courtney ross that mr. floyd struggled. we know he had been using controlled substances habitually, for some time. we know that, on may 6th, of 2019, during an encounter with the police, mr. floyd ingested some controlled substances. said they were percocets. he was startled by the police, like he was in this case. officer drew his gun in that case, too. and that resulted in the blood pressure of 216 over 160. i mean, that's not just high, that is skyrocketing high. we know, from ms. ross, that, in march of 2020, they purchased some pills that were supposed to be percocets. an opioid. but they were clearly knockoffs. she described that. they were clearly knockoffs. she described how those pills

made her feel. they kept her up all night, right? introduction of the methamphetamine. we know, from ms. ross, that in march of 2020, mr. floyd was seen for a drug overdose. she described how he felt in that instance. she said, his whole body hurt. his stomach hurt. we know, based on, again, from ms. ross, that he was clean and sober for some time while they were in quarantine. we know that ms. ross, again, described taking, about a week before, a similar pill to the one that they had, back in march. kept her up, again, all night. right? she says she felt like she was going to die. we know, again, from ms. ross, that those pills were purchased from maurice hall.

she described going to a hotel, while mr. floyd went into the hotel, she was on the phone with him. she heard maurice hall's voice. we know mr. floyd was with maurice hall on may 25th, 2020. we heard, from the store clerk, christopher martin. he described mr. floyd as being high. his responses were delayed, right? he may have been, you know, standing around. he may have been standing up. he may have been able to have communications. but, mr. martin, clearly, described him as being high. we heard that when they got back into the car, right, they had a conversation, for a few minutes. and suddenly, mr. floyd fell asleep. all of these things become important. that he's had trouble -- had trouble waking him up. she called her daughter because

they couldn't wake her up -- wake mr. floyd up. they couldn't keep him awake. we heard how mr. martin described mr. floyd when he went to -- back to the car. and how he was, ah, no. he wasn't speaking, right? but he kept putting his head back and shaking his head. we know, from peter chang's body-worn camera, that maurice hall, also, described that mr. floyd was dozing off. >> because he was falling asleep a little bit. and then, woke up. >> we know that whether mr. floyd was chewing gum while he was in the -- the store. we can, also, see he was eating a banana. right?

he bought a banana. so, we know, when we look at this picture, right, there's something in mr. floyd's mouth. is it gum? is it banana? is it drugs? nobody knows. all right? but, regardless of whether it's drugs, bananas, or gum, in this instant, we know that, there

were pills in the car. right? we know that there were drugs in the car. we know those pills were, later, tested to be a combination of methamphetamine and fentanyl. that's what was in mr. floyd's system. it's relevant, because it's what was in his system. these are the pills that were found. we know, at some point, mr. floyd was handcuffed. hands are behind his back, it would have been physically impossible to put anything in his mouth, at that point. and we know that in the squad car 320 were pills.

we know those pills were analyzed. we know those pills consisted of fentanyl and methamphetamine. we know that mr. floyd's salivary dna was found on those pills. how much fentanyl does it take to kill? this is from the minneapolis police department's training. approximately 2-to-3 milligrams. smaller than a penny. this is from the squad car. you can look at these pictures closely, during the course of your evidence. there is a video of mr. floyd,

when mr. floyd is -- is being subdued by and restrained by the police. mr. maurice hall reaches into his bag. he's looking through the windows. we watched it. and then, he throws something, right? we know that mr. floyd had drugs in his mouth. we know that some percentage of that would have been consumed and absorbed into his system. we don't know how much he took before, right? we don't know when he took an earlier dose, in relation, because fentanyl had, actually, started to metabolize in his -- so, fentanyl was longer before. for the medical experts to

minimize the timing and the amount of illicit drugs that were found in mr. floyd's bloodstream. it is just, simply, incredible, to me. it is incredible, to me. every single doctor testified that, relevant to the -- that the absence of signs of fentanyl overdose weren't present, because he was alert. he was talking. but, it ignores what shawanda hill and maurice hall says, right? that he was, all of a sudden, asleep and difficult to wake up. it ignores the fact that the combination of these two drugs, methamphetamine is a powerful stimulant. fentanyl is a powerful sedative. they use it for surgeries. every-single doctor dismissed, outright, no -- no -- nothing

about this case. well, it was only .19 grams -- nanograms per milliliter. it's such a small amount of methamphetamine in his system, it's a vasoconstrictor. it causes the heart's arteries to constrict even tighter. doesn't matter. every-single doctor just brushed it aside. said it would have no effect. i ask, would any of those doctors prescribe illicit methamphetamine to their patients? would they give it to their children? would they give it to their elderly parents, with a 90% blockage of the coronary artery? the right-coronary artery? i guarantee you, the answer is no. dr. rich is the only one who said i would never recommend, to my patients, that they take any

amount of illicit methamphetamine. it is preposterous that -- it -- it's a preposterous notion that this did not come into play here. >> a half-hour break for lunch. i don't want to interrupt your argument. but -- >> i apologize. >> members of the jury, 30 minutes for lunch, please. thank you. good afternoon, everyone. i'm aayman mohyeldin in new york. we have been watching a marathon. derek chauvin's defense lawyer in the former minneapolis police officer's murder trial in the death of george floyd. we are now awaiting the prosecution's rebuttal, after this lunch break, that the judge just called for. and then, the final words in this multi-week trial before it

is given to the jurors. in a short time, they will begin deliberating, after the closing arguments, as i mentioned, later, this afternoon. take a listen. a knee to the neck. a knee to the back. twisting his fingers. holding his legs for 9 minutes and 29 seconds. the defendant's weight, on him. >> a reasonable police officer would understand this situation. that, mr. floyd was able to overcome the efforts of three-police officers, while handcuffed. >> so, those were the sound bites there from both the state prosecutor, as well as the defense attorney, eric nelson. respectively. joining me now is nbc news correspondent, shaquille brewster. he is live in minneapolis for us. former assistant attorney and director of reshaping prosecution at the very institute jamie hodge. she advised on matters in the

obama administration. also, nbc legal analyst, paul butler. and kristen gibbons. shaq, let me just begin with you, really quickly, on the ground. because it seemed like the -- the -- the defense-closing argument there. suddenly, broke in order for the judge to take this to lunch. do we understand if the defense has finished their closing arguments? or will they resume, after this lunch break? >> it certainly doesn't seem like they finished, yet, he was right in the middle of that argument, getting on the causation aspect. talking about the drugs in george floyd's system. the part that is key to their overall case. and you saw what was described to me as pretty unusual. the judge interrupting those closing arguments to essentially let the jury have a break. let the court reporter have a break. and this is a judge, that over the course of the trial, has not shied away from interruptions or making sure that the court reporter and the people in the room can have that break. but it seems fairly unusual for that to happen, during the

actual-closing argument from mr. nelson. but i will, also, say that this is a pretty extensive-closing argument that you were hearing from him. you heard him go after, point by point, and you heard it there. the real crux of the defense, which is that the experts that you heard from, the medical experts, the use-of-force experts. that their testimony wasn't as credible. that george floyd died from heart disease and from a drug overdose. so, that's where he was getting at, right now. i'm very curious, and i will be looking as we're talking here to see if we get any-actual pool reports. any reports from how the jurors were reacting to this, how they were responding, and what they were listening to. we heard, earlier today, when the prosecution was giving their closing arguments, that jurors were engaged. that they were sometimes going back to notes they have taken previously, during previous testimony, and cross-referencing that with what they knew already. i am very curious to know whether or not they were still doing this during this extensive, extensive closing argument by the defense. >> yeah.

and before we get into the substance of these arguments, paul, i just want to talk about this for a moment. this -- this lunch break. because the mechanics and the flow of a closing argument are very important. the rhythm that a defense attorney gets into when they are making their final case in front of the jurors. talk to us a little bit about this moment, just from a lawyer's mindset. does this disrupt the flow of argument being made by the defense attorney? would it have been better for him to finish his argument before the lunch break? or how do you see this playing out? >> aman, not so much on the merits of the case but as a matter of trial advocacy, this closing statement by the defense is an epic fail. it's rambling, it's incoherent at times, and it's way too long. the jury wanted to go to lunch, probably an hour ago. traditionally, prosecutors and defense attorneys don't object in closing statements. the judge doesn't interrupt because you want the chance to tell a complete story. but, my goodness, hours and

hours, i don't think this is a good look for the defense. >> yeah. i was going to say two-and-a-half hours, by our clock, and then some. kristen, defense attorney, eric nelson. he began his closing argument today with a lengthy rundown of the legal principles that the jury should apply to this case, like reasonable doubt. and he spoke, extensively, about what a, quote, a reasonable-police officer would do. you heard that, time and time, again. what do you make of him reinforcing that? this is what a reasonable officer would do. >> you know, and that's the standard that nelson was -- has to follow. you know? and i couldn't agree with paul more. you know, this is an epic fail just in terms of disorganization. but those are the two big things that nelson, if he is going to spend some time on, needs to spend time on. reasonable doubt. because he only needs one juror, in order to get him to that acquittal. but in terms of the reasonableness standard, you know, he had to focus on that

because he really is undermined by that video. you know, not only did the prosecution do a phenomenal job humanizing mr. floyd. but even getting into why this officer's use of force was unreasonable. why officers are actually authorized to use a certain level of force, and that, in this case, that it was unreasonable. but for the most part, the prosecution didn't even get into the use of force that was used, prior to mr. floyd being in the prone position. and so, when you look at the reasonableness standard and what nelson should have focused on, he really should have focused on chauvin's use of force, after mr. floyd was in that prone position because that was the critical part. what happened during those 9 minutes and 29 seconds and for about an hour of closing, he went into the reasonableness standard of what happened beforehand at the scene when he arrived, et cetera. and just went on and on and on. and it was disorganized. and i'd be curious to hear the poll results from the jurors, as

well. i'm sure they fell asleep or their eyes glazed over and they weren't following along. >> yeah. i wonder if there was a factor in the judge's decision there to call that lunch break, depending what he was seeing from the jurors and we will find out more when that drops, if it does, in fact, drop. i'm curious to get your thoughts about this point that the defense attorney was trying to make. his -- this focus, if you will, on the difference between perception and perspective. in a way to try and dismiss the views of all the people that were gathered. the perspectives of all those that were gathered. what was the basis, from your expertise, what was the basis of that argument? did you find it compelling? >> i'm agreeing with the other speakers that, no, the defense is not compelling. what we've seen, unfortunately, is back to the same kind of racist tropes of, you know, former-officer chauvin was --

felt that he was in danger. pointing to the bystanders, which we know, again, was, you know, 12 people, at most. some of them, so young they couldn't testify on camera. but, because they were expressing the very-human concern of watching someone being killed in front of their very eyes. that, that made them dangerous. i, also, don't think it's lost on folks that, when we see those screen shots of the crowd, that they were primarily black and brown people. so, it's just reemphasizing what we have seen in the system, which is the greater, systemic problem of the dangerousness that's attached to black skin, the dehumanization that happens to black people in the system. and, no, i don't think this argument is compelling at all. >> let's cross back over to shaq brewster. i believe, shaq, you have gotten that note from inside the courtroom. what can you share with us, if anything? >> well, i will tell you, based on this pool reporter, this is just one of the two reporters in the room. the reporter describes, at the

beginning of eric nelson's closing arguments that, based on the eyes. of course, everyone is wearing a mask in the room there. this pool reporter says the jury looks much more confused or curious, possibly skeptical of nelson's arguments. but they pay attention, throughout. one note, though. when we got to the end of -- not the end of his closing arguments, but when we got to the end, right before that break that we just took. about-15-or-so minutes ago, the pool reporter says the jury is getting antsy. several are rubbing their eyes and fidgeting. they have now been sitting, this pool reporter notes, for over two hours and have not had that lunch break. and they say when nelson apologized for being longwinded. that's something you heard him do repeatedly during his closing argument. he believes -- this reporter believes that he was reading the faces of the jurors. so it seems like, you know, the -- the extensive argument thas we are hearing there did have some effect. we know that, previously, in testimony, during some of the witness testimony, in the prior-couple of weeks, we know that there was a juror who nodded off, every once in a

while. there were times where they would get antsy or they would need to get coffee or that kind of thing. so, it -- that -- that is a factor, as attorneys are sitting there making their closing arguments today. >> yeah. so to that point, paul, and, you know, we all -- all humans have a certain limit on their bandwidth of how much they can sit there and watch another person speak. no doubt, everyone is taking this case extremely seriously. but i am curious to get your thoughts in terms of how much eric nelson, the defense attorney, has tried to zero in on a minute-by-minute re-creation of those events. and whether or not, from a legal perspective, that is a strategy in a closing argument. that -- isn't that what the actual trial is for? to build that case, minute by minute, throughout that when you get to the closing argument, you are just kind of summarizing and driving home the closing points of the entire case? not by this re-creation almost of a minute, granular level of what happened? >> yes, that's right. so, the purpose of a closing statement is, in this case, to

take three weeks of testimony. and summarize that, into a coherent-and-compelling story. and so, the defense is that literally chauvin did not kill mr. floyd. that, other factors were responsible for his death. and that the use of force was reasonable. they have a much stronger argument, with regard to causation. they don't have to prove what killed mr. floyd. they just have to create reasonable doubt about whether it was chauvin's actions. but for use of force, again, it's hard to know how they could against that. because as the prosecution emphasized, for at-least-two minutes on that video, mr. floyd is -- and motionless. and so, all of the police experts, including the defense expert, testified that when

there's no resistance, then there should no be force. and finally, aman, just really quickly. the defense made a really interesting strat -- strategic decision to use the videotape. i'm not sure that that's in the best interest of their client. because every time you see that videotape, you're reminded of mr. floyd's agony and his suffering. and it's really hard to focus on whatever-other point the defense was trying to make, when you see this human being, literally, narrating his own death. >> johnny, today, the prosecutor argued that, quote, this is not a anti-police prosecution, it's a pro-police prosecution. what do you make of invoking that in the closing argument? who do you think he was trying to appeal to with this? >> i think he was just trying to recognize that, we -- we do live in a country where many people do honor those who serve. whether that's in military or in the police force.

and just wanting to -- and that, typically, these are tough cases. you are trying to prove an officer, who did something in the line of duty, as guilty for that lethal force. those are really hard cases, because people tend to defer to police. that's why the standard is a reasonable-police officer. i think, he wanted to make sure, if there's any doubt here, about, you know, the fact that this is a police case, which is a hard case. that this isn't an attack on policing. now, i -- i might not agree with that approach. this is a moment -- i would say agree with that approach, thinking about the greater need for justice in this trial. i think, what is clear is, you know, he has a job to get a conviction, and that's what he's focused on. i -- though, i, personally, feel like what will be justice in this case will require more than a conviction. and it is going to require a fundamental transformation of what policing looks like in this country. i mean, we've seen, already,

even during the pendency of this trial, the killings unfortunately of daunte wright, a child in chicago, adam toledo. so -- so i disagree with the point, overall. but i understand why he did it in trying to make sure that he covered everything. this is not about attacking policing. this is -- these actions are not consistent with what is expected of police. >> thank you so much. shaquille brewster, paul butler, kristen gibbons. i am going to ask all of you to stick with us for more analysis as we follow what happens this afternoon. up next. we are live at the white house for a reaction to the chauvin trial. and plans for a response to the verdict, once it is announced. you're watching msnbc. don't go anywhere. ss growing has you swamped. you need to hire. i need indeed indeed you do. the moment you sponsor a job on indeed you get a shortlist of quality candidates from a resume data base claim your seventy-five-dollar credit when you post your first job at indeed.com/promo ♪ (ac/dc: back in black) ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ back in black ♪ ♪ i hit the sack ♪ ♪ i've been too long... ♪ applebee's irresist-a-bowls are back. dig in for just $8.99. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. introducing fidelity income planning. we look at how much you've saved, how much you'll need, and build a straightforward plan to generate income, even when you're not working. a plan that gives you the chance to grow your savings and create cash flow that lasts. along the way, we'll give you ways to be tax efficient. and you can start, stop or adjust your plan at any time without the unnecessary fees. talk to us today, so we can help you go from saving...to living.

spray, lift, skip, step. swipe, lift, spin, dry. slam, pan, still...fresh move, move, move, move aaaaand still fresh. degree. ultimate freshness activated when you move. did you know you can go to libertymutual.com to customizes your car insurancefreshness so you only pay for what you need? really? i didn't-- aah! ok. i'm on vibrate. aaah! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ clara didn't believe gain scent beads could make her sheets smell amazing days later. boy was she surprised! and the more nights that go by, the more surprised she gets. her husband is surprised too. gain scent beads

welcome back, everyone. we are waiting for the defense in the derek chauvin murder trial to resume closing arguments. we are going to bring that to you, immediately, as soon as it gets under way after a short lunch break. the trial is being watched closely all over the world including the white house, where nbc news white house correspondent, geoff bennett, is stand big for more on this. geoff, what more do we know about what the white house is thinking, preparing, in response to the trial and its outcome? >> yeah. well, ayman, the white house says it's monitoring developments in the chauvin trial. i am told, by white house officials, that folks here are preparing a statement for president biden to deliver, once the jury renders its verdict. our team is told that, for the

last-two weeks, the president has been meeting with top, you know, relevant white house officials to game out his response, both in terms of public safety. and his message for the country. based on the potential-various outcomes. and i am told, no matter what the verdict, the president will talk, at length, about the pain, grief, and outrage felt by so many americans, in the wake, not only of george floyd's killing but, of other-unarmed black men at the hands of police. it was just last week, in fact, on monday, when the president in the oval office was talking about the killing of daunte wright. a young black man who was killed by a white police officer, who was said to have -- she says used her gun when she thought she was using her taser. and shot and killed daunte wright. and as president biden was calling for peace and calm, he said that, wright's death was no justification for violence or looting. well, wright's family attorney, benjamin crump, has said since then, that if local officials from, you know, local officials on up to the president of the

united states. if they are going to make that comment, they should add, to it, that the police killing of unarmed-black americans is unacceptable. well, that is a statement, that i am told, the white house has heard and will incorporate in any-further statements, on this issue. today, white house press secretary, jen psaki, was asked about this. she said she didn't want to get ahead of the jury, and trying to speculate what the outcome might be. but she said, that the pain, trauma, and exhaustion being felt, in particular by black folks, should be acknowledged and elevated, she said, ayman. >> all right. geoff bennett live for us at the white house. and now, the other story the white house is closely monitoring. that is, of course, the coronavirus. where there are stark warnings as a new chapter begins today, as 16-year-olds nationwide are now eligible for the vaccine. president biden joining in the media blitz to get the word out. watch. >> folks, i have good news. everybody is eligible, as of today, to get the vaccine. we have enough of it. you need to be protected, and you need, in turn, to protect your neighbors and your family.

so, please, get the vaccine. >> all right. so, this as the cdc director is warning that the seven-day average of daily deaths are increasing with almost-700 deaths alone, yesterday. one state in particular, pennsylvania, seeing a surge in covid cases. and joining us now, nbc news, shannon pettypiece. she is covering the white house for us. and in lebanon county, pennsylvania, msnbc anchor, lindsey reiser. shannon, describe for us the push from the biden administration to try and get out the message on vaccines. despite, you know, what appears to be a little bit of hesitancy. >> right. well, administration officials tell nbc news they have a full-media blitz planned today. including, local-tv interviews, across dozens of tv stations. and as well as on social media. you saw that message, led by the president. they also have the vice president out there, speaking on this. dr. fauci. some of the other top surrogates. there seem to be two themes we are hearing from the

administration that they're trying to get out there. one is that this process is a lot simpler than people might think. there was all that confusion, and the waits and the requirements, early on. they are trying to get the message out that -- that's, for the most part, been stripped away. it's not the confusing system that it was back in december or january. the other is trying to, not only get over this hesitancy but, kind of, reassure people that these vaccines work. because as you said, you see those increasing numbers as millions of people are getting vaccinated, every day. so, we continue to hear administration officials talking about and rolling out new studies that show the vaccines are effective. and pointing to countries, where they are seeing that. you know, but one other thing i would note. even though everyone is eligible today, the administration does not plan to have enough doses for everybody, until the end of may. they are getting about-3-million shots a day out. i asked, today, if that's the pace they expect. they say, yes, that's the pace they expect to continue. maybe, it could increase. but if we are going at that

rate, it's going to take until the end of the summer before, you know, 75% or so of the population can actually get fully vaccinated. >> lindsey, i know you are on the ground there. give us that perspective. pennsylvania has reported upwards of 5,000 new cases a day for five days in a row. it has one of the highest per-capita daily case counts in the country. tell us about where you are. there's no rush for some people to be vaccinated. is that? why is that? >> i mean, ayman, right now, we are in lebanon county, as you mentioned. we are about 90 minutes out outside of philly. at the beginning, there was demand outpacing supply. well, now, they are already seeing the reversal of that. i mean, you mentioned pennsylvania statewide is seeing an alarming-upward trend right now. lebanon county is also seeing that. a 38% increase of cases month to month. they have a mass-vaccination site here, in this county. but for example, friday, they had 1,200 available appointments. 800 of those went unfilled.

anecdotally, i went to the website and for appointments later in the week, every-single time slot is available. and i spoke to the director of emergency services about where they are, right now, and this is what he told me. >> lebanon county, including surrounding counties, are running into that exact same problem. where appointments are going unfilled. we've got thousands of appointments available over the next few weeks and no takers, at this point. it is a bit deflating because this is -- this has been what we've been working towards for quite some time. this was the light at the end of the tunnel. and it -- you know, the -- the acceptance is not as broad as what we'd hoped it would be. >> so, they are also trying to get the word out, now that they have these appointments, they are available. ayman, they are also fighting misinformation. they say, there are a lot of rumors going around on social media. this is a word-of-mouth area. so, they are hearing really wild and outlandish myths about the vaccine they are trying to fight, as well. and ayman, one, quick note. i did speak with the medical

service that is cooperating with the county on that mass-vaccination site. and they say they are going to switch gears a little bit. now, they want large employers in the area to reach out to them so they can go to where the people are, and set up clinics at those workplaces. ayman. >> all right. lindsey reiser, in pennsylvania. shannon pettypiece, outside the white house. thank you to both of you. next, we are going to speak with a member of congress, who just emerged from a bipartisan meeting this afternoon inside the oval office, as president biden seeks support of his $2 trillion infrastructure plan. are they any closer to a deal? and we are continuing to watch for the resumption of defense arguments in the derek chauvin trial. you are watching msnbc. chauvin trial. you are watching msnbc

♪♪ (phone rings) hello? hi mommy, i won a medal. that's amazing! ♪ going back to the place we love ♪ i got in! ♪ with endless summer nights ♪ he's walking! ♪ comes alive ♪ ♪ i don't need the rain ♪ ♪ when the sky is blue ♪ this mother's day, receive a free sterling silver bangle with your purchase at pandora jewelry. 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. use a single hr software? nope. we use 11. eleven.

why do an expense report from your phone when you can do it from a machine that jams? i just emailed my wife's social security number to the entire company instead of hr, so... please come back. how hard is your business software working for you? with paycom, employees enter and manage their own hr data in one easy-to-use software. visit paycom.com for a free demo. hon? first off, we love each other...

so with your home & auto bundle, you'll save money and get round-the-clock protection. -sounds great. -sure does. shouldn't something, you know, wacky be happening right now? we thought people could use a break. we've all been through a lot this year. -that makes sense. -yeah. so... ♪♪ now's not a good time 3/5ths of nsync. are you sure? you have us booked all day. -read the room, guys. -yeah. right?

this afternoon, president biden held a second-bipartisan meeting in the oval office with lawmakers on his $2 trillion infrastructure plan. listen. >> i am prepared to compromise. prepared to see if we can do,

what we can get together on. [ inaudible ] question is, who is going to pay for it? and that's what we are going to try to work out today. >> joining me now, democratic congressman, emanuel cleaver, of missouri, who literally just left that meeting or actually came out of that meeting with the president. congressman, thank you so much for your time. did this meeting, sir, move anyone? particularly, the republicans in the room, towards an agreement? >> well, you know, when these meetings occur, there is this obligatory statement about how things went well. let me just tell you that we were supposed to meet for about-45 minutes. we met for an hour and a half. if time is any indication, then it -- it -- it's very, very positive, in terms of coming to some agreement. we know what we disagree on. the president was clear on where he came from, and -- and, frankly, so was i.

and -- and i think the republicans were -- were very vocal, as well. but the -- the -- the good news is that we found out that we, actually, have some things in common that we need to talk about, further, and explore in a little deeper. because i think we might really come up with some kind of -- of a solution. if -- if everybody can keep in mind that compromise is -- does not mean capitulation, i think we -- we could come up with a bipartisan bill. and the president was very clear all through the meeting, even after the media left. he kept saying, look, i'm open to a deal. i'm open to, you know, making compromises. and i think there -- there are some places where compromise can, actually, work. >> where, if any, can you shed light on? where the disagreements and the agreements were? i mean, what, if anything, surprised you in this? >> well, nothing surprised me.

i think that, you know, republicans are, obviously, stuck like glue to the -- the -- the tax bill that they were able to get through under the trump administration. i understand that. they have, you know, invested a great deal of their time and energy. i -- i think that, you know, we have to work with them on that issue. they have to work with us on some other issues that -- in terms of the definition of -- of infrastructure. we think that we have to deal with the whole person, not just saying that we need to build bridges and highways, but housing is a bridge too far. we have got to stay right in -- in terms -- right in the space where we can get the things that they really want badly, the things we really want badly. and then, make some -- some -- some compromises. i am willing to compromise. i am not going to compromise, however, if -- if it means that we -- we make some changes. and then, the majority of the

republicans still vote against the legislation. i'm not going to do that. done it once with the aca. i don't intend to do that, again. but the good news is that we worked together. and i think things are -- are looking well. i think, you know, they understand that we are concerned about this backlog of infrastructure. $2 trillion backlog, right now. and the -- the biden administration, i'm -- i'm very pleased with them, because i see the plan that the vice president has presented. really, as a rebuke to the littleness that -- that has caused the united states to fall behind much of the industrialized world, as it relates to infrastructure construction. and so, at the same time, the gap between housing rehab cost and the price of the -- the selling price of a house. there is such a gap, that we've got to do something about

affordable housing or it -- the crisis that we already have is going to explode into something that nobody would believe, otherwise. >> all right. congressman emanuel cleaver, thank you so much for your time. we are going to leave it right there because the trial of derek chauvin is getting back under way. let's cross right back to minnesota, and see what's going on there. >> try to speed things up here, again. so -- technical issue.

all right. we see defense attorney there, eric nelson, resume his closing arguments after approximately-a-30-minute lunch break. there seems to be a bit of a technical issue, as he tries to link back up his laptop to the system there. the audio/visual system. so we are going to keep a close eye on that. we are going to bring that to as he gets under way. he has been talking now for about two and a half hours, prior to that lunch break. paul, you know, it was -- oh, it looks like he is beginning there. seems like he's resumed his closing arguments. let's listen. before the break, we were talking about the controlled substances and the role that they were -- were -- the levels that they were found in. the role that they may have applied or -- or contributed to mr. floyd's death. and i was suggesting to you that it is, again, this death needs to be looked at. mr. floyd's death needs to be

looked at, as dr. baker describes, a multifactoral process. this is the way the body works, heart beats, heart circulates, the brain controls all of our movements, right? all of this. and to simply come in, and say, this particular substance, or these combinations of substances, when taken in com -- combination with each other. when taken in combination with -- of a person who has blockage in the heart, substantial-significant blockage in the heart. when we know that these drugs play a particular role in the -- in -- in how the blood circulates. to just pooh-pooh it and say it has nothing to do with anything is just, really, a preposterous notion. yet, dr. baker, dr. fowler, and dr. thomas, have all certified

deaths at levels less-than-11 nanograms per milliliter or 19 nanograms or a combination, right? these deaths have been certified, on that basis, alone. and it didn't necessarily contain any of the other issues that were confronting mr. floyd on that day. likewise, again, every-other doctor that has testified has gone to great lengths to dismiss the role of mr. floyd's heart disease and hypertension, in this case. forensic pathologists define coronary artery disease resulting in death -- death can occur with 70 to 75% blockage. that is sufficient to cause the -- a person's death. every pathologist who testified in this case has indicated, likewise, that they have certified deaths with those types of blockage. and attributed it to the coronary-artery disease.

yet, here, again, this has played zero role. dr. rich testified mr. floyd had a healthy heart. coronary-heart disease, not relevant, according to the state. hypertensive disease? not relevant. drugs, acting to further constrict an already heart -- diseased heart, not relevant. adrenaline coursing through mr. floyd's body? not relevant. what does adrenaline do? it further constricts the arteries, right? adrenaline from the paraganglioma wasn't there, didn't happen, played no -- no role. they just want you to ignore significant-medical issues, that presented to mr. floyd. and the failure of the state's experts to acknowledge any

possibility, any possibility at all, that any of these other factors, in any way, contributed to mr. floyd's death, defies medical science. and it defies common sense and reason. now, dr. tobin ascribes the death of mr. floyd, essentially, as i understand, again, to hypoxia. low oxygen, resulting in brain -- going to the brain. low oxygen to the brain. dr. fowler, also, ascribes the death to hypoxic death. but, that the heart was the -- was the muscle that did not get the oxygen. resulting in a sudden-cardiac arrhythmia. the reasons that dr. fowler dismissed the notion of brain hypoxia are because, number one, hypoxia of the brain results in certain-observable symptoms. the brain demands more oxygen, right? it takes 20% of our oxygen to

function the brain, even though it's one of the -- it's -- it's a smaller percentage of our body. it is the most sensitive to the loss of oxygen, and it reveals a progressive set of symptoms. confusion, which was not exhibited, right? not exhibited. right? if you compare the testimony about how -- whether mr. floyd was intoxicated, he didn't exhibit any confusion. all right? restlessness. not exhibited. shortness of breath. it was complained of but can be caused by a sudden cart yak arrhythmia. incoherent speaking. not complained of why when someone experiences hypoxia to the brain you would see an increased ventilation or respiratory rate. dr. tobin said it is a

completely normal respiratory rate. 22 breaths per minute. the time line in this case is consistent with a sudden cardiac arrhythmia. at 8:23:58 mr. floyd speaks. i really can't breathe. if you can speak you have oxygen in your brain. at 8:24:09 he again verbalizes, please, i can't blooet. irnd kating at 8:24:09 the brain has oxygen and there is no impairment to his airway. 39 seconds later mr. floyd goes limp. 8:24:48. person can hold their breath for 39 seconds. all right? that does not result in hypoxia in 39 seconds. 27 seconds later according to the dr. tobin mr. floyd takes

his last breath. it's a total of 66 seconds, 1:06 from the time that we know there's enough oxygen in his brain to speak, no occlusion to the airway at that point. 66 seconds. to his -- from his last word to his last breath. this time line is consistent with a sudden cardiac arrhythmia. it is not consistent with the longer process of brain hypoxia. dr. fowler's final analysis was that mr. floyd died from a cardiac arrhythmia due to artherolorotic disease. other significant factors, fentanyl sbox kags.

possible carbon monoxide exposure. what role did carbon monoxide play in mr. floyd's death? we don't know. nothing was ever tested. as far as the vehicle is concerned. we don't know if the car was emitting carbon monoxide. one thing we do know is it was running. how can we tell that it was running? it was in the video we were watching when thomas lane puts in that squad car he puts it in park, he never touches the keys of that vehicle and he gets out. the car was running. i have one last point to make and i -- should be fairly quick with this. the superceding cause that was discussed is a cause that comes after the defendant's acts

alters the natural sequence of events and the sole cause of a result that would not have otherwise occurred. now, let's look at the medical time line here. we know that ems was called initially at code two at 8:20:11. we know that ems was stepped up to code three at 8:21:35. we know that ems responded to cup foods based on the videos at 8:27:27. we know that ems called for fire at 20:38:36. it takes approximately three minutes for ems and the arresting officers to put mr. floyd into the ambulance and the ambulance pulls away from cup foods at 8:30:17. fire responds to cup foods at

8:32:59. that's 4:15 after they were called. that's pretty close in consideration to the three-minute expectation of ms. hansen. but the ambulance had driven several blocks away to 36 and park arriving sometime between 8:31 and 8:33. that's 1:30 -- we know that with two exhibits. 62 and 63 that were introduced. 62 shows one paramedic and officer lane in the back. 63 shows two paramedics and officer lane in the back. to get to 36 and park where they began the resuscitative efforts. the first air is pumped into mr. floyd per dr. tobin at 20:35:06. that is ten minutes after mr. floyd went unconscious per dr. tobin but 7:36 after ems

responded to cup foods. we ultimately know that the ambulance left 36 and park at 8:48:23. it arrived at hcmc 8:53 shortly after 8:53. so it took about five minutes to get from 36th and park to hcmc. what if you -- what would have happened if ems had started resuscitative efforts right away? what would have happened rather than driving they went to the hospital? they would have been there in that time. i am not suggesting to you, i am not suggesting to you the ambulance paramedics did anything wrong but it raises the

prospect of that continued delay in resuscitation. what if ems had administered narkan. it would not have hurt him and could have helped him. i am not blaming the paramedics. more importantly, than this -- in this analysis is it shows that human means make decisions in highly stressful situations that they believe to be right. in very moment it is occurring. there is lots of what ifs that could have happened, what could have happened, what should have happened. lots of them in lots of regards. but we have to analyze this case from the perspective of a reasonable police officer at the precise moment with the brutality of the circumstances when it comes to the use of force. we have to look at the cause of

death to determine did mr. floyd die exclusively of asphyxia or were there other contributing factors that were not the natural result of mr. chauvin's acts? all right? things that happened that were set in motion before mr. chauvin ever arrived. the drug ingestion. right? the bad heart. the diseased heart. the hypertension. all of these things existed before mr. chauvin arrived. the struggling. what role did the struggle play? we know based on a prior incident that mr. floyd's heart was beating at 219 over 160 in a situation where he have confronted by police and had ingested drugs.

he didn't die that day. all of this, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, all of this when you take into consideration the presumption of innocence, the presumption of innocence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, i would submit to you that it is nonsense to suggest that none of these other factors had any, any role. that is not reasonable. and when you as members of the jury conclude your analysis of the evidence, when you review the entirety of the evidence, when you review the law as written, and you conclude it all within this -- all within a thorough, honest analysis, the state has failed to prove its

case beyond a reasonable doubt. and therefore, mr. chauvin should be found not guilty of all counts. thank you. >> members of the jury, there's an issue i need to discuss with lawyers so we'll send you back to your room for probably about five minutes. >> hi, everyone. i'm niccole wallace. watching along with us nbc news correspondent shaquelle brewster and claire mccaskill and eric dyson author of "long time coming" we hope to talk about that but we are in a five-minute

break here and i won