[ question inaudible ] >> when you employ a car in a manner that puts officers lives in danger, that is a threat. i don't care what direction you are going. forward, backwards, sideways. i don't care if you are stationery and neither do our courts and case law. >> i am just wondering -- [ question inaudible ] >> yes, they did, but not to me. i did not interview the officers. state bureau of investigation did the interviews. they allstated they were afraid of being run over or afraid of

their fellow officers being run over. >> you mentioned you can't use the court of public opinion -- [ question inaudible ] but this is your community. are you concerned how this decision will be received to protesters outside? we assume it will not be received well. is that a concern? >> i believe there will be folks not happy with this decision. when i was appointed the district attorney in 2013 and ran for this position in 2014 and ran for this position in 2018 i had a full understanding of what the duties and responsibilities of the district attorney are. sometimes i make popular decisions such as charging the four inmates with capital murder, and i make unpopular decisions. i signed up for all of them,

popular and unpopular. wait a minute. >> -- showed up -- >> yes. the family saw a longer version. i did not include the portion where law enforcement officers removed mr. brown from the car. i did not think there was any journalistic need for that. he's clearly in a lifeless position. yes, sir, in the back? [ question inaudible ] >> no, sir, i am not. the fbi sent a letter to my office early on requesting the body cam videos. i know that they have them. they did not get them from me. right here in the middle.

[ question inaudible ] >> he's clearly in front of that car. the body cam, because of the lens, actually distorts the distance between the officers and the vehicle as the shooting. it's really not that car away. were they really in danger? no. were they in the path of bullets? yes. [ question inaudible ] >> i do not know that. let me explain why. the bullet removed by dr. kelly from the back of andrew brown's head fragmented. what that means is that the bullet was tumbling when it struck mr. brown.

it was tumbling and was knocked off its path either by head rest or glass or some other on in the car. when it tumbled and hit mr. brown in the back of the head. it splintered into three pieces making it impossible to see from which weapon it was fired. a metalurgic study could maybe reveal that, but it is not necessary for my decision. yes, ma'am, in the back. [ question inaudible ] >> so once again, we are discussing hypotheticals and

theoreticals. mr. brown's vehicle shows several multiple shots into the side of the vehicle. there is the one shot in the front windshield that came from sergeant mead, and several shots away. there are several shots into the body of the vehicle away from a close distance. one could think that was to disable the vehicle. was that question asked. it is not in the officers notes other than they were trying to extinguish a threat. [ question inaudible ] >> no, ma'am, and that file will stay within my office. i do not release any files because they are not public record and that's our stated policy here. i am doing this only because of

the obvious note right of this particular case. man in the back. >> at what point did you determine they were using a vehicle at a weapon. when the deputy was on the hood of the car or when he put it into drive? >> you are asking me at what point did i make that determination? >> yes. >> the standard i need to look at is what a reasonable officer on the scene would have perceived. not necessarily what the district attorney would have perceived. when i believe the vehicle was employed as a deadly weapon was the moment when he did not respond to officers to show them his hands and get out of the car. when he used the car in contravention to their commands, he has demonstrated a

willingness to use the vehicle in any manner he deems necessary to avoid lawful arrest. >> -- especially north carolina law, i think it's fair to say that video evidence changes law enforcement. i wanted to see your perspective of north carolina law regarding use of the body camera. was it useful or would you like to see changes some. >> this was the first opportunity that have had to deal with this particular body cam statute. for the purposes of the district attorney's office and what my duties are in all criminal investigations, i found the statute to be very useful, very purposefully written, very useful. it gives an opportunity for anyone depicted, to have an

opportunity to view that. i think that is important. could that have been done earlier? possib statute dictates how requests are to be filed. i am not going to get into whether that was done early on and in the right manner in order for the sheriff to make the disclosure to the family. but with respect to criminal disclosures, my job is of the highest important. i have to protect the administration of justice in all cases, mass murder, whether law enforcement being investigated, sexual assault cases, breaking and entering and petty larceny. that is my job and i take it seriously and why i took the position i did with regard to this. i will take it in every instance

involved like this. i want to see the body camera image, i want to conduct my investigation, i want it done without taint and without the possibility of other people seeing it and interjecting things we cannot verify. that protects everybody involved. not only victims, their families, but potentially the people involved. >> you don't necessarily want to see sunlight come to the public. for the public to see these and make their own determination? >> i am not following. you are attributing something to me -- >> what you just said was that you may not want the sunlight to open up and these videos to be in a public place before an individual like yourself has

made an investigation and made your determination. am i attributing what you say wrong? >> i think that is correct. i brought it today for the purposes of accountability and transparency. i think, as i said before, and i think i have said it at every hearing, you will get a chance to see it. our courts are hearing. our constitution says our courts are open. so in one of two ways it would have been exposed. either i would have exposed it in a court while at trial and you would have wade or i can expose it today because i am not bringing any criminal charges. >> good day. i'm andrea mitchell in washington. breaking news, andrew brown jr., fatally shot last week.

the d.a. saying deadly force was justified because mr. brown did not yield to demands. >> the shots were justified because the sheriffs office reasonably believed it was necessary to use deadly force to protect themselves and others. the decision mr. brown made on his own quickly escalated this from a deployment of force to execution of force. >> the moments mr. brown was driving away. joining me now from north carolina, katie beck who was at that press conference, and the washington moderator and nbc

contributor and attorney and former prosecutor. katie, you were there. what was the justification saying he was using the vehicle as a weapon. he was shot in the back of the head. there was only a small portion of the footage. >> that's right, andrea. the family has seen about 18 minutes or so of that footage. i think we saw a good portion inside. the district attorney vehemently defending his decision not to charge any of the officers in this case because he said brown was an imminent threat to their safety and the safety of the public. he said the officers were acting well within the constitution when they fired those shots and that brown had maneuvered the

vehicle towards the deputies that put them in actual danger as well as perceived danger under the law and he felt their shooting was justified. he stood firmly on those facts as he went through the video frame by frame, saying the deputies dodged the vehicle. the deputy had his hand on the door and was pulled some distance and pulled over the hood. and in another shot a deputy had to step out of the way not to be run over. he said it's the deputies duties to execute these warrants and they could not let him go. he feels they acted within their rights to protect the safety of the community and themselves. another factor was that there were actually two unmarked vehicles parked at the perimeter of brown's property and as he was driving away there were

undercover personnel in those vehicles that brown's vehicle was driving directly into the path of those other two vehicles parked on the corner of the property so it wasn't just the deputies responding, but others who could have been in the path of danger. the district attorney said he did not base this case on public opinion. he did a thorough investigation, even consulted other district attorney around the state asking for advice. he also corrected or offered new information i should say, about an autopsy done by a medical examner. the brown's family had an autopsy done saying he was shot five times. the district attorney said he was shot two times, once in the

shoulder and the fatal shot to the skull. there is a difference in video. at the end of the day no officers will be criminally charged. >> what did you think of the way the district attorney presented this. there is no way mr. brown could have known there were police officers in those unmarked cars. >> that's exactly right. what this gets to is the point that you can do something doesn't mean that you should. he would heard the district attorney stress that they can use force in a situation like this and therefore it's justified. that's not necessarily true. one of the most interesting statements he made was that he said it didn't matter whether or not the car was stationery. it still constitutes a deadly weapon. i would argue there is no circumstance under which a stationery vehicle with be considered a deadly weapon.

the fact he feels that way is an indication of what he was inclined to do with the case from the beginning which is not intuitive from our laws that they are subject to discretion to the people enforcing them. can a vehicle be used as deadly force? absolutely. but from the video he would saw, that does not appear to be the case for mr. brown. >> i am not going to make the analogy with the chauvin trial, but it does tell us how rare it is that what keith ellison did in minneapolis, is so different in the way cases are decided. the presumption is usually on the side of the law enforcement officer. >> that's right. the chauvin trial and murder of george floyd is separate and

apart to what we usually see in policing. what we saw was an officer who had almost ten minutes to change his mind to not kneel on the neck of george floyd. what we saw in this case is a more typical case which is you see officers making split second decisions and see them deciding their lives are in danger. this reminds me more of the case of walter scott who was shot running away from police. the district attorney was clear if you are in a vehicle and the police tell you to turn it off, the moment you don't turn it off is the moment it becomes a deadly weapon. he said that's backed up by law and training. the nation learning more what goes into the calculations of police officers as they interact with people and with black people in particular. i think if you zoom out away

from this case, we are living in this post george floyd america where people are asking pointed questions to this prosecutor, especially the question can you be not bias, you work with these officers all of the time. the district attorney says he could, he could work this case and not be biased. he said they wanted to take mr. brown into custody and at that point they were subject to whatever the officers wanted to do. there was no way to end this is a less deadly way. >> thanks to all. we will be getting reaction from the brown story. the other top story we are following. the deadly continuing violence in the middle east. >> more air strikes continuing

today as israeli bombards throughout gaza. hamas firing back. frustration overboiling. and today there is a lot of push back including tear gas from israelis on the ground. and president biden said in a call with netanyahu he expressed support for a cease-fire. >> as i think you know, president biden spoke with prime minister netanyahu. we want to bring the current

cycle of violence to an end as quickly as possible and get back to a policy of peace that all of the people deserve. >> richard engel and peter alexander with me. talk about what happened today. we have seen protests before but nothing this strong in terms of west bank support for what's happening with hamas and gaza. >> according to people in the west bank these were some of the most intense protests they have had in the region for several years. there have been smaller protests with 20, 30, 40 people who would throw stones at israeli soldiers.

but there were hundreds of people. they were from a variety of parties. many of them were not hamas supporters. i was in an area that was not a hamas stronghold. these people are coming out in solidarity with gaza. they came out with size and stones and started throwing rocks at israeli soldiers. soldiers responded with tear gas and things started to escalate. there was some gunfire from the palestinian side. israelis responded with gunfire. i saw one person get shot not far from where i was and officials said one palestinian was killed by gunfire. it seems two israeli soldiers may have also been injured by gunfire as well. it was an escalation, something the west bank has not seen in

support of an operation being led by hamas coming from gaza. that was just in one part of the west bank. there were also strikes and some very brief skirmishes in jerusalem. also a general strike by many palestinians who have israeli citizenship, israeli arabs. so we are seeing a consolidation of the israelis around the gaza cause. many who don't support hamas think hamas is trying to use what is happening in the territory to claim leadership of the entire cause. people were on the streets. there were rockets firing from gaza. they landed in southern israel. there are a lot of agricultural areas here. these are hydrouponic farms.

one hit a caravan and two thai workers were killed. we were told they didn't have sufficient shelters built for the compound. another area was directly hit but no one was hit or killed. the building was still under construction. a short time ago prime minister netanyahu said hamas has been set back years by this campaign. >> we were on a briefing with the lieutenant colonel of the idf. what he said was as long as hamas is firing rockets as they have in the last hour and a half, the subject of deescalation is not on the table. that's the response for a cease-fire. it doesn't come from the prime minister but that's what he said last night after the call with president biden. >> the israelis and palestinians

have different ideas of what a cease-fire should look like. the israelis according to officials and sources i have been speaking to, want peace for peace. they want rockets to stop and in exchange they will stop the attacks on the gaza strip. they feel they have accomplished a great deal. if the rockets stop they will have peace for peace exchange. the palestinians don't see that as a solution. they see that as a temporary fix, but the people of gaza remain penned in what they call the world's largest prison. there is the issue of palestinians not having access to jerusalem. they complain of harassment, of being evicted from their home. the palestinians want to achieve something, more dignity, less

daily occupation that many feel, but at this stage it feels like those issues may not be on the table and what israel is feeling is we will stop the bombing and palestinians hope to improve the situation. >> peter alexander, when we talk about what the white house wants, under increasing pressure from democratic senators as well as others, to have an immediate cease-fire -- and as he would heard there are different definitions of cease-fire -- the cease-fire in 2014 did not lead to the benefits hamas thought they had gained in terms of more legitimacy and access. >> that's right. we heard from president biden that he had gone as far as he had to this point, at least in

terms of his public comment that he was expressing support for cease-fire. but it didn't go as far as some wanted him to go. 26 democrats wanted him to call for an immediate cease-fire. the president was careful despite members from international community and democrats as well, not to do anything that would be viewed as criticism of israel, defending israel's rights to defend itself and urging israel to protect citizens. but right now, among progressives, there is frustration that the president isn't more forcefully speaking out. >> joining us now for more on the continuing violence in the

middle east, prime minister netanyahu. you know from having been posted here and having been an adviser to prime minister netanyahu. there is a feeling that it's disproportionate, that the civilian casualties are so extreme in gaza because of the precision of the israeli weapons and because of closed facilities and shelters. why not have a cease-fire and take a pause and see what happens in gaza. why not go first? >> because that could well play

into hamas's plans. they attacked us, fired over the past eight days some 3,500 rockets. israeli families have had to go to bombshellters. they are shooting these rockets to kill us. there is no point in a band-aid solution -- won -- premature. that just plays into hamas's hands. they can have a time-out to regroup and we will have missiles against next week. that is not a solution. we have to come out of this with sustained peace acquired. that's good for palestinians and

israelis too. >> you have shot more than 3,000 rockets. when do you think you will have diminished their stockpile of weapons? >> every day we are acting against their military machine. we are destructing their commanding control. we have taken out their dangerous tunnel of installations. we have hit their armory and military. but the military says there is still a lot of good targets there. with their machines and stockpiles depleted and they need to understand shooting rockets hurts them more than it hurts us. this is a victory that can help empower palestinian moderates and help us get peace on track. as long as hamas has power, they

will have a veto on peace in the middle east. they oppose peace in this region. they say any arab leader who makes peace with israel is a traitor. so a victory for hamas is a victory to people in the middle east. >> to go back to the beginning of this -- i know it's difficult to sort out who started it. they started it certainly. but can you explain firing rubber bullets into the mosque on the eve of ramadan with people and children in prayer on the prayer carpets. whatever protests were taking place in the area, who

authorized the firing of those bullets. >> andrea, you know and have seen it with your own ice. you know the mosques hundreds of thousands of people pray there peacefully. we pride ourselves that since 1967 the rights of worshipers are able to take prayer peacefully. but not this year because hamas made the decision to escalate. >> what about the afflictions that is a resident impetus, and for the arab world, the whole issue. >> i will get to that point, but i wanted to say we have no problem with peaceful worship.

we have problem when people riot violently. then we have to restore order. you can't have a threat of violence for other worshipers. this is in the courts. one group of people who say we were thrown out of that land, the jews, and we were forced out in a 1948 war. another group of people live there now and say we are there now and have been living there for years. two groups claim ownership to the same party. the courts will decide. but how can that sort of dispute in any way justify the shooting of rockets at major cities in israel. there is a property dispute and will be decided in courts. hamas was looking for a reason to start a dispute.

we will finish it in a way that we can get sustained peace for our people. hopefully there will be an extended period of quiet and provide room for palestinians to step up to the plate because the most extreme palestinian group will be out of work. >> and can you justify taking down the media tower? the claim was that there were hamas military intelligence in that building. >> i personally saw the intelligence. it is unequivocal and crystal clear. it has been shared with the u.s. government through intelligence channels. and i understand that the americans have confirmed receipt of this intelligence. it's clear that hamas had turned the building into an important

structure in their war machine. they were using the building to develop technologies that could endanger israelis and palestinians. they were working on things to intersect our missiles. it was dangerous what they were doing. we reacted against that. in many ways the operation was a huge success because no one was killed. we gave journalists warning they could leave the building. we had a clean hit of a military structure that needed to be taken out. >> it did take out all of their archives and put them out of business. >> you have to balance that against the threat to human life. i understand a.p. was not happy with the destruction. i can empathize. but they should be able to

empathize with us that hamas in that building was life threatening. and they should be angry at hamas by using a building that the journalists work out of. >> thank you, mark. joining us now is tim, one of the senators who called on an immediate cease-fire, not what president biden expressed yesterday. is the president doing enough, senator? >> i called for a cease-fire right away because that's what the united states does. when there is a shooting war where innocent kids on both sides are being killed we aggressively ask for a cease-fire. the statement said we want to reduce israeli and palestinian

casualties and deescalate the situation. let's do something about it. at the u.n. that's what we would do, that's what we should do here. >> that's not what the administration is doing. this is the second week of the hostility with casualties on both sides. >> andrea, i'm troubled by that. i have spoken with the white house the middle of last week about this and i will continue to do that. i know they are looking for a path to peace for calm. that's what secretary blinken said. but usually the u.s. is at the front edge of calling for cease-fire. at yemen we did that. that's what we should do.

then we can look for a better path forward. i hope the administration leads. but i am going to say loudly there ought to be a cease-fire. >> there is a lot of speculation that the israelis have told us they have a time frame, whether 72 hours shorter or longer and that they need more time or want more time to degrade hamas capability. >> i have not been briefed about that. but it is puzzling as to why the u.s. isn't leaning in pro-cease-fire because we do it everywhere and ought to be doing it here. it's not just a cease-fire. then there are other steps that need to be taken. other normalized relations, we should be pressuring especially in gaza to promote stability.

they have normalized with israel to let's get them to get them in the game. i think it's a good time to name somebody as ambassador to israel. this whole crisis, to my mind, it stems from two things, the complete absence of progress towards israel and palestinian. i visited in 1998 and the peace process has gone backwards since then. that absence leads to frustration, and you have to look at government failures in palestinian and israeli authorities. palestinians delayed and canceled elections and recently canceled them. it's a governance crisis and the absence towards peace, we can't allow that to happen. >> former president mike pens

-- mike pence blaming the current administration and saying -- what do you think of that given the way -- >> the former vice president reminds me in this part of the world people love to play a blame game. they started it. you started it. who cares? the blame game has never gotten anybody anywhere. we are farther from peace than 25 years ago. when the trump administration put a peace deal on the table, they forgot to consult with the palestinians. you will not find a deal acceptable to israelis and palestinians. israel deserves to protect itself, deserves to live

peacefully with its neighbor. the palestinians deserve their own country where they can have autonomy. we want two nations living side by side in peace. that's the u.s. policy, but we have stated it but done nothing to promote it. it's time to promote it. >> senator tim kaine. thank you very much. >> and now a call for the end to the arizona vote review. ona vot. more protection, more sun, more joy. beach defense® from neutrogena® the suncare brand used most by dermatologists and their families, neutrogena® for people with skin.

republicans in arizona's largest county are looking at election results. it was egged on by president trump. it is now called as a sham wi

insane. 2 million ballots were handed over to a group called cyber ninjas without. >> their experience and everything, but the final straw was when they started defaming the good people, the good people who work in maricopa county. >> he is a republican. robert, you heard some of the conspiracy theories that have come out. how is this getting so much oxygen among the republican

base. >> quite simply they have been told by former president donald trump that the election was stolen. despite the fact you have a republican governor in arizona who certified an election, republicans there have been told by their former leader it's not the case. that disconnect is deep and not just in arizona. there is a parallel universe going on in this country where there are some leaders like you just saw that think this is set on conspiracy theories and crazy, but in reality, a huge swath of the grassroots of the republican party believe the election was stolen. polls continue to show that. just last week another network did a poll around the removal of liz cheney and it found that 80% of those that had heard about it supported it believing that she was wrong about the 2020 election. there is a huge disconnect in a

parallel universe led by donald trump. >> michael, why has it taken so long for republicans to speak up? >> that's the magic in the sauce i guess. andrea, i'm at the point where i am just not trying to figure crazy out. i appreciate the supervisor and other election officials now coming forward, but as was mentioned on morning joe, it wasn't until it sort of showed their office or them personally to look bad. all of the other stuff was okay, laying out the conspiracy theories, the bamboo paper and stuff coming, 40 crates coming in from asia. all of that was fine, we will let that unfold. but then when they started blowing up their offices and them personally, now all of a sudden we have got to shut this down, this is crazy. it just exposed, to robert's

point, how deeply misguided how many of these folks are about the past election. you certify something three times, that confirmation it was done correctly i would think, but in this parallel universe, not so much. >> we will have to leave it there because the president is arriving in dearborn, michigan, visiting ford's new plant to build electric pickup trucks. mike, we want to pick up anything the president says, but let's talk about what he's doing there. this looks like the infrastructure push. >> that's right, andrea, but it is a split screen moment. when the white house announced this visit to dearborn last week, it seemed tailor-made for the way he has been trying to sell his infrastructure plan.

i have seen the president driving a corvette and his own pickup truck. ford is debuting their own f-150 electric pickup. to the extent there was a foreign policy component, it is all about the rise of china. the president has been arguing that the u.s. should own the u.s. electric vehicle market. so it includes $15 billion for new electric stations, and incentives to expand the use of this electric battery technology. dearborn is also home to one of the largest arab american populations. we spoke earlier with some arab leaders in the community who had a news conference trying to send the president a message about what is happening there in the

mideast. listen to part of the conversation i had with one of them earlier today. >> i am glad the president is elected, but we need some support. we cannot just every time get disappointed. we get disappointed when something like that come up and we don't see strong action. >> andrea, last november joe biden grew hillary clinton's vote share in dearborn by 23%. you know how close michigan was, this was close to the tally. we hope to get a discussion, but we were told by the white house they didn't have time. >> and now kevin mccarthy says he's against creating a

bipartisan commission about the attack on the capitol. what happened? next on msnbc. d febreze in ever. - i'm norm. - i'm szasz. [norm] and we live in columbia, missouri. we do consulting, but we also write. [szasz] we take care of ourselves constantly; it's important. we walk three to five times a week, a couple miles at a time. - we've both been taking prevagen for a little more than 11 years now. after about 30 days of taking it, we noticed clarity that we didn't notice before. - it's still helping me. i still notice a difference. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.

not everybody wants the same thing. that's why i go with liberty mutual — they customize my car insurance so i only pay for what i need. 'cause i do things a bit differently. wet teddy bears! wet teddy bears here! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

house minority leader kevin mccarthy announced today she's against the january 6th commission bill, which was negotiated with a republican congress member, he himself designated for a vote tomorrow in the house. he writes, given the political misdirections that have marred this process, given the now duplicative and potentially counterproductive nature of this effort, and given the speaker's shortsighted scope that does not examine interrelated violent forms of political violence in america, i cannot support this legislation. his angry call on january 6th to the president when they were under siege asking for help, so does that play a factor here? >> i think it probably does. mccarthy has been reticent to talk about the details when he's been asked in media interviews.

he tries to get around it. that's certainly something commissioners would want to know about. this was an unanswered question even through the impeachment trial of what president trump knew, when he knew it and what was his level of involvement in reacting once the insurrection was under way. the mccarthy phone call could shed light on that. in this case we also have mccarthy essentially having gotten everything he asked for when putting together this commission, now being upset taking the efforts are duplicative. part of the reason it took so long to get started is john kafka was working with democrats to get the setup in place that republicans asked for in getting the commission. this will get republican votes, despite kevin mccarthy, but how many? >> and the chief negotiator said he forced it? >> yes, his support and other

republicans in the house will be interesting and will affect the vote tallies on the senate side. talking to senators yesterday, a number of republicans said they were kind of waiting to see how house republicans reacted to this first. they wanted a chance to review it. remember, you have six, seven republicans who voted in favor of conviction in the last impeachment trial. if you start there in the senate and say all of those people would vote for this commission and that's not a foregone conclusion, you still need to pick up a couple more senate republicans to make this commission law. so it's very much still an open question if the sue sport exists to get this all the way across the finish line. >> you caught up with the speaker earlier. i think you have some audio. >> yes, that's right. >> the other day in the corridors where we can't have cameras. >> that's right. i managed to catch up with the speaker in the hallway outside her office. she said she was disappointed but not terribly surprised with kevin mccarthy's reaction. take a listen. >> i'm very pleased we have a

bipartisan bill come to the floor, disappointing but not surprising that the cowardice on the part of the republicans' side not to want to find the truth. >> that question of finding the truth is interesting. there's the general's review, half a dozen committees reviewing this. but there's no one entity tasked with kind of synthesizing everything that's known and could be known with a proper investigation, with subpoena power into what happened and what led up to january 6th. the commission is still potentially the only game in town to get that done, and that's why we've seen democrats really stick with this negotiation over the last five months. >> and the republicans did win their cheev argument with her, that it should not be dominated by democrats, equally divided, equal subpoena power and that's what they got and what they're

going to be voting on. garrett haake, thank you very much. and that does it for this edition of "andrea mitchell reports." kasie hunt is in for chuck todd next on "mpt daily" next on msnbc. " next on msnbc. you're in the right place. my seminars are a great tool to help young homeowners who are turning into their parents. now, remember, they're not programs. they're tv shows. you woke up early. no one cares. yes. so, i was using something called homequote explorer from progressive to easily compare home insurance rates. was i hashtagging? progressive can't help you from becoming your parents, but we can help you compare rates on home insurance with homequote explorer. guess what. the waiter doesn't need to know your name. what happens when we welcome change? guess what. we can make emergency medicine possible at 40,000 feet. instead of burning our past for power, we can harness the energy of the tiny electron. we can create new ways to connect. rethinking how we communicate to be more inclusive than ever. with app, cloud and anywhere workspace solutions,

vmware helps companies navigate change. faster. vmware. welcome change. nobody builds 5g like verizon builds 5g because we're the engineers who built the most reliable network in america. thousands of smarter towers, with the 5g coverage you need. broader spectrum for faster 5g speeds. next-generation servers with superior network reliability. because the more you do with 5g, the more your network matters.

it's us...pushing us. it's verizon...vs verizon. and who wins? you. bipolar depression. it's a dark, lonely place. this is art inspired by real stories of people living with bipolar depression. emptiness. a hopeless struggle. the lows of bipolar depression can disrupt your life and be hard to manage. latuda could make a real difference in your symptoms. latuda was proven to significantly reduce bipolar depression symptoms, and in clinical studies, had no substantial impact on weight. now i'm feeling connected. empowered. latuda is not for everyone. call your doctor about unusual mood changes, behaviors or suicidal thoughts. antidepressants can increase these in children, teens, and young adults. elderly dementia patients on latuda have an increased risk of death or stroke. call your doctor about fever, stiff muscles, and confusion, as these may be life-threatening, or uncontrollable muscle movements as these may be permanent. these are not all the serious side effects.

this is where i want to be. talk to your doctor and ask if latuda could make the difference you've been looking for in your bipolar depression symptoms. if it's tuesday, breaking news out of north carolina, where prosecutors just made public some of the vody camera video in the fatal police-involved shooting of andrew brown jr., and the