntarily. i want to thank paul howard, personally, and commend him. i've been doing these type of cases across this nation and mr. howard is one of the few prosecutors who will go on the line to investigate something like this, as serious as this,

and to do it in a way that i believe makes this city proud, as i'm a resident of this great city. and as he said, with greatness comes responsibility. the city of atlanta is a great city. and i wanted to apologize to my clients themselves that they came from memphis and witnessed this. they're not going to give statements here today, but i will confirm to you that they have met with the georgia bureau of investigation, provided them statements as well as information to support what you saw presented today by paul howard. it confirms that at no time was mr. brooks ever a threat to anyone, including the officers in that wendy's parking lot. my client's statements confirm that mr. brooks was running, his back was turned, and was never a threat to anybody. the only threat that arose is

when the officer pulled out a gun. two of those bullets entered mr. rayshard brooks' body, killing them. one of those bullets entered my client's vehicle, almost killing them. we could be here talking about four murders. and for that, my clients have suffered a lot, but nothing compared to what this family has. and with that said, my clients are here to join the fight of justice, to provide any assistance to this family, as well as to the fulton county district attorney's office, as well as the gbi. and they look forward to an opportunity where they have justice is served. and i want you to know that they were fearful for their lives. that bullet came very close to them and mr. brooks' body lay less than ten feet from their

vehicle. and keep in mind, this was in a crowd wendy's drive-through parking lot. and when you take the actions of reasonableness, as mr. howard said, reasonableness never has a deadly weapon being fired when you have innocent bystanders like my client standing there. all of those things, as well as the fact that mr. brooks was not a threat to any officer that night should have gone into play. but it didn't. and i hope and pray that with this action by fulton county district attorney's office, as well as the actions by mayor bottoms and the task force, that we don't have to have anymore press conferences like this anytime soon. thank you, mr. howard. i appreciate you. >> and ladies and gentlemen, mrs. miller, who is the wife of rayshard brooks is here today a

are. i think her stewart, is going to speak in her instead. >> i'm chris stewart. tameka isn't in a position to speak right now. she wasn't aware of all of this information, just like we were not aware, just like i believe the nation was not aware of all of this -- that the shot happened after the deployment of the taser, when he started running again, that you would kick another human being after you just put two bullets in his back. but even in dark times like this, you have to try to see the light. and the positivity of this situation is the courageousness of officer brosnan to step forward and say what happened was wrong. it is officers like that who change policing. and i know he'll probably catch

all kinds of problems and hate and things like that, but if the courageousness of those type of officers that we love and support is the courageousness of district attorneys that are going to do their job. and we were willing to accept whatever the findings were. but that's why people elect you. do your job. that's why you become a police officer. do what's right. so it's not day of joy watching the charges and what's going to happen to this officer, because it shouldn't happen. so it's heartbreaking, but it is an attempt to redefine justice. because like i said before, we don't have any idea what it is anymore in this world. and this is what justice is going to start looking like, officers stepping forward to stop other officers, coming forward and helping, trying to

get a family who now has their father gone justice, then we support it. and thank everybody out there who is supporting this family and trying to change the world of policing for the better for everybod everybody. >> all right. i am going to try to take a few questions. i wanted to -- i promised miss miller that i would get a chance to spend a little time with her before they had to leave. it is a very unfortunate situation for her, and so i'll take a few questions at this time. >> could you elaborate, please, on this being the first time a law enforcement officer here in atlanta has decided to come forward and say they will indeed speak against a partner in the department, sir? >> we have -- as i indicated earlier, we've had about 40 of these cases that we've prosecuted and i don't remember

a circumstance where we've had an officer, particularly in a case this important, to step forward and to say that they would cooperate with the state. so we are really appreciative of officer brosnan. hopefully, that will mean that this matter can be resolved in a much quicker manner, but we certainly appreciate his courage in standing up and taking that step. >> -- for re-election. [ inaudible question ] what's your response? >> i don't think i understood your question, but it has something to do with the election, this is what i would say. let's deal with mr. brooks today. we can deal with the election tomorrow. is that all right? all right. >> at what point did officer brosnan decide to testify [ inaudible ]? >> we spoke with him last night and we spoke to him again today and some time today, he made the

decision that he would serve as a cooperating witness. >> can you give us more information about what officer brosnan said about that night? anymore details from that night? >> well, he initially told us that he thought that the situation was well in hand and the situation was calm. but he was not an experienced dui investigator, so that's why he called officer rolfe in. he has indicated to us that he was somewhat surprised that it accelerated into an actual arrest, because he thought that the situation might have been resolved before then. so when he then decided to describe what happened once the wrestling took place on the ground, you could tell he became a lot more emotional.

and that's when he said to us that he needed some additional time to explain to us his feelings about the shooting that took place immediately afterwards. he did tell us that he approached the body afterwards, and he admitted that he did, in fact, as he described it, stand on the arm of mr. brooks. we asked why did he stand on his arm, and he said something to the effect that he really didn't know what was going on and he was trying to ensure that mr. brooks did not have a weapon sk and, you know, we found that kind of strange, because mr. brooks had already displayed to them the fact that he did not have is a weapon. >> there are other use of force cases in your office right now. what can you say to the families that are looking for closure? if they see this and say this is

getting all the attention, what can you say to those families? >> this is what i can say. we have been working diligently to prepare those cases, but this case has something that many of the others don't have. number one, we've got videotape. we don't have body cams, we don't have dash cams. and so we have spent an inordinate amount of time and large sums of money trying to recreate crime scenes. we're not allowed to -- the police officers will not give us statements, and that's why we're very surprised, really almost shocked that brosnan has come forward. because in our other cases, we do not get statements to assist us from the officers involved. one of the things that i'm hoping that we will pass, not only in our state, but in the entire country, is that i think we need to change the law. i believe that prosecutors should be allowed to indict

cases directly without a grand jury, when they involve police shootings. and the i would say to those folks waiting, if i had the authority to sign the indictments, i would sign them today. i hope our legislature is in session. if you really want to do something to improve police misconduct, why don't you give district attorneys the right to proceed with the case without waiting for a grand jury? and that's particularly important now during the virus, is because it looks like right now, we want to convene a grand jury in fulton county until october. that's a long time. i wish that we could do it today. [ inaudible question ]

>> sometimes we do, sometimes we don't. >> why not this case? >> well, we didn't need it. as we pointed out, the evidence was available. we could move forward without getting the reports on the gbi. and we've been working with the gbi. in fact, today we worked together with the automobile that we talked about it. it was a different circumstance. once you get the videotape, it places the case on a different level of being investigated. [ inaudible question ] >> that's just one thing. as we said before, the whole casual conversation, the fact that they patted him down, he had no weapon, they -- even the body language between the officers and mr. brooks, it was very casual, very informal.

nothing seemed to happen that would indicate that he was of some danger. but you're right, at the critical point of the shooting, what the evidence shows is that he was some 18 feet, 3 inches away. his back was turned. and i believe a reasonable person would conclude that he was not an immediate threat at that time. [ inaudible question ] >> well, i have put together a list of nine recommendations and i believe that recommendation number eight is we should eliminate both qualified immunity for cases involving police shootings. but my barometer that says to me that something is wrong with that immunity, even our good

friend clarence thomas says, something is wrong with it. and when clarence thomas says that it's bad, you know it's probably bad. so i think we need to change it. we need to change it so that the families of victims like mrs. miller, the way that the law stands right now, they don't stand a very good chance if they decided to pursue some lawsuit. it ought to change for people all over the country. >> how would you characterize the work done bip yoy your team what happens next? >> well, what happens next, we've already scheduled about seven cases that are scheduled to be presented to grand juries before this one. so i would suspect that we're probably talking about january or february, when we would get a chance to present it to a grand

jury. i believe that should be eliminated. i don't think we should wait. because the district attorney, why can't the district attorney just sign the indictment and let the case go forward. [ inaudible question ] >> i have long given up predicting superior court judges. i do not know. >>. [ inaudible question ] >> well, as i mentioned, the list of the nine something that i'm recommending, one of the things that i think we ought to do for the whole country, if there is a police force, there are 18,000 police departments in the united states, every one of them ought to have a civil citizen review board. but i think the citizen review

board ought to be changed to require that when the city does not follow the recommendation of the review board, that failure to follow it ought to be signed off by the mayor. it ought to be signed off by the police chief. and it ought to be signed off by the city attorney. because i know that with your board, a great many of the recommendations are never followed. and the citizens believe what's the use of having a board if they never follow any of the recommendations. and so i think it ought to change for people all over the united states and it's really kind of sad that atlanta is one of the only jurisdictions in the entire united states with an active civilian review board. >> so you mentioned that officer brosnan would be giving a statement in the coming days. >> to the d.a.'s office, yes. so let me take one more. >> officer brosnan has already

put out a statement saying that you're moving too quickly [ inaudible ] what you're describing? >> well, i would expect that, that he would do that. and i'm not surprised by that. but we've already interviewed him twice and so i can tell you what he has said to us. >> can you quickly respond, the attorney representing officer rolfe [ inaudible ] heard a gunshot coming at him and he saw the flash and [ inaudible ]. do you have any response to that? >> i don't. i stand by what we've said today. i think that is the reasonable interpretation and i think if there is some litigation in court, i think that what we contend will be proven to be the

correct view of what happened. thank you all very much. >> it is just after 4:00 in the east. we have been watching and covering that breaking news conference out of atlanta. the d.a. there announcing charges that seem to have shocked most people watching this, certainly not what was predicted beforehand. garrett rolfe charged with felony murder and news that his partner, officer brosnan, is cooperating. the d.a. there dropping a little bit of news at the end, saying that they have interviewed him twice. also, some horrific new details and information about the shooting that resulted in the death of mr. brooks. the taser that he apparently had taken was dispatched, did not represent a threat to the officers. the d.a.'s view is that they knew that.

rayshard brooks was kicked by the officer who has been charged with felony murder. devon brosnan stood on his shoulder. so the more you know, themore horror you feel. joining us now for reaction, some of the people that we turn to in cases like this, but i don't know that there has been a case just like this. paul butler is here. paul butler, your thoughts to the charges nouannounced by the district attorney. >> the district attorney is throwing the book at officer rolfe. there have been 182 people killed by georgia police officers in the last five years. only one before today had been charged with murder. so officer rolfe is the second person to be charged with murder. that first officer that was charged with murder was not

convicted of murder. so the district attorney has quite a task ahead of him. in georgia, police are only allowed to use deadly force if they reasonably believe that they are about to be killed or seriously hurt or someone else is about to be killed and seriously hurt. so the issue will be whether it was reasonable for officer rolfe to think that mr. brooks was about to kill him. now, the defense will be that that belief was reasonable. the defense will be that a taser, when it's used by a non-trained civilian is a deadly weapon. the rebuttal to that defense will be that the officer shot mr. brooks two times in the back. so how could someone fleeing present a deadly threat? >> we're also joined by former

democratic congresswoman, donna edwards. donna, your reaction and thoughts? >> well, one of the things that i was struck by is that i thought that district attorney howard did a really good job of public education for the public to understand the charges, the underlying law on which those charges are based and walk through the evidence that they've been able to gather thus far. there were some things that we learned about officer brosnan and officer rolfe kicking and standing on mr. brooks. information we learned about audio information about evidence about officer rolfe saying "i got him," and shot that was fired into the witnesses from tennessee, their vehicle. and i think that these were all elements that really walked us

through the basis of the charges and helped the public understand the seriousness of these charges and how much officer rolfe deviated from atlanta protocols and standard operating procedures, even in the use of the taser and his response toward mr. brooks. this is a damning set of charges. sst unfortunate that in. it's unfortunate that they have to wait for the convening and covid environment of a grand jury and the length of time between now and when that might happen. but i think that the public should be very pleased, actually, with the direction that the district attorney has taken in terms of trying to seek

justice for rayshard brooks and for his family. >> paul butler, it seems like a departure that this officer's partner was described on multiple occasions by the d.a. as a state's witness. how hard is that, basically, to flip an officer's partner? >> you know, it's very unusual. one of the things that makes it so difficult for prosecutors to get convictions in cases involving police officers is this blue wall of silence. so often, other officers who would be the main witnesses for the prosecution are sympathetic to the cop who's charged or in some instances, even tried to sabotage the case. so the fact that this second officer is cooperating is extremely helpful for the prosecution and among other things, they'll want to know how did this encounter escalate so

badly from our call about someone asleep in a car in a drive-through to two shots in the back. so we know that the first officer, this is the one who's cooperating, when he showed up at the scene, he was very civil. there was a civil conversation. and in fact, his first instructions to mr. brooks were that mr. brooks simply go to the parking lot, drive to the parking lot and sleep it off. it wasn't until the other officer got involved that the situation escalated. so what happened? why did that other officer want to make an arrest as opposed to allowing mr. brooks to just walk to his sister's house, as he offered to do? and importantly, did this officer who's cooperating, did he fear for his safety. because if he says he didn't, that will undermine the fence case that the first -- that the

officer was charged with murder reasonably feared for his life. >> joining our conversation, the president of the national action network and a host here on msnbc, the reverend al sharpton. rev, brian and i were hosting the analysis ahead of this press conference to say this was not the charging decision that experts anticipated would be an understatement. your reaction? >> i think it was not. i think the fact that the other officer is cooperating with something no one saw coming and i think it will bolster the prosecutor's case. the thing that's striking is that we now know that literally he's in a situation that the first officer who approached him did not even see it as warranting an arrest. it was the second officer that came. what made this officer operate in fear that he had to escalate

it. what made him, when they knew the taser was in the condition that it was make him feel he was under threat to shoot someone in the back and then kick him once he was down. and i think, nicole, the bigger issue that's going to come out of this, bigger and i would say, equally big, because it's not bigger than taking a man's life, especially if it appears to be unjustified, is that in this climate, we still are having people in the legislature and in the white house that's debating whether or not we need to have real penalties for police that do things wrong. this is not a climate to be talking about suggesting and incentivizing police to do what is right. this is about enforcing the law. if you have police that according to another policeman had no reason even to be talking about arrest and kicked the man after he shot him twice in the back, they don't need to be

incentivized. they need to be prosecuted and incarcerated. the law must work and i think this puts more pressure on the senate and the president to deal wi some of the more difficult details to listen to. and it's the one you referenced that officer rolfe kicked mr. brooks after he shot him twice in the back. and then that the cooperating officer, officer brosnan stood on his shoulder. i mean, so much of the horror of george floyd's death is the physical domination sought by police officer chauvin over george floyd. literally until he died. there are echos of those horrors in the kicking of mr. brooks and in the standing on his shoulder. both took place after he was shot. the horror of it makes me feel like retraining may not be enough. i mean, how does it get to that point where any suspect, any human is handled that way by a

police officer. >> training is not enough when you're dealing with people that apparently have that kind of venom and that kind of feeling about a human beings that they're dealing with. i think that we've got to deal with the fact that we are processing people without really understanding their opinions, biases, or feelings about other human beings. if you look at someone putting their knee on someone's neck, 8 minutes and 46 seconds in minneapolis, in the case of floyd. now you have a case of kicking someone. you're standing on them, in the case of atlanta. we have a problem that was way beyond trying to just deal with training manuals and trying to deal with, we'll give you more money if you behave. there's got to be some deep-s t

deep-seeded event mdeep-seed ed event m and a deep sense of we're less than human with what we're dealing with here. and how we deal with that, policeman like every other citizen must know, they will go to jail. they will pay the ultimate price. but as long as they feel that they can operate in a way as inhumane as this is, as vicious as this is, but that the unions will give them the best lawyers and they'll walk out of court, if they go doubter at all, they will operate in this same kind of demonic fashion. and that is scary for all american citizens. >> rev, i would just like to hear your thoughts on this mayor and this city and this moment. >> i think the mayor has done an exceptional job. mayor keisha bottoms and i think that the district attorney laid out a case that was so well-thought-out. his presentation was like bringing us all to law school and i think that they've tried to operate in a way that elected

officials are need and should operate. which is why we tell people to vote, so they can vote for people that will protect the public good, which is also why and georgia is a case study in this, we have to protect people's right to vote, so you can put people in office, like prosecutor howard. like mayor bottoms, that will protect the public interests. neither of them are anti-police, but hear something this vicious, you need people that will stand up to it and do what is right in a competent and fair way. >> my last question, rev, is always about the family, 27-year-old man is never coming home. your thoughts for the family today? >> i think the fact that attorney stewart, who i have worked with, had to speak on behalf of the widow, says that to us, it is a case, it is an issue, to many of us, that has been involved in the struggle.

it is another piece of evidence on why we want to see real police reform, not some kind of phony, fake kind of reform, but to them, it's a loved one. this is somebody's husband. this is somebody's father, this is somebody's friend. that thatly nev lthey will neve again. even if the case is won by the prosecutor, even if the laws are changed, they will sit down every day with a missing person at the table that should have never been removed from them. we cannot ever fill the gap and the pain that they feel. the least we can do is give them justice. >> the rev al sharpton, donna edwards, paul butler, thank you so much so much for starting us off and talking us through another stunning, stunning turn of events. still ahead for us this hour, turning back to the white house beat, and other breaking news, john bolton's book is out. he said house democrats have it wrong when it comes to

impeachment and saying it was just ukraine. he says trump was worse than just that. neal katyal and peter baker on what we're learning, next. wayfair has everything outdoor from grills to play sets and more one of a kind finds. it all ships free. and with new deals every day you can explore endless options at every price point. get your outdoor oasis delivered fast so you can get

the good times going. ♪ wayfair. you've got just what i need. ♪ no uh uh, no way come on, no no n-n-n-no-no only discover has no annual fee on any card. n-n-n-no-no frustrated that clean clothes you want to wear always seem to need an iron? try bounce wrinkle guard dryer sheets. the bounce wrinkle guard shorts have fewer wrinkles and static, and more softness. it's the world's first mega sheet that does the job of three dryer sheets! bounce out wrinkles. i geh. common bird.e. ooh look! over here! something much better. there it is. peacock, included with xfinity x1. remarkable. fascinating. -very. it streams tons of your favorite shows and movies, plus the latest in sports news and... huh - run! the newest streaming app has landed on xfinity x1. now that's... simple. easy. awesome. xfinity x1 just got even better with

peacock premium included at no additional cost. no strings attached. just say "peacock" into your voice remote to start watching today. so why not do what you've been dreaming of? you've got the power, we've got the tools. make a website with godaddy and put what you want out there.

this afternoon, a flood of dirt on donald trump. brand-new, previously unknown information about the president from the pages of john bolton's upcoming memoir. the administration last night announced that it's suing the former national security adviser in an attempt to stop publication. reading through what "the new york times'" peter baker writes from the book, which is he now in possession of, you can see why from baker's write-up. quote, mr. bolton describes several episodes where the president expressed willingness to halt criminal investigations. quote, to an effect give personal favors to dictators he liked, citing cases involving major firms in china and turkey. quote, the pattern looked like obstruction of justice as a way of life, which we couldn't

accept, mr. bolton writes, adding that he reported his concerns to attorney general barr. on the topic of impeachment, baker adds this. quote, the book confirms house testimony that bolton was wary of all along of the president's actions with regard to ukraine can and that trump explicitly linked the security aid to investigations involving joe biden and hillary clinton. on august 20th, bolton writes, trump, quote, wasn't in favor of sending them anything until all the russia investigation materials related to clinton and biden had been turned over. bolton writes that he, pompeo, and mark esper wrote eight to ten times to get trump to release the aid. joining us now, "new york times" washington white house, peter baker, and acting solicitor general neal katyal. peter baker, he also writes that mike pompeo said behind donald trump's back, "he's full of shit." tell us some of the other good scoop in here before everybody remembers how angry they are at john bolton for not

participating in that senate impeachment trial. >> there will be a lot of anger at john bolton for that. obviously, there's a question about how he didn't testify earlier and he could have and he put it all in the book. what he'll tell you is he offered to testify in the senate trial and they didn't subpoena him, which a number of senate republicans did block an effort to get him to testify at that point. but in any case, there's a lot of interesting things in this book. some things, we'll all recognize by mr. bolton's account. this is a president who doesn't have a great store of knowledge about the world. he asked whether finland was part of russia. he seemed surprised that britain has nuclear weapons. you know, mr. bolton writes that intelligence briefings were kind of a waste of time, because it was all about mr. trump talking rather than the intelligence briefers talking. he also talks about some larger themes. the larger theme is the politicization of policy. places where the president seems to confuse his own personal interests with those of the country, at least according to mr. bolton. that was at the heart of the ukraine manner and what mr.

bolton is saying here is the house investigators didn't go far enough. there are plenty of other instances he should have looked at. one instance is a meeting that the president had with china's president, xi jinping in osaka, japan, last summer. during that meeting, the president was pleading according to mr. bolton with xi jinping to buy a lot of american agricultural products because it would make it easier for the president to win re-election in farm states in 2020. mr. bolton writes that that was -- he found that stunning and, you know, a misuse of trade negotiations for political gain. these investigations you write about, you mentioned at the top about zte in china, hauk bank in turkey, they seemed to be chits on a bargaining table for the president rather than criminal allegations of misconduct. so the portrait that mr. bolton is laying out here is a pretty withering one. remember, this is not a liberal, not even a never-trumper, a staunch conservative who went into this administration thinking he could influence

policy. and of course, ended up pushed out and resigning of his own accord last september. >> neal katyal, it's easy to be blinded by john bolton's depiction of donald trump as a buffoon. i mean, stupidity that he details is staggering. but what rings through, if he was anyone but the president, there are probably a half a dozen incidences that i read in peter's story that anyone else could be referred to doj for prosecution. i mean, is the corruption criminal? >> it very well could be pip mean, i think that that's exactly the right question. a lot of people are focusing on bolton and his motivation and stuff. the story here is not bolton. the story is donald trump and the fact that his top aide, his former national security adviser, is documenting a pattern of definitely impeachable and indeed criminal conduct here. and that is just an astounding thing.

and the irony for bolton is that he writes this book, which is all about how the president is abusing his national security powers in aid of his personal political goals. and now bolton faces a lawsuit for exactly that. the same course of conduct, in which the president has politicized the preclassification review process to try to stop publication of the book. it's obviously not working. peter's already got a copy of it. but has done that in and displaced the career officials who do that with political who have tried to hold up the book and now they have gone to court to try to stop him. it won't work, but it shows a desperate and frankly incompetent administrative move. >> and peter baker, your paper, i think, has reported that the manuscript was cleared by -- it did get cleared, right, on national security questions. before they decided to unclear them and seal them? >> yeah, our understanding is

that he went through the whole prepublication review process with the official charge with -- or reviewing these kind of manuscripts. they went back and forth. this official sent him, you know, places that they need to be changed and her review. he made adjustments in accordance with those requests. another round whappened, anothe round happened. and as far as he understanded, according to his lawyer, they had no further requests for changes in the book. but they refused or at least failed to give him a final written document saying that we have now cleared this book for publication. and then they learned that another official above that official was suddenly going to reopen the review to look for himself to see if there's any classified information. what i've read of the book, i don't see anything in this classified, is automatically classified. you might make that argument. some will. the president certainly does. but there's nothing in there that says, for instance, here's a secret program or a spy program or here's sources of methods of intelligence,

anything like that that would give away secrets damaging to the american public as far as it looks to me. it looks like it's stuff that could be embarrassing to the president. >> well, and we know, neal katyal, that that which is embarrassing to the president gets locked in a server by a lawyer on the white house council staff in charge of national security issues that shoved the transcript of the zelensky call into a server where you usually keep operational intel. we know that it is their m.o. to overclassify that which makes trump look stupid, which is basically every phone call he has. so on the legal questions around bolton's publications and now promotion of his book, are they standing on anything that could get bolton in trouble, legally or prosecuted? >> well, in a normal administration, yes. like, i'm a believer in the pre-publication review process. i don't like the idea that government officials will go out and just spill secrets. so the process is a really important one and it has all

sorts of salitory good things. but when you have a president like this who's hell bent on destroying the national security apparatus for his own personal ends, you can't trust it. and this is a really good example of that, because bolton was cleared evidently by the career folks and it took a former devin nunes staffer named michael ellis to come in, a political appointee of trump and say, oh, no, that's actually not -- it shouldn't be cleared and has held it up. and ordinarily, i believe that government officials have the presumption of regularity. that there is a presumption of good faith. but this administration has destroyed any semblance of a presumption of good faith. so when this goes to court, first of all, there's no chance, they've asked for an injunction to basically force bolton to stop the book from coming out. there's zero chance that's going to happen before tuesday. and then on the chance of can

they get some of bolton's money? even that is pretty dubious. in other administrations, they would respect the national security process, but this president spits on it. >> translator: peter baker, i want you to talk about the president's enthusiasm for chinese concentration camps. >> look, this is a president who obviously has curried favor with strongmen throughout his tenure. and obviously, the uighurs in china have been subjected to the most horrifying of abuses and this is not, you know, one of the president's priorities is the kind of thing where he, you know, does not care about human rights. he seems to almost, in effect, cheer on autocrats when they take tough action. he portrays that as being, you know, strong willed and dealing with what they consider to be national security threats. he's made it clear from the beginning, he does not consider human rights to be a priority of his, except in a few small cases, a few individual cases,

like say cuba or venezuela when he has an issue with the existing government. he does not talk about human rights in saudi arabia, human rights in china or russia or any of these other places where he wants to work with the leaders and that could certainly be the case with the uighurs in china. >> neal katyal, i want to ask this question carefully, because i personally have been unsparing, especially of my former colleagues from the bush years, who have stood by and watched donald trump's horrors. but now the horrors that john bolton witnessed include the horror of watching donald trump greenlight what peter baker just described. saving it for a book, to me, explains all the anger across the political spectrum for john bolton. >> yeah, completely agree with that, nicole. i mean it, takes a village, really, to have this level of lawlessness and amoral conduct in our government. because it's not just the president, who i think many knew was amoral and self-interested

and didn't give one whit about the american people or about human rights abroad. but it's the senate that stood by, it's the house which hasn't really, i think, frankly done enough to challenge it. it's everyone. and it's people in the administration like bolton who sit by, serve as his national security adviser, and then try to sell a book years later saying, oh, dear me, how bad the president was. i mean, what was he doing at the time? that's the -- and i just think like, who you worked with in the bush administration, who i worked with in the obama administration, if someone saw that kind of conduct going on by the president, they would darned well resign. and they stood by and they enabled this. and that's why it took a village to get to this place and it's going to take a village to undo it. >> peter baker, you have covered, you have written books about more than one president. you've now got bolton in the company of secretary mattis. mattis thought trump was so horrific that when he finally spoke out, he compared his divisiveness to the

divisiveness -- the divisive tactics of the nazis. john bolton thought he was so horrific, he has written a screed based on your reporting of the book, calling him essentially ignorant and corrupt. what is it about donald trump that buys the silence of men like jim mattis and john bolton. >> yeah, it's an interesting question. these guys go in, people go into this administration thinking, at least earlier on, anyway, thinking that they could manage it. that they could handle the situation, that they could steer things in the right direction. i think for jim mattis and rex tillerson and some of those early top officials like that, they thought that they could help guide a president who didn't have any background in government, who didn't know very much toward better decisions. maybe not always good decisions, but better decisions. and ultimately, they all kind of fell by the wayside. john bolton went in knowing what could happen to these previous officials. didn't think much of them to be honest, referred to them as the axis of adults. but thought that he could get

something accomplished on philosophical problems that he had. particularly, his disdain for international treaties and organizations. and in fact, he did have influence in that regard. he did help the trump administration get out of the iran nuclear accord, get out of the intermediate nuclear forces agreement with russia and so on. so he looked at it from a more transactional point of view. what could he get accomplished while he was in there, knowing that probably it would end up badly the way it had for anybody else. at this point, now, this book portrays -- he doesn't -- he doesn't concern him with what jim mattis concerned himself with, in that he doesn't worry about trump being decisive to the country or a political polarizing figure. what he writes about is a president who mixes his own personal, political needs with those of the country. and i think that's what offends john bolton here, someone who has a strong ideological conservatism. he recognizes that president trump is not a conservative in a true sense, but in fact is really out for maximizing his own advantages. and that's what he writing about

in this book. >> and neal katyal, this may fall under the category of your -- for you, the enemy of my enemy becomes my friend, but he is unsparing in terms of what attorney general barr knew and when he knew it. bolton thought that the crimes of corruption or misconduct with us taking place in donald trump's mixing of just what peter baker described, u.s. foreign policy with the financial and business interests of erdogan. he seemed to have concerns in the same category and i believe you and your colleagues wrote about this in "the new york times" when excerpts first leaked as part of that -- peter wrote about it at the time, when some of the experts leaked around the time of the impeachment trial. but what does barr have to answer for that bolton seems to have accused him of in terms of picking up the phone and saying, hey, i think there's some fishy conduct here vis-a-vis corruption of u.s./china policy. hey, i think there's some fishy/corrupt conduct here vis-a-vis u.s. foreign policy

and turkey. >> yeah, no, the justice department looks like it has not covered itself in any glory during the trump administration and has enabled the politicization of the criminal process. we know that there were ongoing criminal investigations involving turkey in the southern district of new york. and those investigations seem to have all of a sudden magically disappeared along with a lot of other stuff that bolton evidently writes about according to the excerpts in the book. and that's really troubling. and this week, three of the top officials at the justice department have all resigned and people are saying, oh, it's nefarious and suggest something tease going on. i don't think that's true, but i think this is the natural time in which people leave, right before an election. i don't think that they're getting out. but i do think it's interesting, nicole, when i was in the obama administration, when you were in the bush administration, i think we all said publicly, what an honor it was to serve for our

respective presidents. that it was one of the great privileges of life. i want to see what these three folks say as they leave the justice department. almost everyone who leaves the trump administration appears to be like bolton or mattis or others, writing books and screeds against the administration, not coming and saying what a privilege it was to serve there. and that's a pretty sad thing, that you can't get your own appointees to say something nice. and indeed, many are now saying you're a criminal. >> and just image how different this moment right now would look if those two men we've been talking about had participated or testified or even done an interview with peter baker or me during the impeachment proceedings. peter baker, congrats on the scoop. neal katyal, thank you for helping us analyze it. thank you both for spending some time with us. it's great to see you. up next, more on the bolton accusations. what it could mean for trump's re-election. among our guests, steve schmidt. chicago! "ok, so, magnificent mile for me!" i thought i was managing... ...my moderate to severe crohn's disease.

yes! until i realized something was missing... ...me. you ok, sis? my symptoms kept me- -from being there for my sisters. "...flight boarding for flight 2007 to chicago..." so i talked to my doctor and learned- ...humira is for people who still have symptoms of crohn's disease after trying other medications. and the majority of people on humira saw significant symptom relief... -and many achieved remission in as little as 4 weeks. humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections, including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened,- -, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor... ...if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections... ...or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them. ask your doctor about humira. with humira, remission is possible. if you can't afford your medicine, abbvie may be able to help.

1 in 3 deaths is caused by cardiovascular disease. if you can't afford your medicine, millions of patients are treated with statins-but up to 75% persistent cardiovascular risk still remains. many have turned to fish oil supplements. others, fenofibrates or niacin. but here's a number you should take to heart: zero-the number of fda approvals these products have, when added to statins, to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease. ask your doctor about an advancement in prescription therapies with proven protection. visit truetoyourheart.com new tide power pods one up the cleaning power of liquid. can it one up whatever they're doing?

for sure. seriously? one up the power of liquid, one up the toughest stains. any further questions? uh uh! one up the power of liquid with new tide power pods. saturpain happens. aleve it. aleve is proven stronger and longer on pain than tylenol. when pain happens, aleve it. all day strong.

their words and their deeds serving as a crucial reminder that in this time of stress and catastrophe, we really are all in this together. startling allegations from donald trump's one-time national security advisor john bolton. the book is one of the stories dominating headlines at this hour. a particularly devastating headline from the drudge report, quote, trump liar asked chief for re-election help, okayed concentration camps, potus full of bleep. it's the block the white house has fiercely fought. it's now abundantly clear why

that is and we should add it's not even on the shelves yet and is already a best seller. joining our conversation, political strategist steve schmidt and democratic strategist basil smikle. steve, we'll get to the flawed messenger that is john bolton but first on the portrait of donald trump as so much more ignorant and so much more corrupt than even what we know from contemporaneous news reporting and accounts. >> good afternoon, nicole. i'm not sure that i agree that the book is revelatory as much as it is confirming of the total and absolute lack of fitness for office that we've seen donald trump exhibit for all of these years. that he would ask the chinese president for help in his re-election should surprise nobody. he's courted it from russia. he's courted it from ukraine. he's asked china to intervene before. the portrait that is painted in the excerpt from the book

demonstrates why we have a shattered economy, why there's more than 100,000 dead americans from the inept response to coronavirus. he has no capacity to do the job. he is staggeringly ignorant, uninterested, and corrupt. he has no fidelity to american values, doesn't understand the history of the office he holds. it's just shattering in its descriptions of trump and those as we're 150 days from the election, it's just more evidence about somebody who can't possibly do this job for another four years. >> and basil, i guess the man bites dog part of the story is that the person leveling the accusations isn't adam schiff or steve schmidt or me. it's john bolton, a conservative's conservative. >> right. you know, i actually agree with

a lot of what steve has said. i mean, in this era of accountability and transparency, one of the things that i -- that struck me about all of this is, like, wow, you know, why weren't you able to raise that alarm sooner, and in a more public way that you could have in front of members of the house or the senate. unravel because of the actions of this president. i would hope that you wouldn't wait to sell a book before you raised those concerns. having said that, i do think, you know, i do think it's important that it comes from him, especially at a time when you have these bipartisan political action committees coming online in this election cycle because, his words, his statements in that book can help promote a narrative about this

president that hopefully will stick as long as -- you know, all the way up until november. i'm not sure that it will. i don't know that it delivers anything new, as steve said, that we didn't already know or suspect. but if there's a constant drum beat, and if there are more people that will come out, even if it's in the context of selling a book, i do think it helps the narrative. >> steve, you and i were practitioners of not just message repetition but of a diversity of messengers, and what do you think it means for donald trump's ability to argue his case that you have now got both joe biden, his democratic opponent, and john bolton basically saying the same thing on the question of incompetence and corruption of donald trump. >> well, it's a damning indictment. it's an obvious one, when we look at the events of 2020, i'm not sure you can add more weight to the case for him being unfit

for the office, so the level of corruption, the level of malfeasance, incompetence, ineptitude, general scummyness, all of it, i think, manifests in this book to show a portrait of a president who is just deeply, deeply unfit for the job and dangerous in that office. and i think that's what the book shows, though, you know, certainly john bolton, i think, has some very serious explanations to give about why he waited to monetize on this information the way that he has. >> basil, last word to you, my friend. >> you know, i'm just thinking about joe biden as i heard somebody say yesterday, even sitting in his basement, he is portraying a type of leadership and stability that we don't see coming from the other side, and every day, including today, with this breaking news, it just

continues to prove that point, and as long as he can maintain this path and remain relatively gaffe-free, i do see a very strong sort of way for him into november. >> it's a great point to end on, basil, because the contrast is one that trump thought would serve him but when you've got trump heading to tulsa where he is literally knowingly endangering everyone that comes out to see at because he's askio sign a waiver, and joe biden's in his basement to do the opposite, to protect his supporters. it is a stunning contrast. basil, steve, thank you so much for finishing us off, underscoring everything we've been talking about. it's great to see you both. that does it for our hour. thanks for letting us into your homes during these extraordinary times. our coverage continues with chuck todd after a quick break. how about no no uh uh, no way come on, no no n-n-n-no-no only discover has no annual fee on any card.

[♪] when you have diabetes, managing your blood sugar is crucial. n-n-n-no-no try boost glucose control. the patented blend is clinically shown to help manage blood sugar levels. it provides 60% more protein than the leading diabetes nutrition shake. try boost glucose control.

but a resilient business you cacan be ready for it.re. a digital foundation from vmware helps you redefine what's possible... now. from the hospital shifting to remote patient care in just 48 hours... to the university moving hundreds of apps quickly to the cloud... or the city government going digital to keep critical services running. you are creating the future-- on the fly. and we are helping you do it. vmware. realize what's possible. for spending a perfectly reasonable amount of time on the couch with tacos from grubhub? grubhub's gonna reward you for that with a $5 off perk. (doorbell rings) - [crowd] grubhub! (fireworks exploding)

♪ welcome to a very busy wednesday afternoon. it is "meet the press" daily. i'm chuck todd. we have a jam-packed hour of breaking news happening in the moment. perhaps close to the room where it happened. coronavirus cases are spiking in states across the country. the officer who shot rayshard brooks in atlanta has been charged with murder. and we're expecting reaction to those charges from brooks's family momentarily. we've also got a legislative showdown brewing on capitol hill