good afternoon. i'm katy tur. we are awaiting president biden to address the nation at any moment on his decision to end america's longest war, bringing home u.s. forces from afghanistan by september 11 of this year, the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attack. we will have that for you live. and breaking right now, the former police officer who shot and killed 20-year-old daunte wright has been arrested, taken to jail and will be charged with second-degree manslaughter. police say kim potter grabbed her gun instead of her taser during that traffic stop in brooklyn center, minnesota. word of the charges come after another night of unrest in brooklyn center, and wright's family demanding justice. more on all of that in just a moment. and nearby minneapolis, derek chauvin's defense is continuing its case today. retired medical examiner dr.

david fowler testified that heart problems and drugs and possible carbon monoxide poisoning from being held down next to the suv's exhaust contributed to what he called george floyd's sudden cardiac death. that is something we haven't seen before. dr. fowler also said he would rule out asphyxia and derek chauvin's knee as the cause of death. >> is it your opinion that mr. chauvin's knee in any way impacted the structures of mr. floyd's neck? >> no, it did not. none of the vital structures. nor in the area where the knee appeared to be from the videos. >> in terms of the placement of the knee on the neck, could you determine based on your review whether it appeared his air way was obstructed? >> yes. the placement of the knee is

towards the back and the back right side of his -- of mr. floyd's neck. the airway is around the front. it is nowhere close to his airway. the bottom line is moving air in and out, and speaking and making noise is very good evidence that the airway was not closed. >> dr. fowler says he would classify george floyd's death as undetermined. the prosecution's cross examination should be interesting at 2:30 today. joining me now is news correspondent morgan chesky who is in minnesota, gabe gutierrez in minneapolis, mary moriarty and pete butler.

>> reporter: those charges were made official at 11:00. we're told kim potter turned herself into the bureau today about 11:30 where she faces the charges of second-degree manslaughter. we expect those charges to be officially filed later today. she is being processed as we speak. already in response to this, we've heard from ben crump, the attorney representing the family of daunte wright who acknowledged this is a step in the right direction, but made it very clear that in their eyes, this was not an accident and she purposefully pulled the trigger that killed daunte wright after that stop for expired tags. we expect to hear from the family later today. in the meantime, the scene around the police station today in brooklyn center very much reinforced, you can see the national guard and humvee troops

stationed in and around that area. at last check, 3,000 national guardsmen are now here in the minneapolis area ready to respond should protests grow out of control. we know last night there were near 60 arrests near where i'm standing following another night of protests, police choosing to use tear gas, and in some cases rubber bullets, to disburse those crowds that were out past curfew. no word on whether that curfew will be in place tonight or whether any protests will be coming on the news of these charges against that 26-year veteran who submitted her resignation yesterday. katy? >> mary, what do you think of the charges here, the probable charge, second-degree manslaughter? >> it's angering a lot of people and puzzling a lot of people because it's also the charges chauvin is accused of, and it's the least serious charge he's accused of, so i've certainly seen a lot of talking about why isn't this intentional or why

isn't it third-degree murder? there are a lot of calls for the charge to be changed. there are also calls for this case to be removed from the toi -- county attorney who charged it, who gives advice to the police administration in minnesota, so people have called for the case to be removed from him and given to the attorney general's office, which is the entity that's prosecuting the chauvin case right now. >> the ag's office declined to do so, though. they thought the county attorney would be well suited to handle this. mary, what about the speed with which kim potter has been charged? usually it takes a little bit longer than that, and i wonder if all of the unrest we've seen in brooklyn center and all the heightened pressure out there given the chauvin trial meant that this was done a little bit faster. >> i'm sure that's true. if you remember to last summer, there were numerous calls for

the police officers, former police officers in the george floyd case to be charged. and when he wasn't charged, that's when a lot of the protesting happened, that's when a lot of the unrest happened, and unfortunately, that's when some of the damage happened as well. so i'm sure they were well aware that it was important, if she was going to be charged, to get those charges out as quickly as possible. >> brian, what do you make of these charges? you just heard mary moriarty, and there are a lot of people out there who think she should be charged with third-degree murder. >> i don't know if there's enough for that. thank you very much for the question. this phenomenon has happened two times in the past in my career where an officer has fired a real gun and mistakenly believed that they were firing a taser. that is something that is more easy to occur than most people may think, and when we started talking about the concept of

intent, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not a mistake but rather it was something that this officer intended to do, and in light of the mechanism that can cause an officer to draw inadvertently a firearm, i think the charges are probably well placed at this point. >> let's switch over to the chauvin trial, which is happening again just a few miles away from all of the unrest surrounding the death of mr. wright. gabe gutierrez, a new defense that we are hearing today that we had not heard before, that george floyd died of possible carbon monoxide poisoning. how is that going over in the courtroom? >> reporter: hi there, katy. yes, that partial defense came from the defense witness, dr. david fowler. we mentioned he was a former chief medical officer in

maryland. he said while he was questioned that potential carbon monoxide poisoning as a result of exhaust from the police squad car was a potential contributing factor to george floyd's death, and dr. fowler has said that it was not lack of oxygen that killed george floyd but that he died due to cardiac arrest combined with illicit drug use. katy, we expect the prosecution to hit back hard on this potentially this afternoon during cross examination. the court is in a lunch recess right now. but dr. fowler is seen as one of the defenses most crucial witnesses. the prosecution came up with several medical experts previously, late last week and early this week, that really stress the point that george floyd died due to asphyxia, due to lack of oxygen as a result of derek chauvin's actions. now the defense is really trying to bring up this witness who some legal experts are saying are throwing out other potential reasons to cast some doubt on at

least one juror, because, katy, u to remember, they only need to create reasonable doubt with one juror to end up with a hung jury. so this is seen as a very crucial witness for the defense. it will be very interesting to see how the prosecution, you know, hits back during cross examination. katy? >> mary, i am curious about that. i know that you're a defense attorney, but the prosecution, how do you expect them to go after this witness and this new defense that it was at least partially or could have at least partially been carbon monoxide, especially when you consider that george floyd's head was by the vehicle, was where it was, because derek chauvin had him pinned down right there? >> we got a preview of this when one of the minneapolis police officers was testifying, and there was a question about the exhaust. the defense asked that in cross examination, and actually, i

think it was a vca officer testified that this is a hybrid car, and they couldn't even tell it was running because it was so quiet. so we heard about that exhaust issue early on. the state did a really effective cross examination of the defense use of force expert yesterday. i expect them to do an effective cross examination of fowler. one thing that stood out to me is that the state has called an expert cardiologist, a pulmonologist and a toxicologist. and both of the medical examiner experts said that on various issues they would certainly defer to those experts. but dr. fowler today kind of put himself out there as an expert cardiologist, pulmonologist, toxicologist, all of that. he also is the defendant in a lawsuit in maryland because he found a death accidental under kind of similar circumstances. so we may hear the state talk about some of that. i should also say thatin

third-degree murder, intent is not meant to kill. it's also one of the charges that chauvin is charged with, and that's why people are saying, why is kim potter only charged with manslaughter. >> the maryland case you brought up, the lawsuit, it's the family of anton black and they're accusing dr. fowler of helping to cover up the role that police played in his death. brian, this is a lawsuit we have heard about. you can see the headlines right here. is it likely to come up in court, and if it does not come up in court, i guess, should it? >> well, katy, you're bringing up some great points. the reality is this is going to be a turf war that will happen outside the presence of the jury. to the extent they're going to go into this other case, the judge has to be concerned about whether this is going to be a trial within a trial and whether it will sidetrack the jury's

attention from what they're there to look at. i think that it's going to be an uphill battle to get that evidence in. however, you brought up another really good point that i want to talk about, katy, which is under the minnesota statute, they have to simply show that this particular defendant, chauvin, caused this particular situation. and even if the carbon monoxide turns out to be more relevant than we originally thought, as you alluded to, it's still the actions of this officer that exposed mr. floyd to that. so i don't see it as having -- i don't see the defense is getting very much traction from that, but i'm sure we'll see an effective cross after lunch. >> the defense, as gabe mentioned, as we keep saying a lot, brian, they just need one juror to say that there is reasonable doubt. at this point in the trial, does the defense have a juror in mind that they might be targeting

with this line of questioning? >> again, that's so important. we're not in the courtroom, and you would need someone there to be able to accurately answer that great question. jurors are very communicative even though they're silent. they're very communicative and it's easy to see how they might interpret information as we start to get to day 4, day 5. i think they made almost no headway yesterday at all. this is a very good witness, but the idea that he actually connected with a jury would have to be something we would have to be in the courtroom to determine that energy. there is another core thing, the prosecution has another case, they have a rebuttal case after the defense rests, and i'm sure they're probably contemplating different witnesses that can attack the science that we're seeing right now. >> very interesting. again, because of covid, there are limited seats inside that courtroom and there's only two reporters allowed in per day, so

we don't get a larger sense of what's going on with the jury than what we get from what we call the pool report on a daily basis. mary moriarty and brian dunn, stick with us for the hour. when court resumes, we will return to minneapolis. that's roughly 2:30 today. a cdc advisory committee is holding a meeting right now on the johnson & johnson vaccine. they were out in full force today trying to reassure americans that the coronavirus vaccines are safe despite the pause on j&j over cases ofblood clots in just six women. >> the fact that following the eua, we have continued to follow very carefully any possibility of adverse events, i believe, is

the other side of the coin of hesitancy. it should reinforce in those individuals how we take safety so seriously. >> six women between the ages of 18 and 48 developed the unusual clots after receiving the j&j vaccine. one died and the other is in critical condition. again, the risk is extremely rare. about 1 in 1.1 million. still, the pause has resulted in a ripple effect around the globe, australia, south africa and several european countries have pulled the j&j vaccine from circulation and preemptively canceled future orders. joining me is the co-director for vaccine development at texas children's hospital, dr. peter hotez. dr. hotez, i understand the desire to be as transparent as possible. i understand the desire to get out there and talk to physicians

and alert them to this possibility. i understand all of that. what i don't understand is why they're pausing it while they do that considering it is just six cases out of around 7 million doses. it seems like -- you tell me, is there more going on behind the scenes that we are not seeing, or is this -- am i wrong, is this a more prudent choice? >> here's the reason why i think it was the right thing to do. first of all, this is through the vares reporting system, but the thinking is that by pausing this and warning the medical community that this is a rare side effect of concern, potentially other cases of cerebral thrombosis could come forward, so that number of 1.1 million could start going up, and that's important to know.

secondly, the j&j virus is an adenovirus vector vaccine, and another adenovirus vector vaccine, astrazeneca, is considered to be about 1 in 150,000. so they're trying to figure out what's going on and if this is a problem with all the adenovirus vector vaccines. we know there is a vaccine lobby out there, but as dr. fauci said, this is also a reminder of how robust our system of pharmacovigilance and safety monitoring is that it's sensitive enough that it could pick up adverse reactions. it's a reminder to the american people, and that's a sign of the glass half full that we're not

just -- it's not just adios. we're done with this now and we continue to aggressively monitor these vaccines in every aspect. >> i get that it's a sign of the system working, but due to all the distrust out there, how do you put the genie out of the bottle especially when you have a pause put on it and cancelling future orders. that does seem to suggest they're throwing in the towel on this vaccine, they don't want any more in the future, and given the number of people out there in the world and the number of countries you need to get vaccinated, not just the well-off countries like the united states, alaska, et cetera, but the smaller countries that need the vaccine, i feel like this is a major wrench for the effort to get the globe vaccinated, not just americans. >> so there's two pieces to this, katy. first of all, if this had been done 10, 15 years ago, people

would have shrugged their shoulders, yep, this makes sense, let's pause it. it's partly because we've enabled a very aggressive and expanding anti-vaccine empire to grow and dominate the internet that this is such a concern. one of the things that i've been having discussions with the federal government for many years now is we've got to do something about it. it dominates the internet, it dominates e-commerce sites like amazon is the single largest promoter of fake anti-vaccine books, and nobody wants to do anything about it. the message i've gotten from the federal government is, peter, we're not going to talk about this because it will just give it oxygen. and i'm like, really, this is so pervasive. and now we've got the russian government, and this has been reported by british and u.k. intelligence, has been specifically targeting western

covid-19 vaccines to discredit them in favor of sputnik 5. what we really have to focus on with regard to the u.s. is dismantling this confederacy or empire coming out of russia and home-grown groups, a lot of them coming from the political right, unfortunately, and you've heard it all on fox news the last few nights going on anti-vaccine rants and targeting me and dr. fauci. we've got to do something about that. globally we're in a really tough situation because globally in africa and latin america, they do not have access to the mrna vaccines. there was so much emphasis on innovation that nobody ever thought, what will be our low-cost, durable, non-fussy vaccines we have for latin america? we'll have to deal with that and that's why we're developing our own vaccine for that purpose.

>> it is a real problem, and the government is no longer the only provider of oxygen in those spaces. there's just so many ways to get information now in so many non-trustworthy outlets on line, and as you mentioned, on broadcast. dr. peter hotez, thank you for joining us, as always. the chauvin trial will resume in a few minutes. when it does we will bring you there live. the senate intelligence committee held a hearing on global threats today, its first in two years. which country does the intel community say is at the top of its list? and we are awaiting remarks from president biden expected to make a major announcement, an end to this country's longest war. s longest war. ♪ ♪ water? urgh! (rocket ship) hey! hey! heads up. thank you!

water tastes like, water. so we fixed it. mio we're here for the heavy flow-ers and the wedgie-pickers with a pad made like no other up to zero leaks because it locks blood in up to zero bunching because it flexes no worries. just always flexfoam i'm draymond green with my subway sub with tender steak and melty cheese. my sub is gonna dunk all over your sub. excuse me? my sub has bacon. choose better be better and now save when you order in the app. subway eat fresh. but not jayson's sub. keeping your oysters business growing subway eat fresh. 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 are you managing your diabetes... ...using fingersticks? with the new freestyle libre 2 system, a continuous glucose monitor, you can check your glucose with a painless, one-second scan.

and now with optional alarms, you can choose to be notified if you go too high or too low. and for those who qualify, the freestyle libre 2 system is now covered by medicare. ask your doctor for a prescription. you can do it without fingersticks. learn more at freestyle libre 2 dot u.s. ♪♪ ♪ ♪i've got the brains you've got the looks♪ ♪let's make lots of money♪ ♪you've got the brawn♪ ♪i've got the brains♪ ♪let's make lots of♪ ♪uh uh uh♪ ♪oohhh there's a lot of opportunities♪ with allstate, drivers who switched saved over $700. saving is easy when you're in good hands. allstate click or call to switch today.

want to save hundreds on your wireless bill? allstate with xfinity mobile, you can. how about saving hundreds on the new samsung galaxy s21 ultra 5g? you can do that too. all on the most reliable network? sure thing! and with fast, nationwide 5g included - at no extra cost? we've got you covered. so join the carrier rated #1 in customer satisfaction... ...and learn how much you can save at xfinitymobile.com/mysavings.

any minute president biden will deliver a highly

anticipated speech on the end of the afghanistan war. the president is expected to announce a full withdrawal of u.s. troops from the country by september 11, which will be the 20th anniversary of the terrorist attacks that launched the global fight against terrorism and wars spanning two decades. critics of the president's decision call it a surrender that will destabilize afghanistan and leave a power vacuum for the taliban to fill, but in a sample of the prepared remarks obtained by nbc news, the president argues that after 20 years, the united states, quote, cannot continue the cycle of extending or expanding our military presence in afghanistan, hoping to create the ideal conditions for our withdrawal expecting a different result. joining me now is nbc news white house correspondent karen lee who is at the pentagon, correspondent michael engel from

london and retired general barry mccaffrey. carol, first from you. what more should we expect from the president? >> you will hear the president say the u.s. will begin withdrawing troops before the end of this month and they will complete that withdrawal, as you noted, by september 11, but potentially before then. what the president is also going to say according to excerpts of his remarks is that he is the fourth president to preside over the war in afghanistan and that he will not give this responsibility or hand it over to a fifth president, that it's time for the u.s. to end the war in afghanistan. he's also going to say that the u.s. will continue to support diplomacy between the taliban and the afghan government who have yet to reach their own deal. he'll also say the u.s. would continue to support the akian government and the akian

security forces. he's going to say, it's time to end america's longest war, it's time for american troops to come home. katy, that raises a question which still has not been answered, which is how many troops are actually going to be coming home? are they going to redeploy some of the troops in the region for various missions, and are there some who are going to, however many will remain at the embassy there in kabul, which is standard procedure, there is always a contingent that stays there to protect the diplomatic force. there are still a lot of questions, but the bottom line is the president will say the u.s. is ending this war. >> that was my question. we're just under two minutes before the derek chauvin trial resumes. what is happening overseas? >> the taliban thought the u.s. troops would be gone in a couple

weeks from now. the taliban feels very strong. they think afghan forces pushed out the brits in the middle of the 19th century and pushed out the soviets during the cold war and have now succeeded in pushing out the united states after 20 years. the only promise the taliban has sort of made is not to engage in international terrorism anymore and not to support al qaeda. but there are many that are worried it could descend into a civil war and the taliban will have more in years to come. >> we're in the same spot as october 2001 when president george w. bush announced military training camps in afghanistan. it was just weeks after the terrorist attack of our nation that killed 2,977 innocent souls

that turned lower manhattan into a disaster area, destroyed parts of the pentagon and made hallowed ground on the field of shanksville, pennsylvania and sparked an american promise that we would never forget. i went to afghanistan in 2001 to rule out al qaeda, to root out plans from afghanistan. our objection was clear. our native allies rallied beside us. i supported that military about an overwhelming majority of members of congress. in 2008, weeks before we swore the oath of office, president obama and i, president obama asked me to travel to afghanistan and report back on the state of the war in afghanistan. i flew to afghanistan to the kunar valley, a rugged,

mountainous region on the border of pakistan. what i saw on that trip reinforced my conviction, that only the afghans have the right and responsibility to leave their country, and that a more and endless american military force could not sustain a durable afghan government. i believe that our presence in afghanistan should be focused on the reason we went in the first place, to ensure afghanistan would not be used as a base from which to attack our homeland again. we did that. we accomplished that objective. i said we would follow osama bin laden to the gates of hell if need be. that's exactly what we did, and we got him. it took us close to ten years to put the obama commitment into form, and that's exactly what happened when osama bin laden was gone. that was ten years ago.

think about that. we delivered justice to bin laden a decade ago and we stayed in afghanistan for a decade since. since then, our reasons for remaining in afghanistan are becoming increasingly unclear, even as the terrorist threat that we went to fight evolved. in the past 20 years, the threat has become more disbursed, metastasizing around the globe. somalia, syria, isis attempting to create a fight and numerous countries in africa and asia. with the terrorists right now in many places keeping thousands of troops grounded and concentrating in just one country at the cost of billions each year makes little sense to me and to our leaders.

we cannot continue the cycle of extending or expanding our military presence in afghanistan hoping to create ideal conditions for the withdrawal and expecting a different result. i'm now the fourth united states president to preside over american troop presence in afghanistan, two republicans and two democrats. i will not pass this responsibility on to a fifth. after consulting closely with our allies and partners, with our military leaders and intelligence personnel, with our diplomats and our development experts, with the congress and the vice president as well as with mr. ganhi and others around the world, i concluded it's time to end this american war. it's time for our troops to come home. when i came to office, i inherited a diplomatic agreement fully negotiated between the governor of the united states

and the taliban that all u.s. forces would be out of afghanistan by may 1, 2021, just three months after my inauguration. that's what we inherited, that commitment. it's perhaps not what i would have negotiated myself, but it was an agreement made by the united states government, and that means something. so in keeping with that agreement and with our national interests, the united states will begin our final withdrawal, began it on may 1 of this year. we'll not conduct a hasty rush to the exit. we'll do it responsibly, deliberately and safely, and we will do it in full coordination with our allies and partners who now have more forces in afghanistan than we do. the taliban should know that if they attack us as we draw down, we'll defend ourselves and our partners with all the tools at

our disposal. our allies and partners have stood beside us shoulder to shoulder in afghanistan for almost 20 years. we are deeply grateful for the contributions they have made to our shared mission and for the sacrifices they have borne. the plan has long been in together, out together. u.s. troops as well as forces deployed by our nato allies and operational partners will be out of afghanistan before we mark the 20th anniversary of that heinous attack on september 11. but we will not take our eye off the terrorist threat. we'll reorganize our counterterrorism capabilities and the substantial assets in the region to prevent reemergence from terrorists and the threat to our homeland from over the horizon. we'll hold the taliban

responsible not to threaten any terrorists in the united states or allies on the afghan soil. they have made that promise to us as well, and we put full attention on the threat today. my job is to monitor and disrupt specific terrorist threats not only in afghanistan but anywhere they may arise, africa, the middle east and elsewhere. i spoke to former president bush on my decision yesterday. while he and i have different foreign policy ideas over the years, we both want to preserve the integrity of the united states officers who served. we are grateful of the backbone they have shown through two

combat deployments. the united states is indebted to them and their families. you know that 1% of our military has served there. the other 99% have never backed down from a single commitment we asked them to do. they never waivered in their resolve. they paid a tremendous price on our behalf and they have the thanks of a grateful nation. while i will not stay involved in afghanistan militarily, our diplomatic and humanitarian work will continue, will continue to support the government of afghanistan. we'll continue to provide assistance to afghan security forces. along with our partners, we had trained and equipped a standing force of over 300,000 afghan personnel today and hundreds of thousands over the past two

decades. they'll continue to fight valiantly on behalf of the afghans at great cost. they'll support peace talks as we will support peace talks between the government of afghanistan and the united nations. we'll continue to support the rights of afghan women and girls by maintaining significant humanitarian and development assistance. and we'll ask other countries, other countries in the region that do more to support afghanistan, especially pakistan, as well as russia, china, india and turkey. they all have a significant stake in the stable future for afghanistan. over the next few months, we'll also determine what a continued u.s. diplomat presence in afghanistan will look like, including the security of our diplomats. i know there are many who will insist that diplomacy cannot succeed without a robust u.s.

military stand as leverage. we gave that argument a decade. it's never proven effective, not when we had 98,000 troops in afghanistan. that went down to a few thousand. our diplomacy does not hinge on having boots in harm's way, u.s. boots on the ground. we have to change that thinking. american troops shouldn't be used as a bargaining chip between warring parties in other countries. that's nothing more than a recipe for keeping american troops in afghanistan indefinitely. i also know there will be many that argue we should stay in afghanistan because withdrawing would damage america's credibility and weaken american influence in the world. i believe the exact opposite is true. we went to afghanistan because of a horrific attack that happened 20 years ago. that cannot explain why we should remain there in 2021.

rather than return to war at the taliban, we have to focus on the challenges that are in front of us. we have to track and disrupt terrorist networks and operations that spread far beyond afghanistan since 9/11. we have to shore up american competitives to meet the stiff competition we're facing to an increasingly sure china. we have to work with like-minded partners to ensure the rules that govern cyber threats and emerging technologies that will shape our future are grounded in our democratic values, not those of the autocrats. we have to defeat this pandemic and the global health system to prepare for the next one, because there will be another pandemic. you know, we'll be much more formidable with our adversaries and competitors in the long term if we fight the battles for the next 20 years, not the last 20.

and, finally, the main argument for staying longer is what each of my three predecessors have grappled with. no one wants to say that we should be in afghanistan forever, but they insist now is not the right moment to leave. in 2014, nato issued a declaration of afghan security forces, which from that point on will have full responsibility for the country's security by the end of that year. that was seven years ago. so when will it be the right moment to leave? one more year? two more years? ten more years? 10, 20, $30 billion more than the trillion we've already spent? not now. that's how we got here. in this moment, there is a significant downside risk to saying beyond may 1st without a clear timetable for departure.

if we instead pursue the approach for america u.s. exit is tied to positions on the ground, we have to have clearances to the following questions. just what conditions will be required to allow us to depart? by what means would allow us to achieve them if they could be achieved at all? and what additional cost of lives? i haven't heard a firm answer to these questions. if you can't answer them, in my view, we should not stay. the fact is that later today, i'm going to visit arlington national cemetary, section 60, and that sacred memorial to american sacrifice, section 60, is where our recent war dead are buried, including many of the women and men who died fighting in afghanistan and iraq.

there's no comforting distance in history in section 60. the grief is raw. it's a visceral reminder of the living cost of war. in the past 12 years, ever since i became vice president, i've carried with me a card that reminds me of the exact number of american troops killed in iraq and afghanistan. that exact number, not an approximation or rounded off number, because every one of those dead are sacred human beings who left behind entire families. an exact accounting of every single solitary one needs to be had. as of the day today, there ar 2,488 u.s. troops and personnel who have died during operation freedom and operation freedom's

signal, our afghanistan conflicts. 7,022 have been wounded. i'm the first president in four years who knows what it means to have a child serving in a war zone. and throughout this process, my north star has been remembering what it was like when my late son beau was deployed to iraq, how proud he was to serve his country, how insistent he was to deploy with his unit and the impact it had on him and all of us at home. we already have servicemen doing duty in afghanistan today whose parents served in the same war. we have service members who are not yet born when our nation was attacked in 9/11. war in afghanistan was never meant to be a multigenerational undertaking. we were attacked. we went to war with clear goals.

we achieved those objectives. bin laden is dead and al qaeda is degraded in iraq and afghanistan. and it's time to end the forever war. thank you all for listening. may god protect our troops, may god bless all those families who lost someone in this endeavor. >> that was president biden announcing a withdrawal of u.s. troops from afghanistan by september 11th of this year, the 20th anniversary of 9/11. in the 3:00 p.m. hour, just a few minutes from now, he will be visiting section 60 of arlington national cemetary where many of the dead from the afghanistan war are buried. back with me is msnbc analyst general barry mccaffrey.

general, his argument here, in essence, is nothing has changed and we can't keep hoping that what we're going to do out there is going to make anything change. what do you think of that? >> look, i think the presentation by president biden was just superb. i think it was politically inevitable. we have been there for 20 years. the afghan government is corrupt and incompetent. they are currently losing the battle of the taliban and other terrorist organizations. it's clear to me also, however, that as we withdraw, that will unwind the nato presence and, indeed, also the significant contractor presence that's keeping the afghan security forces afloat. so i would caution that a tragedy is likely to ensue in which the civil war goes to extreme lengths, millions

fleeing to adjoining countries, and the rights of women and girls and the institutions of the public coherent society we have achieved in afghanistan may soon be swept away. but, again, i personally would support what president biden's decision has been. another caution general austin miller, our four-star on the ground, has a very dangerous situation coming up. he's got to get out of there, not just from the taliban, but potentially the blue on blue, the afghan forces, will be dangerous to our withdrawal. it's a difficult period of time coming up. >> there are a lot of republicans who think this is a bad idea. there are some democrats who think this is a bad idea. what would be the alternative? >> well, i think the simple alternative is we're now down to a very small presence,

2500-some-odd troops, primarily air power, special ops, intelligence. we could stay there for an announced indefinite period of time. we could tell the taliban we'll stay 50 years if that's what's required. we haven't had a u.s. troop killed in the last year, thank god. the fighting is overwhelmingly now only in the hands of the afghan police and army. so that was the alternative that he could have faced up to. but, again, there is no domestic political support. trump put him in an almost impossible situation also by announcing the withdrawal and getting us down to a force that was so inconsequential, i thought they were seriously at risk at that level. so, again, i think president biden be probably made the only logical, coherent policy choice and now we better hope we can pull it off safely to get out of

there. >> president trump's deal was for may 1st. this is president biden's decision to push it back to september 11th. general barry mccaffrey, thank you so much for joining us and for sticking around through that. we want to get back to the derek chauvin trial. the prosecution is now examining dr. david fowler, the chief medical examiner in maryland. he testified this morning that heart problems, drugs and possible carbon monoxide poisoning contributed to george floyd's death and said he would rule his death undetermined. the prosecuting attorney immediately pushed back on the carbon monoxide theory, asking dr. fowler if he was certain the car was even on. dr. fowler said he made that judgment based on the video. jerry blackwell then zeroed in on the carbon monoxide studies that dr. fowler cited this morning. he also questioned dr. fowler over confusing the jury on a

white substance found in george floyd's mouth. he got him to say he was not suggesting it was a pill. let us listen in. >> next statement was, in fact, never withdrawn by real truth? >> he withdrew it and said that it was more of a risk to individuals who were obese, is my recollection of the course of events in dr. rey's history. >> your honor shall i want to show exhibit 818, simply for identification purposes to discuss with the witness. let me show you first this affidavit from dr. rey and if you look on the second page, if you have that, to you see where he has signed it here and dated

it? donald rey? >> yes. >> that's the person you're referring to, right? >> yes, dr. donald rey. >> let go back to the first page and see if he retracted this. the first paragraph, just so we see what this is about. written by dr. rey and sent to charlie miller. published a paper entitled restraint position and positional asphyxia. this is one of the studies that you were referencing earlier today. isn't it? >> yes. >> if we go down two paragraphs to "i readily acknowledge," here dr. rey is saying i readily acknowledge the value of these studies in the san diego case of price versus san diego, which

had many other features besides hog tying and restraint maneuvers to control the victims. this has since been presented in law enforcement papers as my retraction of positional asphyxia as a cause of death with particular reference to hog tying. and let's look at the next paragraph. here is the punch line, dr. fowler. such is not the case. i still maintain that there are risks -- [ inaudible ] >> i'm reading what it says. >> what's the question? >> the question is simply exploring what it is that dr. rey, in fact, said on the issue of whether he retracted this statement. >> make sure this question after each portion as to whether it's true. >> mr. blackwell, would you join us on a side bar? >> yes. yes, your honor.

>> they're currently in a side bar right now. they're talking about, i believe, some of the references to another expert in another research study and what that expert may or may not have said or pulled back on. they're in a side bar. let's bring in -- you know what? the side bar is over. let's go right back into the trial. >> reask the question just so we're clear. >> yes. sorry, your honor. >> so, dr. fowler, i would like to explore with you dr. rey's response on the question of whether he retracted his statements of concerns about positional asphyxia as related to the prone position.

did dr. rey say, as you see here, that such is not the case? >> yes, i do. >> and do you see where he says i still maintain that there are risk enhancements to restraint maneuvers, including hog tying and each case must be evaluated to assess a presence or absence of respiratory restriction in light of the method of restraint. you see that? >> yes, that's what's written in this affidavit. >> and then one more point he makes, if we can see, just two paragraphs down. he says here do you see this? the point is that street deaths are much different than controlled investigations. do you see that? >> yes. >> and so, dr. fowler, does having seen this affidavit from dr. rey change your opinion as to whether he had retracted his opinion of concerns about

positional -- prone position as it relates to positional asphyxia? >> it appears he hasn't completely withdrawn his position. he does go into some additional description, which is the paragraph above, which you didn't highlight. >> dr.fowler, you answered my question. if there are other things mr. nelson would like to bring up, he will have the opportunity to. thank you. now let's talk for just a moment about our areas of expertise. we know you are a forensic pathologist, sir, but you're not a toxicologist, or you don't have a degree in toxicology. >> that is correct, i'm not a

toxicologist. >> and to be clear, for the jury, as a forensic pathologist, you don't treat patients? >> correct. >> we have heard from a pulmonologist, who is also a respiratory physiologist. you're not a pulmonologist or a respiratory physiologist, true? >> that is true. >> so you never measured anybody's respiration -- that is, their breathing -- as part of your work as a forensic pathologist? >> no, i have not. >> you're not a cardiologist? >> no. >> just by way of -- just a couple of background things. you told us a good bit about your background but what year was it that you arrived in the united states? >> i believe it was 1991. >> and in what year did you

retire? >> december 31st, 2019. >> you told us quite a good bit about the forensic panel and you're employed as a consultant by the forensic panel. is that a fair stripgs? >> yes. >> to be clear for the jurors, so they're not confused, the forensic panel is not a nonprofit, is it? >> no, it's not a nonprofit. at least to the best of my ability. i don't know what it's classified as frankly. i do not know. >> so through the forensic panel, you earn a livelihood, so it's not volunteer time for you, is it? >> no. i get compensated by the hour. >> the forensic panel then is not a governmental body? >> correct. it's an independent organization. >> it's a business?

>> it's a medical/forensic science practice, which medical practices are businesses, yes. >> it's a business? >> yeah. >> so i'm going to talk with you a bit about asphyxial deaths, what we've been referring to as deaths by low oxygen. do you agree, dr. fowler, that positional asphyxia is placing a person into a position that restricts their ability to ventilate the lungs or a position where the head may be in such a position that you can't keep the airways open? >> that is correct, yes. >> and then at the end of the day, in positional asphyxia, what gets restricted is a

person's ability to oxygenate their blood. >> one is to move your ribs and the other is to be able to move your diaphragm, is that true? >> that is true, yes. >> but the key thing for breathing is that you be able to expand your chest. if you can't expand your chest, you can't breathe. >> correct. you need to expand capacity of the chest cavity so that the lungs draw air in as part of the process. >> i would like to focus in on the roughly first five minutes that mr. floyd was on the ground as part of the restraint under mr. chauvin. did you analyze where mr.

chauvin's knees were relative to the positioning of mr. floyd's body in that first five minutes? >> i did review the positioning, yes. >> would you agree with me that for over half of that time period, mr. chauvin's left knee was on the neck, and his right knee is, at times, on the back and at other times on his left arm or pushed in against his left side? >> that is correct. those are all the positions that i observed the knee in, the right knee, during that period of time. >> and so mr. floyd then is sandwiched in a way between mr. chauvin on top and the asphalt pavement beneath, right? >> yes, i