the placement of the knee, yes. >> and again here, we have what appears to be the shin coming over the top of mr. floyd's shoulder blade. >> that's what it appears, sir. >> and that would be angeled in towards the squad car, correct? >> correct. >> you can take that down, your honor. sir, i'm showing you what's been marked for identification purposes as exhibit 1047. does that also appear to be a still frame image taken from a body worn camera of the minneapolis police officer? >> yes, sir. >> time stamp being 8:26:49. >> yes, sir. >> 20:27:49, correct. >> correct. >> it appears that the officer wearing this body worn camera has now stood up, correct? >> it's a different angle, sir,

yes. >> from higher to lower, correct? >> lower to higher, sir. >> it appears that the camera is at a higher angle looking down? >> yes, sir. >> and can you see in this photograph what appears to be the knee and shin placement of the officer? >> yes, sir. >> and would you agree that it appears that the knee is placed in the center between mr. floyd's shoulder blades? >> it appears to be between the shoulder blades, yes. >> i'd offer 1047. >> no objection. >> no objection, your honor. >> 1047 is received. >> permission to publish. >> you're in. >> so again, here in this particular photograph, you can see the placement of mr. chauvin's knee in between the shoulder blades of mr. floyd, correct? >> yes, sir. >> all right and it happens to be right here that moment when

the carotid artery was being pap palpated by the emt? >> yes, sir. >> we can take this down. show you one last photograph, sir. again, does this appear to be a photograph taken from or still frame image of a minneapolis police body camera? >> yes, sir. >> time being 10:28:29. >> yes, sir. >> excuse me, 20:28:29. >> 20:28:29. >> which would be 8:28:29. >> correct. >> and can you see the placement of officer chauvin's knee? >> yes, sir. >> can you see mr. floyd's head? >> yes, sir. >> i'd offer 1048. >> no objection. >> 1048 is received. >> permission to publish.

again, it's a little hard to see here but you can see mr. floyd's head in that area. >> yes, sir. >> and mr. chauvin, officer chauvin's knee between the shoulder blades of mr. floyd. >> yes, sir. >> does this appear to be a neck restraint? >> no, sir. >> does this appear to be a prone hold that an officer may apply with his knee? >> yes. >> you can take that down, your honor. now you've -- you have talked about taking a or holding a person in the prone position after they have stopped

resisting. do you recall talking about that? >> yes, sir. >> and are there circumstances in your career where you have had to use your body weight to hold a suspect down for longer periods of time than, say, two or three seconds? >> yes, sir. >> and are there times where you have had to use your body weight to use -- to hold a suspect down for ten minutes? >> i'm not sure if i've ever held someone down for ten minutes or not. i don't have a recollection of that, sir. >> is it possible? >> yes, it's possible. >> and there are circumstances again that an officer has to take into consideration in terms of continuing to use their body weight regardless of whether the person is resisting or not resisting, right? >> can you rephrase that? >> sure. sometimes an officer has called

for ems, correct? >> that is correct. >> and sometimes an officer may hold a person using their body weight to restrain them awaiting the arrival of ems, correct? >> yes, sir. >> you've done that yourself? >> i have. >> and sometimes you had -- or is it fair to say you've had to train officers to use their body weight to continue holding them until ems arrives? >> as long as needed to control them, yes. >> you would agree that a scene where force has been used and a crowd congregates and is voicing their displeasure or concern or whatever you want to say, that can be a chaotic situation for an officer, right? >> yes, sir. >> and you would agree, also, that what you train minneapolis

police officers to do relevant to their use of force is to consider the totality of the circumstances, agreed? >> yes, sir. >> and you train officers that the decision to use force is from their perspective? >> yes, sir. >> not the perspective hindsight being 20/20. >> that's correct. >> that's the specific policy of minneapolis police department? >> i believe that's graham versus conser, sir. >> that's encapsulated into the minneapolis police department policy on the use of force, correct? >> correct. >> because situations are rapidly evolving, correct? >> that's correct. >> and sometimes just because an incident is ten minutes long or 20 minutes long, that doesn't mean that it can't instantaneously change? >> that's correct. >> all right. what may not be a threat one second can be a threat the next. >> correct.

>> have you ever been trained or trained others to say that if a person can talk, they can breathe? >> it's been said, yes. >> in terms of the continuation of the use of force, right, or excuse me, not the use -- continuation, the graphic that we looked at in exhibit 110, if we could publish exhibit 110, your honor. this is the defense control and response training guide, correct? >> that's correct. >> simply because a person is not actively resisting, right,

that doesn't mean you can't use some degree of force, correct? >> that's correct. >> if a person is passively resisting, you can still use certain types of force, right? >> yes, sir. >> that's down in this area here, correct? >> correct. >> and that would include the use of joint manipulation, escort holds, pressure points, correct? >> yes, sir. >> if we could take that down, your honor. sorry. if we could take that down. you were asked a series of questions about the strike chart and the neck -- you know, the red, yellow and green zones? >> yeah, the chart for striking. >> that chart is designed

specifically for punches, bton strikes, things of that nature, correct. >> that's where we use that graph, yes. >> in terms of the maximal restraint technique. you were describing that technique. >> yes, sir. >> again, officers are trained to sometimes escalate the use of force in certain circumstances, correct? >> yes. >> and deescalate the use of force in certain circumstances. >> yes, sir. >> if an officer decides initially to use the maximal restraint technique and subsequently decides against it because of a medical situation or lack of resistance, would that be a deescalation of the use of force? >> yes.

>> is it more or less difficult to render medical aid if someone is in the maximal restraint technique? >> i would say it was probably a little more difficult to maneuver around that. >> they would not be able to put them on their back, for example. >> it would be difficult, sir, yes. >> in terms of the use of force part of the ground defense program is actually to use body weight as a form of deescalation, is it not? >> yeah, it's use of force that may be used instead of higher escalations of force, yes. >> but sometimes holding someone in a position can be a deescalaing technique? >> yes, sir. >> and ultimately, again, in

terms of the use of force and deciding how much force should be used, the difference in size of an officer to a subject is a consideration? >> it is a consideration, yes. >> as well as the presence of other officers, right? >> yes, sir. >> you would agree that basically the use of force in any circumstance is incredibly dependent upon the situation. >> yes, sir. >> and when an officer is using force, they are to employ the critical decision making model, correct? >> they should be using that at all times. >> but including the use of force. >> yes, sir. >> and that critical decision making model is not simply focused exclusively on the subject of the force being used,

correct? >> it a situational awareness tool. >> and the situational awareness extends beyond just the subject. >> that's correct. >> it extends to numerous factors. >> correct. >> i have no further questions, your honor. >> thank you, your honor. sir, to follow up on some questions that counsel is asking you regarding the use of force being reasonable in the eyes of the officer. that's what you answered that training is, is that right?

>> the officer involved at the moment the force is being used, create. >> but force is always subject to review, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and review is always going to be after the fact, right? >> that's correct. >> and the force that's used and reviewed must be reasonable? >> that's correct. >> taken from that perspective, the perspective of the officer at the time, correct? >> that's correct. >> but the officer doesn't have the unfettered discretion to use whatever force they wish? >> no, they do not, sir. >> now, if we could take a publish exhibit 110 again, which is the control guide continual. now when we look over here at the left hand side and talking about what force can be used and what's proportional, we see that the officers to look at the subject behavior, is that right? >> for force on the subject, yes, sir. >> and the amount of force that they use is proportionate has to

be proportionate to the subject's behavior, correct? >> generally speaking, yes. >> so if for example a group of bystanders were doing something that the officer might find annoying, such as videotaping. that act would not be subject control behavior, would it? >> no, sir. >> and that act would not justify the use of force or escalation of force by the officer, would it? >> that alone, sir, no. >> because that's not subject control behavior, correct? >> correct. >> okay. so if we could then publish exhibit 184. exhibit 184 has been received into evidence and what you see here is a group of bystanders, is that right? >> yes, sir. >> and a couple of instances, you can see the bystanders have

something in their hands, correct? >> yes, sir. >> those appear to be video cameras, is that right or smart phones. >> yes, sir. >> that extra fact would not justify an increased use of force, would it? >> just the cameras, sir, no. >> if you can take down exhibit 184. the acceptable use of a knee across a subject's back, it's a transitory position, is that right? >> yes, it is. >> it's meant to be used to gain control of the subject while the subject is being handcuffed? >> correct. >> but all force must end at some point, is that right? >> that is correct.

>> and once the subject is under control and no longer resistant, it's inappropriate to hold them in that position where you're draping your knee across their back or neck, isn't it? >> i would say it's time to deescalate force, sir. >> and get off of them? >> yes, sir. >> you talked about the prone position in and of itself being something that can lead to positional asphyxia, is that right? >> yes, sir. >> would that risk be increased by addition of body weight? >> yes, sir. >> and so if an officer was placing body weight on the knee with the knee on the neck or the back or the knee -- sorry, the neck and the back, that would transfer the officer's body weight onto the person, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and that would increase the restriction, decrease the ability of the subject to breathe, is that right? >> potentially, sir, yes.

>> and it would not be or i have to ask you would that be appropriate to hold someone in a position where it's more difficult to breathe for an extended period of time after the subject has stopped offering resistance? >> can you rephrase that, sir? >> would it be appropriate and within training to hold a subject in that prone restrained position with a knee on the neck and a knee on the back for an extended period of time after the subject has stopped offering any resistance? >> no, sir. >> or has lost their pulse. >> no, sir. >> you testified that an individual can be unconscious one moment and then suddenly become conscious and become violent, correct? >> it's a potential, yes, sir. >> have you ever had a

circumstance where an vehicle has lost their pulse and suddenly come back to life and become more violent? >> not that i'm aware of, sir. >> nothing further. >> sir, in terms of the use of force and continuation of the use of force, you were just shown exhibit 184. i'll ask to republish 184. looking at this individual here, does it appear the man in the blue is holding back the man in black? >> yes, sir, the guy with the boxing shirt on? >> yes, sir. >> he's holding back.

>> now, in terms of the continuation of use of force and we're talking about involvement of onlookers, the words they use matter, correct? >> yes, sir, they do. >> if they're cheering on and saying good job, officer, that's one consideration? >> yes, sir. >> but if they're saying i'd slap the -- out of you or you're a [ bleep ] or you're a chump would that rise alarm in a police officer? >> yes, sir. >> i have no further questions. >> if they say get off him, you're killing him, should you take that into consideration?

>> yes, sir. >> you're excused. >> jury, we'll take the noon recess, i have two meetings so we won't be able to reconvene until 1:30. thank you. well, there you have it. we have recessed for the lunch break in the derek chauvin murder trial. this is ""meet the press" daily in an abbreviated version. today the prosecution continue its argument that chauvin did not follow training and kneeling on george floyd's neck for 9 and a half minutes is excessive and outside the bounds of the police officer procedures. we heard from jeremy mercil saying the force shown was not authorized. >> is this an mpd authorized restraint technique? >> knee on the neck would be something that does happen in use of force that isn't unauthorized. >> under what circumstances would that be authorized?

how long can you do that? >> i don't know if there is a time frame. it would depend on the circumstance of the time. >> depending on what? >> the resistance from the subject. >> say for example, the subject was under control and handcuffed, would this be authorized? >> i would say no. >> during his cross-examination of mercil, chauvin's attorney asked if his use of force was within the guidelines given the situation unfolding and whether drugs could contribute to how quickly george floyd lost consciousness and we heard from the crisis convention coordinator who testified officers are trained to deescalate situations whenever they are safe and feasible. this comes a day after the minneapolis police chief in a highly unusual move testified against one of his officers telling the court chauvin's actions last may were not proper in any way, shape or form.

nbc shaquille brewster is covering the trial in minneapolis and the former nypd detective and director of the black law enforcement alliance. shaq, let me start with you today and first, there is what we learned today in court but there is also this fifth amendment issue having to do with one of the witnesses that both sides would like to see testify. if we could have updates on both of those developments, if we could. >> reporter: yeah, let's start with what we just heard in the testimony that we just heard. i think it's clear right now that the prosecution is really focused on proving this use of force issue. they are arguing and reheard it from the lieutenant zimmerman, the most senior ranking officer in the police department to yesterday with the police chief and now we're hearing from the direct trainers, they're trying to layout that derek chauvin's use of force was not appropriate, that it was in conflict with the training

received by minneapolis police department officers. that's important because they're arguing the use of force resulted in the death of george floyd. so that is what the focus is on right now, and you heard from this trainer that we were just talking to, the lieutenant or just hearing from. you heard the different perspectives that both sides were coming at this from. you heard the prosecution saying that the neck restraint that was used wasn't completely in compliance with training and it was the matter of time derek chauvin had his knee on the neck or back area of george floyd. you heard the defense come back and say well, neck restraints are a part of the training and there is certain other factors that officers need to consider and you keep hearing them mention the bystanders for example. so you're getting a little hint of the arguments that are at play. of course, both sides are presenting witnesses right now and questioning witnesses but there will come a point when arguments will be had and one tease we know of the difference will argue the use of force that derek chauvin used was in

compliance with training material and training photos, specifically the positioning of that knee in the back area. so you're getting a hint of that right now. as far as that motion we had earlier this morning, that was the first thing that happened before the judge brought the jury in. essentially, this is a witness that the defense signalled they want to bring. it's the passenger in the car of george floyd's vehicle when the police interaction first was initiated. it's the person, the girlfriend of george floyd testified provided them drugs at one point. you had mr. hall, maurice hall, that's his name, his attorney came and said hey, if he's called to the stand, he's going to plead his fifth amendment or use his fifth amendment protections because he can self-implicate himself in doing this. he can say and the concern is later on in the process he will expose himself to a potential third degree murder charge because he provided drugs to george floyd if later in some later prosecution, prosecutors

decide to go after him with third degree murder. that gets a little complex but the judge pretty much said you're going to have to give me the questions you plan to ask mr. hall, we'll debate that later on and address that at a later time, chuck. >> hey, shaq, do you have a sense of which side really wants this witness more? >> reporter: well, if you go based on the opening statements, it's the defense that wants to call this witness. a few things they said this witness would testify and speak to is that they say george floyd was sleeping or was going in and out of sleep in the car after he left that conveience store and went to the car before the police officers approached the car. that testimony has been disputed by the cashier that went to the car and said he had a full conversation with george floyd and the people in the vehicle so that goes to the narrative that the defense is trying to paint for the jury saying that george floyd was under the influence of drugs.

so that is definitely a witness, it seems as if the defense really is relying on at least based on their opening statements and opening statements the prosecution didn't even mention the other pass jers in that vehicle but we'll see what ends up happening in the motions hearing this morning. it seemed as if the prosecution was suggesting they really don't want to hear from mr. hall, as well, this is not essential to their case so you can read tea leaves from that case, chuck. >> that was the sense i got there. shaq, thank you. let me bring in mark and danny in here and control room and let's play at the center of today's testimony is about this issue of was chauvin following procedure or not? let's play slot one. >> do you have an assessment as to whether or not this model is useful in the field? >> i believe it's useful. >> is it possible for a police officer to use this critical

thinking model in the field when actions are -- i'm sorry, when events are unfolding quickly? >> it is possible to rehearse and reuse this model it would be like -- it could be almost like memory and what we talk about fast evolving situations, i know that they do exist. they do happen. but a lot of the time we converse of that is that a lot of the time we have the time to slow things down and reevaluate and reassess and rego through this model. >> guys, let me also play, let's play number three here of mercil and the issue of least use of force. i want to get the entire sort of issue on the table from the testimony and let you both go at this a second. if we could play three from mr. mercil. >> you said you want to use the least amount of force as necessary? >> yes, sir. >> why is that? >> because if you can use the

least -- a lower level of force to meet your objectives, it's safer and better for everyone involved. >> when we talk about proportionality, proportional to what? >> i'd say the level of resistance you're getting. >> in the level of resistance would be dependent upon who? >> the subject that you're using force upon. >> the specific subject. >> yes, sir. >> so mark, let me ask you first of all is this a technique that you've been trained on and that is similar and how do you believe did in your view officer chauvin use the correct techniques? >> first off, a critical decision making process is much less technique than it is intuition, instinctive training,

tactics, et cetera. just assessing and reassessing the situation as you are engaged in it. that's just a lot of common sense being applied to your tactical awareness and training and understanding. you have to apply a descent level of common sense and always focus on the humanity aspect of it. you know, human life which is vitally important. as far as use of force is concerned, the national standard that is used and has been used time and time again since the beginning of policing, if you will, or shortly therefore has been the idea to use the least amount of force necessary to accomplish the objective. so that's just a clear common sense, once again, national standard that police agencies across the nation, both of these things are pretty standard in police training regardless of

the size of the department or location of the department. >> mark, what did you make there at the end when both attorneys kept going back and forth about the crowd, right? the defense attorney, if the crowd is yelling cat calls, is that going to have an impact and then the prosecutor and if the crowd is yelling hey, you're killing him, is that supposed to have an impact? what did you make of that exchange and how does a crowd have an impact, how does it have an impact at times? >> well, first of all, the maneuvering in the courtroom to really go over that but to answer your question directly, they were both positioning at a particular argument to influence the perceptions of the jurors but the second answer to your question is as a professional police officer, you can't allow the outside noise often times the crowds, whatever the yelling

or shouting at you, that happens sometimes. we have to be able to block out a lot of the negativity and still operate as a professional and still rely heavily on training or your solid tactics on an understanding of the situation and that is critical decision making process. >> you bring up a good point. we count on professionally trained law enforcement officers not to be influenced so easily by the outside. we say the same things to professionally trained journalists not to listen outside voices when you're doing your job. danny, this was -- the technical aspect of the back and forth here seemed -- it clearly this definition of use of force, this definition of what was he doing? was he doing it properly or not? the defense says this is the whole ball game. >> they do. this is the entire case for

them. it's causation and it's that the use of force here was warranted, commenced and reasonable. the prosecution knows that's coming and preempting it and putting on evidence in the case in chief to show that look, force is a necessary part of life and force is something police have to use sometimes, they don't like it but the key is that you can only use so much force as is reasonable and in effect, they appear to be conceding putting the knee on the back of someone's neck could possibly be warranted for a moment but they are making it clear that not in this instance. force depend -- the force required depends on the circumstances and no two circumstances is ever really the same. but the police are taking -- the prosecution appears to be taking a reasonable approach in their case in chief, which is yes, we use force. yes, it can sometimes involve pain. yes, it involves sometimes lethal force. but what was done in this particular situation was not

warranted and that's what the defense has to fight. >> you know, danny, if you take yesterday and today collectively, you've basically have everybody who is in some fsupersuper -- super vicery of derek chauvin saying he did not do this and that correctly. the chief of police, you've got people with important titles. so this has been a pretty rough 48 hours for the defense, has it not? >> yeah, as a defense attorney, sometimes the case is just not going your way and sometimes the prosecution's witnesses are just killing you and because the prosecution gets to put their case on first, you sit there thinking can i claw may way back out of this hole? a lot of times if a prosecution's witness is so heavily against you, there is not much else to do and get up and maybe ask a couple questions but only if you know they are going to help you. if you give these witnesses so far the prosecution has called

whether citizens or officers a chance to wallop you if you ask them a question, they will and sometimes in this case they have. >> mark, is this a change now this perception the blue wall of silence. you don't see cops -- cops don't testify against fellow cops. there is a wisdom or perception out there. that's not how this trial is going. do you see this as the beginning of a new era? >> i think this is an anomaly and the testimony from the chief is more than an anomaly but a unicorn to give his position and

stance and i think what will occur what happens is these systems, structures involved in justice tend to snap back and be very resilient and so the calls for reform, the improvements and enhancements will continue and let's be clear about something, we're far away from over in regards to this particular trial. we've seen other cases where there is overwhelmingly, overwhelming evidence and it turned out that the police officers have not really been held to justice. so i'm not extremely confident even with this trial given the overwhelming evidence that's there, and i do not believe that this will lead to some significant seed change. >> well, an important caveat you put there because we have heard the best that the prosecution can put up because it's been

their side first. thank you-all for getting us started and unpacking what we learned so far today. of course, msnbc will continue to bring coverage of the trial when it comes back from the lunch break. unfortunately. we've got breaking news of yet another shooting incident. authorities confirmed this morning two adult men are in critical condition after being shot by a 38-year-old male gunman in frederick maryland. the shooter then drove to a military base where he was shot dead at the base. the u.s. navy said the shooter was a navy hospital worker. there is still a lot we don't know about what happened or why, but authorities say they will give us an update at 2:30 eastern time. coming up, president biden's infrastructure bill could get some sort of green light if they

can keep their party united and taking a risk, the texas rangers decided to host nearly 40,000 fans for their opening day with zero coronavirus restrictions for attendees. good idea? probably not so much. we'll be right back. probably not so much we'll be right back. you need only the freshest milk and cream. that one! and the world's best, and possibly only, schmelier. philadelphia. schmear perfection. keeping your oysters business growing has you swamped. you need to hire. i need indeed indeed you do. the moment you sponsor a job on indeed you get a shortlist of quality candidates from a resume data base claim your seventy-five-dollar credit when you post your first job at indeed.com/promo voiceover: riders. wanderers on the road of life. the journey is why they ride. when the road is all you need, there is no destination. uh, i-i'm actually just going to get an iced coffee. well, she may have a destination this one time, but usually -- no, i-i usually have a destination. yeah, but most of the time, her destination is freedom.

nope, just the coffee shop. announcer: no matter why you ride, progressive has you covered with protection starting at $79 a year. voiceover: 'cause she's a biker... please don't follow me in. voiceover: 'cause she's a biker... kevin bacon here. you know me from six degrees of well... me. but it's time to expand. see, visible is wireless with no surprise fees, legit unlimited data, powered by verizon for as little as $25 a month. but when you bring a friend every month, you get every month for $5. so i'm bringing everyone within 12 degrees of me.

bam, 12 months of $5 wireless. visible. as little as $25 a month. or $5 a month when you bring a friend. powered by verizon. wireless that gets better with friends. wanna help kids get their homework done? well, an internet connection's a good start. but kids also need computers. and sometimes the hardest thing about homework is finding a place to do it. so why not hook community centers up with wifi? for kids like us, and all the amazing things we're gonna learn. over the next 10 years, comcast is committing $1 billion to reach 50 million low-income americans

with the tools and resources they need to be ready for anything. i hope you're ready. 'cause we are. welcome back. the road ahead for the white house on the multi trillion infrastructure bill can officially go around republicans. that's what everyone assumed would happen anyway. that said, still going to be a bumpy ride for democrats. check schumer says he's been given the green light to pass more bills using the wonky and clunky process known as reconciliation. we don't need a filibuster and don't need to talk about it for awhile because it means they get to talk about this and it does mean that democrats don't need republican support and means democratic leadership cannot afford any defections, which means it gives a lot of democratic lawmakers a lot of

potential leverage if they want to use it and some of course do. all right. west virginia senator joe mansion will not support the president's 28% corporate tax rate and would like to see closer to 25. virginia's mark warner has said he's expressing concerns to the white house about the tax bill and plenty of other democrats are demanding changes to various aspects of the size and scope of the bill, as well. if schumer moves forward on reconciliation, that means the hope of bipartisanship in the senate may have just gone from theoretically dead to technically dead and the consequences of that could be felt for americans, politics for a very, very long time. joining me is my colleague lee an caldwell. let's start with the technical aspects of this first. we don't know for sure how much room to maneuver in these additional reconciliations now that the democrats can use will be. we only have chuck schumer's word that he got permission to use it. do we have the ruling itself yet

from the parliamentarian? >> we don't yet and of course, what the parliamentarian rules depends on what the text of legislation says, as well and they don't have that yet, either. there is still perhaps a few weeks away. so there is still a lot that is unknown here and a lot that could happen and senator schumer has said that he's not definitively going down that path. we have to, of course, take him at his word even though the signs are pointing to the fact they are in fact going to do it, but what it does is it gives democrats more options. so they knew they had two more of these reconciliation 50 vote abilities to pass legislation before the midterms so that gives them a third. since the biden administration wants to slip up this bill into two parts. we seen the first part and waiting on the second. they could use both of the

components available to them this year and that is what is a big plus, chuck. >> leeann, this is going to raise expectations on the left. so essentially, now that they have a work around on the filibuster so is check schumer prepared and joe biden prepared for the list of demands among progressives to suddenly to get longer and hear their cries for sort of a little more attention get louder? >> well, it does raise expectations on the left but also raises expectations among the moderate as well and joe mansion knows he's a critical vote because in order to -- schumer has to get 50 democrats on board and senator mansion is throwing his weight around very effectively at this point. you know, wanting to craft legislation and mold legislation

in the ways that he sees most fit. but the most important thing that schumer and democrats are going to have to message very effectively is that this tool that they're using for reconciliation they can use for tax cuts and infrastructure and things that impact the budget but it not going to work for some of the democrats, the left's biggest priorities like voting rights legislation, gun control legislation, as well. so that is where the discussion of the filibuster is still going to come in if they can't get any bipartisan support. >> peter baker, big picture here, though, you know, we just basically created a speaking of we talk about a parliamentarian, we have now just in a more official capacity become a parliamentary style system as long as one party can win sort of three different elections here. the white house, control of the senate, control of the house

when one party has all three, we have -- we're creating a system that essentially lets them act like a parliamentarian system for whatever period of time they're in power. that will have tremendous ramifications going forward. >> well, it does because what you see is legislation being passed, big legislation being passed that doesn't have bipartisan by in. what that means is as soon as the party in power loses, two years four years, whatever, they have no interest in preserving what has been done in the last four years and may go after it and create an expectation there will be changes again. we see that repeatedly over the last 10, 12 years. the affordable care act without republican support and immediately became republican target and people couldn't be sure it would last in the long term. we will see that with the corporate tax rate now because the republicans passed this essentially without democratic support. that's now up for grabs and with the democrats have taken control

and whatever they do now with this bill and with the other bills they would like to pass this year if they do so with only democrats, there is no reason to think repub cans would try to undo it. there is lack of sustainability in the legislation passed with only one party buying into it. >> this puts bipartisan on president biden. they can force that issue. it seems to me while he says he wants bipartisanship, however they can do it they can do it which tells he's not that interested in rest recollecting because it isn't possible. >> he might be interested if he saw it as being possible. i think you're right and they have come to a conclusion it's a

fool's er rand. we're in a different era than we were when joe biden came into the senate and we're in a different era ten or 12 years ago and i think that there is an expectation now that those sides will go and why bother trying? >> peter, you are probably like a political junky and following what is going on in israel. they had a stable government arguably to be able to govern in half a decade. are we following in their footsteps? >> well, you know, it's a good question because we do not have a sustainable enduring majority at this point. right? we have a 50/50 senate is ten -- tenuous as we talked about. one democratic senator can throw

everything into chaos. netanyahu won sort of the fourth election in a row in two years and doesn't have the majority to work with and collision that can form a working government. so they're in absolutely in a stagnant period and the question is whether or not we get to help it. >> this is no way to rest and run a democracy. thank you both. before we go, we want to share some sad news today. long-time democratic congressman alcee hastings died after stage four battle of pancreatic cancer. he was a civil rights attorney and florida's first black federal judge. he was impeached and removed from office in the '80s. he was accused of perjury and conspireing to solicit a bribe but made quite the political comeback. he served 15 terms in congress becoming the dean of the state's congressional dellation. hastings' death means another vacancy in the house which even

temporarily further narrows the democratic majority. florida law gives ron desantis broad authority on the timing on a special election to fill the seat so it's not clear how long that seat could remain vacant, meaning it could be months. congressman hastings is survived by his wife and three adult children. he was 84. hey allergy muddlers. [sneezes] are your sneezes putting your friends in awkward positions? [sneezes] stick with zyrtec. zyrtec starts working hard at hour one and works twice as hard when you take it again the next day. zyrtec. muddle no more. and try children's zyrtec for consistently powerful relief of your kids' allergies.

we started with computers. we didn't stop at computers. we didn't stop at storage or cloud. we kept going.

working with our customers to enable the kind of technology that can guide an astronaut back to safety. and help make a hospital come to you, instead of you going to it. so when it comes to your business, you know we'll stop at nothing.

right now we are waiting for president biden who is expected at a vaccinization site in verge -- virginia right now. we move up his may 1st goal by a couple of weeks, and most states have announced plans to open up eligibility by april 19th. as of now about 40% of the adult

population in the country has received at least one shot. as we have been saying, we are in a race against the virus variant, nearly up 9% from last month. public health officials are attributing the rise in infections to younger americans and loose restrictions in many states like we saw yesterday in the state of texas when the texas rangers opened up their brand-new stadium a year late and hosted more than 38,000 fans at that stadium home opener. joining me now, dr. jot. i want to go back to something governor whitmer of michigan has been asking for, michigan and florida having a harder time with the 1.1.7. variant in

particular. >> chuck, thanks for having me on. the answer is yes, governor whitmer is right. we are seeing half a dozen states where appointments are going unfilled and hitting hesitancy, sort of walls and they are not getting all the vaccines out and then you have states like michigan with large outbreaks and desperate to get more people vaccinated, and you have to shift the vaccines to where the infections are and that's the best way to save lives. >> when you see what's happening right now, on one hand we are accelerating vaccine distribution, and it seems -- you tell me, i feel as if the administration has decided since states are not going to listen to mitigation and the country has fatigue and we have one weapon we can deploy and that's the vaccine. is that -- are we basically

giving up on everything else? >> no, you see president biden wearing a mask, and the cdc director is still telling people to be careful. >> i understand that, but you get my point, doctor, yeah, they are emphasizing what they think a majority of people will listen to, i guess, is my point? >> look, at the end of the day, states have always had a lot of freedom and last spring trump was telling michigan to open up prematurely, thank goodness governor whitmer did not have to listen and could do what she thought was right for her state, and the flip side is right now it's not wise to open up fully, and some governors are defying the president and doing that anyway. the vaccines are going to be our way out of it. what i am worried about is we will see a lot of infections and that's just unnecessary,

unnecessarily people are dying when we are so close to the finish line. >> is there anything you can learn as a scientists from yesterday's human experiment that the texas rangers decided upon? you know, look -- i think there are plenty of public health officials thought what they did was a bad idea. what can we learn from it to find out how bad of an idea this was? do we know of any research being done in conjunction with this bizarre decision by the rangers to just open it all up? >> yeah, two quick things. first, i think this was unwise. i'm not saying we should not have a normal baseball season this year, we can, it's just we're still about a month away from high risk people being vaccinated, and let's hold off a little longer and ease back into it slowly, and in terms of learning from it, and a lot of people are wearing masks and a lot of people are not, and it being outdoors is a plus, and

those people packed together and yelling and screaming like you do at baseball games was not great, and we will see if there's a pump or not. >> when i read about the super fan that ended up dying of covid, i say to the sports fans, think about that story. think about that story. doctor, thank you for coming on and bringing your perspective and expertise. >> thank you. we'll be back tomorrow with more "meet the press daily," and msnbc coverage continues with katy tur when we will cover the trial when they come back from recess.

- [narrator] at southern new hampshire university, we're committed to making college more accessible by making it more affordable, that's why we're keeping our tuition the same through the year 2021. - i knew snhu was the place for me when i saw how affordable it was. i ran to my husband with my computer and i said, "look, we can do this." - [narrator] take advantage of some of the lowest online tuition rates in the nation. find your degree at snhu.edu.

municipal bonds don't usually get the media coverage the stock market does. in fact, most people don't find them all that exciting. but, if you're looking for the potential for consistent income that's federally tax-free, now is an excellent time to consider municipal bonds from hennion & walsh. if you have at least 10,000 dollars to invest, call and talk with one of our bond specialists at 1-800-217-3217.

we'll send you our exclusive bond guide, free. with details about how bonds can be an important part of your portfolio. hennion & walsh has specialized in fixed income and growth solutions for 30 years, and offers high-quality municipal bonds from across the country. they provide the potential for regular income...are federally tax-free... and have historically low risk. call today to request your free bond guide. 1-800-217-3217. that's 1-800-217-3217 good afternoon. i'm katy tur. a tense day seven in the derek chauvin murder trial in minneapolis. it began with a cliff-hanger. the man in the passenger's seat of george floyd's suv that