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, if you --

>> it's a yes or no question. >> yes. >> i want to ask you a question about putting pressure on someone's neck. that is, if you're on a person's back and you are applying pressure to the neck. doctor, do you agree that if pressure is applied to somebody's neck in the prone position and the person is squeezed until they become responsive and that pressure is maintained for a minimum of four minutes, that can cause irreversible brain damage, because the brain may be starved of oxygen. is that true? >> once cessation of oxygen to the brain starts -- >> dr. fowler, my question was, is it true? >> would you please restate the question?

>> yes, sir. if you apply pressure to someone's neck and squeeze until the person becomes unresponsive and maintain that pressure for at least four minutes, you will cause irreversible brain damage because you will have starved the brain of oxygen. is that true? >> correct. it takes four minutes of no supply of oxygen to the brain to cause irreversible brain damage. >> now if somebody dies as a result of the consequences of insufficient oxygen or low oxygen, we know that when that person dies, they're going to die in cardiopulmonary arrest, because everybody dies of cardiopulmonary arrest. fair enough? >> yes. >> if a person dies as a result of low oxygen, that person is also going to die ultimately of a fatal arrhythmia, right? >> correct. every one of us in this room will have a fatal arrhythmia at some point. >> right, because that's kind of how you go. >> yes.

>> so i want to talk about the role of physical activity and struggle, if you will, on the oxygen storage or reserves when somebody may be in the prone position. do you agree when somebody is involved in the pretty vigorous physical confrontation, they would certainly have what's referred to as an oxygen deficit? >> yes. any kind of exertion, you build up a degree of lactic acid and other metabolites that need to be removed by the body. and the term is used more in the lay population. >> you're using up your oxygen

reserves then? >> somewhat, but it's also more a generation of the metabolic byproducts from the actual activity as well. >> would you agree that somebody with an oxygen deficit who is involved in a vigorous physical confrontation would be more susceptible to a positional asphyxia than would otherwise be the case? do you agree with that? >> yes. it would be more difficult for them to regain their -- to get rid of the metabolic byproducts of the activities that occurred before. >> and would you agree then that a person with an oxygen deficit or debt is more prone to any kind of asphyxia than a person completely at rest? do you agree with that? >> yes. fully oxygenated person at rest would certainly be at no risk of -- not no, but a substantially lower level of risk of an arrhythmia compared

to somebody who has been exercised hard. >> dr. fowler, are you familiar with a text -- >> good afternoon, everyone. i'm ayman mohyeldin in new york. we'll continue to monitor the trial of former police officer derek chauvin where the prosecution, as you saw there, is cross examining a former medical examiner who testified heart disease, drug abuse and carbon monoxide exposure played a greater role in floyd's death than chauvin's actions. our new room has gotten this in. booking photo of brooklyn center police officer kim potter arrested and facing a second-degree manslaughter charge for shooting and killing daunte wright, unarmed black man, during a traffic stop on sunday. just moments ago, president joe biden laid out his plans to withdraw u.s. troops from afghanistan by september 11th of this year, saying that it is time to end america's longest war and the threat posed by afghanistan is not what it used to be. >> 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, two democrats. i will not pass this responsibility on to a fifth. >> now just moments ago, we saw the presidential motorcade making its way to arlington cemetery to visit section 60, the area where service members who died in iraq and afghanistan are buried. national security adviser during the obama administration and msnbc political contributor, author of the book "presidents of war."

kevin, let me start with you. i'm sure you're speaking to military officials throughout the entire military forces, if you will. how is this being viewed at the pentagon? are military leaders on board with this move? >> the best insight we had about that actually came from former commander mcraven, former head of jsoc, who ierpgcally was out on a book tour today in anticipation of the ten-year anniversary of the bin laden raid. he said on a call earlier today he has spoken to those in the inner circle, secretary austin, mille, mckenzie and said they've all been able to give their advice to presidents, and the one common theme i heard from him and other commanders, other formers, general petraeus, too, what will be the lay down of forces now? it's the end of the endless war inside afghanistan that we heard

the president and others say repeatedly that the u.s. will still continue the mission to keep tabs on terrorists in afghanistan, hold the taliban accountable if anything happens with al qaeda and threats to the united states. that will have to come from across the border in afghanistan. we're all anticipating to find out what that force laydown will be. >> ben, afghan president ghani issued this statement before the president spoke. the islamic republic of afghanistan respects the u.s. decision and we will work with our u.s. partners to ensure a smooth transition. i'm curious to get your thoughts as we move into the next phase of the partnership -- sorry, this is still part of the statement. we will continue to work with our u.s. native partners in ongoing peace efforts. afghanistan's proud security and defense forces are fully capable of defending our country as we have been doing all along. is there a possibility of peace

between the taliban and the afghan government? and do you think, from what you've seen over the years, that afghan security forces are ready for what will happen when the u.s. is no longer there? >> well, i think it's likely to get worse before it potentially gets better. the reality is the taliban controls large swaths of the country. afghan national security forces have stepped up, taken enormous casualties. we provided lots of training. we will probably continue to finance the afghan security forces but these will be difficult days ahead in afghanistan. the judgment that president biden made, which is the right judgment, that if we left two years from now, three years from now, the result would be the same. ultimately the pursuit of peace is going to depend upon both the quality of those afghan national security forces but also the capacity of the afghan government to work out some diplomatic agreement with the

taliban. some form of power sharing in the country and president biden rightly determined that u.s. forces are no longer additive to the pursuit of that outcome but the u.s. will have to remain engaged diplomatically, engaged in perhaps providing support and safe haven to some of the people who work with us in afghanistan. >> michael, as the president said himself, joe biden is the fourth president to deal with the war in afghanistan. here is what he had to say about his conversations with one of his predecessors about this. watch. >> i spoke yesterday with president bush, to inform him of my decision. while he and i have had many disagreements over policy throughout the years, we're absolutely united in our respect and support for the valor, courage and integrity of the women and men in the united states armed forces who served. i'm immensely grateful for the bravery and backbone that they

have shown through nearly two decades of combat in deployments. >> how much do presidents, in a moment like this, michael, historically rely on the advice of their predecessors in these particular situations, given the fact that it was president bush who initially ordered troops to go into afghanistan? so he saw what the initial mission was. >> yeah. i think he talked to president bush. my guess is that president bush would have done this differently, but will support it, support what a current president does in foreign policy and military policy, and that runs all the way through american history. remember, ayman, joe biden is someone who majored in history in college, not a bad thing. he talked in this group of historians who met with him last month about jay's treaty. this has been reported. a treaty george washington negotiated to make sure we didn't have a ruinous war with england. first time biden ran for the senate was 1972.

he was arguing we had been involved in vietnam for much too long. and as a student of history, i would wager that joe biden knows that presidents who keep us out of wars that we don't need and get us out of wars that we don't need are just as honored as presidents who take us into wars that are necessary. look at dwight eisenhower, kept us out of war after the french collapsed. >> we're seeing a powerful moment there of president joe biden walking through section 60 at arlington national cemetery. you saw him there in one moment stopping by the headstone of a soldier, looking down, reflecting on it. a very somber picture. it's a very telling photo of the sacrifice america has paid over the years in both of these wars. let's see if the president is going to make any comments. let's just stay here one moment.

>> all right. that was the president there, paying his respects to the troop

s, section 60. let's go back to him again. he's speaking. >> the men and women who gave their lives for the country. they didn't give it for their country, per se, but their brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, their uncles, their aunts. it means i have trouble these days ever showing up at a veterans cemetery and not thinking of my son, beau, who proudly wore that uniform, and going with his unit to iraq, giving up his spot as attorney general in the state of delaware, because he thought it was the right thing to do.

i'm sorry? >> was it a hard decision? >> no. it was absolutely clear. he went for two reasons, bin laden and safe haven. from the very beginning. i never thought we were there to somehow unify iraq. excuse me, afghanistan. never been done. never been done. thank you all for being out here in the rain. it means a lot. thank you. >> all right. so, that was president biden

there, paying tribute. michael, that was president biden, obviously, paying tribute to the soldiers. sorry about that audio mix up. >> no problem. >> your thoughts, please, go ahead. >> i was thinking of the fact that, you know, the great presidents in history, the great war presidents, are always those that have empathy. one thing we know about joe biden is he has suffered in his life and understands people who are suffering. among the things that he suffered was the loss of his son, beau, after putting his life at risk a decade and a half ago. reminded me a little bit about the fact of abraham lincoln, when leading the union through

the civil war, he was worried that he did not suffer enough the same kind of pain that families and soldiers who were dying were feeling, and lincoln was told they needed to build a new cemetery because there were so many people getting killed in the union army and lincoln said put it near my official summer home so that every day i will see the coffins being lowered and the grieving widows and families. it will be painful for me, but i have to always be reminded what is the consequence of these awesome decisions i'm making. >> ben, i've got to ask you about how difficult a decision like this is for a president. how do you think the process played out for president joe biden after he spoke to either president bush and the top military brass at the pentagon came to the conclusion that ultimately there was nothing else for the united states to gain by being on the ground in the same presence that it is right now.

>> well, i'm sure it was an incredibly difficult process. i'm sure they had a series of meetings in the situation room where i spent endless hours talking about afghanistan, watching president obama make decisions. i'm sure that the military was resistant to this decision, given how much has been invested in afghanistan and given the fact that the security situation there is still quite difficult. the intelligence community, i'm sure, was warning of the potential negative consequences of what could happen inside afghanistan after our withdrawal, and i think he faced the same reality that every president has faced since 9/11, which is that there's no decision that is not going to have downsides, that there are costs to staying in afghanistan, there are costs to leaving afghanistan. joe biden was motivated by a couple of core things. how much difference are we really making? this is 20 years after 9/11, far beyond anything that the american people expected in terms of cost, loss of life, costs of trillions of dollars. also i remember when i was in

the white house, joe biden used to carry around with him every single day the casualty numbers for our troops that served in afghanistan and iraq. i think he is acutely aware, because of his role as a senator and vice president, because he was the father of someone who served in iraq, his son, beau. he is acutely aware of how much we've asked these service members to do. i don't think on 9/11, anybody envisioned we would be sending people who were born after 9/11 to serve in afghanistan. as president of the united states, he has to step back and make a decision not just about what is the best thing i can do in afghanistan, but what is the right decision for the country? that we need to turn the page on this war. we need to focus on his domestic priorities, focus on restoring our standing and dealing with a huge range of challenges around the world. that's what only the commander in chief can do. and i think that clearly is evident in the confidence he has in this decision today. >> kevin, let me pick up on that

for a moment. ben talking about you have to be able to see the whole field. let's talk about the threat matrix after it withdraws from afghanistan. taliban never attacked us on 9/11. they certainly created the environment for someone like bin laden to grow there. after the u.s. pulled out of iraq a decade ago, is there concern this could repeat itself? talk to us about the capabilities that the united states has to identify that new threat, if there is a new threat and how it could respond to them without having a robust presence in afghanistan? >> yes. as i said earlier, you know, the ability of the you state to respond to anything they want to respond to inside afghanistan is the question. right now, you have officials saying that things have changed, including inside the white house. saying this is not 2001, which means it's not the same military. it's not the same weapons, the same intelligence, isr,

satellites, drones. just this morning, again, general petraeus was saying, if you want to be there quickly, to respond quickly. former u.s. central commander, one of the first paratroopers into afghanistan in 2001 saying the same thing. without that capability, he worried that if there is some kind of terrorist threat that needs to be responded to, the united states has to start from scratch in some ways to rebuild, reposition, reequip, get everything ready for a major military operation. on the other hand, we did this a lot. overnight, over the horizon, over the border missions. if that's what we're asked to do, we could do that. i could put that together right now, he said, if i'm given the resources, if congress gives me

the resources. my worry is how much of this is a charade that's allowing the political leadership like biden to say the war is over. we pulled out and it's done when, in fact, it's not done. the mission continues. the united states' desire and responsibility to still go after terrorists in that country continues. it just does so from a few miles away or a few countries away. and that's not an honest depiction of what's happening. it may be politically convenient to say the war is over and appease the end of the forever war crowd. when the united states pulls out of endless wars, endless wars continue and his fear is that this country might be pulled right back into it if the diplomacy isn't right and all those extra forces and positions aren't right and said right, that the united states could respond when it needs to or wants to. >> yeah. and let's not, of course, forget the incredible amount of sacrifices ordinary afghans have had to pay.

ben rhodes, michael beschloss, kevin barren, thank you. this hour, kim potter, the officer who fatally shot daunte wright, was arrested and charged with second degree manslaughter. brooklyn center, minnesota, ten miles from the murder trial of where derek chauvin is also proceeding. the second day of the defense's witnesses testimony. dr. david fowler, chief medical examiner of the state of maryland. shaquille brewster in minneapolis, cal perry over in brooklyn center. cal, let me begin with you. walk us through this arrest, second-degree manslaughter charge for kim potter. what has been the reaction on the ground there and how is this likely to play out as we go into the evening hours? >> reporter: yeah. former officer potter has been checked in now to a county police facility.

she'll be actually, we think, arraigned later today when the charges are made official. second-degree manslaughter charge as it stands in the books, culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another. the charges, not enough for at least the attorney ben crump, putting out a statement, while we appreciate that justice for daunte is being pursued, no conviction can give their loved one back. this was no accident. this was intentional unlawful use of force. the reaction here has been that the charges are too light and that the family and certainly the attorneys of the family will have a discussion about legislation changing. talking about the need to actually change the law. this is something we saw in kentucky after what happened with breonna taylor. it's something we could see on a national level when you look at the george floyd justice in policing act.

that's the conversation moving forward. protests continuing into a third night last night. the numbers much smaller than they were when the protests started sunday night. we'll see if the charges are enough to keep people off the streets for the time being. >> cal, stay with me. shaq, let's turn to the trial of derek chauvin for a moment. some interesting moments there today. i'm curious to get your thoughts. you've been following this since day one. what moments stood out to you from today's testimony? >> ayman, you might have seen me take out the ear piece. you're seeing very aggressive cross examination happening between the prosecution and the defense witness, dr. david fowler. really giving him the walk back, some of the claims you saw in that direct examination. to remind our viewers, you heard dr. fowler say in terms of the manner of death, he would have ruled it undetermined. it would have been undetermined manner of death. the manner of death ruled by the medical examiner here in hennepin county was a homicide. the cause of death was a sudden

cardiac arrhythmia due to george floyd's heart disease during the restraint and subdueal and restraint. you heard him going against the idea this was action fictiona or hypoxia. you hear the prosecution and attorney jerry blackwell there, going after and questioning him on that, asking, for example, did you know the full weight of derek chauvin when he was over george floyd? it was not only his body weight but also his gear. dr. fowler saying he did not measure or add the gear in his measurements there. you're seeing that aggressive cross examination as the defense presents a witness that is poking holes in what the other experts that we've heard from, for the past two weeks frankly, have been saying and testifying to. that, of course, sthar job. that's what we knew was coming.

the big question is what kind of effect will it have on the jury paying attention and listening in the courtroom? ayman? >> we'll go back into the courtroom for a moment and take a listen to some of that defense cross examination -- prosecution cross examination, excuse me. let's listen. >> back right side of the neck. >> yes. >> now i think you referred to mr. floyd's death as a sudden death. is that what you used? >> yes, more sudden than prolonged. >> if we focus on the first five minutes that mr. floyd is restrained on the ground, you

were able to see in that five minutes, first saw mr. floyd struggling to breathe. right? >> i would object. >> i'll rephrase it, your honor. you could see in the first five minutes, or hear mr. floyd first calling out that he can't breathe? >> yes. mr. floyd verbalized "i can't breathe" multiple times. >> and you then later heard him actually call out for his mother? >> yes. >> and as time passed in that first five minutes, you could hear his voice got thicker and quieter? you could hear that, couldn't you? >> i did not perceive that, but i am no better listening than anybody else is. everybody could make up their own opinion with regard to that. >> you didn't hear any changes

in mr. floyd's voice, is that what you're saying, sir? >> not that i noticed. >> did you notice during the five minutes that his words got further apart? >> yes, they did. >> did you notice that after roughly 4:45 that mr. floyd went unconscious? >> yes. >> and did you notice some time after five minutes, he was found not to have a pulse? >> correct. >> in your report, you refer to this as a sudden death event. but in your report, your findings, you don't record a time, do you, sir, for when the sudden death supposedly occurred. do you? >> i don't specifically remember doing that. correct. >> so if you look at this continuum from hearing george floyd, calling out that he can't

breathe, to the point that he doesn't have a pulse. over that five-minute time period, is it fair to say that that is what you're referring to as a sudden death? >> no. >> all right. then i asked you the question about when the sudden death occurred. where in this spectrum then -- it's okay if you don't know the specific time but where in this continuum did the sudden death occur from the time he is on the ground, saying he can't breathe, to the point in time he's found not to have a pulse? are you generally able to characterize where the sudden death took place? >> what you're referring to as a sudden death, and i may well have misinterpreted, i refer to a sudden cardiac arrest. there's a difference between death and cardiac arrest. cardiac arrest is not absolutely irreversible and not synonymous with a person always passing

away. so there's going to be a period of time between his cardiac arrest -- for instance, in this particular case, the official pronouncement was done in the hospital. frankly, he was dead long, long before that. but the moment of death is not something that you can easily document. >> so we are in this space between cardiac arrest and between the actual death, are you suggesting that though mr. floyd may have been in cardiac arrest, there was a time when he may have been revived because he wasn't dead yet? >> immediate medical attention for a person who has gone into cardiac arrest may well reverse that process, yes. >> do you feel that mr. floyd should have been given immediate emergency attention to try to reverse the cardiac arrest?

>> as a physician, i would agree. >> are you critical of the fact that he wasn't given immediate emergency care when he went into cardiac arrest? >> as a physician, i would agree. >> after mr. floyd goes unconscious there's a point in time you see his legs raise up. do you recall seeing his legs raise at the point he was unconscious on the ground? >> yes. >> that leg raising, was that consistent with what's known as an anoxic seizure? >> that is what we would typically call it, yes. >> and an anoxic seizure

typically represents that there has been some damage to the brain stem due to insufficient oxygen. true? >> it's an anoxics or hypoxic seizure. it's not damage to the brain stem. it means that part of the brain that governs our actual muscular movement, which is the higher portion of the brain, is not functioning properly. so typically people with seizure disorders who have seizure activity, it's from the motor cortex and not from the brain stem. if you've damaged the brain stem at that particular stage, the person is effectively going to be deceased. >> but it's fair to say when we see an anoxic seizure, at the very least we know that the brain is suffering from

insufficient oxygen? >> yes. >> do you agree that low oxygen in the body, insufficient oxygen, it can cause brain injury. can't it? >> absolutely. >> and it can also result in pea, pulseless electrical activity. true? >> true. >> now, mr. floyd had a pea, pulseless electrical activity, arrhythmia, when his body was taken away from the scene on may 25th, 2020. didn't he? >> correct. >> is it true, dr. fowler, that the most common cause of a pea is low oxygen, insufficient oxygen? >> to the brain? >> yes, sir. >> yes, which can also be caused by a cardiac standstill. no oxygen to the brain from either mechanism will cause pea.

>> i have a number of questions. i'm thinking through them. i'll ask you this. i had a number of questions that have to do with whether you did any quantitative measurements with regard to mr. floyd, including at what point in time do you think his oxygen storages were completely depleted. i take it, dr. fowler, if i have any questions about quantitative measurements about mr. floyd's eelv, those would not have been measurements that you would have undertaken for any reason, right? >> correct. >> and to the extent we're looking for such measurements better to ask a pulmonology,

respiratory but not a forensic pathologist? >> fair enough. typically forensic pathologists do not look at people who are breathing. >> by the same token, i had a series of questions about measurements of the carbon dioxide levels in florida floyd's body after he ceased to breathe. between the time that he ceased to breathe and before the time he was given oxygen, when he was picked up and given medical care and taken to hennepin medical center, you didn't do any quantitative analysis, did you, as to the carbon dioxide levels in mr. floyd's body in between the time he ceased to breathe and the time he would have received assisted oxygen? >> no, not specific quantitative

measurements. no. >> we had quite a discussion about the paraganglione. do you remember that discussion? >> yes. >> we had a witness who referred to it as incidental. have you ever heard that before? >> yes. >> you talked about the paragangliona being an issue if it were secreting adrenaline, right? >> correct. >> 90% of paraganglionas do not secrete adrenaline. is that right? >> i think that's probably correct. i don't have that number in my head but i have no reason to disbelieve that. >> you're not telling the jury, are you, sir, that mr. floyd died from a paraganglioma, are

you? >> no. >> and although dr. baker did identify the paraganglioma on autopsy, he didn't perform any test to determine whether it was a secreting tumor? that is, secreting adrenaline, did he? >> correct. the only way to test those particular tumors is -- there's two methods to test. one is to do a blood test, and if the paraganglionoma is constantly secreting, you'll pick it up on a blood test. for those paraganglionomas that tend to be cyclical, if you do a test and you pick it up at the bottom of the cycle, it won't show. in some cases the first test is to do a blood test. if it's positive you have your answer. if that blood test is negative, you then go on to do a 24-hour urine screen, which will pick up the surges and the dips. and that is then the second test

that would be done in these cases. neither of them were done. >> doctor, just for clarification, is it -- >> we'll continue to watch the prosecution cross examine the defense witness there, dr. fowler. meantime, i want to bring in our panel to break down this particular moment of the trial as well as what we've been hearing in brooklyn center. former police officer and criminal justice professor at quinnipiac university. let me begin with you, doctor, if i may. your reaction to what we're seeing here right now with this prosecution's cross examination of dr. fowler. this was a pretty powerful moment when, at least in my opinion, when they got dr. fowler to say they believed that there was a chance to reverse the condition that george floyd was in, had there been an attempt to reverse that cardiac arrest, which dr. fowler talked about earlier. >> yes. i think the cross examination is

pretty effective. and we all thought that this would be a constant between medical experts or science. in this case it's dr. tobin versus dr. fowler and i would argue dr. tobin is winning. what the cross examination demonstrated is, one, dr. fowler is not a pulmonologist. he's not a cardiologist and he as not a toxicologist. so the type of indicators that would be present physiologically in the body of george floyd that would need to be ascertained to have a correct sort of diagnosis of what caused the death, he did not perform. and i would go further to say what was particularly powerful about dr. tobin's testimony for the prosecution was that he was able to give you visual evidence alongside of specific moment when the life left george floyd's body, thereby connecting the cause of death to the

actions talken by officer chauvin and his colleagues. >> paul, you were a veteran prosecutor. you're also the executive director of the san francisco, you know, department of police accountability. i'm curious to get your thoughts on how this has played out today. the defense using dr. fowler to cover so much ground with what they were talking about, whether it be carbon monoxide, whether it be cardiac arrest and trying to use him as their sole expert witness. but the prosecution today in their cross examination chipping away at each one of these points. >> yeah. i think that was a big mistake and the big issue that came up today is the lack of credibility that this witness has, especially when you compare his testimony to the prosecution's testimony with tobin. tobin had graphs, videos and photos, and fowler is here with his testimony. and i will tell you the moment

when i had to lean in, when he was talking about the carboxy hemoglobin, that blew my wig back, and i don't wear wigs. when he said that may have killed george floyd and would have qualified the cause of death as undetermined because of maybe heart problems or of drugs, or of this carbon dioxide based on california standards of what could cause death from the street and the lack of oxygen is like, let me just be clear here. he was not killed by pills that were found by an investigator, by an angry possible crowd that was not angry, by the way, or the cost of tea in china. it was caused by chauvin's neck on the knee. talk about that. talk about the medical focus on whether or not that knee pressure could have caused that death or could not have caused that death as an expert. and i think he missed that opportunity by spattering the

wall with anything that sticks and any theory he can think of and you lose credibility with the jury. when prosecution got him to answer, this is a pivotal point in the prosecution's case for cross examination when he said, are you critical of the fact that he was not given medical attention? and that shifted the focus and reminded the jury that there's an affirmative duty to have sought medical attention or rendered'd at some opponent in the spectrum of the use of force. that's going to be important and going to be a linchpin, i think, in the jury's determination as to what is credible and what they need to listen to in this case. that was a big moment that undermined this witness and that's what stands out. i think we had moments like that yesterday, too, with evaluating use of force. >> since i have both of you with me, i to want to pivot back to the unfortunate other story we're covering in minnesota.

that is, the shooting of daunte wright. paul, today we heard second-degree manslaughter is the actual charge that is being brought against kim potter. based on what we know about the case, do you believe that is an appropriate charge at this moment? >> i think that's the minimum of charges that could be appropriate, right? like that speaks to the gross negligence. so that's evaluating all the factors of like how did you choose the weapon from the wrong side? how did you release the safety? how did you not notice it was a different color? how did you not notice it was a different weight? and then underlying all of that is, why were you scared to the point that you justified lethal force in the first place? that's a real question. we have to look at this from a bigger picture and step back and evaluate what was going on with this person's training. what was going on with her decisions, and the other officers around her that were involved in this whole situation

that escalated from a pretextual stop for, again, another unarmed person of color. all problems on the table right now. and we have to wait and see. >> of course, obviously, the charges could be changed as this goes forward. kalfani, i'm curious to get your thoughts. do you believe this kind of case that daunte wright, kim potter shooting, do you think that this kind of case could have resulted in these types of charges just a few years ago, or is it a sign that the country is moving at least in the right direction that an officer after this type of shooting is being charged, you know, within a couple of days after the shooting death? >> i think that there's something hopeful about this particular officer, officer potter, being charged. again i also agree this is the minimum charge. culpable negligence. that is if you accept the fact that she mistaken her firearm for a taser. i do want to tell you that all

officers across the country are trained in defensive tactics and firearms training or use of force training to know when you're doing a cross body draw or you're pulling from your strong side, which is where your firearm often is. i would argue that it is almost impossible, but it has happened two or three times over the use -- in history of tasers where this has happened. but i do want to acknowledge considering the case of officer chauvin and the immediate charge of this particular officer, officer potter, perhaps we're seeing the beginning of a shift where other officers are willing to break away from the thin blue line, attorney generals at the state level are willing to hold police officers accountable. for that reason alone, i am hopeful. there is so much wrong with this particular stop. pretextual stops -- supreme

court has allowed it but it's another way of racial profiling. these are pretextual stops that are leading to the escalation of violence simply on the grounds that these are african-american or nonwhite citizens who are assumed to have done something or we should discover something, so we should perform some type of investigation. i think that's unfortunate. i do feel hopeful. >> yeah. i was going to say, no matter what happens, it will not bring back daunte wright to his mother, that heartbreaking press conference we saw earlier. kalfani ture, thank you for your insight. advisory committee is conducting an emergency meeting to discuss johnson & johnson's covid-19 vaccine.

advising states to pause administering vaccines after six people developed a rare blood clot disorder. six cases occurred out of about 7 million doses of j&j's covid-19 vaccine that have been administered here in the u.s. so far. dr. anthony fauci said this morning he does not expect the review to take that long. >> i don't want to get ahead of the advisory committee and immunization practices, but i believe this is going to take days to weeks as opposed to weeks to months. >> joining me now, nbc correspondent tom costello. bring us up-to-date. what's the latest? >> cdc committee is still meeting. this is not something that will be happening with a short decision, i wouldn't expect it by the end of the afternoon. the bottom line is that these six cases -- let's underscore that. six cases out of 7 million toeses involving this very rare form of a blood clot issue

that's associated with blood platelet issues only in women under the age of 50 for the most part. and the cdc is saying that this is so exceptionally rare, some health experts saying listen, your risk of blood clotting is greater if you smoke or take medication to prevent pregnancies. we have a 45-year-old woman in virginia who has died as a result of this very rare condition and a 38-year-old woman in missouri who has not yet recovered, 49-year-old woman who has not yet recovered, 48-year-old woman in nebraska, 26 in new jersey and pennsylvania. she was, in fact, already discharged from the hospital. but the bottom line on this, this is only on the j&j vaccine. it does not apply to pfizer or moderna. ayman? >> very important point there, tom costello. thank you as always. overseas right now, nato

countries are in brussels as secretary of state antony blinken says the u.s. will work with allies to coordinate the withdrawal. he spoke to president biden about the choice and his respecs the u.s. decision to withdraw its forces. this all comes just weeks before a planned u.n. summit on, you know, bartering peace in afghanistan. joining me from london, richard engel who has done extensive reporting throughout the years in afghanistan. could this diverge to more conflict? how will this affect stability, as the u.s. has a hard out. >> reporter: in some ways it was president trump who set this in motion, to tied this administration's hands. the trump administration back in february signed a deal with the

taliban. i was there at the time, and the taliban came and it was a very strange event. you had secretary of state pompeo and the taliban meeting, the afghan government wasn't really consulted. it was very uncomfortable about these talks, and way back in february, the trump administration and the taliban agreed that u.s. troops were going to leave, and they were going to leave and all be gone on may 1st. that's just in a couple weeks from now. the taliban said this was an enormous victory, they had won. i remember speak to the top taliban representative at the talks, and he said the islamic fighters or afghan fighters had pushed out the british empire and pushed out the soviets, now had succeeded in pushing out the americans. the taliban has been saying all along if american troops aren't gone by that may 1st deadline, they would start attacking.

they would consider any extension, even an hour, a day, a minute beyond may 1st to be an unacceptable condition. so if president biden always wanted to leave, he had a real issue, because after may 1st, things could have gotten very, very ugly. he could have been facing a situation where u.s. troops were withdrawing under fire as american troops were coming out and american body bags were also leaving the country. he said repeatedly, president biden did, that there was a looming may 1st deadline that the united states respects agreements, even though he wouldn't have negotiated that way, but that the united states respects agreements from previous administrations. now, they have, according to what was laid out today, until september 11th to get thor remaining about 2,500 troops

out. it shouldn't take that long. >> all right. richard engel, live for us up from england. thank you. congressman meeks is joining me now. thank you for your time. first use reaction to the announcement. how concerned are you, if at all, that security interests might suffer when the troops are fully withdrawn from afghanistan? >> you know, after two decades of war between the united states and afghanistan and or partners and our allies, you know, it's time for the fighting to end in that regards. i ask myself, while i was thinking about what the president was talking, going through, why did i vote for us to go into afghanistan over 20 years ago? was in congress then, a new member of congress. the reason i did is because of the attack that took place on us on 9/11. the reason that the military in

and why i voted is so they could focus and diminish of capacity of al qaeda. then i asked myself, what would be different if he said we would stay at year or six months? what would be different in afghanistan? nothing in that regards, because what we should be shifting to is from the military mission, which we were trying to do, to the political and diplomatic mission, which will continue once our military folks have left. there's a role for the military and a role for diplomacy and the state department. i think that the military's role, after 20 years, has been completed. >> so to that point, i want to read for you what one young afghan woman is telling "new york times" today -- i am so worried about my future. it seems so murky. if the taliban take over, i lose my identify. this is according to an 11th

grader in kabul. she goes on to say it's about my existence, i was born in 2004, and i have no idea what the taliban did to women, but i know women were banned from everything. what would you say today to that young afghan woman who is worried about her future, on the assessment that the tal bans would regain strength without u.s. military presence there and perhaps overtake the country again? >> this is an important issue and a critical one for me, i know it's critical for the united states. we can go back to the early 1990s and you see the treatment of the taliban of women and girls as a key factor that seduce americans to -- that drew americans to afghanistan in the first place.

so, the question that i ask myself, though, is, is this something the military can do? i don't think so. one, it's a task for the afghan people, but it's also a task for us to do with usaid professionals and help and support to make sure women and girls continue to have rights, moving in that direction. and working diplomatically. so is it going to make a difference if we were there another 20 years? no, we still have to get the diplomatic individuals on the ground, the usaid, the development professionals, try to work in that regard. i think that's what we'll be focused on and will continue. >> would it make a difference in this young woman's life? what is keepingle taliban at bay

is the american military, it's not usaid at this point. >> well, i think we're keeping our eyes on what's taking place. the taliban has made a commitment to work with and to try to form a government with the afghans, and it's time for us to try to make sure that they live up to that commitment. and do that and try to bring them together, utilizing, again, the diplomatic, the usaid, as we do in other areas. i just don't see how the military is going to make sure that that happens. i think, you know, it is something we'll keep our eyes on, something i'm very concerned about, but after 20 years, we stay there another 20 years? i think not. >> congressman gress guy meeks, sir, always appreciate your time

and insights. that wraps up this hour for me. i'll see you back here tomorrow. "deadline: white house" with nicolle wallace starts after a quick break. e wallace starts afa quick break. wet teddy bears! wet teddy bears here! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ as carla wonders if she can retire sooner, she'll revisit her plan with fidelity. and with a scenario that makes it a possibility, she'll enjoy her dream right now. that's the planning effect, from fidelity. hey xfinity, show me disney plus... i'm here on business.m i need your help. i've been quested to bring this one back to its kind. now you can access exclusive disney originals... we are an unusual couple. oh i don't think that was ever in question. ...and stream must-see disney new releases! people need this symbol. where do we start? find the best in entertainment all in one place, with disney plus now on xfinity!

a way better way to watch. age is just a number. and mine's unlisted. try boost® high protein with 20 grams of protein for muscle health. versus 16 grams in ensure high protein. boost® high protein also has key nutrients for immune support. boost® high protein. if you wanna be a winner then get a turkey footlong from subway®. that's oven roasted turkey. piled high with crisp veggies. on freshly baked bread! so, let's get out there and get those footlongs.

now at subway®, buy one footlong in the app, and get one 50% off. subway®. eat fresh. hi there, everyone. it's 4:00 in the east. president joe biden today returning to the room where it happened, announcing an end to the war in afghanistan in the treaty room, upstairs in the white house where president bush spoke in 2001, when he first announced strikes against afghanistan in retaliation for the attacks on september 11th. here's president biden just hours ago, making the announcement about a war that has spanned two decades and four presidencies. >> i believed 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